A Message for the Pope

Heresy

Apparently Bishop Robert Vasa of Oregon reads Portland Indymedia, as you can discern by reading the contents of his most recent article in the Catholic Sentinel (Christ is powerful) and then consider what was written and then published on the Portland site (The Pacifist Strategy of Jesus. You might recall how Cardinal Ratzinger functioned as the Pope's pitbull, doing all the dirty work, so that the previous :Pope could keep his hands clean, while at the same time making sure that all those nasty publications were published. Let's just say that Ratzinger was referred to as the Pope's right hand man, and we know that the last Pope also designed the new funeral services for Pope's, where we saw Ratzinger sitting on a sort of throne at center stage, and doing all the rituals, including that ritual where a long line of Catholics approached his throne and then bowed on their knees before him. The message was ‘the Pope is dead, long live the Pope!' which means that from now on each Pope will be appointing his own successor and that the conclave will become a formality. (A commentary on the Pope's funeral). Therefore we can assume that since the Pope never slapped Ratzinger on the wrist, certainly the Pope approved of the pitbull approach, and was just outsourcing the task, and this causes me to draw the conclusion that this current Pope can no longer do the pitbull thing and that therefore it must be the case that the dirty task of dealing with heretics has once again been outsourced, this time the job being assigned to Bishop Vasa of Oregon, owing to the fact that the offending heresy was ‘front paged' on the Portland Indymedia site.

‘Get thee behind me Satan...whoever leads one of these little ones astray should have a millstone put around their neck and be hurled into the bottom of the sea,' the Bishop writes in introduction, as a form of justification for the practice of getting real tough with heretics. For Jesus was full of tender mercies, but he was real tough when it came to dealing with heretics.

The Bishop writes,

It is necessary to defend truth and not be too quick to rationalize, justify or excuse misleading teachings or teachers. There is a point at which passive "tolerance" allows misleading teachings to be spread and propagated ... There is a very strong word, which still exists in our Church, which most of us are too "gentle" to use. The word is "heresy." ... we do need strong words to combat erroneous and fallacious teaching.

The Cardinal then goes on to define heresy as being the ‘obstinate denial' of ‘some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith..'

"There are a number of teachings of the Church that must "be believed by divine and Catholic faith." We must believe, for instance, that Jesus is true God and true man. To deny or doubt this, with obstinacy, is heresy. We must believe the God exists in Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

What the Bishop is telling us here is that the Gospel of Mark is a heresy, since this Gospel tell us that Jesus was ‘a sinner', thus explaining why he became a follower of that John the Baptist and went to get Baptized for his sinful ways, and that he was not good since only God was good, and that therefore Jesus was not God.

As I pointed out in my previous heretical rantings on the subject, the purpose of the Gospel of Mark was to convert Christians into Baptists, so then we must assume that Jesus was not a sinner, but that the heretical author of that Gospel felt it necessary to teach error to Catholics by telling them that Jesus was a sinner and that therefore Jesus became a follower of John the Baptist, since the author wished to convert Christians away from their sinful ways and save them from going straight to hell, for as we all know, no Christian behaves like Jesus behaved, having been told to ‘stop it !' by those followers of John the Baptist. For to drink party with the town's worst sinners, attack the Bible, break the Sabbath and disregard all religion, as Jesus did, is a ticket to hell fire, thus explaining why the author of Mark's Gospel found it necessary to teach such heresy so as to save future generations of Catholics from the flames of hell.

As the Gospel writers tell us, the message of that religious right hawk named John the Baptist was ‘repent and turn from your sinful ways and be baptized, or you will burn in the flames of hell,' which then became orthodox Catholic dogma, since, as I pointed out, what became known as ‘Roman Catholic orthodoxy' was actually the religion of John the Baptist, for as we know from careful study of the Gospel, Jesus did not practice lent. This was the practice of John the Baptist, but, unlike Jesus, Christians practice lent, thus not ‘imitating Jesus' by going to parties and drinking, because Mark told them to stop drinking and partying and practice Lent like John the Baptist instead, since drinking and partying is a sin, and even Jesus was a self confessed sinner, thus explaining why he might not make such a great role model for future generations of Catholics.

Apparently the Bishop was also particularly irritated by my commentary on the fifth commandment (‘Thou shalt not kill') and after ranting about heresy, he then found it necessary to conclude his piece with his own commentary on the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill', by defending the right to life of the human split egg, while the Pope also just yesterday (as I am writing this) released the latest moral position of the Catholic Church, which is that all embryos created for the purposes of in vitro fertilization have the ‘right to life' for God, he tells us, loves every single one of those embryos with the same love such a tender father would have for each one his children.

We are told that this Pope now plans to become ‘the teaching Pope.' In his latest statement he promises to use the Gospel to teach young people about Jesus, by demonstrating how if you read a Gospel real carefully and then think about what you have read, you can learn all about Jesus, which is apparently his new project, since he has selected this as his theme for the next ‘World Youth Day.'

He has also selected as his theme verse for this Sunday's sermon the passage from the Gospel of Mark where Mark tells Christians to not be like Jesus, and to stop partying and drinking, and to practice Lent instead, just like John the Baptist. It turns out, that in the Pope's interpretation of that particular verse, that was wonderful advice, thus bringing Christians deep into some divine mysterious spiritual union with Christ, who, as we all know from our Gospels, swore off partying and drinking on the night before he died, and promised to practice Lent once he got to heaven (not having bothered with it on earth, as our Gospel writers are forced to admit) and so therefore, the Pope feels quite confident in reminding us that we are entering into a type of spiritual marriage with Jesus during this Lenten season, since we can be quite sure that Jesus is practicing Lent right along with us, since he is in heaven now, and not on earth, where he would probably ruin Lent for the Vatican by not practicing Lent, as was his custom before he went to heaven and decided to practice Lent at the last minute, just before he departed. The conduct of Jesus on earth would suggest that Jesus hated Lent, never having done Lent even once on earth, as our gospel writers are forced to admit, but, for some reason he decided to stick everyone else with the practice of Lent...call it one last parting shot just before he departed, and a fine example of just what a hypocrite that Jesus really was, since he obviously wasn't interested in Lent so long as it would have ruined those drinking parties of his, but once he was in the clear, he then decided to dump that John the Baptist religion on everyone else, in the form of Roman Catholicism, as his parting gift for us all.

Because the Pope insists now on becoming ‘the Teaching Pope', and there is therefore the serious risk that everyone might become confused and ignorant, I thought it best to briefly recapitulate my own interpretation of that Lent story, just in time for Lent, before the Pope insists on ‘teaching' the passage himself.

If all this activity coming out of Rome was not enough, Bishop D'Arcy found it necessary to condemn a play titled ‘the Vagina Monologues' for the reason that it threatens our young people because it focuses on a woman's vagina to the exclusion of her soul and spirit, thus thoroughly degrading all of humanity for a long list of reasons which I will not bother to attempt to summarize here, just being another one of those long, long weird sounding ‘spiritualized' ultra catholic rants about the ‘flesh', which is degraded, and the ‘spirit'; which is lovely and so terribly neglected these days, etc etc etc. .

Now you know I was thinking earlier today that I would wait a few weeks perhaps, and watch the Vatican, bide my time, but after all this activity, let's just say its the last straw. It is pretty obvious what is transpiring. The ‘counter reformation' is now underway in the Vatican, which should make life more interesting in the next little while, since we haven't had a really good counter reformation for a long time. So then, just to get into the spirit of things, I thought I would give the good Bishop of Oregon something more to read, which I am sure he will dislike, and thus give him some more inspiration for a few more of those columns of his in the Catholic Sentinel.

Now as for that bit about the Pope becoming a ‘teaching Pope' and beginning his new career by teaching people all about John the Baptist, using the Gospel of Mark as his text, well you know that was my job, and having that Pope muscle into my territory wouldn't be so bad, if the Pope had something worthwhile to teach on the subject, such as, for example, the truth for a change. This would be a refreshing change, a departure from that really weird sounding nonsense the Pope was teaching this past Sunday.

But then if it is a big teaching contest the Pope is looking for, well I have nothing but time on my hands, so I figure that if what we have here is the reactionary counter reformation, I might as well provoke that Pope a little more and really get something going here, thus making life more interesting for everyone. .

Intelligent Design

I was visiting the site of the Discovery Institute, which has been promoting ‘Intelligent Design'. It is pretty obvious that they have been promoting ‘Intelligent Design' from the perspective of the American Religious right, when you consider that their site contains a mixture of documents attacking Darwinism, promoting unregulated neo-liberal ultra competitive capitalism, with one their recent screeds being an attack on the idea of forgiving Africa's debt, which they insist would be a scandal, because Africa is corrupt right now, and when a continent is corrupt, they don't get forgiven for anything, since forgiveness in that context would be scandalous, and thus they should keep paying their debts. As I said, it is an interesting mixture of articles on that site, and given how far apart I am on all the issues when compared to the religious right, I thought I would begin by positioning myself on the far side of the planet, as far away from that Discovery Institute as I can get without actually leaving the planet altogether.

I would suppose that it would not be surprising to find such a weird mix of articles on a site dedicated to ‘Intelligent Design' when you recall the contents of what has become famous as ‘the Wedge Document' wherein the Discovery Institute outlined their strategy of using an attack on Darwinism as a ‘wedge' to open up the door to a full scale attack on the ‘welfare state', which apparently is a legacy of Marxism, which can be equated with Darwinism, since Darwin and Marx wrote letters to each other, since they were both atheists, and thus decided to become pen pals. Therefore the best way to promote robber baron capitalism while at the same time getting rid of food stamps, would be to attack Darwin, thus bringing down Marx at the same time. Apparently food stamps have to be attacked since it turns out that welfare programs for the poor have resulted in the corruption of the moral fabric of society since it undermines family values, since if there was no welfare, this would force people to rely on their extended family for help when their job got shipped off to China, thus strengthening the weakened bonds of the family structure and improving the moral fabric of society in the process. Which is as fine an example of the weird reasoning style of the religious right as any I have ever heard, and then explains that otherwise weird looking collection of articles on the Discovery web site.

Now I have a ‘wedge' strategy of my own, and given the tradition of writing up papers frankly discussing such wedge strategies so that everyone can know all about it, I thought I would write up my wedge strategy as well, and thus explain the whole thing myself. What I have in mind is that I am going to sand bag the religious right by co-opting their agenda of ‘Intelligent Design'. For you see, it turns out that when it is properly understood and correctly defined, Intelligent Design undermines religious doctrine, by bringing down Darwin, which would then bring down the religious right, thus saving the food stamps program at the same time.

Original Sin

You see the problem here is located within fundamental right wing religious doctrine, which holds that somehow all the problems in the world can be traced back to ‘original sin' which was in some manner ‘inherited' through DNA from the contaminated sperm of some guy named Adam. This then explains the meaning of the cross of Jesus, since it turns out that the only way to fix that now corrupted DNA, which codes for sin from generation to generation, was for Jesus to come and bleed to death on a cross, since apparently that blood then washes the sin out of the DNA code and results in salvation from the flames of hell, which is what would happen if people dropped dead without having their DNA properly recoded by accepting the blood sacrifice that Jesus made on the cross to pay the price for that inborn inherited sin, and get that problem of inherited sinful DNA fixed some time before a person drops dead and then gets judged by God for being a sinner, because they showed up in heaven without having had their DNA fixed up before they got there.

How is that for a pithy summary of Christian doctrine, your Holiness. That pretty much captures the essence of orthodox Catholic dogma on the subject, wouldn't you agree.

Now what ‘Intelligent Design' theory tells us is that as far as the natural order is concerned, the history of life unfolded upon earth as it was intended to unfold, which is going to be a problem, because that would mean that it is impossible to explain nature by claiming that what we see in the natural order can be traced back to a supposed universal corruption of the natural world which took place when some guy named Adam disobeyed a direct order, thus corrupting the cosmos and resulting in what Christian orthodoxy would have us believe was the end product which is ‘evil nature'. Intelligent Design tells us that there was no ‘evil nature' but rather that life evolved on earth, generation after generation, even going extinct from time to time, and then regenerating once again, because it was designed to do so from the very start.

This means that nature is not ‘evil' or ‘corrupt' and that if there is some blame to be assigned for the state of nature, the blame would have to placed further up and that the fault could not be laid at the feet of some guy named Adam, since nature existed in a way that Christians do not like long before some guy named Adam showed up to screw everything really good, which then suggests that he did not.

An additional problem is revealed when we ask for scientific proof that ‘disobeying a direct order' could then result in the recoding of DNA for ‘sinfulness', not that we need to ask questions regarding the exact methodology by which such a change would take place, wherein the fault would not lie with Adam who must have recoded that DNA, since it would have been impossible for Adam to have done so. We don't need to ask, since it is obvious that this did not happen, and that such an event does not explain the state of nature, which is natural. That nature is natural is the conclusion you must draw whether or not you are an atheist, and thus accept Darwin's theory, or you are a theist, and accept Intelligent Design, since either way it is pretty obvious that nature has been following its natural course for a very long time, and that such things as extinction events, which theology might consider a fine example of ‘evil nature', and would then try to blame on Adam, must be an example of the evil nature of someone else if such things are evil, since it could not be blamed on Adam who wasn't around at the time, and thus couldn't have corrupted the whole cosmos, thus explaining how that could have happened. Therefore the answer must lie somewhere else.

This being the case it is obvious then that the doctrine of ‘original sin' should most properly be considered one of the great heresies of Christianity, if we are to assume that a false doctrine qualifies as a heresy.

The Orthodox Roman Catholic Position

When we draw that conclusion we find that Christians are then left with a cross followed by a question mark. Since people hate such question marks, and will then be asking what possible meaning could be found in the crucifixion if Jesus did not die for our sins, let us address the issue and find a way to plug that gaping hole in Catholic doctrine.

Now we know that Jeremiah stated that the Levite animal sacrifice was a deliberate forgery, cooked up by the priests of the time, who apparently were busy cooking up such documents as Leviticus in the Bible, and then passing those documents off as the work of Moses, or so Jeremiah insists was the case. ‘Burn your animal sacrifices and eat the flesh yourselves, for on the day that your ancestors came out of Egypt, they were given no instructions or commands concerning animal sacrifices. But they have persisted in their evil ways, with the most stubbornly rebellious hearts, and now truth has perished from their lips and is no longer heard in this land...How can you say, ‘We are wise, for we have the Laws of God', when, actually the lying pen of your priestly scribes has made it into a forgery. Now their religious leaders are dismayed, for they have been trapped and snared, but they rejected the truth, so what kind of wisdom did they have?' (Jeremiah 7:21, 8:8)

As the fiftieth psalm tells us, the doctrine of some god who eats barbequed animals for snacks is a stupid doctrine, for all the animals in the world belong to God, who therefore does not need to be snacking on livestock from some ranch, assuming that such a god actually required the nourishing sustenance of an animal snack from time to time in order to remain strong and well nourished enough to continue to hold the entire universe together. This is another form of criticism of that animal barbequing doctrine, that it is nonsensical, which is obvious.

Isaiah offers another reason to reject that doctrine, pointing out that those people only barbequed animals because they were religious hypocrites, and they ignored justice and the poor, while being real religious at the same time, and since they needed a religion, they started barbequing animals so they could have a religion while not having one, thus making sure they had something they could call a religion, so no one could say they didn't have one, because it was obvious they were very religious since they religiously barbequed animals doing it dogmatically just exactly the way Moses described thus showing how loyal they were to the one true animal barbequing faith by following those rules exactly the way they were written down.

So then we can see that there are numerous different ways that we can analysis the sacrifice for sin described in the Bible, and in each case draw the obvious conclusion that those barbeque rituals were actually an example of a canonized Biblical heresy.

Which then brings us to one of the foundational heresies of the Catholic Church, which apparently found it necessary to not break with tradition and thus decided that it would be better to have a heresy as a substitute for religion, thus avoiding the danger of having a religion, which obviously the Vatican just did not want for some reason. This heresy is found in the New Testament, for as we know, tradition dictates that heresy must be canonized, and is called the Letter to the Hebrews, which is based upon a far fetched interpretation of those animal snack verses in Leviticus, which are both irrational and a forgery, if we believe Jeremiah and the psalmist, which would then tell us that the Letter to the Hebrews is a canonized heresy, since you cannot base a doctrine upon irrational nonsense and deliberate forgeries like the Roman Catholic Church did in the distant past, without the end product being a heresy itself, by any reasonable definition of the term heresy.

According to that particular heretical document, Jesus came to bleed on the cross since it turns out that he was taking the place of the sacrificed cows, since while it was possible to wash the sin off of people and various utensils and appliances that had been touched by people, thus becoming sinful in the process, and requiring washing as well for that reason (since if you washed people and then they touched a sinful utensil, well you can see the problem that would result), with this washing accomplished using the blood of a cow, which was like a detergent for sin, thus explaining how those cow bleeding rituals wound up in the Bible, since people needed such a detergent, or they wouldn't be able to wash in the blood of a cow, or wash in the blood of a lamb, just depending on what livestock was being used on each individual occasion. Unfortunately, since a cow or a lamb was just a livestock animal and not a divine god, the cow blood would only work to remove sin for about one week, and so therefore the washing ritual would have to be done over and over again, which wasn't as good, which then explains why it would be required that we make a god bleed and then wash sin with a god's blood, since that god's blood is so powerful that just one washing would be enough to last a lifetime. It turns out that people only needed to wash weekly with the blood of some dead cow as a temporary measure to get rid of their sinfulness just to hold them over until a divine god incarnated in human form and then bled to death on a cross to solve that blood washing dilemma with finality once and for all.

I think that is a fair summation of the doctrinal position of that ridiculous ‘Letter to the Hebrews', wouldn't you agree, your Holiness, which then is also a fair summation of Roman Catholicism, which is based upon that ‘Letter to the Hebrews', wouldn't you agree, your Holiness? .

So the point then is that not only is the doctrine of original sin and the consequent blood washing of sin unhistorical, it is also irrational, and is based upon a great big pile of nonsensical heresy and forgery, which is a second reason to reject Catholic orthodoxy as actually not being ‘the one true faith', but in truth, Roman Catholicism is just an ancient heresy masquerading as a religion, and quite the ridiculous heresy, too, I might add..

The Cross

There is also a third reason to reject Roman Catholicism as heretical, if two reasons were not enough.

Now when we consider how Roman Catholicism was based upon forgeries and big pile of stupid nonsense, one must then ask why it would be the case that human beings, who have the ability to think rationally, would nevertheless be found to have concocted a big pile of obviously idiotic heresy and then were seen promoting such nonsense as their new supposedly ‘orthodox' one true religion.

Now if you were to ask Isaiah, he would have suggested that the reason why the Popes were promoting some worthless heresy is because if they did not do that then would have been stuck with a cross. And they didn't want that, because that would mean that they would have to condemn torture, and how was the strong man supposed to terrorize the slaves if he lost the rights to torture them to death. If that happened then the Popes would have had to help tie up the strong man and rob his house, like Jesus told them to do, and they didn't want to do that, God forbid.

Now come now, your Holiness, I am sure you understand intimately what I mean here. After all, you have had a long, long career of fighting against ‘Liberation Theology' and promoting Roman Catholicism instead, since it is pretty clear that if the bullies are going to go on bullying the poor and the helpless, and if a Pope is going to be religious while that is going on, and thus keep far far away from that Liberation Theology, a Pope will have to become a Roman Catholic instead, since otherwise people would ask what religion a Pope was following, and the answer would be none, since in that case there wouldn't be one. And that wouldn't do, since nature abhors a vacuum.

Now as I explained previously, as part of my career as the ‘substitute Teaching Pope', since there is no teaching Pope right now (not that there ever has been throughout all world history), we can only discover the real message of Jesus if we perform an autopsy on those really bad gospels. We need to go through this forensic process because we had Popes, and thus it is no surprise that we inherited really bad gospels, and thus explains why a good theologian must become a trained mortician.

As I explained previously, fortunately the Popes were not able to completely destroy the message of Jesus, since it turns out that by being forced to address those dreadful controversies, the Gospel writers had to tell us who Jesus really was before they did that spin doctoring they did so that no one would follow Jesus, but follow that right wing Hawk John the Baptist instead. It is this simple fact that then allows us to perform an autopsy and find the few tattered remains of Jesus and pry him loose from the iron claw of some Pope and from the worthless heresies of Roman Catholic theology.

As I demonstrated, it still remains possible to locate the message of Jesus if we take a crow bar and pry his few surviving parables out of the context of those gospels into which they were hammered in the hope that by burying them under that rubbish of the doctrine of sin, it might be possible that even Cardinals and Bishops and the occasional Pope could read all about Jesus for a life time and come away from that exercise in futility understanding absolutely nothing about Jesus, since it turns out their brains were addled by that doctrine of sin which caused them to miss the point.

Fortunately the use of a crow bar allows us to circumvent that terrible problem by prying loose those parables, or we could read the Gospel of Thomas, where we find just the parables and no narrative, thus allowing us to understand those parables since there are just parables and no forced interpretative framework. When we do this we find that the central core message of Jesus was ‘let us tie up the strong man, disarm him, and then rob his house.'

Now as for his strategy it was two fold. First, you should use free speech to destroy the brain washing propaganda on which that strong man relies to keep his power, not whispering together in secret, but rather shouting the truth from the roof tops. Of course if you did that the strong man would have you crucified, which then explains why everyone must pick up their cross and carry it, since it turns out that if the strong man wanted all that slave work done, he would need slaves, and if he crucified them all, then he would have to hoe his own weeds and do his own laundry, and since no one can get really rich by working one thousand times harder than everyone else, he also wouldn't be able to get rich anymore, because he crucified every last slave. For this reason Jesus preached that no one who did not pick up that cross and carry it could be his follower, since it turns out that this act of solidarity was central to the success of his whole strategy of disarming that strong man so that then everyone could rob his house.

Which is a pretty fair encapsulation of the liberation theology of Jesus, wouldn't you agree, your Holiness.

Which then brings us back to the cross, because you can understand, your Holiness, being the type who hates that sort of thing, why it would be the case that the religious leaders and Caesar conspired together to crucify Jesus, since you can understand how they weren't to thrilled with the idea of getting their houses robbed, especially after having piled up that much money. And we all know what Jesus had to say about rich people, which then explains the cross.

This is important to remember, because once Roman Catholicism is exposed publically as an ancient heresy, there will be a big question mark after the cross, and people will be asking why it would be the case that Jesus got crucified if he didn't do it so he could bleed all over their sins so they wouldn't burn in hell. Nature abhors a vacuum, so I find it necessary to explain what was really going on that time.

It turns out that by preaching heresy, the Popes were able to tie up the weak man, and thus the house of such strong men as the slave driving Caesars of Rome or the feudal landlords remained strong, secure, and unrobbed, since the people who could have tied them up and then robbed their house were already all tied up by the Pope, and thus in no position to rob any one, since you need both hands free to perform a robbery, and their hands weren't free, since the Popes already tied their hands up using the brain addling doctrines of Roman Catholicism to construct such a rope. That this was a sturdy rope is demonstrated by the long, long time domineering exploitative patriarchal males bullied and ruled over the slaves and the serfs who were under the strong man's power, and were kept that way because those serfs and slaves made the mistake of not tying up the Pope and robbing the Vatican, which would have been a good place to start, before they then moved on to rob the strong man's house and just get it all over with once and for all.

Sin

Now I think that I have probably explained the entire history of Christianity is a short pithy way which should clear the matter up rather quickly as far as most people are concerned, wouldn't you agree, your Holiness?

However I can still anticipate one objection that might be raised, in that certain religious types might point to all the really bad sin in the world and then claim that such sin needs to be explained, and then insist that if there is sin, well certainly justice demands that something be done about that sin, which will then lead them to conclude that there certainly must exist some connection then between this need for justice and the fact that Jesus bled to death on a cross.

In response to this great cry for justice coming from certain religious people, including some religious people who, like the Israelites, would probably prefer to remain religious, and follow the Popes, so as to avoid any undesirable labor that might otherwise come due should they no longer be allowed to perform such rituals as the Mass, and get away with it, to answer their reasoned objections to everything I just said, I though it best to deal with this issue of sin, and the issue of bleeding to death, and the great cry for justice sure to be heard coming from some certain religious people, once they find out that maybe they might not be able to get away with that scam of being religious and thus get stuck with a bunch of work they have so far been diligently striving to avoid.

Now it is obvious that there is sin in the world, and so therefore the key question becomes the one of determining the origins of this sin. It seems to me that this must be the key question, since the Roman Catholic Church found it necessary to explain the origins of sin, thus showing how important that question really was the whole time, which is only logical, for if you are going to treat a disease it is important that you not just treat symptoms but that you go deep, and locate the origin, which would be the actual disease that caused all those bad symptoms. Then by treating the disease, you would of course get rid of all those bad symptoms, since the symptoms are caused by the disease.

I have already explained just what a heresy is Roman Catholicism, and how ridiculous is the doctrine of original sin, and one additional way of confirming that this is true (for can you ever confirm something too many times?) is by pointing out to people how the world had Roman Catholicism for eons, and throughout that whole time no one ever saw any of the symptoms disappear, which proves that the disease was never cured, which is not a surprise, since Roman Catholicism was never designed to treat the disease. Quite the contrary really.

Keeping this in mind, we can then make note of how diligently the Popes avoided treating that disease, which then allows us to identify the infecting agent, and thus propose a cure which would then finally, at long, long last, get rid of those dreadful symptoms which are sure to be upsetting to some religious people somewhere, thus causing them to complain about losing all that bleeding, even though we already have ample evidence of just how useless that cow sacrifice was, in that not once did anyone ever notice an improvement in those dreadful, dreadful symptoms.

We know that the Popes did everything that they could to protect the strong man. This proved to be a problem, for you see the strong man was what was known as ‘the ruling class'. Now when someone is ruling over the world and ruling over other people, under normal circumstances, if the place was found to be completely screwed up, a person might conclude that the ruling class was guilty of either gross incompetence, and thus deserved to be fired, or that the ruling class was guilty of even worse crimes such as homicidal conspiracy. Either way you look at it, they certainly did a piss poor job of it, wouldn't you agree, your Holiness, for the planet is a disaster area, and always has been, and continues to get worse from what I can see of it, wouldn't you agree, your Holiness?

Which makes a person wonder just what type of morally demented individual could do the job of Pope and make every attempt to protect the strong man, which of course would result in a world just full of that dreadful sin. On the bright side, this would become a make work project for Popes, who could both cause sin and then in an act of touching generosity and sincere concern, peddle a supposed cure for sin, thus keeping in business for one hell of a long time, for it is easy to see that no one would ever get rid of sin that way, which would then mean that people would always need religion.

The doctrine of ‘original sin' turns out to be quite useful if your assigned project is to fill the world with nothing but sin, sin, sin, from coast to coast, north, south, east and west. For you see, once people get their brains addled by Roman Catholicism, having satisfied themselves that sin comes out of a testicle they can stop looking for the source of sin, having found it already. From that time forward they can pray for the ruling class patriarchal males, and feel sorry for them, for you know how heavy on the head lies the crown, especially when God appointed those ruling class males to authority, and authorized them to use the sword as part of their desperate struggle to keep a lid on all that original sin. This turns out to be quite handy if you want to be a ruling class alpha male, and not get tied up and arrested for running the planet into the ground while at the same time an enraged mob comes and robs your house.

To summarize the point, what Roman Catholic Doctrine achieves is that it allows the ruling class alpha male to continue destroying the planet and misruling the planet, while getting away scot free, and making a big pile of money at the same time, while religious people are trained to feel sorry for that alpha male and pray for all our alpha males in authority, instead of kicking their ass for running the planet right into the ground as they so obviously did. For you see, if you are ‘the ruling class' and you screw everything up, one would expect people to hold such screw ups to account, but not so, for people had religion and people had Popes, whose sole purpose has always been to make damn sure that such an accounting never takes place.

But this discussion is to abstract. Let us consider some concrete examples of how this works.

Let us consider the example of Rwanda. Now in Rwanda people lacked sandwich money, because it turns out that the ruling class alpha males have all the sandwich money. Therefore we saw that horrible sin problem in Rwanda when feuding factions freed up some extra money to buy sandwiches by killing their neighbors, something people could only understand if they skipped enough meals all their lives, and were brutalized by the ruling class system all their lives, for brutalized people brutalize others, which is true root cause of all the crime on earth, in case anyone was wondering. It should therefore be obvious that getting Jesus to bleed on them won't fix that problem. This is not to say that Jesus could not fix Rwanda, because he could, but first he would have to tie up the strong man and then rob his house, but right now we have religion, and so that wouldn't be possible, so we will just have to learn to live with sin, and perhaps spend trillions of sandwich money on the military so we can feel safe.

What this tells us is that if the strong man is going to keep taking all that sandwich money, there is always going to be problems. It was because Jesus was smart that he not only always said bad things about that strong money taking that sandwich money, he also advocated tying up that bastard and then robbing his house to get back that lost sandwich money, for you see Jesus was really serious about fixing up the sin of the world, which is why he didn't bother with religion, for as Roman Catholicism and its Popes demonstrate so clearly, religion is just a way to make more and more sin.

Just recently some gangs of young boys opened with fire with revolvers down at the mall, and cut down some civilians in the cross fire, thus making those civilians into ‘collateral damage.' Right away our religious people started focusing on that issue and carrying on about sin, sin, sin, and of course, being religious people, they naturally concluded that a big part of the problem is that we don't have a Ten Commandments slab in every school, and liberals also won't let teachers read the Bible at school, and kids just aren't good Catholics any more, which explains the problem.

It is interesting to note that when the most powerful males in the world, who are obviously morally depraved and demented individuals, cut loose and mow down civilians in the cross fire, since apparently they consider human life to be quite cheap, our religious people didn't raise a stink about it, but instead they have recommended that we ‘pray for the success of our troops in Iraq', and I would suppose that the whole idea is that with the help of our religious ‘prayer warriors' perhaps our troops in Iraq can mow down some more civilians in the cross fire next week thus upping their total from last week, so as to make progress in a place like Iraq.

After all, as I heard one preacher say just recently, our troops in Iraq are on the very front lines of the war against sin. This makes one wonder why our troops are killing the ‘freedom fighters' who are in revolt against the oil robbing alpha males who are robbing their house, instead of fighting against the alpha males and tying them up, which, as Jesus told us, was the correct way to wage the battle against such obvious sin. However, I do recall that exact same preacher saying some time before that the one thing we don't want here is ‘revolution', which would then explain why that preacher has religion and doesn't have Jesus, which would then explain why that preacher would be ‘praying for our troops in Iraq' in the hopes that the alpha males successfully rob the place, since such stupid vulgarity is the true purpose of religion, and it is into exactly such a stinking cesspool of moral corruption that every person sinks who ever agreed to become ‘born again' and accept that vomit left over by ancient Popes known as ‘orthodox theology', for it turns out that among those ancient Popes were a pack of wolves who were very clever and knew exactly what they were doing, as you can tell by how very well it all turned out. This could not be just an accident, but rather is an example of Cunningly Intelligent Design.

The Laundromat

Now having said all this I thought it might be interesting to conclude this discussion by examining some of your recent moral statements, your Holiness.

For example, you just condemned terrorism and violence in Iraq on the part of Sunnis and Shi'ites. God you said, would especially judge those who do violence in the name of God. This I found to be typical of your style, in that you forgot to threaten George Bush with the same flames of hell and extra, extra hard judgments with which you threatened the Iraqis and the Nigerians. I found it interesting that you choose Iraqis and Nigerians to threaten with hell fire and judgment, since in both those cases you have poverty stricken countries being robbed of their oil by the strong man, and come to think of it, I don't think I have ever heard the word ‘oil' come out of your mouth, but then you are the Pope, and you do have your job to do, which is to tie up the weak man, so I am not surprised.

I noticed that The Bishop of Oregon chose to fulminate on the fifth commandment, while ranting about how there are some shocking individuals who are actually ‘pro-choice', which means that they are ‘pro-murder'. I take it that this was intended as a slam, for as you would know, in the past I indicated that where there is no brain, there is no pain, nor can there be a person, since a brain is required to be a person, and for that reason I never find myself getting all tied up in knots about the loss of some embryo. Since it would appear that both yourself and the Bishop of Oregon are working as a team, while the Bishop does the dirty work of dealing with the heretic, you take the high road and have just announced that all embryos created for in vitro fertilization have ‘the right to life'. Thus you have once established your credentials for supporting the strong ‘pro-life position.'

I find it interesting that the ‘pro-life' crowd who are always making a big stink about a fetus and the right to life of the ‘unborn', never say a damn word about all those already born babies who are starving to death on a daily basis, another fine example of the ruthless corruption of the ‘ruling class' alpha male, which would then also explain why Jesus was so damned determined to tie up the bastard. As you know I have a ‘starved baby counter' on my website, and it has been ticking away, counting off the tens and tens of millions, as a propaganda exercise, since I wanted to see just how deeply corrupt religion makes people become, by seeing how long they could stand having that thing count, without tying up the strong man or some damn thing or another.

But then the truth is that many religious people just don't like Jesus. The fact that they don't like Jesus also explains why they don't have a problem describing him as the horned devil of heaven, the genocidal Hitler of the coming fourth Reich, or perhaps it will already be the Fifth Reich by the time Jesus the Hun returns to torture humanity, just depending on how successful Bush is at starting the Fourth Reich right now.

As I mentioned previously that religious right ‘Discovery Institute' just released a statement calling debt relief for Africa ‘a scandal'. As for yourself, you just declared an embryo ‘sacred' and one of God's beloved little children. I have to say that both yourself, your Holiness, and the religious right, have impeccable timing for as you should know, right now there is another famine threatening to kill tens of millions of Africans building up steam in Africa.

As you will recall, there was a plague of locusts in the Sahel, which was certain to be followed by a famine and which was followed by a famine. The United Nations spent months begging for money, and got not a red cent. You didn't say a word. Bush took that opportunity to be the stubborn one who was refusing to agree to debt relief at that big ‘Make Poverty History' propaganda scam, and you didn't say a word. The media tried its hardest to hide that famine, for it was embarrassing, occurring as it did at the very same time that big scam was being performed, and you didn't say a word.

What does surprise me is that there still remains even one person on the face of this planet who actually might be confused enough to consider such a dirty old man as yourself to be ‘Holy', but tomorrow is another day and mark my words, when I get through with you, they won't, because I can assure you of this, I will not tolerate this nor am I prepared to put up with the Machiavellian maneuvering which seems to come out of a place like that Vatican in Rome like some never ending flood of filthy water.

Now please do me a favor, , you pretender, and do not issue one of your once a year tepid statements to try to make up for it all, because it is painfully obvious that your heart just isn't in it. Its not your thing. That's my thing. I'll take care of it. You can carry on with doing your thing which is being Pope. Your thing is to get together with a clique of Machiavellian schemers and hatch plots and cook up schemes, and then parade around in public like some robed up Pharisee.

Now speaking of a Pharisee, I was thinking that since you will not let the poor use birth control, and do everything in your power to make sure that those babies get ‘the right to life' so that they can be born and then starve to death so I have something to count, perhaps you might agree to having someone dig a giant pit in your garden, so that there will be some place to bury the corpses. This seems appropriate and would be one way that you could contribute a useful service since seeing to it that they get fed just isn't your thing, and since you insist on piling up the corpses then I figure that perhaps you could then become the mortician and provide us with white washed tomb in which to bury all the victims of your Machiavellian schemes. Since you load people with heavy stones and burdens almost impossible to bear, and then you yourself do not even lift so much as one finger to help them carry their burdens, then it seems only fitting to me to turn the Vatican compound into a giant morgue so that even if it is true that you don't give a damn about the right to life, maybe you can at the very least give a damn about a decent burial, and you can also deliver the eulogy and preside over the funerals, and who knows, there might actually be some Catholic on the planet to rave about your performance in just the same way I have heard them raving on their blogs about your damnations of the Iraqis and the Nigerians and your heroic defense of some fertilized egg.

It is my intention to find out just exactly what it is that I am dealing with here. The way I see it is that there are two possibilities. Perhaps you are a Dragon, complete with the fangs, the horns, and the long pointed tail, dressed up as a lamb, in which case you are going to have a problem, because that idiotic deception will not work for you for I will deal with you myself. Or perhaps you are just some dirty old priest in which case I would suggest that you visit a Laundromat and do something about those filthy spots.

A Unified Field Theory

The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip

Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.

Principles of Evolution: A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs