I would ask if an American Christian can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

My Baptist Pastor brother Tim sent me the following and asked for my thoughts. I'd like to share this with you and see what you think: Can an American Christian be an American patriot and a loyal citizen? First the unedited post in question from someone writing to him, then my in-line reply:

I would ask if an American Christian can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to the "one true God" above all else.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by them except their own.

Scripturally , no. Because they are told in their Bible that nothing comes before their god.

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to the kingdom of heaven.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance is to other like minded people, and obviously as evidenced by the preceding e-mail, they are capable of stirring up hate for other religions or ethnic groups.

Politically, no. Because they are led by the "preachers" of their religion to follow the "morals" set forth by those leaders.

Domestically, no. Because he (males) are instructed in their Bible to be the ruler of their household, women are instructed to be subservient to the male.

Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitutions premise that all men are created equal, including those that believe in other powers or gods.

Philosophically, no. Because any religious or moral differences are looked at with suspicion and fear. There is no way but the "Christian" way.

Spiritually, no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is portrayed as loving and kind, or with a wrath capable of destroying all in his path, depending on the "Christian's" mood. Their god is the one we must all bow down to.

Therefore after having been raise in a "Christian" household, after having the "Christian" ideas shoved down my throat and beaten into me for years, and after having experienced the "Christian" ideals.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIAN in this country. They obviously cannot be both 'good' Christians and good Americans. Call it what you wish.....it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be....for the religious war is bigger and more complex than most Americans currently know or understand.

''''I THINK SOME RED FLAGS SHOULD BE GOING UP HERE''''
[I think this last line is from Tim]

My reply:
[Tim] wrote:

John what do think of this e-mail Tim

/2/2008 11:10:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From:

I would ask if an American Christian can be an American patriot and a loyal citizen?

Yes. It would be possible IF the United States were pursuing a course of peace and justice in the world, if it recognized the sanctity of life from conception to the grave and if it awarded Christians the freedom to share their faith without hindrance.
However, as this clearly is no longer the case, in today's world, I would answer no. I don't see how a devout Christian would not be inclined to express loyalty to a nation such as the US is becoming. The US is embracing the ways of Antichrist.

Theologically, no. Because his allegiance is to the "one true God" above all else.

This point would not prohibit Christians from loyalty or patriotism if they had cause to believe the US had godly intentions. Rather, they would seek to further God's will from within the structure of the nation. This is how the US was for most of our history. A church may not be perfect but the members can use its structure to further God's will. If the church becomes apostate however the Christians will move on. Christians are now disavowing their loyalty to this increasingly godless and anti-God nation.

Religiously, no. Because no other religion is accepted by them except their own.

Not so because Christianity does not, in its modern history, support the denial of religious freedoms to those of other faiths. American Christians understand that the same Constitutional protections that once granted them religious liberty here also grants it to all other faiths. For Christians, the presence of other religions merely offers a close-to-home missions field. While Christianity is traditionally an exclusive Path, for the past few hundred years it has not sought to outlaw or restrict the practice of other religions. Christian patriotism does not require all members of the society to be Christian.

Scripturally, no. Because they are told in their Bible that nothing comes before their god.

True. Nothing comes before God for devout Christians, however as shown by groups like the Salvation Army, the Christian Children's Fund and so on many other things are very important: family, friends, justice, mercy, compassion, health, stability etc. etc. The Christian will not bow before the government of any nation as being supreme, however respect for the government was clearly taught by Jesus who said, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, but unto God the things that are Gods." Political loyalty is commanded of Christians in many places in the Bible.

Geographically, no. Because his allegiance is to the kingdom of heaven.

Not quite. His (her) allegiance is to the King (Jesus), not to the Kingdom. When it pleases to the King to establish the Kingdom the Christian will certainly be happy, but until then he (she) will remain loyal to the nation in which God has seen fit to place her (him). Until the physical manifestation of the Kingdom occurs, the Christian dwells within the inner Kingdom in complete obedience to first the King, and then the nation in which he/she lives as the King has ordered.

Socially, no. Because his allegiance is to other like minded people, and obviously as evidenced by the preceding e-mail, they are capable of stirring up hate for other religions or ethnic groups.

Anyone is capable of stirring up hate or any other emotion. The Christian however is forbidden to do so by his/her Lord. If he disobeys it is due to his lack of obedience not to the commands he is supposed to follow. I have not seen the reference d e-mail but I have certainly been the brunt of Christian hatred and prejudice. Such short fallings speak to the spiritual immaturity of the Christian, not to the Church of Jesus or the God it seeks to serves. No one, including Christians, are without sin and error.

Politically, no. Because they are led by the "preachers" of their religion to follow the "morals" set forth by those leaders.

Many are, however again this is in violation of the Message they are supposed to send forth. Jesus' message what that the "Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath" while Paul reminds us that, "Nothing is unclean of itself, but to him who deems a thing unclean, for him it is." In other words, Christians, as a general statement, are ignorant of the biblical teachings. this does not however alter the true teachings of our Master.

Domestically, no. Because he (males) are instructed in their Bible to be the ruler of their household, women are instructed to be subservient to the male.

Such rules are based on first century culture and customs. It is also said that the wives are to submit to the husbands as the husband submits to Christ. IF the husband is submitted to Christ he will not lord it over his wife. Like Christ, he will empower her to attain her best. Again, in Genesis it is said that Eve was taken from Adam's side. Why? To walk beside her not over her. We must appreciate the 2100 years that divide us from the first century and "rightly divide the Word of truth."

Intellectually, no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitutions premise that all men are created equal, including those that believe in other powers or gods.

And yet those same writers wrote that the Constitution was written under the assumption that Americans would always be a religious people because the system it implemented was 'wholly unworkable for any other.' The founders of the US, most of whom were Christians with Deist leanings, envisioned the US as a country of religious, mainly Christian, people where no particular religious body would hold undue authority. It worked fairly well until 1913 when the US fell and the independent Federal Reserve Board and the Counsel on Foreign relations (1921) was born.

Christians believe that ALL men are created equal: sinners in need of Jesus. There is no problem here. Christianity seeks to rectify the human condition and thereby to better society.

Philosophically, no. Because any religious or moral differences are looked at with suspicion and fear. There is no way but the "Christian" way.

This is correct. So what? As citizens of a free country Christians have the right to their beliefs the same as all others. This does not stop them from working with others for the social good. Everyone believes their way is best.

Spiritually, no. Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is portrayed as loving and kind, or with a wrath capable of destroying all in his path, depending on the "Christian's" mood. Their god is the one we must all bow down to.

This is actually a new addition to the pledge that wasn't added until the 1930's. I personally believe it is wholly inaccurate and should be removed from the pledge and from US currency. The US today is clearly not a nation under God. The US government is in fact in direct opposition to the Christian God on many many topics. The problem here is not the Christian's attitude to the statement, but the statement itself. The US is certain not united religiously.

Therefore after having been raise in a "Christian" household, after having the "Christian" ideas shoved down my throat and beaten into me for years, and after having experienced the "Christian" ideals.... perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL CHRISTIAN in this country. They obviously cannot be both 'good' Christians and good Americans. Call it what you wish.....it's still the truth.

It depends on what you mean by "good Americans." If your view of "good Americans" is to march lock-step with the Secular Humanist views and globalist agenda that is creating a nation the country's founders never envisioned, then I'm inclined to agree. true Christians can not in good conscious support the evil emerging from the White House and Congress.

If however you mean they can not be good patriots of this land, willing to stand and fight the emerging one world system and the evil it is bringing, then I must disagree. IF the Christians in this nation would rise and stand this evil would stop and out nation would be saved and returned to its Constitutional basis. Unfortunately, as our prophets foretold, this is not likely. Of the Christian religion today Jesus tells John:

Rev.3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

The Christian Church today, as a general statement, has become lukewarm and hypocritical and God is, even now, vomiting it from His mouth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be....for the religious war is bigger and more complex than most Americans currently know or understand.

The war is absolutely coming soon. There is no question about this. Christians, Jews and others will be gunned down in the streets, shipped away to Black Sites for torture and eventual death.

Yes my friend, the war is coming:

Matt. 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

In the short term, you're side will win glorious victories, but in the long term, to save the Jews:

Matt. 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee [Jews] a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


''''I THINK SOME RED FLAGS SHOULD BE GOING UP HERE''''

I don't see why Tim. This is nothing new. The prophecies are being fulfilled before our eyes every day. You are a minister my brother, this can not be a surprise to you. I'll post this to my blog and see what others think.

Shalom,
John

How Many Gods Are There Really?

I am now getting up my SriJagannatha.com web domain after its move to the new server. As I was doing so I re-wrote the following and thought it might be of some interest here:

What are your thoughts? Share them below! How many Gods are there?

How Many Gods Are There Really? Ek Devata! By John of AllFaith © 12.19.07 From the earliest Aryan periods of Hindu thought, the existence of a single supreme deity has been present. People usually credit Zoroaster or Abraham as the father of monotheism (the worship of a single God), however the Indian Vedas (Books of Knowledge) taught the doctrine long before either of the great prophets were born. As we read in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1: "Then Vidaghdha, son of Shakala, asked him, "How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" Yajnavalkya, ascertaining the number through a group of mantras known as the Nivid, replied, "As many as are mentioned in the Nivid of the gods: three hundred and three, and three thousand and three." "Very good," said the son of Shakala, "and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" "Thirty-three." "Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" "Six." "Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" "Three." "Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" "Two." "Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" "One and a half." "Very good, and how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?" "Ek [one]." So, what of the other "three thousand, three hundred and five" gods (some say even more)? Here is where we find the heart of Hindu theology. First, we must understand that Hinduism is not a single religion like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and so on, it is the composite of many different religious traditions blended together into an intended unity. These diverse religions, when taken as a group, are known as the Sanatana Dharma or Universal Truth or Way. The name "Hinduism" is a slang term that has generally been accepted as though this were a single religion. Similar to the way the Religious Society of Friends is better known as "Quakers," an originally pejorative term that they chose to embrace. "Hindus" differ one from another in many significant respects and over the millennium the principle deities they worship have shifted and transformed as well. Today, the majority of Hindus worship "forms" or "emanations" of Vishnu/Narayana, Siva/Rudra, or Devi -- generally speaking. Practically no one worships Lord Brahma as a principle deity, although all acknowledge his role as temporal creator. Most Hindus conceive of God in transcendence, which is to say, they readily acknowledge that the specific names and forms attributed to "God" are but limited conceptions of That Which Is Beyond Comprehension (apart from Self Realization and even then the Truth, when spoken, is clouded by illusion). God is more. Many Hindus worship various forms of Visnu/Narayana such as Sri Krsna (Krishna) or Sri Ramacandra. They follow the teachings of scriptures such as the Mahabharata, the Srimad Bhagavad Gita (you can read my free online translation Click Here), the Ramayana and so on. They also accept all of the standard texts like the Upanishads, Puranas and so on. Others conceive of God in forms of Lord Siva (Shivah, Rudra... and his consort Parvati), and revere scriptures such as the Tirukural (Click Here). Others worship the Goddess (Devi) in Her various forms, as Kali, Durga, etc. and read scriptures such as the Devi Gita, the Devi Mahatmya and so on. These of course are only the more significant divisions. Hinduism is incredibly rich and diverse. In popular Hinduism most Hindus honor all the various deities. Families as well as individuals tend to have what are known as ista devatas or personal "house gods" that are honored. For instance, a Vaisnava worships Lord Vishnu, however at home he/she might specifically worship Lord Jagannatha due to some tradition or some specific event in the family's or individuals past. This appears like polytheism to those who do not properly understand what is being done. For Hindus however it is the honoring of specific aspects of the One. Despite this, the concept is generally held in mind, even if it is not usually voiced, that, as the ancient Rg Veda says, "Truth is one, the sages call it by different names." or as cited above, there is only Ek Devata, the one true and utterly transcendent God, despite the seeming plurality. For one who principally worships Lord Siva, the worship of Lord Visnu is not problematic (nor is the worship of Lord Siva for Vaisnavas). There may be some "sibling rivalry" that argues that Siva is higher than Visnu or vice versa, but in the end, Hindus believe that Truth is One. Then there are the multitudinous demi-gods or lesser gods who act as governors in the service of the Ek Devata. They fulfill specific "functions," for instance, when beginning some new undertaking both Vaisnavas, Sivaites and worshipers of the Great Goddess will often invoke the blessings of Lord Ganapati (the elephant-headed Lord Ganesha, son of Lord Siva and Goddess Parvati). For most Hindus, the true identity of "the ultimate God" is not what matters and is seldom discussed or even considered. No one can know Ek Devata fully. The important thing is what we might consider "spirituality" or the living of a spiritual life, and tradition. Hindus understand that God transcends all superficiality, diversities and personal preferences. Hindus therefore knowingly worship the One God in diverse forms as best suits their individual or community needs and traditions. Then there is the arguably more philosophical side of Hinduism (inspired by the Buddha), often referred to as Vedanta, or the "End of the Vedas." Masters such as Srila Sankara (circa 800 CE) developed the Path of Impersonalism, wherein the various deities are seen metaphorically rather than as literal gods and goddesses to be worshiped. Although Sikhism now exists as a separate religion, it did develop within a Hindu/Indian context and it is important to note the ten Sikh guru's developments here, where the One God is seen as Sound (Nam) that transcends all form and yet, unlike with the Vedantists, Sikhs continue to accept and worship an individual transcendent "God" within nirguna (hence Sikhs have altered the traditional meaning of this concept). Many Hindus accept this teaching as well. In other words, most Hindus believe in a Self-existing personal God. Guru Nanak once visited Jagannatha Puri, one of Hinduism's four holiest mandirs or temples. As usual, he did not visit as a votary, but "to teach the people that the worship of God was superior to the worship of the deity." The high priest recognized Guru Nanak and invited him to take part in the artik or ceremony. Guru Nanak declined the honor, which outraged the priests. He replied by raising his eyes to heaven and uttering a most beautiful Sabad (divine utterance). This Sabad reflects the Sikh view of God nicely: The sun and moon, O Lord, are Thy lamps; the firmament Thy salver; the orbs of the stars, the pearls encased in it. The perfume of the sandal [tree] is Thine incense; the wind is Thy fan; all the forests are Thy flowers, O Lord of light. What worship is this, O Thou Destroyer of birth? Unbeaten strains of ecstasy are the trumpets of Thy worship. Thou hast a thousand eyes and yet not one eye; Thou hast a thousand forms and yet not one form; Thou hast a thousand pure feet and yet not one foot; Thou hast a thousand organs of smell and yet not one organ I am fascinated by this play of Thine. The Light which is in everything is Thine, O Lord of Light. From its brilliancy everything is brilliant; By the Guru's teaching the light becometh manifest. What pleaseth Thee is the real Arti. O God, my mind is fascinated with Thy lotus feet as the Bumble bee with the flower: night and day I thirst for them. Give the water of Thy grace to the sarang note 28., Nanak, so that he may dwell in Thy name. (Dhanasri Mohalla). The One God exists in utter transcendence. It is argued that Srila Sankara's doctrine arose in India as a reaction to Buddhism. Those who adopted this view felt that the religions of the Sanatana Dharma had developed into superstitions and vain traditions, that they had lost their spiritual potency. They blamed this development, and the perceived corruption of the Brahminical hierarchy, for the rise of the Buddhadharma (Buddhism) in India (circa 5th century BCE). That new dharma (religion) threatened to destroy traditional Hinduism and Vedantists viewed themselves as reformers and saviors of the Sanatana Dharma. This view seeks to filter out all cultural influences and achieve the distilled wisdom of the Vedas (i.e. the 'end of the Vedas') in its pure form. It remains very popular. While the majority of religious Hindus continue to worship Ek Devata through the ancient gods and goddesses thanks to masters such as Srila Ramakrishna, Srila Vivekananda, and so many others, Vedanta has been fully incorporated into popular Hinduism, giving it a more eclectic and universal appeal than previously. Many Impersonalists, sometimes known as Mayavadis, worship murtis (deity images) but see them as symbols or holders of truth rather than as distinct or literal manifest gods/goddesses. Rather than the heavenly "pleasure groves" of the spiritual world sought by "Personalist" Hindus, the "Impersonlists" seek a unified field of being that is practically indistinguishable from the Buddhist concept of Nirvana (for this reason, many people consider Shankaracharya a closet Buddhist, while others credit him as the savior of the Hindu dharma). My view falls somewhere in between. I hold Srila Sankara in the utmost respect. For the personalists, the neti-neti or Not-this Not-that state of being that is achieved by this impersonalist samadhi (in "nirguna Brahman"), is but the shining effulgence of the Personality of Godhead and hence is typically accepted as a "lesser truth" or enshrouded realization. Hence, within Hinduism, there is room for both personalist and impersonalist approaches. Monotheism, polytheism, animism and non-theism are present as well. The Sanatana Dharma is truly all-inclusive. Indeed, all religions technically belong to the "Sanatana Dharma" as all are seeking the Universal Truth! Here is the essential difference between these two views: Material reality is said to be "saguna". This is to say, "sa" or with and "guna" or qualities, i.e. separate existences. For personalists, upon moksa or liberation, the atman (the individual self or being or "jiva") continues to exist in the presence of God, the Paramatman ("param" highest, "atman" Self or Being). Material existence is seen as real, but temporary. Spiritual reality is understood to be real and eternal. For impersonalists, material nature is not real but illusion (or maya). These "Mayavadis" (affirmers of the doctrine of the illusion of manifest existence) believe that upon moksa (liberation) the atman (as the falsely perceived individual self) awakens to the truth that everything is in reality non-differentiated oneness, not-this, not-that or neti-neti, and utterly beyond all duality. The material multiverse is hence deemed as merely an illusion, a dream from which the atman (embodied self) eventually awakens at liberation (as the Self realizes her true oneness with Paramatman). The jiva does not "become God" but rather realizes that everything, including "God" is but aspect-less (nirguna) Whole. From this perspective then there are technically no gods or goddesses. "God" is not a differentiated Being from anything else. Param-atman (the individual highest Being) is but the non-differentiated totality of Awareness/Existence. Again, essentially the same as in Buddhism. So to sum this up, It would therefore be inaccurate to refer to this branch of Hinduism as either monotheistic or polytheistic, it is decidedly non-theistic. Popular Hinduism appears polytheistic at times, and a few Hindus actually are, but by and large, Hindus are monotheistic, even though their conceptions are a bit different from those of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Ek Devata or One God of the Hindus is utterly transcendental to all description. As Sri Krsna, beloved avatar of Sri Visnu explains: Srimad Bhagavad Gita 10:12-15: Arjuna said: You [Sri Krsna/Visnu] are the Supreme Brahman, the Highest Abode, the Ultimate Purifier, the Eternal Person, the Divine Primeval God, unborn and all pervading! All the seers describe You thus, including the divine rishi Narada, Asitah, Devala and Vyasa, and now You confirm it to me Yourself. I accept as truth everything You are telling me, O Keshava. O Blessed One, Your manifestations are not even understood by the devas or danavas. Oh Supreme Person, You alone know Yourself by Yourself, O Source of all beings, Master of all beings, God of gods and Ruler of the universe! From the Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.11: He is the Sole Supreme Being; of eternal manifestation; Creator, Immanent Reality; Without Fear, Without Rancor; Timeless Form; Un-incarnated; Self-existent; Realized by the grace of the Holy Preceptor [Guru]. Om Jai Jagannatha! Sri Jagannatha Home Page Srimad Bhagavad Gita AllFaith.com Sanatana Dharma Pages AllFaith.com: Sikhism AllFaith.com: Buddhism AllFaith Spirituality Interfaith Prayer Group AllFaith.com

A Question About Tithing

Here's another AllExperts' Q and A that might arouse some discussion. Agree or disagree with my answer?

David asks:
Are we released from tithing under grace?

My reply.
What are your thoughts?

Hi David,

We are not only released from paying tithes, it was never required of us (assuming you are not Jewish).

Tithing was the Jewish income tax.

In ancient times religion and politics were often wed, as is still the case today with Islam where the "deen" or religion and "ummah" or nation are one. In the same way, although Judaism began as a Semitic ethnic group (it was never a race despite common beliefs) it was more accurately thought of as a nation in biblical times (the earthly kingdom of God in exile). Citizens of that kingdom were ordered to pay an income tax, a flat tax of 10% of all gross income (be it money, animals etc.).

As the early Jewish followers of Jesus debate Gentile conversion in the Book of Acts it is clear that they consider themselves a "religion" rather than a "nation" as they pointedly were 'waiting for a kingdom not made by human hands.' Jesus came to be viewed more as the spiritual savior of the world rather than as a reigning king (Meshiach or Messiah). As people attempting to follow Jesus we are to submit our whole selves unto God. Our tithe then is 100%, not just 10%. We are to consider ourselves stewards of all things granted us by our Master.

Once the Kingdom of God is established there will probably be a proclamation made that everyone must tithe 10%, time will tell, but during "the Church Age" tithing is still only in effect for Jews.

Jesus references the tithes of the Jews several times in the Gospels. Virtually every person he spoke with, with only a handful of exceptions, were Jews. Indeed Jesus said he only came to minister to Jews (Matt 15:24), but outside of that, only the Book of Hebrews mentions tithes and it does so in each case as a historical reference (ex. Heb 7:9).

As you probably know, not all Christians will agree with this answer however I am convinced it is correct. If one wishes to have a congregation and offer various programs one needs money, lots of it... believe me I know... and teaching the people they must tithe is an effective way to raise funds. The truth is however, this is not a biblical requirements for Christians. Christians should be taught that everything they possess is holy and belongs to God and that they should invest their possessions in the coming Kingdom by supporting their local congregations and various other efforts as they feel led of the Holy Spirit.

Hope this helps,
~Pastor John

	Ask John of AllFaith any question at Allexperts.com The oldest and largest free answers service on the Internet.
	Interfaith Religious Questions
	Misc. Religious Questions
	Bible Studies
	Reincarnation/Transmigration
	Hinduism
	Gaudiya Vaisnavism (Hare Krsna)
	General Christian Topics
	The Bible and Homosexuality
	General Christian Topics
	Baptist Christianity
	Or Contact John of AllFaith Directly

Read the Questions and Answers Here!

A Cowboy Goes To A Big City Church

From my brother:

Cowboy in Church

One Sunday morning an old cowboy entered a church just before services were to begin. Although the old man and his clothes were spotlessly clean, he wore jeans, a denim shirt and boots that were very worn and ragged. In his hand he carried a worn out old hat and an equally worn out Bible.

The church he entered was in a very upscale and exclusive part of the city. It was the largest and most beautiful church the old cowboy had ever seen. The people of the congregation were all dressed with
expensive clothes and accessories.

As the cowboy took a seat, the others moved away from him. No one greeted, spoke to, or welcomed him. They were all appalled at his appearance and did not attempt to hide it.

As the old cowboy was leaving the church, the preacher approached him and asked the cowboy to do him a favor. "Before you come back in here again, have a talk with God and ask him what he thinks would be
appropriate attire for worship."

The old cowboy assured the preacher he would.

The next Sunday, he showed back up for the services wearing the same ragged jeans, shirt, boots, and hat. Once again he was completely shunned and ignored.

The preacher approached the man and said, "I thought I asked you to speak to God before you came back to our church."

"I did," replied the old cowboy.

"If you spoke to God, what did He tell you the proper attire should be for worshiping in here?" asked the preacher.

"Well, sir, God told me that He didn't have a clue what I should wear. He said He'd never been in this church."

On John Edwards pull out and the desecration of Jerusalem by the end of '08!

The way we Americans do these primaries is patentaly unfair! Every election by the time we in Caifornia get to caste our votes Edwards, Rudy and God only knows who else is already out of the race! And we're voting earlier this year!!

This is NOT democracy!
This is political pandering and payola.

Anyway...

It is with regret but not surprise that we bid a fond adu to the John Edwards campaign. I don't think he would have made a good leader, but he wasn't Hillary or Obama and that says a lot.

IF, God forbid, the Democrats manage to win the White House this election they will make history.

It is truly a sad thing that the first serious female contender for the White House is a globalist demon, the Butcher of Waco.

It is truly an unsettling thing that the first serious African American contender for the White House is a potential Muslim Brotherhood plant (http://www.allfaith.com/Religions/Islam/brotherhood.html).

There are MANY qualified women and African Americans in this country, why in the name of all that holy would the Democratic leadership choose two such utterly unqualified, untrustworthy candidates?

In a word: treason.

The clear Globalist/NWO agenda is to destroy the US and replace it with the North American Union. For this, Hillary would be preferable (especially since she and Bill orchastrated NAFTA!) but Obama... who knows where his loyalties lie? the Democratic/NWO leadership may, I do not.

It is truly an unsettling thing that for the first time in my life I'll be voting and rooting for the Republicans to win.

Democrats, PLEASE Vote For Obama in the Primaries and then for whoever the Republicans run in the general.

Job One: Stop Hillary.


On a related note (because Hillary fully supports the desecration of Jerusalem, with Obama... who knows but its likely):

NWO Terrorist Leader GW Bush Vows To Divide Jerusalem By End of '08!

Bush's desecration of Jerusalem moves one step closer to reality!

From the Christian group, "Jerusalem Prayer Team":

President Bush, in his State of the Union address on Monday night, announced his plan to have a PLO State by the end '08. This new state would take Judea and Samaria from Israel and proclaim East Jerusalem as its new capital, the home to all Christian holy sites.

There have been over 20,000 attempted terrorist attacks by the PLO. The State Department is already in Jerusalem pushing forward the Road Map to Peace plan. U.S. Lt.-Gen. William Fraser, the new Road Map implementation monitor, arrived Sunday for an intensive round of meetings with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. His goal is to push Israel further into implementation this peace plan.

This is a battle between lightness and darkness, between politics and prophecy. 128,000 votes have already been cast. Our present goal is 200,000 on our way to a million. We are asking everyone to pray and get one friend to sign the petition. If you do so, we can reach 200,000.

To read the Jerusalem World News, click here: www.myjwn.com

NWO Terrorist Leader GW Bush Vows To Divide Jerusalem By End of '08!

NWO Terrorist Leader GW Bush Vows To Divide Jerusalem By End of '08!

Bush's desecration of Jerusalem moves one step closer!

From the Christian group, "Jerusalem Prayer Team":

President Bush, in his State of the Union address on Monday night, announced his plan to have a PLO State by the end '08. This new state would take Judea and Samaria from Israel and proclaim East Jerusalem as its new capital, the home to all Christian holy sites.

There have been over 20,000 attempted terrorist attacks by the PLO. The State Department is already in Jerusalem pushing forward the Road Map to Peace plan. U.S. Lt.-Gen. William Fraser, the new Road Map implementation monitor, arrived Sunday for an intensive round of meetings with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. His goal is to push Israel further into implementation this peace plan.

This is a battle between lightness and darkness, between politics and prophecy. 128,000 votes have already been cast. Our present goal is 200,000 on our way to a million. We are asking everyone to pray and get one friend to sign the petition. If you do so, we can reach 200,000.

To read the Jerusalem World News, click here: www.myjwn.com

http://www.allfaith.com/graphics/neveragain.jpg>

Hell? Hell No!

My blog friend Jim made the following comment in my previous entry:

"...when it comes to Christianity, or any other religion, I know the least. What I don't understand is, If god so loved his children, how could he send us to the fiery pit of hell?..."

The following re-print is for him and others who ponder this same question:

"The Earth belongs to HaShem and the Fullness Thereof."

By John of AllFaith © 2007

Hell Fire and Damnation!
What the Bible Actually Teaches

My good friend NY Guy asked:

... As for the existence of hell as per the bible, wouldn't the "lake of fire" where those cast out on judgment day qualify as hell? Just a thought.

My reply:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (II Pet 3:9)

As you know, there are a LOT of opinions on this one. There are scriptures that appear to teach several different views. Based on my research, here is what and why I believe as I do as per what the Bible actually teaches here:

As the Roman Catholic Church was establishing the official doctrines of the Church (for more on this click here) they included the teaching of Hell as a place of eternal, fiery torment (which is not to say it is true or false, only that it began there. Much of the imagery of Hell is identical with the Pagan underworld known as Hades. That such a place of eternal torment exists is today a most common belief among Christians still. Muslims also accept this belief. Some Hindus have a similar view except that Hell is of temporary duration.

The Christian belief is that God does not torture people in Hell and does not want anyone to go that dreadful place. Hell was created for the fallen angels (Gen. 6:1-6).

Humans go to Hell, it is taught, because they fail to make the decision necessary to achieve salvation, that being they refuse to accept the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as taught by the Church. This is the standard answer. Hell is not something God "does to us," it is something we do to ourselves.

But, what does the Bible actually teach about this?

The Greek word "Hades" itself is in our biblical text 11 times. 10 of those times it is translated as "hell" and once as "grave" in the King James Version.

Here is what Strong's Concordance tells us about this word:

name: Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead later use of this word: the grave, death, hell

This doesn't sound very Christian does it?

Another word is Tartaroo (tar-tar-o'-o) II Pet 2:4:

Word Origin: Greek, Verb from Tartaros (the deepest abyss of Hell) the name of the subterranean region, doleful and dark, regarded by the ancient Greeks as the abode of the wicked dead, where they suffer punishment for their evil deeds; it answers to Gehenna of the Jews to thrust down to Tartarus, to hold captive in Tartarus."

By far the most common Greek word translated as "hell" is Gehenna.

What is Gehenna? Verses like Joshua 18:16 tell us:

"And the border came down to the end of the mountain that lieth before the valley of the son of Hinnom [i.e. Gehenna], and which is in the valley of the giants on the north, and descended to the valley of Hinnom, to the side of Jebusi on the south, and descended to Enrogel..."

The valley was frequently used by Pagan people for their religious rites:

II Chron. 28:1 Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem: but he did not that which was right in the sight of the LORD, like David his father:

2 For he walked in the ways of the kings of Israel, and made also molten images for Baalim.
3 Moreover he burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire, after the abominations of the heathen whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel.
4 He sacrificed also and burnt incense in the high places, and on the hills, and under every green tree [which suggests goddess worship, Ashteroth etc.].

Indeed, such acts were so common that they entered the language as figures of speech:

Matt. 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into [Gehena].

Again,

Luke 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into [Gehena]; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Some will argue that this doesn't prove Jesus wasn't speaking literally. Perhaps, but contrast this counsel:

Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he CAST INTO the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

Who believes Hell is watery? No, Jesus was the Master of Parables:

Matthew 13:34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Why? Because these were simple people and he wanted to make his teachings clearly relevant to their daily lives so they could understand. The city people often carried their trash to the dump. The flames and the stench was powerful. If one was thrown into those flames there would be no hope of survival! City people could understand the serious consequences and hence understood his analogy.

Likewise, if a heavy millstone stone were tied about one's neck and he/she was cast into the sea, there would be no hope. Fisher people understood this.

Besides, the idea of eternal damnation and torture by the God of Israel was unheard of! HaShem, the God of Israel, is just and merciful. An eternity of torment for even 80 years of so of sin is neither. So where did this teaching come from? Like so much of Christian dogma, the belief comes from Roman Paganism (compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hades).

So what did Jesus teach?

Matt. 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die...[and his wife remarries even seven times...]
28 ...Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Master Y'shua believed in the resurrection, as taught by the Pharisees and rejected by the Sadducees' doctrine.

So, what do the rabbis (the Pharisees) teach? They teach the resurrection, just like Jesus did.

The other word translated as hell is that found in the Tanakh (the "Old Testament"). This word is sheol.

In the KJV, sheol is translated grave 31 times, hell 31 times and pit 3 times. While some Jews do believe in a place similar to purgatory -- for a time that never exceeds one year -- the word literally means grave. When a person dies they go to hell, to the grave. The Sadducees thought life ended there. Jesus, like the Pharisees, knew the soul is never destroyed.

Like the Pharisees, Jesus would have believed in the resurrection of the dead to the earthly Kingdom once it is established and in reincarnation in at least some cases. These were the beliefs of most Jews of the day (other than the Sadducees who were considered odd for not believing this). This doubtless is what Jesus believed and taught.

Belief in the eventual resurrection of the dead is a fundamental belief of traditional Rabbinic (and Karaite) Judaism. It was a belief that distinguished the Pharisees (intellectual ancestors of Rabbinical Judaism) from the Sadducees (that and that the rabbis embraced the Oral Torah which both the Sadducees and Jesus rejected). The Sadducees rejected the concept, because it is not explicitly mentioned in the Torah (although it is in my opinion strongly implied -- Ezekiel 37 for instance). The Pharisees found the concept implied in certain verses and taught directly in the Oral Torah such as the Babylonian Talmud.

Belief in the resurrection of the dead is one of Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith. The second blessing of the Shemoneh Esrei prayer, which is recited three times daily, contains several references to resurrection. (Note: the Reform movement, which apparently rejects this belief, has rewritten the second blessing accordingly).

The resurrection of the dead will occur in the messianic age, a time referred to in Hebrew as the Olam Ha-Ba, the World to Come, but that term is also used to refer to the spiritual afterlife. When the messiah comes to initiate the perfect world of peace and prosperity, the righteous dead will be brought back to life and given the opportunity to experience the perfected world that their righteousness helped to create. The wicked dead will not be resurrected according to Jewish authorities. this is one of many areas where I agree with Master Y'shua's reform movement.

There are some mystical schools of thought that believe resurrection is not a one-time event, but is an ongoing process. The souls of the righteous are reborn in order to continue the ongoing process of tikkun olam, mending of the world. Some sources indicate that this reincarnation is a routine process, while others indicate that it only occurs in unusual circumstances, where the soul left unfinished business behind. Belief in reincarnation is also one way to explain the traditional Jewish belief that every Jewish soul in history was present at Sinai and agreed to the covenant with G-d. (Another explanation: that the soul exists before the body, and these unborn souls were present in some form at Sinai). Belief in reincarnation is commonly held by many Chasidic sects, as well as many other mystically-inclined Jews. See, for example Reincarnation Stories from Chasidic Tradition ( http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm).

For my recurring dream of my previous life as a Jew living in Bulgaria click here.

As for those who are utterly wicked:

"Gan Eden and Gehinnom

The place of spiritual reward for the righteous is often referred to in Hebrew as Gan Eden (GAHN ehy-DEHN) (the Garden of Eden). This is not the same place where Adam and Eve were; it is a place of spiritual perfection. Specific descriptions of it vary widely from one source to another. One source says that the peace that one feels when one experiences Shabbat properly is merely one-sixtieth of the pleasure of the afterlife. Other sources compare the bliss of the afterlife to the joy of sex or the warmth of a sunny day. Ultimately, though, the living can no more understand the nature of this place than the blind can understand color.

Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She'ol or by other names. Again, we can see how thoroughly this imagery has impacted Hebrew society. By using the term Master Y'shua was drawing upon a long established tradition.


According to one mystical Jewish view, every sin we commit creates an angel of destruction (a demon), and after we die we are punished by the very demons that we created. Some views see Gehinnom as one of severe punishment, a bit like the Christian Hell of fire and brimstone only of temporary duration. Other sources merely see it as a time of reflection wherein we consider the actions of our lives objectively, contemplate the harm that we have done and the opportunities we missed, and experience remorse for our actions. This view is similar to the Hall of Akashic Records that many mystics reference. The period of time in Gehinnom does not exceed 12 months, and then the soul ascends to take his place in Olam Ha-Ba.

Only the utterly wicked do not ascend at the end of this period; their souls are punished for the entire 12 months. Sources differ on what happens at the end of those 12 months: some say that the wicked soul is utterly destroyed and ceases to exist while others say that the soul continues to exist in a state of consciousness of remorse, others say the wicked are sent back to earth and reincarnated so as to understand their errors.

This 12-month limit is repeated in many places in the Talmud, and it is connected to the mourning cycles and the recitation of Kaddish" ( http://www.jewfaq.org/olamhaba.htm)

Hell, as an eternal place of torment, does not exist in my opinion. The Master of Parables merely used the well known at the time metaphor to illustrate the importance of submitting oneself fully to Hashem. Like so much of modern Christianity, the doctrine of hellfire and damnation rose from a Pagan source.

As this imagery continued we find references to the Lake of Fire in Revelation and so on. All such references are figures of speech.

In simple terms, Hell is the absence of God's presence.

Hope this helps,

Maranatha,
~John of AllFaith

In the comment section the following question was asked but I didn't have room for a thorough reply, so here it is:

Political Junkie Commented:

Hi John,
As usual an interesting entry. I enjoyed reading it.
I tend to believe more in the concept of being completely cut off from the presence of God, like being inside a black hole.
Although, as you know, I do not subscribe to any kind of anthropomorphised personal diety.
If you've seen the movie, "What Dreams May Come", which is loosely based on Dante's inferno, I feel like Hell is more a state of mind, or state of the soul. As depicted in the film, this is not a punishment from some angry god, but a failure of the individual. If ever there was a film which spoke to the understanding of my heart, this would be the one!

Hi Political Junkie,
Yes! I love that film too.

There are many ways of illustrating a point. Master Y'shua chose two that his hearers could relate with, the town garbage dump and the sea. Were he speaking today he might reference the absence of God in one's life to be like being thrown into a trash compactor, being sentenced to life at Gitmo or indeed like falling into a Black Hole as you say.

There is a moment in Steven King's The Stand (I love Steven King!) when Nick (a deaf mute hero in the story) confesses that he doesn't believe in God. Mother Abigail (an elderly black woman who plays the role of Messiah following the outbreak of a disease that wipes out almost all life on the planet), looks at him for a moment astonished, then begins to laugh! "It don't matter Nick!" she tells him. "God believes in you!"

Whether those who disbelieve are aware of it or not, they are surrounded by God's Presence and Love at every moment of their existence. The absence of God means the absence of love, compassion, mercy, light, kindness, goodness, purity... the absence of everything that makes life worth living... technically of course the true absence of God would be the absence of all life, of existence itself... but God is merciful. As Master Y'shu said:

Matt 5:45 ... your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

God, the Ek Devata, is Absolute Love. Whether we believe or not.

If we fail to believe in love... then it would indeed be just as well for us to be strapped naked to a rocket and fired into a Black Hole. Without love we have nothing and God is Love.

Personally I believe in transmigration. I believe we enter into the material multiverse for diverse reasons but once here we become entrapped by our own greed, actions etc (ie by our karma, dharma and marga -- Click here).

I further believe that the idea that God punishes us for sins is in-congruent with a Being such as we Believers accept God to be. The idea that a Being who is omni everything would be concerned that puny little little me stole some gum when I was twelve or whatever makes no sense to me.

If however, as I believe, the nature of this Being is Pure Love and Mercy, then I have no problem believing that we are all given free will with personal responsibly.

In other words, it wasn't the gum that was the problem, it was what lays behind the act of stealing. For me to advance as a being of love and light I must purify myself from greed, deceit, lack of respect for others, placing my needs and wants before others, etc. etc.

Therefore it would be in the nature of this Being we call God to gently lead us and allow us to learn from our mistakes. Having received the effects (karma) for this action (karma) of theft that violated divine principles (dharma) I grow as an individual. This process (marga) is very important for we jivas (eternal living entities). I belief this was the teaching of Master Y'shua. God is out Father who is patiently leading us ever onward.

II Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

This entry was in reference to George's comment questioning my statement (at http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-wK0SX_k7dK5WgkkX01QOYwuwFxzFNQ--?cq=1&p=3314) that: "They [the Jehovah's Witnesses} are also correct that nowhere does the Bible teach the existence of hell. "

It should be noted however that they do indeed believe God punishes us. Those who refuse to become Jehovah's Witnesses of even worse who have been and then leave, are utterly destroyed. This would be a terrible price to pay and is no more loving than Hell Fire and Damnation would be.

The God I worship loves us and would never do such things.

You are visitor number...

Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!

Children Of Noah All	The Noahide Nazarene Way
	AllFaith.com: Judaism
	AllFaith.com: Christianity
	AllFaith Spirituality
	Interfaith Prayer Group
	AllFaith.com

We Are ONE FLAME	AllFaith Spirituality
	Interfaith prayers
	My Bhagavad Gita
	AllFaith.com

"It is time fo an awakening"

As I do from time to time, I'd like to share a question I received at AllExperts along with my response. Your thoughts are requested:

I have been studing the bible and many other authors such as Marcus J Borg, Greg Bradon, Bart D. Ehrman,Phillip Gulley with James Mulholland, I have read the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi Scrolls, the Bible and many other books on the subjet. My son is born again christian and believes 100% in the bible. It contradicts itself over and over again, for every answer he sends me I find 3 against his, from the same book. He is stunned now because he has nothing left to come back on. I have beat him at his own game, much to his chargrin. I believe man has made God in his image not the othe way around. You can find something in that book to satisfy every belief system that is christian. Due to this book, wrote by man, the scrolls were passed and copied by scribes until the printing press in the 17th century was invented, there has been endless war and fighting over religon, wonderful. Every religon believe they hold the keys to heaven and if you arn't of that belief you go to hell, wonderful. The bible would have us convinced man is evil and sinfull but this same man kept the writings intact for centuries, having different scribes write word for word and not changing one word to satisfy their docterine, that would be a total contradiction. If we would all have a heart like Jesus and not so much Jesus in our heart, we would have peace and love.Politics and religon have been in bed together for centuries, at first if you did't believe what the church said you would be round up, tortured,amd burnt,crucified, stoned to death or some other act of brutality. Religon forgets the comandment though shall not judge,though shall not kill, every religon judges, and the chatholics of course have murdered more Jews then Hittler ever thought of, in the name of God, or Jesus, who is about peace and love. Religons will have to pay for there evil doings in this world, they create havic all over the world every Sunday with there fight between good and evil, God and the devil. If you have devil in your congregation, mind and heart you are not 100% into God, you actually worship that lesser hierarchy. It is time religon gets its justice that it's due, due to the violence that follows them. I see hungry, homeless people and religon turns there back on them and continue to get rich. I meet more hippocrits from religon, I am right you are wrong, if you don't see things my way you will go to hell, who made them judge? Religous Christians should actually reread the comandments and get off their high horse. Follow Jesus' words. Mark was wrote 30 to 50 years after the fact the rest were wrote up to 150 years after the fact, and religon would have you think this is absolut truth, they don't even know who these people were, but they believe word for word. If you put them side by side they contradict each other. It is time fo an awakening.

My Reply:

Hi Caroline,

I don't see a question here.

To respond to every point you make would require more from me than you are probably interested in reading.

In a nutshell, you make statements that are mere opinion, "man has made God in his image not the the way around" (did you ever read the long poem entitled Second Genesis? Very cool!) and others that are debatable in scholarly circles or that you don't seem to fully understand, such as when and why the various books of the New Testament were written. Lets start with there.

The four biblical Gospels -- circa 50, 68, 60 and 85-90 CE respectively -- (and most of the others that were rejected by Irenaeus and his contemporaries) were among the latest New Testament books produced. Paul's letters are typically accepted the earliest, written around 30 years after Jesus' passing. Matthew would have been written about 20 years after his death, Mark around 35, Luke around 30 and John around 50 years after the Master's death which occurred in or around 33 CE according to traditional sources, or 26 CE by other more modern estimations.

The early followers of Jesus (Master Y'shua) were not "Christians." They were Jews and Jewish converts (hence the debates in the Book of Acts about how Gentile conversions to Judaism should take place considering that the Sanhedrin had ruled they should not be accepted unless they disavowed Master Y'shua as their Rebbe). Master Y'shua was a devout Jewish teacher and his early followers were all or all became Jews. His teachings were most similar to what today is known as Karaite Judaism (http://www.karaite-korner.org). This is to say, he rejected the divine origins of Oral Torah (the Talmud etc) which Pharisaical (ie Rabbinic) Judaism was/is based on. He further taught that the Written Torah (and the entire Tanach -- ie the "Old Testament") needed to be understood "by the spirit rather than by the letter of law" because, he taught, "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."

Master Y'shua's followers did not worship him as a god nor were they familiar with the notion of the "Holy Trinity." They honored the Sabbath, unlike later Christians who embraced the holy day of the Roman Sun God Sol Invictus. They worshiped the God of Israel and accepted the principles espoused by Master Y'shua in much the same way that Rabbinic Jews today accept the interpretations of Maimonides.

These followers therefore didn't "need" a New Testament per se because they had the same Torah (and Tanach) as their spiritual predecessors. However as the first followers began to age, die or be martyred, as various unfounded legions and stories began to circulate, as claims that Prophet Y'shua had actually been the Moshiach and that he had not really died but merely gone into hiding and would soon emerge and establish the Kingdom of God on Earth (the central role and function of the Messiah) and especially after the Jews (including those who followed the teachings of Master Y'shua) were expelled from Eretz Israel (in 70 CE), it became needful to chronicle Master Y'shua's teachings and, later, his basic life story (ie the Gospels). This resulted, as you know from the Nag Hammadi Library, in many contradictory works and teachings.

The early followers of the Way were as diverse in their views as the Hindus of the Sanatana Dharma. Each branch claiming to hold the true teachings of the Master.

As the followers of the Nazarene Way of Master Y'shua went out into the Roman world and beyond some merged the Master's teachings with diverse Gnostic realizations, others with various forms of Roman Paganism, others maintained their Nazarene beliefs well after Rome created the New Universal Religion (see below) and many such Arians died at the hands of the official Church in, as you say, direct violation of Scripture. This needs to be understood though.

One of the proclamations made by the Roman Pontiff (and one of the central issues that later gave rise to Christian Protestantism od the Reformation) was that the Bible was not enough, that those who would receive God's grace must also accept the authority of the Roman hierarchy and that ecclesiastical authority sanctioned the elimination of so-called heretics (such as those who remained true to the Master's teachings).

Faced with these persecutions a huge percentage of the Jewish followers returned to Rabbinical Judaism as did many of the Noahide (Gentile) converts.

Then came Constantine, Irenaeus, the counsel of Nicea and so on. This is too long a topic to address here in depth, but I do so elsewhere if you are interested: http://www.allfaith.com/Religions/Noahide/way4.html.

Again in brief, Constantine's mother was a convert to the teachings of Master Y'shua in some form unknown to us today and Constantine, seeking to unite his empire in all ways, chose these teachings to underlay the foundation of the Universal Church of Rome (ie "the Roman Catholic Church").

Part of this unification process required the establishment of official dogmas, beliefs and hierarchies. Constantine was for his entire life a devout worshiper of Sol Invictus (he converted to Christianity on his death bed) and so many of Sol's aspects were overlaid onto the newly developed personality to be known as "Jesus" (hence I distinguish between Master Y'shua and Lord Jesus). For instance as the Sun King is born on the night of the Winter Solstice Jesus was born on that day and we got Christmas. As Goddess Eostar and her fertile bunnies brought fertility to the earth, Christians embraced Easter on her feast day. etc. etc.

As Nicea determined official Church dogma, as Irenaeus determined which writings to include in the official biblical Christian (Catholic) Cannon (and more importantly which to ban from circulation), and as the various Roman customs and traditions were blended, the result was what we today know as Christianity in its myriad forms.

You mentioned the Doctrine of Original Sin, we got this interpretation and dogma from the Roman Catholic Saint Augustine.

Now, this history of the Church, debated of course by most Christians but solid according to known history, does NOT negate that religions worth or authenticity in any way. The Christian Church, as you say, is responsible for a LOT of evil and harm to the world, especially to Jews (and Pagans). However it has also benefited the world in countless ways as well.

We must carefully distinguish between "organized religion" and church hierarchies and the faith of individual believers. From out of the structures of the organized religions have emerged countless individuals, like Gandhi, like Dr. Martin Luther king Jr., like Saint Francis, like Julian of Norwich, like Caitanya Mahaprabhu, like Padre Pio, like Mother Theresa of Avila and Mother Theresa of Calcutta, and on and on and on who have been real blessings and inspirations to their peoples and to humanity at large.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

This is the purpose of true religion. Or as Micah puts it in the Tanach:

Michah 5:6 'Wherewith shall I come before HaShem, and bow myself before G-d on high? Shall I come before Him with burnt-offerings, with calves of a year old?
7 Will HaShem be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?'
8 It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, and what HaShem doth require of thee: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy G-d.

Again, this is the goal of true religion. The obvious fact that some people abuse religion and religious truth is a shame that saddens the heart of all who love God and seek His Will, but it changes nothing. Of such abusers of religion and humanity Master Y'shua says through the hand of John the Beloved:

Rev. 3:15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

Such abuses do not reflect the goals and potentials of religion and religious faith. In the Gospels Master Y'shua refers to such people as whited sepulchres: which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness! Rather such abusers are called to repentance!

The answer to all such religious questions is found in this wisdom recorded in the Srimad Bhagavad Gita:

18:66: Abandoning all types of religious and moral duties take refuge in Me alone. I will liberate you from all inauspiciousness; do not grieve. (translation mine: http://www.allfaith.com/Religions/Hinduism/gita18.html)

There is nothing more important in life than one's relationship with God and one's spirituality. However simply believing what others teach merely because it is tradition is not enough. As the Buddha exhorts us:

"Believe nothing, o monks,
merely because you have been told it ...
or because it is traditional,
or because you yourselves have imagined it.

Do not believe what your teacher tells you
merely out of respect for the teacher.

But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,
you find to be conducive to the good,
the benefit, the welfare of all beings -
that doctrine believe and cling to,
and take it as your guide."

And as Master Y'shua taught us:

Luke 11:9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
11 If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?
12 Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

Its about personal spirituality not "religion." So what if some 2000-4000 year old texts sometimes contradict themselves? I'd be shocked if they didn't! That doesn't matter. Even from a traditional Christian perspective, the Bible has never "saved" anyone! Jesus does. The Bible merely points the way to salvation and spiritual development.

But by setting out to destroy a weaker person's faith we commit a great evil against them!

If we convince the first grader that reading doesn't matter because he/she is too slow at it and after all, Tom, Dick and Harry are not real people anyway, or that calculus is so much more important than basic arithmetic that there is no need to understand it, what good have we done the child? Instead we have seriously harmed the child! Rather than negate a person's Quest for Truth we do much better to encourage the person to go ever deeper, to learn more.

Someone may tell me that, "The Bible is God's infallible Word!" I say, "Great! Let's study it! How did we come to get such an amazing book? What does it teach? What does it say in the non-translated (Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic) texts of our interests? What culture did it arise in? Why does it say thus and such? Let's go deeper and deeper and deeper!"

Or again, "Jesus is God's sacrifice for our sins!"
I reply, "Let's praise God for such a kindness! What does this mean anyway? How do sacrifices work? How could his death attone for my sins? Let's dig into this and understand it more fully!"

You see? Seek and we will find.
Destroy faith and we will spiritually wither on the vine.

Hope this helps,
Feel free to write back anytime,
~John of AllFaith

My Diet: Reasons

Since posting about my diet here and elsewhere I've received a few notes from people concerned about the possible health effects of such an extreme diet.

First, I think it is so cool that we have the technology wherein we can have friends around the globe who genuinely care about each other! This is very cool and heart warming to both know and experience! I sincerely wish to thank everyone who has written me about this! For those who may find this of interest, here is my response:

Thanks for your concerns and thoughts,

The extra weight I'm carrying is causing several other potentially serious health problems, for instance a lot of bad heartburn and indigestion. My feet are frequently becoming numb and at times painfully "tingly", which is a warning sign for diabetes (I was tested and am negative for it thank God), the muscle pains that are common with ME (ME is like a cross between MS and Lupis) are exasperated by the extra weight and have been getting worse lately. I have far too little stamina. I used to hike mountains and swim rivers (literally), now a trip down the hill to the mailbox winds me. My Sleep Apnea (also common with ME folks) is worse due to the extra weight. I could go on and on. There are several things that both clinically and experiential are worse for overweight people, or at least in my case.

I'm not concerned about looks or social pressures and I'm not passing any judgments on overweight people. My decision to drop the extra weight has nothing to do with that. In my case, I just turned 51 and am in poor health. I need to get my health better. One of the really harsh (and particularly annoying to me) aspects of ME is that too much exercise cuts off the oxygen that goes to our brain. This causes mental difficulties like short term memory loss, confusion, feeling "stoned" etc. Because of this, exercise must be engaged in carefully. I have an alpine ski machine that I use a bit, I walk a little, but by exorcise alone I can't get the weight off. This is a matter of health and my desire to live for many more years. Frankly, I want to live long enough to see the fulfillment of the end time prophecies and am convinced they are already well in process. Reading the newspaper or dependable Internet new sites is like reading the prophets. Everything is falling into place as they foretold.

Also, related, my research into the REAL ID System that will soon be introduced into the US, Canada and Mexico (soon to unite as the North American Union) has convinced me that when this new system is implemented I as thousands of others will refuse to accept it. Those who refuse will essentially become non-persons. Without REAL ID one will not be able to legally drive, fly on commercial planes, travel on commercial buses, travel between security zones (the checkpoints for which are springing up all over the country now as I saw on my recent trip back east) enter any federal government building, get passports (US passports are already RFID chipped by the way) receive federal aid, disability payments, food stamps, AFDC, welfare, HUD or other subsidies, etc. As the system develops, health information will be added, thus removing health care from the loop for non-compliant people. An out of shape obese person has little hope of surviving what lies ahead under such circumstances. This system, depending on the source one considers, may either be implemented this March or May. They were going to start the program May 1, 2005 but opposition to the RFID chip component put the idea on hold until this year ('08). According to the Department of Homeland Security website itself (http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/laws/gc_1172767635686.shtm), religious-based objections to the new system will not result in conscientious objector status being granted. The only option will be to accept or reject this pre-mark technology. Depending on exactly how they do it, I will almost certainly refuse it and embrace non-person status.

This aside, how many elderly people does one see who are seriously overweight? Not many. They typically don't live that long.

I agree that living on 300 calories for an extended time would be very unhealthy, however for a short period of time I don't see that it would hurt anything. I've done water-only fasts for 40 days once, 30 days a couple of times and for 20 days several times and never experienced any negative effects from doing this (quite the contrary in fact). This time I am eating, just not much, and it is working so far.

I sincerely believe that the darkest days of our nation's history are just ahead and that in order to survive them we must be physically and spiritually prepared. I am working to prepare myself as best I can.

If interested, sources of information about REAL ID and what lies ahead from my blog can be found here and elsewhere:

http://johnofallfaith.multiply.com/tag/real%20id The excellent "Freedom to Fascism" movie, various DHS quotes and links, my commentaries on this and other issues, and much more.

Also see my: http://johnofallfaith.multiply.com/tag/national%20id%20card for info on the REAL ID cards themselves.

One can also google:
real id
rfid
mark of the beast
North American Union
CAFTA
and so on.

There is a lot of info out there on what is coming down. The problem is, there is practically no real resistance yet.

Thanks again for your concerns,
~John of AllFaith