Debates

Debates Galore For years, I’ve been in debates with people. It can be fun and stimulating all in the same time. Due East is a pro-Masonic propagandist who believes in the lies of the Discovery Channel (which supports Freemasonry). I came in to refute this person recently in 2009.

Due East: replies to this nonsense. 1. french revolution. Discovery channel: freemasons had nothing to do with it Fact: freemasons openly admit they did it, in their own journals. Would you like to site sources such as these journals because I would like to see them. FYI One of the most famous Free-Masons Lafayette fought on the side of the crown. It is thought that Masons had some influence on the revolution because it is a fraternity which hold democracy dearly important to it. Response: First, this isn't nonesense. The words that you disagree with are from a man on Youtube who legitimately exposed the Discovery Channel's lies on Freemasonry.

Now, There are plenty of sources proving the Masonic role in the French Revolution. Lafeyette supported the American Revolution, which was against the agenda of the British Crown. The British Crown wanted to maintain America as a colony of the British Empire. Freemasonry overtly believed in democracy, but covertly advanced the new order of the ages Utopia (as admitted by 33rd Degree Freemasons C. William Smith & Manly P. Hall). Freemasonry didn't rule all of the Revolution, but leaders members of the Revolution were indeed Freemasons. That isn't a lie. In the chamber of Deputies during the session on July 1, 1904 the Marquis de Rosanbo stated:

• "Freemasonry has worked in a hidden but constant manner to prepare the revolution... We are then in complete agreement on the point that freemasonry was the only author of the revolution, and the applause which I receive from the Left, and to which I am little accustomed, proves, gentlemen, that you acknowledge with me that it was masonry which made the French revolution." • Mr. Jumel: "We do more than acknowledge it, we proclaim it." • [Source: Mgsr. Henri Delassus, La Conjuration anti-chrétienne, vol. 1, 1910, p. 146; quoted in de Poncins, op. cit.,p.30]. Here‘s another source on the French Revolution & Masonry connection: “Masonry early comprehended this Truth, and recognized its own enlarged duties. Its symbols then came to have a wider meaning; but it also assumed the mask of Stone-masonry, and borrowed its working-tools, and so was supplied with new and apt symbols. It aided in bringing about the French Revolution, disappeared with the Girondists, was born again with the restoration of order, and sustained Napoleon, because, though Emperor, he acknowledged the right of the people to select its rulers, and was at the head of a nation refusing to receive back its old kings. He pleaded, with sabre, musket, and cannon, the great cause of the People against Royalty, the right of the French people even to make a Corsican General their Emperor, if it pleased them…” (Albert Pike, “Morals and Dogma,” pg. 32-33). Freemasons wanted their utopian system under the guise of "democracy." Democracy is just as bad as an authoriatarian monarchy. The reason is that a Democracy deals with mob rule suppressing the liberties and rights of the minority in a population.

Due East: 2. Discovery channel:wash DC symbolism has nothing to do with freemasons. Fact: why didn't they tell us the obilisk is an ancient pagan symbol for Osiris' penis. American Masonry has been very Christianized. Free-Masonry itself is religion neutral.

Freedom of religion is very important as is freedom of choice. And I would say DC symbolism is somewhat Masonic as the architect and planner were Masons. Response: American Masonry is not Christianized. It has nothing to do with Christianity as Freemasons admit to this. Freemason J. D. Buck wrote: "It is far more important that men should become Christs than that they should believe that Jesus was Christ." (Mystic Masonry, 1913, p.138). Freemasonry accept death oaths and believes in the Kabbalah (along with accepting tenets of Ecumenicalism). These and other reasons prove that Freemasonry isn't apart of Christianity at all. It's an oxymoron for you to proclaim that American Masonry is Christianized then say that Freemasonry is religiously neutral. Freedom of religion is fine with me. The freedom of choice is fine as long as it doesn't involve hurting people like in abortion. Abortion is murder and it is not representative of the freedom of choice at all. D.C. is very Masonry since many architects of various buildings there were Freemasons.

Due East: 3. the "G" in mason's symbol means goodness or god. FACT: "G" means "gnosis", ancient, mystery term for knowledgeon and on... The G stand for one thing and it is Geometrico (Geometry). The sacred science.

Response: The G in Masonry have many meanings according to Freemasons. I trust the Masons' interpretation of G better than you. G means to the Masons as meaning God, Generation, etc. Freemason W L Wilmhurst said that G means: "...The "G" therefore denotes the Universal Spirit of God, permeating and unifying all things . It is a substitute for the Hebrew letter Yod, the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and out of which all the other letters of that alphabet are constructed in correspondence with the truth that all created things are modifications of the one primal Spirit . In the Instruction-lecture of a Degree outside our present constitutions, the "G" is explained as having a three-fold reference ; (i) the Glory of God, or glory in the centre ; (2) Grandeur, or the greatness of perfection to which man may become raised by initiation into union .with God at his centre ; (3) Gom-El, a Hebrew word of praise for the Divine power and goodness in designing that perfection and that union between the Creator and the creature. There is also a Hebrew tradition that Gom-El was the word uttered by Adam on first beholding the beauty of Eve and perceiving the ultimate destiny of humanity..." (MASONIC INITIATION by W.L. Wilmshurst Chapter II) Symbolic Teaching: Or, Masonry and Its Message is a book written by Masonic scholar Thomas Milton Stewart. He admits that: "...On page 367: 'While it [the letter G] is the initial of Geometry, of God, and of the

Great Architect of the Universe, the sacred and mystic name of the Masonic deity, it [the letter G] symbolizes the generative principle, and the initial of the work of emanation or generation. The Hebrew Yod ['} according to some high Masonic authorities, means the same as the letter G....When it occurs in Masonic emblems, it denotes the letter G, the masculine generative or fedundating principle..." (pg. 223) Here is Freemason Eliphas Levi's view on the Masonic G in Masonry: "G which Freemasons place in the center of the Burning Star signifies Gnosis and Generation, the two sacred words of the ancient Kabbalah. It also signifies Grand Architect, for the Pentagram, from whatever side it may be looked at, always represents an 'A'. By placing it in such a manner that two of its points are above and only one below, we may see the horns, ears, and beard of the hieratic god of Mendes (Baphomet) when it becomes the sign of infernal evocations." (Masonic author, Eliphas Levi, quoted by Masonic author, Arthur Edward Waite, "The Mysteries of Magic: A Digest of the Writings of Eliphas Levi", 1909, p.205). So, what we have here is that the letter G has many meanings from God, geometry, to the generative principle. This is admitted by Freemasons themselves. So, you certainly got me confused with a ignorant person that doesn't know too much about Masonry since I have done my homework for years. I've debated and refuted Masons for a long time. So, people like you inspire me even more to make stirring comebacks on this issue. Frankly, this isn't nonsense. This is reality. By Timothy

_________________________________________________

IM supports the unbiblical Passion of the Christ film. I can in to response to IM’s views. IM: First of all, "truthseeker", I have a question for you. Before recommending this sermon, did you listen to it? Response: Yes, I've look at it. IM: I have listened to the sermon and here is what I think. I did find some agreement with him and his initial comments. I, too, am thankful to God that the events surrounding Christ's crucifixion have become a subject for widespread discussion as a result of the release of "The Passion". Response: Well, I agree with that. IM: I, too, am thankful to God that Mel Gibson has attempted to accurately depict the events surrounding Christ's last 12 hours leading up and including the crucifixion, and that Gibson has stood up for his principles against those who would have had him not follow the Gospels so closely. I, too, am thankful the movie is allowing Christians an opening to witness to non-Christians. Response: Mel Gibson may have good intensions to show people about Christ's crucifixion, but good intension isn’t going to save anyone. It invalidates the

scriptures so I reject it. Not to mention that Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ adds many things in the film that are no where in the Holy Scriptures at all. I don’t believe he followed the Gospels closely in the film since a lot of the film are based on the occult visions of the Catholic mystic by the name of Anne Catherine Emmerich. Emmerich was also a German nun. “The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the Meditations of Anne Catherine Emmerich” is a title of a book that described Emmerich’s “experiences.”

IM: Now then, I did find much to disagree with. Keep in mind, the pastor is coming from the perspective of someone who has NOT seen the movie, and I am coming from the perspective of one who has. The pastor claims the movie deals only with the physical suffering of Christ, while ignoring the spiritual suffering of Christ, which he claims is what the Bible focuses on. This is absolutely untrue. Response: This is a weak point. Many pastors like from Cutting Edge opposed it and they have seen it. Just because someone didn't see a movie doesn't disqualify him or her from commenting on it. This is Freedom of Speech and there is enough paganism from Catholic mythics, etc. to oppose it. It does manly focuses on the physical suffering of Christ. The beatings lasted for an extremely long time and it had few spiritual references except for the defeat of Satan, some of Jesus Christ’s miracles, and Christ shown naked which is blasphemy at the end of the movie. We should understand the physical and spiritual matters of Jesus Christ. Yet, Jesus saves man from his blood not by his crucifixion. IM: Christ's spiritual suffering and struggles are dealt with extensively in the movie. In fact, the movie opens with his spiritual suffering and burden in the Garden of Gethsemane. The pastor even mentions Christ's spiritual suffering in the Garden and how important but for some reason he never mentions that this was dealt with in great detail in the movie. Why? Either because he knew the truth and chose to ignore it for convenience, or he does not know the truth. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he simply doesn't know what he's talking since he has not seen the movie. Response: The pastor fully explained the Gethsemane situation in his work. The Gethsemane scene was so much a lie that I don't know where to start and I've seen the movie. At the beginning of the movie, Satan questions Christ's will to handle the sins of the world, which didn't occur in the Bible. The apostles thought Christ was weak which didn't exist in the Bible. Jesus is fainting nearly and weeps which didn't exist in the Bible in that magnitude. So, Mel Gibson distorted what the Gethsemane scene was all about. Christ is presented as too weak and weary which never occurred in the Bible. Christ kills a snake, which is nowhere in the Bible. Christ experience agony but never fear. Christ is never afraid of anything in the entire universe and the Passion shows him to be extremely afraid which is not faithful to the Gospel accounts. This scene is not necessarily spiritual but physical pain with a little spiritual feeling of handling the sins of the world. I assume the pastor knows what he is talking about. Just because the pastor doesn't mention every facet of a movie doesn't mean

that he's ignorant of the movie. You love to use character assassinations. The Pastor is certainly telling the truth about this unscriptural, obscene film, yet you don't see it. IM: He makes the point of saying that in the Bible the first mention of Christ's blood during these final 12 hours is in the Garden with "sweating blood". This is completely consistent with the movie, as some beads of blood are visible on Christ's face and brow in the Garden before it shows Him shedding blood anywhere else. His point though fails on another count as well. Christ's blood is mentioned in the Gospels before the Garden. It is mentioned, for example, at the Last Supper when Christ told his disciples to "do this in remembrance of me" when He was referring to his shed blood and broken body. Response: Christ's blood in communion was totally symbolic when he said, "This is my blood" since he used bread and wine not cutting himself to show his blood to them. He was signifying the plan of salvation and the future events, which would happen unto him. You refuse to put it into context. The blood he was describing was a remembrance not literal blood and flesh that the disciples ought to eat and drink which is contrary to the Bible in the OT and NT. We are not allowed to eat flesh and drink blood in a religious ceremony as mentioned in Acts. As for sweating blood, I see no problem with that. The blood that saved all mankind was from the cross. IM: That was, of course, in reference to the blood he would shed leading up and including the crucifixion. Was he referring to His sweated blood in the Garden? I hardly think so. The pastor is getting dangerously close to Mormon doctrine here as they put an inordinate amount of emphasis on Christ's suffering in the Garden. Response: I see no problem with that and the pastor wasn't getting to Mormon doctrine since the pastor perfectly believes that Christ's cross and the resurrection saved mankind unlike the Mormons who believed that Gethsemane did it. This isn't deductive but Mel Gibson’s views isn’t representative of the truth of Fundamental Christianity. There is a distinction between Jesus Christ’s experience in the Garden and the shedding of Jesus Christ’s blood on the Cross that saved all of the sins of the world. IM: They, in fact, claim that He suffered MORE in the Garden than on the Cross, and that Christians who focus on the Cross are misguided. It is a way for them to draw attention away from the Cross which is where Christ said "It is finished". The pastor is suddenly sounding like a Mormon here. By the way, the LDS Church is also "discouraging" their members from seeing this film. Wonder why? I think it's because they don't want their members to truly understand or be moved by what Christ did on the Cross and understand that what He did on Calvary is where their sins were redeemed and that the Garden was just the beginning of Christ's suffering. Response: This accusation is just a lie. Nowhere does the pastor say that Gethsemane was the place of his sacrifice neither the area of our salvation. The Pastor David Cloud never said that Jesus Christ suffered more in the Garden than on the Cross. Mormons should see it since its a deception. In fact the movie doesn’t place too much emphasis on his resurrection and the cross, which saved us. The movie ended when Christ’s buttocks is shown walking out of the tomb which is heresy. I’m Moving on from your conjecture.

IM: Again, the pastor is speaking from a position of ignorance. He hasn't seen the movie. I have. The movie clearly shows that Christ is suffering spiritually as well as physically. Some reviews I have read from other viewers have even mentioned that they thought, despite the physical suffering what was shown, that Christ was depicted to have suffered more spiritually.

Response: People who know enough about the movie yet haven't seen have a right to critique it just like anyone else. Christ is depicted as a weak man unnecessarily beaten too much with a short scene at the end of his resurrection. This movie has the spirit of Satan by its unbiblical scenes and occult references. What is spiritual about Christ depicted as a weak person, Romans beating Jesus Christ, the brutality lasting the majority of the film, and lies spread about him. It even has Mary soaking the blood of Jesus Christ, which is no where in the Scriptures. It focuses too much on the physical suffering of Jesus Christ before crucifixion, which doesn’t save at all. IM: "Spurious religious experience" was a favorite phrase of the pastor's. He insinuates that people who are moved by this film will NOT have conviction of sin, that there will be no change in lives, etc. Remember, he made these comments BEFORE the movie came out. As it turns out, he could not have been more wrong. Many, many people have reported conviciton of sin, changed lives, etc.. His prediction turned out to be untrue. Will every single person become a fundamental Baptist after watching "The Passion"? Response: As for experience, Theoretically, many people can change their lives as a result of watching this film, but that doesn't justify it. It's a Roman Catholic Movie based on false beliefs, so why I'm wasting my time following a man's movie who consider me a candidate for Hell. Mel Gibson publicly stated that folks like me are going to Hell since Mel and his Jew hating father Hutton are part of the Vatican I cult. Vatican I denies that non-Catholic Christians are saved. There are many instances of people dying and having stroke after watching the film as well. Why haven't you discussed that in detail? So, the big picture is that the Passion distorts what’s really important in Christianity. What’s really important in Christianity is morality and

improving life not obsessing with death and brutality plus violence. The possibility of positive experience doesn't excuse a false film. That fundamental Baptist comment is typical of you since you seem to might harbor distorted views on fundamental Christians. The pastor perfectly outlines that Evangelicals, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and other Christian groups are part of the Christian family. He doesn't believe that neither do I conscribe that Baptists are the sole Church for a human to go to. IM: No, but that doesn't mean the movie can thus simply be dismissed as a "spurious religious experience". Does everyone who hears this or any of the pastor's messages have conviction of sin or make permanent changes in their lives? NO. Not even everyone who heard Christ's messages became followers or continued to follow. Look at Judas. Response: This is lame comparison. First, you say positive responses existed as a result of the movie and then you say that some people who receive Christ's message or the Pastor's message will reject the call for salvation. Of course that's true. Not everyone will receive Christ. What does that have to do with the subject? How does that refute this film as pagan propaganda? Nothing. A film shouldn’t be used as a primary evangelist tool and if today’s Christians need a film to get back to God, then that’s a sad fact for our sinful generation. People and individuals ought to directly save people primarily by our own personal actions and deeds fulfilling the commandment of Jesus Christ (to preach and send the Gospel to all Creation as found in the book of Matthew). IM: He was one of the 12 disciples, and he betrayed Christ. Therefore, by the pastor's measure, neither he, nor even Christ could pass his "spurious religious experience" test. What is the good pastor going to say to somebody who says to him "Pastor, I was tremendously moved and convicted after watching 'The Passion'. I have a deeper understanding of the love Christ had for me. Response: What does Judas have to do with the legitimacy of the film or to do with experience anyway? The answer is nothing The Pastor does say the truth about the film. Just because some has a good response and wants to be saved, doesn't mean he or she is saved or the film is true. You can be saved with or without looking at the movie. That's all I'm saying and that's the truth. IM: I want to do everything I can to love Him back. I have repented of sins that I've been holding on to. I have immersed myself in the Word. I have been more bold in sharing Jesus with others."? Is he going to tell them "Ahh, just forget all that stuff. You just had a 'spurious religious experience' and nothing more. Go back to being the comfy, cozy, lazy Christian you were before"? I hope not. I hope he will be able to swallow his pride. Response: Nowhere does the Pastor say that by looking at the film or having an experience with the film will lead a person to hell. He didn't say that neither do I believe it since that's ignorant and silly. You're adding words and to people's mouths and lying. Wow, what ignorance. Did the pastor explicitly say that you must have a spurious

religious experience to be saved or not? No. He just said that some experiences might not be a product of the film being holy. Being moved and being saved are two different things. I can be moved by looking at a movie and still refuse to be saved, etc. See the analogy. Christ doesn't save a man on account of a movie. If someone wants to be saved as a product of witnessing the movie, I see no problem as long as it is told to that person that the movie is a deception. The Pastor has no pride and you are too elaborate on religious experience, which is desperation on your part. No real Christian would mock a person after looking at a movie anyway. No real Christian is going to tell a person to be lazy, but be inspired to fight for truth. Now, see you want to propel the movie to something that it isn’t. It isn’t a godly endeavor. It’s a slick way to promote Ecumenicalism and lies to deceive Christians. IM: The pastor contradicted himself rather strongly when he emphasized that Gibson's Christianity has nothing to do with whether you should see this movie. He said you should judge the movie on its merits and not judge it on what kind of Christian you think Gibson is or isn't because we aren't in a position to judge Gibson. Response: Well whether the Pastor said that or not, I believe Gibson's version of his false Christianity does have a role in looking at the movie. I judge false doctrines, the movie, and Mel Gibson's false beliefs as the Bible say to do and I've listed a dozen Bible verses to you directly to back myself up. I'm in a position and every man is in a position to judge Gibson's doctrines and movies not his motives or him personally. Only God can judge a man's motives and heart. Yet, we have a right to Judge righteous Judgment as found in John 7:24. IM: He then turns around and rails on Catholic atrocities of ages ago, such as the Inquisition, and asks "how can a Protestant go see a movie done by a Catholic"? There he is judging Gibson as being a less of a Christian, right after saying we shouldn't judge the movie by judging Gibson. What is also ironic, is that this pastor is a fundamental Baptist, is he not? Well, the Baptists aren't even Protestants as I have recently learned. In fact, the Baptists were tortured and brutalized by guess who? Not the Catholics. Protestants! So, to be consistent, we shouldnt' see any movies done by Protestants, now matter how good of a "Christian" the director is. Response: This response by IM is so false that I'm laughing off the edge of my seat. ha ha ah ah hah ah ah ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!! What is wrong with showing the truth of Catholic atrocities centuries ago? Are they false? They are true and I see no problem with a man doing it to expose Roman Catholicism. Many Catholic atrocities are recent like the Catholic Ustasha killing Serbs, Jewish people, and Gypsies during WWII, Serbian persecutions in the 1990s, or the pedophile priest scandals, etc. He is a human being and every right to show the evils of Romanism. I have a biblical right to judge Gibson's religion if it has false doctrines and it does. What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with that and I'm called to Judge Righteous Judgment (John 7:24), which is the verse you don't like at all. Baptists and Protestant do have some differences, but both are still Christians. Catholics persecuted both Protestants and

Baptists so this is a lie by you. Protestants didn’t just presecute Baptists alone. Catholic persecuted Baptists as well. Some Protestants did in fact killed Baptists but Roman Catholicism killed million of people potentially in over 600 years (1200-1840s) in their godless Inquisition. Murder is wrong for both sides but Roman Catholicism killed more people than any other religion in the history of the world. That’s more than Islam and they never forgiven themselves until recently by the new world order proponent John Paul II in his lowbrow apology. The Protestant movie thing is just sad by you. You can see movies about religion whether Catholic or Protestant, but you can criticize it if it has blatant falsehoods and that’s what the pastor is doing. The movie shouldn’t be seen (or endorsed) because its a distortion and a disservice to the Gospels. The movie has Catholic influence in it. Mel Gibson even admitted it as a Catholic movie. Even if a Protestant shown the exact same thing about Christ, I will reject it just as harsh as if a Catholic did it. IM: The pastor's final and biggest point is that he believes the movie is idolatry and violates the 2nd Commandment? I completely disagree. This argument has been put forward by fundamentalists before, and they have simply taken it too far; otherwise, throw away ALL of your pictures, books, videos, and tapes that talk about God. Hypocritically, the pastor is putting his own "image" of God on the internet, violating the 2nd commandment by his own standard. Ridiculous? Absolutely. Response: This is another one of your great lies. The pastor perfectly outlined idolatry as any image that represented as God or the worship of images as God. Any pictures, pictures of family members, books, video tapes, and other images can be possessed by human beings as long as they are not used to represent God or to be worshipped as God. The pastor does say that it’s a sin to use images to portray Christ. See, the Passion portrays a mere man as Jesus Christ in the film. People are worshipping this man. Even if it’s acting, The 2nd Commandment forbids that even if you are faking it. Not to mention that veneration of images and the veneration of the mass is unbiblical since you are praising mere objects. Yet again, you outline fundamentalists with stereotypes. Most real fundamentalists follow God, read the Bible, and live a good life. IM: I love the Lord with all of my heart. I would be sickened and very outspoken against anything that I felt was unBiblical, blasphemous, or irreverant toward my Saviour. If this movie had such an agenda, I would be the first to denounce it. I'm certainly not afraid to express my opinion, and will do so, even if I'm a minority of one. Mel Gibson is not perfect. His movie is not perfect. It's a good thing, though, that God doesn't require perfection from us, or ALL of us would fail. Some choose to find one thing wrong with "The Passion" and pass judgment on it as being evil. By that standard they are passing judgment upon themselves as evil. Response: Good people and saved people can be deceived about a movie. This is outlined in prophecy so I wouldn’t be shocked if I’ve heard of a saved person praising this movie when its pagan nonsense. No one is saying that Mel Gibson has to be perfect or a perfect Christian. This is emotionalism by you. But the Bible does say you have to have a basically good life and follow the fundamentals of the faith. Mel doesn't by believing bread and wine transforms magically into blood and flesh to

be eaten, a man is the head of the earthly church, there is an inter-dimensional vortex between heaven and hell, Mary is the Co-Redeemer, sinless and Queen of Heaven, participating in movies that used Gods name in vain and massive amounts of profanity, and that his church is the one true church and you're going to Hell if you refuse to join it. Mel committed adultery against his own wife as well. Just because people aren’t people, doesn’t mean we refuse to criticize evil. See, you equate criticizing an unscriptural movie with an extreme form of judging. It isn’t. The movie is blasphemous by presenting Christ as too weak, showing him naked at the end of movie, and adding scenes that have no basis in the Bible. I find tons of things in the movie that are false not just one. They also include Satan depicted as androgynous or female when Satan is male, Mary strengthen Christ at his beating by the Romans when it didn’t happen, Children tormenting Judas in transforming in demon faces which didn’t occur in the Bible, Satan tempting Christ in Gethsemane which didn’t happen, and even others. You seem to point out a few good areas then ignore tons of contradictions of the movie. How deceptive of you trying to convince me of this film. IM: The pastor's sermon would have been much, much better and accurate if it had been much, much shorter. He should have stopped after expressing what good things are resulting from this movie. Response: The pastor can outline what he wants as long its God’s truth and his words ring true to me. Good things? Good things don’t cut it when you’re describing the Bible. You have to be as accurate as you can with good things and very few mistakes and this movie has a few good things and tons of mistakes therefore I refuted you and your mistakes. To omit the unscriptural nature of the film is just as wrong as slandering a person. So, no I will refuse to omit evil. I will expose it. The Passion of Christ was based on an occult, Catholic mystic with its obscene scenes and an agenda to promote the heresies of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not back down from that premise at all. By Timothy SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA FIDE SOLA GLORIA DEO SOLA CHRISTO SOLA GRATIA SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS SEMPER LIBER March 26, 2004 9:46 pm. EST

_____________________________________________________________

Here's my response to Michael is here. Michael supports the Jesuits obviously and believes in a distorted view of the Vatican. Michael: I know this is a h__ old post but i'm only just reading it. I think you are a person who likes knowledge in an argument, but these points you make seem too sketchy to put into a blog: Response: ha ha!!! Fundamentally, more sketchy information are found in other blogs than mine. I certainly see your point that we should be as accurate as possible. I wrote that information many years ago, so today I'm much more accurate with my information including my arguments. Michael: 2). All you said was Reagan was cozy with. Then link the abortion decisions. By that logic you could blame all decisions on the jesuit. Response: I said more than what people Ronald Reagan was cozy with. I exposed for years how Ronald Reagan passed the pro-abortion law in 1967 and how he sponsored anti-gun legislation in California as early as 1967. He passed the anti-gun Mulford Act. I do link the abortion decision with the politics of that time in California. Also, Reagan expanded the debt and allied with the Bohemian Grove. Reagan supports the Vatican and Jesuits by agreeing with a Vatican concordat in 1984, etc. His administration members had numerous Knights of Malta as well. I don't link the Jesuits to all evils. I just acknowledge the Jesuit connection to the new

world order, which is clearly evident from authors like Edmond Paris (and others). See, the big picture with Ronald Reagan (who was even a honorary 33rd Degree Freemason) was that he fronted a conservative image in order to achieve political expediency. In actuality, he was a deception and now more folks realize this. Michael: 4). The orders that turned around and began to support movements in South America were taking on a policy of pro-indigenous rights and sorry for the aristocratic domination previously. Many priests were killed for this. I think saying they supported the dictators is generalising or not true. Response: Many low level people in South and Latin America may sincerely wanted freedom, but leading Sandinistas members did as much terrorism as the Contras did. There is nothing with promoting pro-indigenous citizens’ rights in a nation. It is something wrong by using terrorism in order to get that accomplished. They were funded by the Jesuits just like the Knights of Malta (like SMOM Oliver North) funded the Contras. There is no justification for the terrorism committed by both sides. Killing priests is wrong. Also, killing anti-Communists were wrong as well in the 1980's. The Jesuits and the Vatican supporting some Latin American dictators is a fact and it isn't generalizing at all. Although, tons of people in Latin and South America are patriotic and were liberty lovers. I will not back down from that point. Examples include how the JP II linked up with dictator Castro and Pope Benedict XVI sucking up to the pro-NWO dictator of Hugo Chavez. Even back in the back, the Pope supported the Ustashi dictator Ante Pavelic during WWII. What more evidence do you need? Michael: 5). I accept that this society is secretive, but involves many people, and this man could have different reasons for founding. Please more information why the Jesuit part is linked to it. He might be the member of a local football club too lol. If most Jesuit high ups did this then okay, but... Response: Much of society is secretive. I do realize that secrecy involves many people. I never omitted that it didn't. You can't pronounce evidence otherwise. Now, Ignatius Loyola didn’t invent the Jesuits to create some club. He created it for the evil purpose of trying to destroy the Protestant Reformation. Loyola followed occult Meditations as well. I just made this work to prove the Vatican link to the new world order that tons of people in the alternative choice to neglect. They neglect it, because they are either shills or haven't studied the issue in more depth. I've shown tons of information on Jesuits links to the new world order throughout this blog. You can Google "Jesuits" in this blog and the information is there. No one said that every Jesuit is involved in all evil. Yet, it is true that many Jesuits are involved in internationals evils spanning centuries. Michael: 6). Jesuit priest William Fulco translated the script into Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin...so now translators are evil doers? Response: You are putting words in my mouth. No one said that all translators are evil. What I said is that the Jesuit Fulco translated the script of the Passion film. That film is unbiblical on many levels and it doesn't focus on God's sacrifice. It focus on grosteque brutality primarily. Also, Mel enacted unrepentant pornographers in the film including relying on the words of an unscriptural mystic in the film. By these facts alone, the Passion is a deception. Michael: 7). Again, so now UNESCO reps are evil doers? Okay he reps foreign policy committee. I believe all american UN appointees will be the kind to represent interests, for the nation itself is very state-centric not human/world-centric Michael: UNESCO is evil since it promotes the new world order, population control, and antinational sovereignity ideas. State centric? The basis of the United Nations was to form a world order. Even UNESCO founder Huxley wanted a global government. So, the agenda of many internationalists is a global outlook. Evil doers do exist in UNESCO and some people in that

group don't even know the true agenda of UNESCO by ignorance. You need to realize this.

Michael: 8). Again connecting a president to a university or influence as the sole reason. I mean, Georgetown is one of the top ten producers of Peace Corps volunteers. I think its important to note Clinton went against a popular vote but that is not always bad, it was a rights based issue. Fear of majority as tyrannical was legitimate in founding fathers.

Response: Also, you do know that I have mention more than an University as the sole reason I disagree with Bill Clinton. Just because a person works in an University, doesn’t mean that person is a boy scout. Georgetown is an University that actively recruit elitist people in order to go along with the agenda of the establishment. Also, you do realize that Bill Clinton is a liar under oath, involved in China gate, he scapegoated patriotic conservatives for the OKC Bombing, he is complicit in the Waco murder, he supports abortion heavily, is anti-gun, and he bombed innocent nations (in Sudan, Iraq, and Serbia). Some folks don’t realize that. I do. So, I don't admire Bill Clinton. He's not a man that I strive to be. I strive to follow God not a Jesuittrained puppet like William Jefferson Clinton at all. Him opposing the Vietnam War is fine, but him aligning with Jesuits isn‘t. Michael: As for hitler references. I think hitler could find bad people in any group. If he modelled SS on them, it was because of their rigorous training. Response: The Hitler reference is accurate and you can't find a single thing to refute it. It's a fact that he modeled the SS after the Jesuits. Rigorous training? Is that the best you can come up with? The reality is that the Jesuits are murderous group complicit in the Bartholomew

Massacre, the assassinations of people, infiltration of governments, etc. for centuries. Hitler probably knew of their wicked history and based his SS after them more than just rigorous training. Not to mention that the Vatican funded the Nazis via SMOM Franz von Papen, which you haven't refuted. The Vatican aided the Nazi Ustashis and other fascist Roman Catholic dictators all over WWII (even Franco). So, you need to realize that and the truth. Michael: I am not saying they are clean, but i don't like the reasoning provided. Response: The Jesuits aren't clean. I shown tons of evidence for that. Also, my reasoning is sound on this issue. See, the Vatican is an unscriptural organization. The Jesuits came about in 1540 as a means to destroy the Protestant Reformation (which gave us our Bill of Rights culture in America). Therefore, I will not apologize for my views. I will not be intimidated. I will not relinquish my views. Also, this reasoning is clear since I have used historical examples, connections, and other evidence to back up my views. By Timothy _______________

*I usually don't respond to Pastor Harry here, but I have to since I strongly disagree with him on Iraq. Harry is against the death penalty when Jesus Christ said in Revelation that he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. The death penalty was mentioned before the Mosaic Law anyway. He also utilizes the Bible Codes, which aren't 100% accurate and God is apparent not hidden. He supports the Passion movie when David Cloud, Watch Unto Prayer, Cutting Edge, and other ministries have exposed its pornographers, unbiblical scenes, and occult symbolism before [i.e. Icon Publications funded the film and it's logo is the All Seeing Eye of Horus or Lucifer]. Harry is right to oppose abortion and support Terri Schiavo. He is right to expose blatantly apostate "Christians" like Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Joyce Meyer, and many others. Here's my response to him. My words are in bold.

Harry: IRAQ: THE REAL REASON FOR WAR The Liberal "Puppet" Show wants us to believe that President Bush invaded Iraq for Oil. The latest accusation of Cindy Sheehan is that "Bush went to war to kill American Soldiers" . . . as human sacrifices? The real reason that President Bush invaded Iraq is three-fold: 1). To Stop Saddam from developing or acquiring nuclear weapons before the year 2012, when Earth may be threatened by a massive comet or astreroid (WHAT NASA CANNOT TELL US). Response: Once again Pastor Harry is into deception. George W. Bush is working with extremists in the American government who don't have American interests in heart. They seek to illegally drive Saddam out to force democracy into the populace. Harry needs to realize that the Iraq War was illegal since Article 1, Section 8 forbids declaring war without Congressional Declaration. Bush used Resolutions and not a Declaration of War by Congress. This is beyond "liberal" since many real conservatives oppose the Iraq war like Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Johnson, and many other people. It's obvious that oil isn't the only reason for war, but even the BBC reported that America seeked Iraqi oil in the war. The neo-cons'

The Project for an American Century Document document the reasons for the Iraq War as extending their hegemony worldwide. Even a note sent by a Neo-Con to Bill Clinton in the 1990's expressed concern over Iraq's oil supplies and seek to inspire Clinton to invade Iraq. You should have more compassion for Cindy Sheehan since she is a grieving mother who is right I might add on the issue of Iraq being immoral and carried out improperly. I don't know Bush's heart, but the administration certainly made mistakes and seek to continue to see dead soliders for even years to come. You're reasons for the Iraq War is as bogus as Bush being an authentic conservative. Also, Saddam never had massive quantites of WMDS and he had no nuclear weapons. Many nations are acquiring and developing nukes like India and Pakistan, but we don't invade them. You parrot the same lie that the Neo-Cons keep on showing. You need to becareful of date setting for if it doesn't come to pass, the Bible Code is proven wrong again as the Bible Code mentioned a disaster in 2000, but nothing occured. 2)To Liberate The Iraqi People from a brutal Dictatorship that included Support of terrorism, Mass Murder, Torture and Gang Rape. Response: What right do we have to illegally invade a Nation. Nations globally have dictators, torture, crime, gang rape, terrorism, etc. like North Korea, Sudan, and many other places. That doesn't mean we invade them all. We have no right to be the policeman of the world, unless you want to embrace a globalist mindset of internationalism. We are a soverign country, not an empire builder at all. The primarily reason for invasion is for a direct direct to our soil and Iraq wasn't that threat. In fact, many American troops have tortured citizens. Now, Iraq is far from being liberated like inside America we have illlegal laws all over the place. If we in America have anti-civil liberty laws, how can we truly liberate Iraq completely. It's apparent that we imposed a new government there. http://www.prisonplanet.com/archive_iraq_aftermath.html#myth is a link proving the falsehood of true Iraqi liberation. 3) To (hopefully) stabilize the heart of the mideast with a Democratic Form of Government. The worst mistake that The USA could make is to withdraw our Military from Iraq. This will result in a violent civil war led by Al Qaeda terrorists and possibly bring OSAMA BIN LADEN to power in Iraq as the new leader. Listen to my new Interview on DoomsDay Talk radio on how Bin Laden may emerge as the new leader of Iraq and trigger an Economic Collapse in the USA, using Oil as the new weapon of terrorism. Pastor Harry/Church of Philadelphia-Internet www.satansrapture.com Response: The Middle Eastern region is not fully stabilize after the War. To be honest with you, the Middle East didn't get more violent or less violent in my mind. It remained the same, except with the insurgent terrorizing American G.I.s and Iraq becoming a honest nest of terrorism. As for a democratic government, we aren't a democracy. We are a Republic with elected officials. A democracy is

mob rule with the majority ruling all of the voting situation. A democracy leads to chaos, but a Republic is for the political stability and governmental fairness inside this country. Obviously, the Founding Fathers condemned the proposition to create a democracy as the basis for our form of government. I hope Iraq becomes a Republic without illegal interventions by foreign nations. Many people to oppose the war, don't believe in an immediate withdraw of troops. I do believe in an eventual withdraw with steps and a time table. We will have to withdraq our troops someday since that's the nature of most wars. That's common sense. Al-Qaeda is nothing more than a military industrial complex creation as said by Alex Jones and numerous other individuals. Al-Qaeda was funded by the CIA for decades. Osama might be dead and in this "war" on terror, there has always been an exaggeration of terror threats to America. Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were assisted by the CIA for decades. Saddam worked with the CIA as early as 1959, so Harry's scenario is faulty. There is a threat of civil war with or without our troops in Iraq like the Constitution controversy and the Sunnis refusing to adhere to the proposal. I have faith in God and I don't embrace fearmongering or illegal, immoral wars like Iraq with our G.I.s and civilians killed, D.U. poisoning, and other negative activities. Pastor Harry's link of his blog is at http://www.satansrapture.blogspot.com/ By Timothy ________________

Note by Me: I was born ready for this and I've haven't debated a Muslim in a while so I may appear rusty, but you will get the point in this exchange.

A Muslim wrote:

Waste of your time primarly, and mine secondarly. Let me ask you a question, If to be able to go to heaven, you have to believe in Jesus Christ, yet what about all the people who lived before Jesus, is God that Unmerciful to throw them in Hell...Including Abraham, and all the other prophets who didnt believe in Jesus cuz he wasnt born yet, ohh so these prophets knew Jesus personnally and he told them to tell their people to believe in Jesus, not God?!?! Response: I don’t waste my time investigating important issues of the day. Those who lived before Jesus had the early leaders and prophets to help people receive God. Abraham lived before the arrival of Jesus Christ in the flesh on Earth. The plan of God allowed those to follow God’s Law to go to heaven in the Old Covenant. That's why they didn't adhered to the Messiah yet. Many of the prophets didn’t realize of Christ, but some did like Isaiah who directly called the Messiah Mighty God (Jesus Christ). God’s plan was to allow his Son to arrive at a later certain point in history.

A Muslim wrote:

Wow since when did the Son become more praise worthy than the father. Simply too patriarichal. And plus If its Jesus's Job to save, what does God do? Does God actually make other people do the job for him?! I am sorry but your weakenning your God's capability, My God is Allah. Which is not a moon God as you stated but an unseen God who tests us by not appearing in the minimal capabilities of our mind and i can tell yours is much less than the rest of us. Before you attack a religion, go attack your own, or else someone else will. Oh yeah dont you know your own history?! The Christians were the ones considered Untolerant. Went to spain and slaughtered and butchered Jew and Muslims who lived in an Islamic state tolerant of the other two religions? Response: I’ve never said of giving more praise to the Son than the Father. The Son is to be given equal praise and respect as to the Father. The Bible is patriachial and if you don’t like take it up with the Bible. Jesus is God and God does saves. God Father sent forth the plan, the Son suffered on the cross and gave his life to save souls, and the Holy Spirit inspires, teaches, and helps people to walk with God in a powerful way. That’s the connection. God gives man free will and God can work miracles, but God isn’t stupid. He realizes that it’s a person’s responsibility to help himself to receive aid from God. I’m not weakening God’s capability, but God isn’t a slot machine, but a intelligent being who we need him to succed. We will have to do some of our moves in achieving that with asking God for help like always, but not relying on God as the supreme compromiser of sin or folly. In other words, we help ourselves, so God can help us. Allah is your god. Allah isn’t the moon god, but the solar god of ancient times. http://www.blessedquietness.com/ALHAJ/page10.htm

and http://www.blessedquietness.com/ALHAJ/append-5.htm

proves that Allah existed before Islam was created for the solar diety not the moon god that many Christians believe. Allah doesn’t mean Almighty God and many experts proved that before. Here’s entomology: The Word Allah is divided into the 2 syllables Al and Ilah. Al means the in Arabic. Ilah doesn’t mean Almighty God in Arabic, but “the deity” which was utilized in pre-Islamic times by many Arabic tribes. Many scholars point out that Ilah (the deity) was utilized for a wide variety of deities:

“All said 'Allah', but each one had its own deity in mind. The expression 'the god' (al-ilah), which became the only usage, became the bridge to the concept of an identical god which all tribes had in common” (J.Wellhausen, p. 218) *Allah just originated from Mesopotamia and caught on by Muhammad to devise his religion of Islam: “We will now discuss the derivation process of the god's name from the beginning. We might have waited until the end for this revelation, but it seemed good to me to let you in on the plot so that you can follow the Hajj of Allah better. The root form of the name of the earth god in Sumer is found in Enlil, the primal god. If we drop the gender prefixes from Enlil and his consort Ninlil, we are left with the root, "LIL." This is reduced later in many cultures to "IL." (Some "scholars" have tried to say that IL is EL, but the root form of IL is LIL, so this notion just won't work. Of course these "scholars" have no respect for the Bible unless it supports their presuppositions.) The system of putting prefixes before the god names was used in the Hamatic cultures like Sumer . After the god / goddess moved on to Semitic cultures such as Assyria and Semitic Babylon, a suffix was attached after the "LIL" or "IL" root. The most startling coincidence to me, of ancient Sumerian god names concurrently inscribed in the same epigraphs with much more recent god names, is in an inscription in stone from Al-Ula in Northern Arabia , circa 500 BC, just 1000 years before Muhammad. In the same Semitic language dialect, and in the same time frame, are two other names of the gods- Mar-Allah, meaning Lord-god, and Adar'IL, a Sardonic contraction using the root form of the name for god from Sumer , LIL. This shows that the basic IL or LIL root form survived for 2500 years, appearing in both names in ancient and recent forms! In Jawf, in the same area and time frame, the feminine form for Allah is found commonly as in Ham'illat (ILAT is the goddess). Also, in inscriptions near oases, Allah and Allat (sometimes ILAT) appear with no descriptive attachments, either in appeals for help in travel, or as part of the signature of the suppliant (like Abdallah-- IL root in name!). What does this mean? This means that IL and Allah shared the reverence of the ancient Sumerians, circa 3000 BC, and the northern Arab tribes in 500 BC. Survival time-- 2500 years. (Winnett, F V, and Reed, W L, Ancient Records From North Arabia, Univ. of Toronto, 1970 [This is a key source for epigraphs.] pg. 79,126-127 / 245,253b. Winnett has done some of the best and most recent work in inscription interpretation.) *The Answering Islam site says this : “This is not a pretty sight to the Muslim reader because it clearly shows that Allah descended from the original pagan god, Enlil, after the tower of Babel . The reason we can be sure of the

connection between Babel (or Sumer) and Mecca is that Enlil, whose LIL root name would not go away, survived for 2500 years to be included in Northern Arabia in the Kaaba.” “Muhammad cleansed the Kaaba of 360 pagan idols and gods, but he retained the resident god of choice, Al-ILAH, or Allah. If he was extending the heritage of EL or Elohim into the world, as he claimed he was, then why didn't Muhammad use one of the clearly biblical names extant in the Bible AND right there in Arabia ? In fact, Allah and Elohim are mutually exclusive, so Allah is a pagan counterfeit.” (Van Netton, Steve, Allah Divine or Demonic, pg. 113-14, 1998) “The Quraysh ADOPTED ALLAH AS BAAL, and added the goddesses to his cult the same way as Baal had three daughters in the Fertile Crescent . They venerated him and his three female companions in his new House, the Kaaba at Mecca .” (Bergsson, Snorri G., Goddesses and Wica worship,'Neopaganism at its most deceptive form, Islam and Goddess Worship Chpt. IV, pg. 15, 1998-2000) I dissent with a false religion and every man has a right to disagree with other religions if there is falsehood in it. I’m a man so I won’t back down on this issue. I know my history of my race, of America , and other things very well, so I don’t need lectures about history. Intolerance of evil, sin, and hate is good and biblical. I’m intolerant of sin, hate, vengeance and anti-God concepts and I like that indeed. Catholics not Christians murdered Jews and Muslims in the Spanish Inquistion and that isn’t justified. Muslims attacked all of North Africa stealing their land (millions of square miles) in the Middle Ages. Also, Muslims are trying to kill my people off in Sudan . 2 million dead in 20 years!!!!!!!!! What kind of stuff is that and you’re lecturing me about history. Islam also enslaved blacks for centuries and still do so unto this day which isn’t justified now. Saudi Arabia is an Islamic state now and they practice in religious intolerance by jailing or killing religious dissidents.

A Muslim wrote:

And dont you know that the western part of Rome was the worst place to be in the Middle ages? Where Christianity was established? By force.What kind of tolerance is that. And that they converted or killed whoever opposed the idea of praying to Saints for forgivness (again giving people God's responsablitity) And having priests forgive you during confession...Hey i thought it was Jesus that forgives, I guess Jesus gives his Job to other people as well...well like father like son.Oh and How would mohammed have known how an embryo looks like in a mother's womb looked like. Or that theres seven skies I.E Stratosphere..theres actually 7. Or the revival of Rome during the renaissance period. All written in the Quran. Does your bible have that?! Anyways see you in heaven.

Response: During the Middle Ages, Western Europe had trouble, but the Bible Believing Celts and Irishmen like Columbanus and St. Patrick tried to spread the Bible into Europe to assist European ignorance of God and truth. Christianity was never shown by force. The Koran explicitly has violent references and as little as decades after Muhammad’s death, Islam spread by force and killed thousands of people to convert to their false religion. This isn’t tolerance. Real Christianity suffered death by the Roman Empire decades after Christ's resurrection and ascension into heaven. Fake Christianity spread by force since forced conversion and violence is forbidden in God’s Word. All of this killing and praying to saints for forgiveness refers to the Papal religion not real Biblical Fundamental Christianity. There is no proof of the NT of having priests to forgive all my sins with confession so this is a tactic to falsely equate Romanism with Christianity which isn’t the case at all. Jesus does forgives alone and I’m no Papist so I reject forgiveness by priests. All believers are priests as set forth in the NT. Muhammad realizing of an embryo, 7 heavens, etc. have nothing to do with the conversion issue at all. The Quran has tons of errors while the Bible doesn’t (There are resources

that answer every supposed contradiction in the Bible).

A Muslim wrote:

The truth is with God right? But your scripture are corruped and you cant proove otherwise. And so right now your following some priest who decided to change the bible to conform to his patriarchal needs. If you think this is non-sense. Take a history of Music course. They changed words around to conform to the celebration either easter or christmas. And if you saw Passion of the Christ, you would hear at a certain moment Jesus Uttering in aramaic "Ya Ilahi" Ilah is Allah in Arabic...Ilahi means MY...

Response: The truth is God and his Word right. The scriptures are never corrupted with the Magdean Papyrus (64 A.D.), all books of the NT done (100 A.D.), Syrian Peshitta (147 A.D.), Old Latin (150 A.D.), and other versions of the word recorded for 2,000 years. Homer's Illiad wasn't in written copies until

hundreds of years later yet the Bible had written copies in less than 3 decades after the ascension of Jesus Christ. If you want to call the Bible less than accurate, call nearly every ancient scripts from ancient Babylon , India , Persia , Africa , etc. inaccurate since they had the same procedures and higher delay of recording than the Bible has. Scholars finding almost of the NT in the words of the Church Elders and the Massoreth texts preserving the OT, makes the Bible one of a kind, unique, and infallible. I’m not Catholic so I don’t follow a priest and I don’t believe in changing God’s word to suit patriarchal needs since the Bible itself is basically patriarchal in terms of leadership. Islam is even patriarchal with Muhammad and his allies, so you need to take it up with Islam as well. There’s always a possibility of change, but when the words over the centuries look accurate, then I don’t doubt it. The Koran had no at the fact preservation in decades, but its first written copies existed in at a mininum of 200 years after Muhammad’s death. We have copies of the NT as early as 64 AD. And have the Dead Sea Scrolls containing tons of the OT with the Massoretic texts housing the OT equating Biblical preservation so I’m not worried at all. Easter and Christmas are pagan holidays and many Christians refuse to celebrate them like Baptists and independent groups so it’s no consequence toward me at all. The Passion is a Satanic movie with addition to the Bible, pagan scenes, occult actions, and deception so forget the movie. Allah refers to the solar god and even if Cavaziel said Ilah, it’s still inaccurate by the other parts of him saying chalice which never appears in the Bible. Muhammad was someone who: a). added to the New covenant when Christ at the cross instituted it with any addition from further “prophets.” b). Has violent fruit by many Muslims invading sovereign countries to illegally retrieve land in North Africa and other regions as a matter of decades after Muhammad’s death. C). Provide a set of beliefs that contradict the Bible and even the Quran in several instances that I’ve pointed out. Many include that Abraham lived in the valley of Mecca (Sura 14:37). The Bible says he lived in Hebron . Pharoh's wife adopted Moses (Sura 28:8, 9). Bible says it was Pharoh's daughter. Surah 11:44 says that Noah’s Ark rested on Mount Judi when it landed on Mount Arafat in Armenia . Surah 6:74 calls Abraham’s father Azar when the Bible says that it was Terah. Surah 37:100-112 says that Abarham was about to sacrifice Ishmael when the Word of God clearly states that Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac. These simple examples of the numerous distortions of the truth by Islam therefore the Quran is less than perfect when the Bible have thousands of copies and preserved for 1,000s of years. As for women and Islam, much of the Koran does grant woman some equality with men, but a man can beat a wife while the woman can’t do the same (Surah 4:34), a man can have up to 4 wives while a woman can’t have up to 4 husbands (Surah 4:3), and in inheritance (Surah 4:11). Islam is a false religion.

www.answer-islam.org/ dianedew.com/islam.htm www.jesus-is-lord.com/islam.htm www.jesus-is-lord.com/islam2.htm are real sites with rational thought of dissenting with Islam. I hope you repent and leave Islam and convert to Jesus Christ. November 10, 2004 By Timothy __________________________________________________________

Answering Jaryla

Jaryla: What is it with you Americans and the Jews? Response: What's with us. Some of us Americans respect the Jewish's people contributions in history, science, religion, etc. We respect them unlike real anti-Semites in Europe. I'm just not going to hate Jewish people or Arabic people period. Jaryla: About 95% of people in the current land of Israel were of Arab origin until the state of Israel was formed. During the creation of the 'Israeli state', many native Palestinians were displaced and forced off their land. Now they remain under illegal occupation by Israel in the West Bank and Gaza following the 1967 conflict. In addition, Jewish settlements continue to be built in these areas and the Palestinian refugees have not been allowed to return home. How can people possibly pass off all this behaviour as the 'will of God'? Response: You actually believe that. Jewish people were in the land since Biblical days. The Greeks and the Romans stole the land thousands of years ago. Also, after the Disapora, there was always a permanent presence of Jewish people in the land from 701948 A.D. Many historians have proven this since the Yemeni, Sephradic, Ethoipic, and other Hebrew tribes communicated with the Arabic people during the 600's A.D. The Palestinians for the most part originated from Muslim Arabs migrated into the land at the 600's A.D. Jewish people and Arabic people were peacefully co-existing with each other. The land was further stolen by the Byzantium and Ottoman Empires. The British defeated the Ottoman Empire after WWI and caused the Mid East strife today.

Me and little brother personally blame the Brits since the Brits funded both radical Muslim and radical Jewish groups to try to kill each other. In fact, according to some scholars, if the Jews and Arabs were not infringed upon by the Brits, they would of made up their own solution easily. The land therefore belonged to the Jewish people for centuries before any massive immigration of Arabs in the land. I don't agree with displacement or oppression unto the Palestinians (done by Zionist extremists not holy Jewish people), but they weren't the first people there. Even the refugee situation isn't totally controlled by the Israelis, but by the U.N. The U.N. is also making the refugees stagnant in their own condition. People stole land for thousands of years. America is the perfect example of that. The Gaza Strip recently in 2005 have been given to the Palestinian leadership. Also, it is just for the Palestinians to recieve just compensation for their land taken from them, but that doesn't disregard the Jews presence in the land as well. Not to mention that Palestine was a term coined by the Romans in a bigoted guesture to restrict the Jews to inhabit Jerusalem. Palestine existed from the word Philistine as well, but the Palestinians aren't originated from the Philistines at all, but from the Arabic people. Jaryla: Terrorism is a problem which has to be dealt with, but you have to look at what fuels it, and the oppression of the Palestinian people certainly isn't helping. By continuing to exhibit a rabid pro-Israeli bias, America will become more and more isolated in the world and continue to fuel the hatred of the Arab people. Response: I think this "War on Terror" is a farce. Many of the Muslim international terrorism are funded or controlled by intelligence agencies and government. 9/11 being an inside job (i.e. controlled demolition, stand down by NORAD, goverment foreknowledge, training of "hijackers", some of the "hijackers being alive after 9/11, etc.) is admitted by more of the public. Real terrorism deal with abortion, political persecutions, religious persecutions, and other things. I never support any oppression against Palestinian people. Supporting that and being a real religious person is an oxymoron. Just like I don't support oppression against Jewish people as well. I think Real Americans should care less what the world thinks. We should care what God thinks and follow his will. I follow my Creator and we should treat all of our neighbors equally regardless of creed, color, or nationality. I don't believe in Israel's foreign interests superceding our own since Israel ought to handle their own business. I think the main problem is corrupt leadership among both sides. If real leadership existed among the Israelis and Palestinians, change will occur. Also, the average Jew or Arab in the Middle East doesn't want them to be scapegoated all of the time anyway. Low-level Jews and Arabs aren't to be blamed for this mess at all. Jaryla: In fact, you could almost call Israel the 51st state of America. Response: Israel is not the 51st state and Christians don't believe. Anti-Semites want Israel to not exist and I don't believe that as well. It may not be God's will to oppress Palestinians (That displacement was obviously wrong), but it is not God's will for us to curse Israel and claim that Jewish people are to be blamed for all problems in the

world. America and Europe have more evil, dirt, and sin than Israel will ever recieve. Like always, I don't consider you an anti-Semite at all. As for us American Christians, the Bible clearly states that Jesus was a Jew, salvation is of the Jews, Israel is the apple of God's eye, and God will have a New Jerusalem filled with both Jews and Gentiles. So, I believe that Israel should exist, I believe in no oppression of Arabs and Jews, and I don't accept dual loyalty as well. By Timothy ___________________________________________________

This person called himself “NewTestamentChristian,” but he’s far from one. Here are his words. I show his words, so this can be a template to refute racists like this person. Racism is evil and it’s satanic in my eyes, because to view a man as less than a man because of what he is definitely is like disrespecting God (since God created all human beings). This racist person is ignorant of history, political science, and archaeology completely. His words are the following: Your blowing hot air does not impress me, or God either. First, the Egyptians were NOT Black African/Negroe descendants of Canaan. They were descendants of Ham’s son Mizraim. To confirm this, go to Genesis 12:10. The word translated “Egypt” is ‘mitsrayim’. Then go to Genesis 10:6 which lists the sons of Ham. The word translated Mizraim IS THE SAME. The Egyptians were not Negroes! Second, all Hamites were not cursed. Only Canaanites! Not Egyptians, not the ancient Libyans, but Canaanites. Look at Genesis 9:25 to confirm this. Some will then say to me that ALL the Canaanites were wiped out. NO! Only those Canaanites who lived in the land called Canaan or Israel were wiped out. Read the list of Canaan’s sons in Genesis 10:15-18 and then read the list of Canaanites in the land of Israel in Deutoronomy 7:1 and 20:17. Now, I have three questions for those who still say all the Canaanites were wiped out. Where did the Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites, and Zemarites go? Is living in a small tract of land the same as being spread abroad? Why did ancient historians say that Black Africans cme from Canaan? Thirdly, you reveal your complete ignorance of ethnicity in calling the Jews Arabs. What? The Jews are Arabs now? Fourthly, their are, in spite of your desires to the contrary, pyramids IN OTHER PARTS of the world. Ever heard of the Mayans? Well, they were a Semitic/Asian group of people living in what is now Central America, and they built pyramids!!!! Furthermore, lest the “Zimbabwe” ruins be brought up, they have been proved to have great similarities to Hindu temples and are near gold mines, meaning Japhetic/Indo-European people from India colonized and mined Africa long ago, leavingh the only great ruins ever placed upon the part of Africa which is dominated by Blacks. Fifthly, the Asians invented the rocket, gunpowder, the magnet, paper, and built the Great Wall. The Europeans invented the telescope, electrical circuits, lights, cars, skyscrapers, radio, and nearly every great invention. The Black Africans have only become great because of us. Sixthly, the argument of the Not-so- “Orthodox” False Pagan Religion portraying their leaders of their wicked heretical Nicean Council means NOTHING! You met as well argue that Satan drew

those drawings and that proves a truth of God! All of your words prove only one thing to me, you are an ignorant, angry Black who hates the truth! I find that those who are told in the Bible to be in submission utterly detest it and rebel whenever possible. This applies to children in relation to their parents, to wives in relation to their husband, and to Negroes in relation to Europeans and Asians. The fact is, Blacks owe everything culturally, economically, technologically, religiously, and politically to Europeans and Asians. Without us you are a continent of ignorant, poverty-stricken, illiterate, war-torn, savage tribes. Without us, you have no concept of government beyond whoever kills the most is the leader, no concept of marriage, no concept of technology, no concept of reading and writing. No art. No literature. No peace. No stable monarchies. No God. No music. NOTHING! These are facts. The Black Africans are to be in subserviance to the sons of Japheth and Shem. Repent, World, of your resistance to God’s principles and order at every turn.

My Response: Now, it’s time for me to respond. NewTestamentChristian, you really don’t impress me with your lies and half truths. Let’s have a real response shall we. Now, many of the Egyptians are black as this is evident on archaeological images and works from classical historians. Black/African people aren’t descendants from Canaan, which is a lie. Canaan biblically speaking descend the Phoenicians, Canaanites, etc. They are Hamitic, but speak with a Semitic tongue. Sub-Saharan Africans are not descended from the Phoenicians. The Arkites,

Sinites, Arvadites, and Zemarites either died off or became integrated with the Arabic populations in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Mizraim relates to Egypt as found in Genesis 12:10 as you say. These are the sons of Ham, yet they aren’t curse regardless of what Eric says except Canaan. Now, biblically speaking black Africans are descendants of Cush and Phut plus Mizraim. Also, most historians say that Black Africans came from Ham (in his other sons) not from Canaan. Canaanites were heavily wiped out, yet the New Testament ends the curse of the Law, so that old curse doesn’t apply today in 2010. Jewish people aren’t Arabic people, but both are related. They are Semitic ethnically and linguistically. Many ancient Europeans copied cultures from Africa to develop their governmental/religious system. That’s a fact. Ausar-Khepera is right on that point. There are other great civilizations like the Mayans and others. NewTestamentChristian, you are arrogant in trying to mock someone’s intellect just because they are black. Let it be know, that tons of blacks have strong intelligence with a resilient spirit to overcome grave challenges in the society the world over. Zimbabwe even by mainstream historians are proven to be an advanced civilization mostly inhabited by black Africans. There advanced buildings were created by black African peoples. I will never ever let racists and liars deny the great contributions of black people in human history. You cite inventions from other people and that’s fine. Yet, you ignore the complex contributions of black Africans in ancient times. The Songhai Empire (which existed in AD 11th-17th) was an Empire larger than Mali that was renowned for its scholarly culture and complex government. One person said of it that: "(Surpassed) all other Negroes in wit, civility, and industry." -Leo Africanuas, who was16th Century Spanish Moor Now, There was the Meriotic alphabet found in Nubia. This script was formed during the Napatan Period in ca. 700-300 B.C. It was deciphered in modern times by British Egyptologist Francis Llewellyn Griffith in 1909. The Meriotic language have yet to be

translated completely. There were 23 letters in the Meroitic alphabet, including four vowels. There are tons of ancient architecture in Africa like the Temple in Aksum Kingdom in Ethiopia. The Tichitt Walata is found in ancient Ghana. It’s an ancient architectural location. It was built by the Soninke people and is thought to be the precursor of the Ghana empire. It was being settled around 2000 B.C. One finds well laid out streets and fortified compounds all made out of skilled stone masonry. In all, there were 500 settlements. The famous University in Timbuktu exist and the Great Mosque of Djenne in Mali. It was constructed in the 1200’s. It was reconstructed in 1906 to 1909 to be the largest clay building in the world today. Berki, writing in 1067 about the City of Aoudaghast in Ghana recorded that it is, "A very large city with several markets, many date palms and henna trees as big as olives, filled with fine houses and solid buildings." Ashanti architecture was especially famous in the world as well. So, complex architecture and inventions definitely existed all over Africa in ancient times and today in the 21st century. Even scholars acknowledged the great architecture of sub-Saharan Africa. The person who talked about Haiti and Katrina obviously don’t realize that Haiti was colonized illegally for centuries, Haiti was exploited by unfair loans made by the IMF plus others, illegal occupation came against Haiti by American forces during the early 20th century, and now we are witnessing a military occupation of the nation. Haiti experienced a more complex history than is being witnessed by the mainstream media. As for Katrina, people have been exploited and problems exists there beyond ethnicity (not to mention that FEMA have been exposed as causing corruption over there). There are problems in the black community. No one denies that, yet instead of whining about it in stereotypical terms, people should fight these problems head on. It’s easy to stereotype and scapegoat a whole race of people in an evil fashion. Yet, this isn’t the way I would go in how to conduct my life at all. Blacks should owe nothing to Europeans and Asians technologically, economically, religiously, etc. Blacks owe everything to God alone for it’s God that gave all humans life and inspiration to build up the civilization of mankind. With faith in God, blacks left alone can easily create a massive, stabilizing influence in the world stage of trade, technology, real science, and political development. All things are possible through Christ. Black people have always been great in terms of their history for thousands of years. Black people made technology, science, astronomy, literature, a written language (like the Meriotic script), and other tools of civilization for thousands of years indeed. It takes a human being to realize that all of humanity have value, all humans are born equal (this isn’t related to communism regardless of Eric says since Communism is about forcing people to have equal property rights. Equality isn’t done by force. It’s something your born with by the hand of God), and all believers in Jesus Christ are one. No man should be subservient to no man except to God. You need to repent for embracing bigotry against your fellow human beings. See, I respect the real people who any race including black people who are teachers, scientists, lawyers, athletes, musicians, scholars, blue collar job workers, and others who are making a real difference in the communities of the world. Don’t get it misconstrued. I still disagree with Secret Societies, the Jesuits, etc. Yet, I won’t let my opposition to them to scapegoat a whole group of people. This isn’t over since I will defend the dynamic nature and unique value of all human beings of all backgrounds forever. I thank God that people like me are around to set the record straight on this issue. By Timothy

___________________________________________

This is my debate with neo cons on racial issues:

DanInBranson wrote: You are trying to be facecious. You knew exactally what I meant. But nice try at trying to spin it away. I love being sarcastic. That's my job. Now, people like us know what people like you mean you display that propaganda. Instinctively, you want everything in history (especially negative events enacted against people of color) to be a mirage and let everyone forget their identity or real historical events. Sorry, I don't live in that world. Legitimate solutions are needed to make a more tranquil society are necessary. Although, people have a right to expose the legitimate parts of American history and the dirt. You're only lying to yourself if you desire black people to get over it. You wouldn't say that to the Jews in relation to the Holocaust or other ethnicities. See, when blacks expose slavery, they are not collectively blaming your race (or white people) in the present for it. They are reminding themselves of their past experiences, so black people can thrive to make more accomplishments in the present and the future. No, I won't get over a single event that my ancestors suffered by imperialists. I will allow the past to not make be paranoid about racial issues, but not make me naive about them either. Learning about black slavery is legitimate to give black people a fuller understanding of their struggles and it reminds them that they can overcome many challenging circumstances. It's not about hating the white man. It's about realizing the past in order to create a better future.

DanInBranson wrote: You know absolutely nothing about me or my beliefs. Simple fact is people today use something that they were never apart of to get their way. Won't happen with me anymore, nor with my Black wife (She wont let me use Af-Am since she considers herself to be just an American). She rose above all the rhetoric to become a succesful person and didn't let what happened 150 years ago hold her back. In other words, she made no excuses. I know some of your beliefs that you show in this forum. People use something that they are not apart of? That's cop out since the struggle of my ancestors are apart of me. That's my blood period. You can't tell me what I'm apart of or not. Your wife can consider herself an American if she wants. You have the right to marry a Black woman if you want. No real man has an issue with that. It's a free country. Eat apple pie, worship the Founding Fathers in America, and you can embrace jingoistic stuff. As for me, I'm an African who lives in America. I have the First Amendment right to consider myself whatever I wish to. See, free speech cuts both ways. Don't you love it. Oh, so ignoring history is your forte. It isn't my forte. You can never forget what you came from or what your ancestors experienced and you can still rise above rhetoric. 150 years my foot. Slavery still exist worldwide against my race (in Africa and other people in Europe, Asia, etc.), so don't give me that stuff. Learning the

truth and being reminded of what's real history isn't holding people back. Your ilk just want our people especially to keep living some colorblind, fantasy land. No, I'm not bowing down to historical revisionism. I'm going to live and embrace my racial identity and say it from the rooftops without any regrets. I have no regrets. Also, your ilk loves to say no excuses. Say that to people who suffered IMF injustices in the Third world. Say that to innocent victims of police brutality worldwide. Tell that to the victims of the corporate BP disaster. Tell that to people who lost of their homes of many ethnicities under corrupt circumstances. So, there is really no excuses for Wall Street pirates. There is no excuses for the super rich elite. No excuses is a tactics by reactionaries to promote their austerity agenda. They forgot that life is complex and not everyone will go through the same experiences. There shouldn't be idleness, but helping the poor and the disadvantaged isn't apart of some agenda to create a stagnant society. It's about the representation of promoting compassion in the world.

________________________________________

Here's another debate on the issue of abortion: Tommy D. Kuzdas : Gee Wiz, maybe Milinda Gates believes that women, just like men, have the right to decide their own destinys. Maybe she believes that WOMEN, not the state, not the church, have the right to decide for themselves when they will have children. Oh my god, what an incredible concept! Women are human beings, not slaves, not incubators, which by the way is what you seek to make them. Response: I have to response about this issue. Any rational human being believes that a woman has a right to fulfill their own destiny. This pro-abort propaganda is getting old Tommy. No one is even supporting to restrict women on when they have children. We want no murder of unborn children. There's a difference. Always, why don't you guys discuss the possible hardcore side effects like depression and sterility that can come as a result of abortion, the new evidence of the personhood of the unborn by 3-D ultrasound devices, many mainstream scientists calling life as beginning in conception, and Margaret Sanger's meeting with the KKK in 1926 plus her Plan of Peace proposal calling for the segregation of what she calls the "unfit." We Pro-Lifers don't deny women their humanity. We love women, but you deny the unborn their humanity. I find it hypocritical when you support the women, but want unborn babies to be killed. Shedding innocent blood is morally wrong for me. Also, laws exist restricting obsence human behavior, so just because we are restricted on what we do to our bodies, doesn't mean that we want women to be placed as second class citizens. Citizenship to the unborn is just. Abortion is a violation of the Constitution being cruel and unusual punishment and it's murder without the due process of law. We Pro-Lifers will fight and I'm not intimidated, because stats, history, and facts are on our side.

By Timothy __________________________________________

*This debate is cordial and interesting. This is what many in Freemasonry believe in. His words are found here. Masonic Traveler: Thanks for the reply back. I very much enjoy the spirited debate and analysis, with someone as convicted as yourself. You are absolutely right, it is a free country, and as such, all opinions are valid, as are all faiths. Response: It took me a while to make my response. I enjoy debates as well. I’ve debated many Freemasons before. I’m smarter and more intelligent now than I’ve been then. Well, we both agree that it’s a free country and I have a right to disagree with you and you have a right to be deceived and join Freemasonry. All opinions aren’t necessary all valid. For example, if I had the opinion that killing an innocent person is justm, that is an invalid opinion since innocent life deserves not death. There are universal truths found in many opinions though. Do you believe that all faiths are valid? If that is true, then you are wrong. Many faiths have extreme and illogical beliefs like pagans assigning divine qualities to nature or people worshipping a cow. Masonic Traveler: First to presume your righteousness over someone else’s is wrong. Because you are of the opinion that God is on your side, and your interpretation of the bible is factual and correct is a huge presumption. What makes you right, but you think God told you so? How did he tell you, through messages in the scriptures that only you and a few others could decipher? Why didn't he tell it to everyone? Why just you? Response: I never presume that I have righteousness over anyone else. I did say that there are absolutes in the world and not all religions are valid. Well, do you know how God is on our side? It’s by if our agenda is in accordance to the word of God. Again, you talk about the interpretation of the Bible. The fact is that tons of parts of the Bible don’t need elaborate interpretations. Tons of passages of the Bible are easy to understand like fornication being wrong (I Corinthians 6:9-11), God created man in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), and other concepts. This isn’t hard to know. You don’t need to have a college degree to understand the Bible at all. The next part of your words is silly. The Bible says perfectly that it gives human beings instruction so man can be approved of. The Bible in the New Testament has almost 25,000 copies and is the most preserved ancient document in human history. It is confirmed by science and many archaeological discovers. It set much of the moral course of America.

Masonic Traveler: Swearing death oaths is not taking the lords name in vain. There is no vanity in it, no spiritual gain to it. It is an act of solemnity that is a personal choice. Again, who are you to say that it is wrong, because the way you believe, you feel, is the way everyone should believe? Sounds fascist. Response: Swearing death oath is taking the Lord’s name in vain. God never called people to kill other human beings if you violate the Masonic oath (even if it’s not literal, but solely symbolic). First, you know the Bible says not to kill and second Christ said these words: “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Matthew 5: 33-37) You call killing people if you violate an oath solemn. If that’s your version of solemnity, then I feel sorry for you. It is wrong. You seem to have a problem with moral absolutes. Again, death oaths are wrong, because it is wrong to threaten death against innocent human life. It is wrong, because the oath falsely won’t call the Light the Light of Jesus Christ, but a Masonic Light. It is not fascist to show my opinion. It isn’t fascist to warn people. I’m not a fascist. If you want to understand real fascism, look at Waco where the government and foreign troops killed men, women, and children in violation of Posse Comitatus. See the Chinese using executed body parts for cosmetic products. You need to look at the crisis in Dhafur. That's real fascism. Many Christians and religious folks assign wrong doing all of the time and this is normal. Masonic Traveler: The all Seeing Eye is a relatively recent addition to Freemasonry, added sometime in the last 150 years or so. It is more representative of the concept of an all seeing God rather than a pagan symbol. Same as the pentagram. Though these symbols have been devices of Freemasonry for many years, they are recent additions. Much of the symbology of Freemasonry spawned from the Victorian age as members tried to give symbolic meaning to the ideas of the fraternity. You mention that Washington DC has man of "those symbols", but if you look closely, those symbols evolved over time through all of Europe to be deposited eventually into the ideas of a "New Republic" that was started as America. The only occult meanings put into them are from the simple minded who need to see it.

Response: The All Seeing may be used by Freemasonry recently and I trust your information since you’re a Mason yourself. On the other hand, even you know that the All Seeing Eye was utilized by ancient Egypt to represent the sun god Horus. This was why Moses and the Israelites rejected Egyptian paganism since they assign divine characteristics to mere creations of God. The All Seeing Eye originally was a pagan symbol along with the Pentagram. The All Seeing Eye of God isn’t the eye of God since God was never referred as a single eye, neither a single eye inside a triangle from the Holy Scriptures. Many New Agers use the Single Eye in their precepts. Sources like John Daniel’s Scarlet and the Beast, 33rd Degree Scottish Rite Freemason Albert Pike, Thomas Milton Stewart’s “The Symbolism of the Gods of the Egyptians and the Light They Throw on Freemasonry” prove that the All Seeing Eye is from the Ancient Mystery Religions meaning the Eye of Horus. As for the Victorian Age, I take your word from it, but many of Masonic symbols originated from the Ancient Mysteries also. Even Masons admit to that. D.C. does have those symbols of a Pentagram, Compass, etc. That’s admitted, so it isn’t a fantasy. The Inverted Pentagram has blatant roots to the occult. The Pentagram was used by the Babylonian, Greeks, and other civilizations for thousands of years. D.C. also has the Washington Monument representing the sun god and other images

from

pagan

religions.

Masonic Traveler: The intolerance is in passing judgment, which in this case is your calling something evil and sinful. Because YOU think it is. I would question you further; do you think Jews are evil because they don't believe Christ is the Messiah? Do you think Muslims are evil for praying to Allah, and not believing what you do? That's where the intolerance comes from. It is intolerant to call someone evil for his or her faith, what ever it may be. To say they are wrong and going to hell for it is NARROW MINDED. You can dissent with other faiths, but to call them wrong, only shows your intolerance. You do have a First amendment Right to spew what your faith is, but to insist that others adhere to it, or your version of God will send them to Hell is intolerant. It's casting judgment, of which I'm sure you have half dozen scriptures on, but it's still imposing a matter of faith onto someone else. How this ties back to Freemasonry is that it accepts men of all faiths, all acknowledging God through their own faiths. Response: I see that you still have the distorted definition of intolerance. Intolerance is hatred of someone because they have differences. I don't hate anyone because they are different. I hate evil and sin alone. I’m sorry, but calling certain things evil and sinful is normal for us humans. For example, I call abortion evil. I call murder evil. I call theft and cheating evil as well. If you don't like that, then you're misguided. As for judgment, judgment isn’t as monolith as you believe it to be. I can judge righteous judgment as Christ said in John 7:24. Judging corruption as evil is normal and justified as well. The concept of judging and judgment is not a monolith. Of course, we can’t judge every minute detail in life, but we are to hate evil. That’s common sense. I believe any Jewish person is evil when they involved themselves in any illegal or morally corrupt activity. If they don’t believe in the Messiah or Muslim pray to Allah, they are deluded people. I have a right to believe in this. I never called anyone evil because of their faith. I call people wrong when they follow a false faith, there’s a difference. People have a right to call people faiths as wrong. Where did you get dissent as intolerance? Also, never do I condone forcing people to follow what I believe in. I never accept forced conversion at all. The bible is rather clear on Hell, regardless of your compromise on it. If you don’t accept the Word of God on Hell, then you can move on. I know what Freemasonry believes. Freemasonry is Universalism and you admitted to this by accepting men of all faiths and claiming that all men can go to heaven if they peacefully follow certain monotheistic religions. Masonic Traveler: Obviously, this aspect is beyond you. You look only to the bible as a true and unaltered text of God's word, scribed by men of divine sanction. Bu how do you know that? What makes that true? Do you just believe that? Is it faith alone? What about before there was a finished bible, what did Christians have to go on then? Response: I knew you would question the inspiration of the Word of God. My aspect of disagreeing with false religions is within me friend. I’m just a guy who’s not into the Universialist/One World Religion crowd. I look to the Bible as the word of God that’s accurately translated spanning thousands of years. I know it’s the word of God and true for tons of reasons. Let’s look at some facts shall we. I don’t talk about the OT much, because even the skeptics admit that the Massoretic texts involving the OT are very accurate. The New Testament is the most documented ancient source in history with about 24,600 copies (as proven by Let Us Reason Ministries). Scholars find that there is 99.99% free of significant variance in the NT. This was admitted by the great Greek scholar A.T. Robertson. Ancient documents like the Iliad and Homer have hundreds of years before their first copy is found. The NT Bible has its first copy found in about 64 A.D. with the Magdelean Papyrus, which is less than 35 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Sir David Dalrymple says that all of the early church writings have every quote from the OT except 11 verses. So, yes, I’m very comfortable in believing the accuracy of the word of God. Christians used the OT

before the NT was created. The Old Testament was created in that time as you know. The NT was developed by consensus among the early Church and NT Bible were formed as early as 147 A.D. with the Peshitta. 157 AD. The Old Latin Vulgate (Old Itala) was created. From 185-220 AD, Origen, born in Alexandria mentions all of the Books of the OT and NT. He makes over 18,000 citations.-250 AD was when the Sadhidic version was created from Upper Egypt. I have faith in God. I trust the Bible because of its accuracy, none controversial on its origin, thousands of copies, accurate archaelogical and scientific information, and other reasons. People died, so we can read it and I will not diminish the courage of men who preserved it like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Coverdale, and others. That's real. Masonic Traveler: As some have written about Freemasonry as a religion, in many aspects they are correct. Freemasonry is an institution governed by faith of its members, but that faith is not the basis for their meeting. Neither is the focus prayer to a deity. The prayers in lodge are ceremonial but still solemn and true. They stand to recognize God through a universal prayer or recognition. If you want to use the idea that because prolific writers of Freemasonry set the tone, could I not use that premise to say that Christianities prolific speakers and preachers stand to represent the Christian ethos? So then, Pat Roberts is professing the true nature of Christ in wanting to Assassinate foreign dignitaries, and Catholic priests stand to represent all Christians as pedophiles? Because some people write or do something does not make them the ultimate spokesman for a group. How many religious leaders stood to defend segregation and racism? Were they right in their Christian values? Did they truly speak for God? Response: I’m glad you admit to some religious aspects of Freemasonry. No Freemason that I’ve debated admitted to this at all. Freemason may not focus a prayer to a deity, but one of its requirements is to believe in a deity. Masonry having altar, prayers, the requirement to believe in one God, an universalistic attitude toward monotheistic religions, and other facts do denote Freemasonry as a Srythentic Religion. It's interesting to note that 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Mackey admitted that Freemasonry is a Religion. Mackey wrote that: "...But the religion of Freemasonry is not sectarian It admits men of every creed within its hospitable bosom, rejecting none and approving none for his peculiar faith. It is not Judaism, though there is nothing in it to offend a Jew; it is not Christianity, but there is nothing in it repugnant to the faith of a Christian. Its religion is that general one of nature and primitive revelation—handed down to us from some ancient and Patriarchal Priesthood—in which all men may agree and in which no men can differ..." You can believe in Universal prayer if you want. Again, you love to bash Christian by citing inaccuracies. That isn’t so intolerant Traveler. Ha ha ha ha !!!!!!! I thought you wanted me to be so tolerance friend. Well, let’s dig into facts shall we. Many Christian men, women, and children made great contributions in science, math, civil rights, history, etc. You know this and if I’ve list many of them, it would last many pages. Many Christians are great speakers. Pat Robertson is wrong and just because a man profess to claim Christ’s teaching, doesn’t mean he is not immune from mistake. Pat made a mistake and he apologized for it. Pat is right about some moral issues though. Many Catholic priests are pedophiles and I don’t agree with Catholicism. That’s their business. You seem to forget the case of William Morgan. Morgan was a Mason, left, and he was a righteous man. He wrote a book exposing Freemasonry yet Masons killed them in following their death oath. This was in the case of Pat Robertson wherefore Pat violated the Word of God. Morgan’s death was in total accordance with the death oaths of Masonry. Charles Finney’s work validated the Masonic death of the heroic patriot William Morgan. That death was wrong. D. L. Moody is another man who disagreed with Freemasonry and was a strong Christian. Many Christians stood to fight against segregation and racism. You know this. John Quincy Adams stood up against racism and opposed slavery. Wilberforce in England stood up against segregation and slavery and England banned slavery on the part of his efforts. Many churches stood up against segregation in South. You’re forgetting something. Many Masonic Lodges for years segregated against blacks to come into the Scottish Rite. The Scottish Rite only accepts

blacks recently. Also, the Prince Hall Lodge was formed to disagree with the racism among many Scottish Rite members. Many Prince Hall Lodge people include Jesse Jackson, Collin Powell (33rd Degree), Scottie Pippen, Andrew Young, and Kweisi Mfume, and Julian Bond. The Prince Hall Lodge infiltrated many black churches. Even the B’nai B’rith lodge discriminates and only allows Jews to join it. That isn’t tolerance. Ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!!! You shouldn’t have brought up this issue. Many leaders of the segregationist movement were Masons in the 1960’s like Governors George Wallace of Alabama (he changed later in his life), Orval Forbus of Arkansas, and Ross Barnett of Mississippi. Strom Thummad and Robert Bryd are Masons and each once supported segregtion. Bryd used to be a Klansman. Activities by Pat were wrong and it violated the Word of God, since they don’t speak for God in that instance. It’s as simple as that. Many Christians are fighting for truth like Cutting Edge Ministries, Liberty to Captives Ministries and other conservative Christians. We don't agree with Bush's agenda plus we stand up for our beliefs. Also, you cite nothing on many Christians opposing evil with great character. http://www.cuttingedge.org/fmcorner.html is a link that can help you demit from Masonry. I hope you leave. Masonic Traveler: The last point I want to make is on symbolism. You mentioned the obelisks, and pentagrams, and I spoke of them earlier, but reversing the table do you celebrate Christmas with a Christmas tree and presents? Why, there is nothing in the bible that says Christ was born under an evergreen. Do you or children you know hunt for Easter eggs? More paganism in society I suppose you would say. Lastly, did Christ say to worship me though the form of an unequal cross? More symbolism, but from my recollection, Christ never said anything about worshiping him through the symbol. Symbols abound and when TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT can easily be misconstrued and interpreted. Response: I used to celebrate Christmas. Now, I reject it as pagan filth. I already know about Christmas and I reject Easter. I do believe in celebrating the resurrection of Christ. Just because paganism exists in society, doesn’t mean we are to accept it. Just like crimes exist all across the whole, doesn’t mean we are to participate in it. Also, I don’t wear a cross. I don’t worship through a symbol or image at all. Symbols exists, but not all symbols denote positive attributes. Symbols are to represent another thing, but I don't obsess over them constantly or worship them. Masonic Traveler: I’m curious to hear your thoughts.

Response: These are my thoughts backed up by history. It’s kind of ironic that you try to mock the concept of a “new world order” and “one world government” yet people like George H. W. Bush, Paul Warburg, Gorbachev, and others talked and supported a new world order or one world government for many decades. That's very real and it isn't fiction. Even Henry Kissinger recently promoted a New World Order in response to Bush’s visit to India. The New World Order is not a myth at all. Bush is pushing for the Pan American Union merging our economies and political structures with Mexico and Canada. I do respect Charlie Sheen questioning the offical story of 9/11 as well. I'm moving forward and exposing torture, exposing evil, disagreeing with execessive federal power, and standing up for our civil liberties. Freemasonry is just contrary to Biblical Christianity on so many levels. By Timothy ___________________________________

Here's my Response to a Person who is a skeptic:

From http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=41369.0

The skeptic: What the poster of that video clearly doesn't understand (and apparently neither did the person being interviewed, or at least not coherently) is that the very NAME Lucifer MEANS "bringer of light", and is analogous to Prometheus, who gave to humanity the gift of fire, without which humanity would never have arisen from a savage state. A Response: I do understand what I posted and what I know about Lucifer. It's funny that this person makes a bunch of assumptions. It's interesting that this person is accurate to outline that Lucifer has pagan origins. Now, Lucifer means light bearer. It's not exactly equated to

Prometheus. Therefore, Lucifer has nothing to do with Prometheus as a person at all. As for the true light giver, it didn't came from a mythical false god like Prometheus. It's by the true God alone. It may be analogous, but Lucifer isn't Prometheus at all. What Lucifer actually was to pagan cultures like ancient Rome was the planet Venus. In the conversation, the Mason wasn't talking about Venus or Prometheus, but about the biblical Lucifer. The reason is that both men are having a religious discussion. The Mason claims to be a Christian. Now, Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 is blatantly given a negative connotation and criticized for its evil. Lucifer was falling into the nations was cited in Isaiah.

The skeptic: The problem with Christian Fundies is that they take things they don't understand out of context and twist it to fit a theology that has been corrupted by the forces of oppression. Instead of seeing the analogies between different faiths, they allow themselves to be deceived by the surface differences into regarding all other religions as false, rather than another piece of the ineffable and unknowable whole of the Creator.

My Response: For a person who claims to have tolerance, he makes potent stereotypes about people. Now, many conservative Christians know purely about Freemasonry and their dogma. They cite quotes from Freemasons all of the time. For example, Albert Pike is quoted as supporting telling lies into the Blue Lodge in order to deceive them. Here's Albert Pike's own words on this subject: "...Masonry, like all the religions, all Mysteries, Hermeticism, and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of it's symbols to mislead those who deserve to be mislead; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it. Truth is not for those who are unworthy or unable to receive it, or would pervert it. So God Himself incapacitates many men, by color-blindness, to distinguish colors, and leads the masses away from the highest Truth, giving them the power to attain only so much of it as it is profitable to them to know. Every age has had a religion suited to its capacity. The Teachers, even of Christianity, are, in general, the most ignorant of the true meaning of that which they teach. There is no book of which so little is known as the Bible. To most who read it, it is as incomprehensible as the Sohar*. So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters astray..."(Morals and Dogma Pages 104-105)

I have quotes of this. I have quotes of Freemasons admitting to seeking a new order in the world and the promotion of the Kabbala. Not, this isn't using out of context quotes or fitting a theology for a purposes. That's reality and facts. Corrupted?? The Bible has been preserved for thousands of years. One example is the Massoretic text and the Textus Receptors are respected sources. No one is blind to see differences of religious. Although, people have a

right to reject Ecumenicalism and an One world religious philosophies. In other words, there are moral absolutes and some religions are false. Scientology is false, Mormonism wasn't created by the apostles, and cults do exist. I hope this person doesn't agree that all monotheistic religions are fine. Also, learning differences is fine. To disregard differences and just compromise your belief system is just as silly as calling all religions as equivalent to each other. The Creator isn't divided into parts. The Creator is the whole Creator. He's God Almighty and he doesn't need false religions to validate himself at all.

Skeptic: Remember the parable of the elephant. Response: I hope you remember this video and the parables of Jesus Christ. Thanks for getting me apt. I'm apt to respond.

By Timothy ____________________________________

Hello Henry, I find all your articles extemely interesting..However, at the moment you are focussing on Jews. While undoubtedly they are at the top of the pyramid...and we know who they are, please do not over look the very capstone of that pyramid..the Black Pope -Hans Pieter Kolvenbach who has just resigned as Jesuit General (the first one ever to do so). Maybe too many people became aware of his power and he has slunk off into the shadows to carry on his dastardly work. This is the REAL power and the Jewish Bankers do HIS bidding. Read 'Vatican Assassins' by Eric John Phelps. -Sheila

---------Clifford Shack Replies: Henry, People just don't get SabbateanFrankism. This huge ongoing conspiracy that united Jew and crypto-Jew since 1666 controls our little blue-green planet. Controlling the Jesuits was a piece of cake. Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits was of Jewish descent. Loyola's lieutenant was of Jewish descent. The Jesuit leadership from the beginning was ripe for infiltration by the power-hungry Sabbateans. Who controls the Vatican Empire? Look to who can murder a pope (John Paul I)and get away with it.

The Cult via Freemasons overseeing Vatican policy. Read "In God's Name" for details. For God's sake, the Rothschilds restored the Pope to power after an uprising against the Vatican that they more than likely instigated. Jesuits power over the world. Okay. Forget for a moment that the Jesuits are SabbateanFrankist at the pinnacle of their power structure. How powerful would the Jesuits/Vatican be without money. That quantified illusionary energy that the Cult cranks out from thin air. Jesuit world power. Give me a break. Smell the Hoummas!

My Response to the Jewish baiter Cliff: My response is to Cliff who made his views known in downplaying the Jesuit influence in the new world order. Makow didn't write the previous comment. Cliff made so many false comments that I don't know where to begin. First, people know all about Sabbeatean frankism since I've studied this issue for years. They were apostate Jewish people that reject the Torah and wanted to destroy mainstream Judaism. There is no evidence that these Frankists ruled the planet in 1666. Continents and tons of civilizations existed in the 4 corners of the Earth without any Frankist or European influence in that time. The Jesuits also wasn't controlled by the Frankists since they didn't invented them. Ignatius Loyola was a Gentile as there has been no conclusive evidence of him being Jewish. Jesuit Francis Xavier desired to either convert to rid the world of Muslims and Jewish people. The Jesuit order banned officially Jewish people from being apart of their order from the late 1500's until 1946. Who controls the Vatican Empire? It's the Jesuits who control that Empire, because they The People who murdered Pope John I were the Frankists, but the Freemasons and the Jesuits who his aims of getting rid of the Masons in the Catholic Church plus investigating the activities of the Jesuits (reported by author David A. Yallop, Eric Jon Phelps, John Daniel, and others). Freemasonry doesn't oversee Vatican policy neither do the Frankists. Freemasonry existed from the ancient Mysteries created by Gentiles not Frankists. At least 2 Gentiles created modern Freemasonry in England called the Grand Lodge of England at 1717. The Frankists today are controlled by Freemasonry. The reason is that Freemasonry invented the modern arms of this pro-Frankist movement like the B'nai B'rith Lodge and members of the ADL. The Rothschilds didn't restore the Pope to power. Napoleon, the Jesuits and others help restore the Pope to power because that was after the previous Pope issued a bull banning the Jesuit order. Jesuits and the Vatican have power globally. Also, the Vatican have arms like the Knights of Malta, the Constantinian Order, Opus Dei, Knights of Columbus (like Jeb Bush and Cathy L. Lanier, who is part of Homeland Security), and others with international power stronger than Jewish people. The Vatican is the richest religious entity in the world. The Knights of Malta, The Pilgrims, and others combined have

more wealth than the Rothschilds. Also, the Rothschilds according to the Jewish encyclopedia is a funder for the Vatican Empire. The Vatican/Jesuit had tons of economic power before the Rothschilds came into big prominence in the 1800's. For example, they controlled most of Europe from the Middle Ages and beyond with their creation of the Knights Templar. Also, money based on nothing has no value. Paper money has little value. Material wealth (or wealth based in goods and services) are the true measures of power. The Vatican and the City of London have more of it than any religious or political entity on planet Earth. So Frankists power, give me a break. The Vatican also is working with the Saxe-Coburg Gotha bloodlines in charge of British Freemasonry (evidence on many the Grand Master Duke of Kent having Catholic relatives). As for the Federal Reserve, a lot of Jewish people are in it. That's true, yet many banks from different regions like NY mostly have non-Gentiles in it. In NY historically, many Jesuit trained or SMOMs have prominent roles in it. Texe almost seems to align Jews with mighty evil, but this isn't true. Even if someone is Jewish, that doesn't mean that someone is an enemy. Texe Marrs doesn't overtly say I hate Jews, but Texe does believe that the Jewish people rule the world alone. Texe Marrs is right that wicked Masonic Jews must be exposed, but the Vatican/Jesuits ought to be exposed as well. On occasion when he exposes the Vatican, he exposes Vatican 2 Catholicism. It's only now, when Texe is more keen on exposing pre-Vatican 2 Romanism. Texe talks about Communist, but he forgot that Engels taught Marx a lot of Communism. Communism itself originated from the Ancient Gentile Mystery Religions, Gentile Plato, Gentile Thomas More, Gentile Jesuits in the Communes of Paraguay all before Marx. He can talk about Bolsheviks, but it was the high level Freemasonry and the Vatican/Jesuits (like Hammer, Bishop Ropp, J. Peter Grace, and others) that rules that Revolution. Most of the original Bolsheviks were killed by Stalin (including Trotsky). Stalin by the 1950's wanting to exterminate Jewish people. He can talk about Masonry, but Masonry's obelisk, the all seeing eye, the 2 pillars, JAH-BUL-ON, phoenix, etc. have nothing to do with Torah Judaism or all Jewish people. It's the almost collective blaming of Jewish people that's why many disagree with Marrs. I don't believe Marrs is the biggest error guy in the world though. We ought to expose evil Frankists, but they are no where near the power of the Vatican today. Not mention that Cliff Stack omitted tons of Knights of Malta with great international power. SMOM Alexander Haig is a honorary Chair of COSCO. Knight of Malta Joseph Edward Schmitz (who is a leader of Black water), Knight of Malta Steven Saxton (the head of Hollywood International), Knight of Malta Geoffrey T. Boisi (used to be part of Goldman Sachs and a member of the Trilateral Commission), SMOM Edward L. Hennessy, Jr. (the AlliedSignal Inc. (now Honeywell), chairman and CEO), and others. The Supreme Court is mostly Roman Catholic. They talk about the NeoCons. Most of the PNAC Neo-cons are CFR Gentiles. Jesuit-trained Generals and other companies were crucial in the execution in the Iraq War. The neo-cons are mainly puppets of the CFR, who created many policy papers advocating this terror war. The literature of Avro Manhattan, Eric Jon Phelps, Jack Chick, and other confirm this information. Now, this isn't blaming all Catholics or Jewish people for all evils. It's the exposure of these Elite groups with inordinate power in the world. I respect Sheila's

bravery in exposing the truth about these things and Cliff is wrong on so many levels. By Timothy

___________________________________________________________________-

A pro-Masonry person: I am so disturbed that you are allowing the propagation of this type of junk. Masons are not satanic. Anyone who has ever seen a funeral service that they were involved with would know. If you have ever seen a Shriner (Shriner burn hospitals and Crippled children hospitals) you have seen a Mason. In order to be a Shriner, you MUST be a Mason. Before you pass on garbage, get facts straight. My Response: I knew a person like you would respond like that in half truths and lies. I've responded to Masons for almost 10 years in debates, so you are no exception. Masons are deceptive and Satanic by using lies on its lower deception. Many of them claim to accept godhood like Manly P. Hall and others. Masons have deaths oaths, praise false gods, and promote the new order of the ages. I have quote after quote backing up these words. A funeral service doesn't prove whether a group is legitimate or not. You know this. The mob can have a funeral. Freemasonry use aims to cover up their unbiblical doctrines. I don't show garbage on this issue. You show ad-hominem like usual. You pro-Masons are angry that the truth is coming out that Masons accept the occult and believe in swearing death oaths in their paganrelated rituals, which is anti-Christian. I've got my facts straight. You need to get your facts straight. You don't offer a refutation, but ad hominem attacks. As for me, I list fact after fact about some Masons praise Lucifer/Satan in a video, and other sources, how Masonry teaches lies in their Blue Lodge members, and how one Mason admits that Masonry isn't Christianity. Masons praise the false god of JAHBUL-ON in the Royal Arch degree. They also embrace the pagan obelisk, which relates to sun worship. Masons embrace the occult Kabbalah and other parts of the Mystery Religion system. There is nothing wrong with helping people in hospitals. Shriners have been caught in sex scandals for years though. Shriner swear an oath to Allah and Muhammad, which is anti-Christian. I already realize that you must be a Mason to be a Shriner.

_____________________________________________________

My response is in blue: 1) Did George Bush participate in any pagan ceremony at Bohemian Grove. If so, when was it? Response: The Bohemian Grove is a notorious pagan place. That enough should deter any Christian from joining it. Also, Bush is pictured giving lectures at the Grove. I'm not 100% certain he is pictured at the Cremation of Care pagan ceremony, but many are pictured. Just because you don't practipitate in rituals in an elitist, occult club, doesn't mean you go to its headquarters or condone it. I don't condone any occult groups at all. 2) Buddhists can go to heaven. In my experience, very few will, but anything is possible. Response: Unless Jesus Christ was a total liar, you are right that Buddhists can go to heaven. Yet, I don't believe Jesus was liar. The Bible is perfect clear that Jesus is the only way into Heaven: "...“Jesus saith unto him, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, and THE LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). Many Buddhists don't even believe in one God, so that alone disqualifies the Buddhists to heaven right there. 3) My comments were not silly. Taking off your shoes is a religious practice in Japan. I, a Christian, have joined in several religious practices as a matter of etiquette. George Bush did the same. Do you really think he worshiped a Shinto god? Response: Everyone has a right to their opinion. This isn't just about taking off shoes in Japan. This is about Japanese Christians and mainstream news accounts condemning Bush for worshipping in a Shinto shrine and clapping the hands of their false god. Religious practices? You can easily peaceful decline religious practices and be cordial in a foreign country. The scriptures forbids being involved with false religious practices that don't merit salvation: "... Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men."(Acts 5:9) "For they themselves shew of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how ye turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; " (1 Thessalonians 1:9) Bowing before a false shrine is a worship. If it walks like a duck, squack like a duck, it's a duck. 4) No core conviction was violated. Even handshakes, nodding and verbal greetings are pagan practices. Worship emanates from the heart. Don’t you remember all the scriptures about that? Response: Core convictions are violated when you clapped the hands to celebrate false gods, when people praise the false of Molech, and when you have death oaths which Jesus himself condemned in the book of Matthew. I find these things repugnant and offensive. This has nothing to do with simple handshakes, noddings, and greetings. Occultism is real in the world and we must expose it and help people to leave the dangerous world of the occult. The Bible

says: "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. " (2 Timothy 4:2) Worship does come from the heart, but all acts don't by man aren't necessary good. We need to be careful of deception and make sure we are sincere and not violate the Word of God to try to "appear good." Even worldly people know that's a con. 5) Where does the Bible forbid working with un-believers. The scripture about being unequally yoked refers to marriage. Taken to the extreme, you are saying that no Christian should work for a non-Christian employer or with any non-Christian employees. As an employer, a Christian should never hire a non-Christian. Do you work with any nonbelievers? Response: The Bible definitely forbids yolking with unbelievers: "...Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" (2 Corinthians 6:14) Obviously this verse has nothing to do with jobs or communicating with people of different creeds. This has to do with religious fellowship (i.e. baptism, commonion, etc.). In other words, we aren't supposed to have religious fellowship with unbelievers, unless if we want to share the gospel with them, etc. It's as simple as that. 6) I like the “fruit inspectors” line. I’m gonna steal it ;) I do agree with you in principle on most of this, but Christians are to be temperate and moderate. I’ll talk about keeping it between the ditches in closing. Response: I agree with being a Fruit inspectors. I do agree Christians are to be temperate not moderate. Jesus want us to hot or cold, not moderate. A moderate Christian is a weak Christian like many on TV getting intimidated by far left extremists. You can be temperate and strong in your belief system at the same time. 7) I agree with you about judging. We are not to condemn others. That is not our place. However, we are to use good judgment in all things. I like your scripture references, and yes, I’m stealing them too. Ditches. Pastor Hagin taught about not getting into the ditch on either side. I took your yoking example to the extreme. I hope you get my point in that. George Bush is the President of the United States of America. He is the head of state of my country. As a Christian, I do not fault him for nodding at a Shinto shrine, clapping his hands (which is to scare away evil spirits) and writing his name in a book. Lester Sumrall visited Shinto shrines and visited with monks on more than one occasion. Japan is an important ally and showing respect is okay. As to Bohemian Grove, there isn’t enough information to form an opinion. If Bush’s involvement is like that of a fraternal organization, I can’t really condemn him for that either. If he were an active promoter of worshiping Molech, my opinion would be different. Response: Judging is never monolthic. Therefore, we are to judge in some areas and not in others like someone's heart. Your stealing my scripture references? ha ha ha ha!!!! The Bible is free for all men. ha ha ha ha !!!!!!!!!!!!!! I get your point about yolking. George W. Bush is

the President of the United States. That's all the more reason for him to set a basic explanation of sticking to his core convictions. The media demonize him as being a so-called "right wing" Christian, yet Bush doesn't agree with conservative Christians on every issue. For example, Bush allowed Planned Parenthood to recieve over $100 million, supports the agenda of the American Union (exposed by Ron Paul and Dr. Corsi, which is about forming one North American nation in the near future. This is part of the new world order that Patriots have talked about. This plan is further detailed in the document entitled "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America or SPP"), etc. Many in the mainstream media hate conservative Christians anyway like Bill Maher. I disagree with Bush being in a Shinto ritual, etc. No Christian should do that if a Christian did it, they should ask God for forgiveness. It's as simple as that and it isn't complex. We disagree on that point. Basic respect can easily be achieved with a Shinto ritual. There is tons of information to form facts about it. Alex Jones in his video "Order of Death" prove that a pagan Cremation of Care ritual takes place where people worship Molech, the false god of the ancients. The New York Post reports on how gay male prostitutes go to the Grove to service some of the members (although not everyone in the Grove are homosexual). The New York Post on Page Six (Archived Page) at July 22, 2004 reported on this truth. Elite secret projects are forumulated or proposed in the Grove (without American citizenry oversight) like the Manhattan Project and Star Wars. Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson from January 17, 2006 wrote about this. It's a occult orientated group that hold sway in the world, but it's not the most powerful group in the world.

My great-grandfather was a Mason. I believe the ritual of passing to the 31st degree contains an oath that no Christian should make. I’m not sure if or how he dealt with that, but, he was a good Christian man. His donations kept his Baptist church going. He helped pay for building expansion. My dad said he gave cash, quietly, to pay for the ministry for the kids after high school football games. His money also doubled the size of the other local Baptist church in town. You can’t buy your way into heaven and he wasn’t doing that. He put his money where his heart was. Notice, I said he gave money quietly. He never wanted recognition. I encourage you to pray for President Bush. He is the leader of the free world. The free world is where Christianity flourishes. This is an example of when differences between two Christians should be dealt with in private. Airing our Christian laundry in public does damage to the faith and it hinders the little ones. -Penelope (if you have more information, please send it) Response: People know how I feel about Freemasonry. Freemasonry in its modern sense existed in 1717. I've debated Freemasonry. All in all, the vast majority of Freemasonry are not Devil worshippers or hardcore evil people. Yet, Freemasonry is eerily against the scriptures on many level. One level is that in the Blue Degree, you swear a death oath including cutting your throat, etc. The Bible is Matthew forbids swearing death oaths and Exodus says "THou shalt not kill." Even if these oaths are symbolic, they invoke God's name and we aren't to take God's name in vain. There is deception also in Freemasonry. Albert Pike

(a Confederate and one of them most Famous Freemasons in America) said: "... Masonry, like all the Religions, all the Mysteries, Hermeticism and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve only to be misled; to conceal the Truth, which it calls Light, from them, and to draw them away from it ... So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets and intentionally leads conceited interpreters astray." [Morals and Dogma, p. 104-5) Pike was a 33rd Degree Freemason and his Morals and Dogma book is required reading for Freemasonry. Therefore, many Masons endorse lying to lower levels. This isn't Christian to me. The Bible says: "... But as for the cowards and the ignoble and the contemptible and the cravenly lacking in courage and the cowardly submissive, and as for the unbelieving and faithless, and as for the depraved and defiled with abominations, and as for murderers and the lewd and adulterous and the practicers of magic arts and the idolaters (those who give supreme devotion to anyone or anything other than God) and all liars (those who knowingly convey untruth by word or deed)--[all of these shall have] their part in the lake that blazes with fire and brimstone. This is the second death." (Revelation 21:8) Lying is a sin and unrepetant liars are going to Hell. Pike supports lying, so he is a deciever. In essence, Freemasonry is the acceptance of pagan Mysteries merging with a belief in one God in trying to promote so-called "Tolerance, justice, and brotherhood." To merge the Mysteries and a belief in one God, doesn't cut it with God: "... What harmony can there be between Christ and Belial [the devil]? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6:15) Freemason Foster Bailey wrote that: "Study of spiritual realities found in Masonry reveals that we have perpetuated and increasingly activated the essential principals of the ancient Mystery Schools which have existed from the very earliest times." in his book the Spirit of Masonry. Pagan symbols are present in the Lodge like the Inverted Pentagon, the circle and the dot, the obelisk (representing the Egyptian false sun god), All Seeing Eye (used for thousands of years as the Eye of Horus), etc. According to 33rd Degree Freemason Albert Mackey, the dot and the circle refers to this: “The point within the circle is an...important symbol in Freemasonry, but it has been debased in the lectures (given in lodges) that the sooner that the interpretation is forgotten by the Masonic student, the better will it be. The symbol is really a beautiful but somewhat abstruse allusion to the OLD SUN-WORSHIP, and introduces us for the first time to the modification of it, known among the ANCIENTS AS THE WORSHIP OF THE PHALLUS. (Albert Mackey, The Manual of the Lodge, Clark Maynard Co., New York, 1870, p. 156)

Freemasonry from its own writings is not based on the Bible and its accepts those of other creeds into "Brotherhood." It’s a culture war in America. It's good to pray for our leaders, but we must expose evil. We must make known of the Presidents' errors so he can wake up. I really don't care if people see my words to you or not. I like debate as long as it's cordial. Freemasonry have great secrecy, yet Jesus said openly I spoke into the world and in secret have I said nothing. Freemasonry claims that they have a "Light" in their Lodges. Well, Jesus is the true Light of the World. Many Christians who have been deluded into Freemasonry may be sincere. They are just sincerely wrong. Freemasonry have therefore death oaths, accepts paganism, and uses deception in its lower levels to control its members. That's reality. I've studied Freemasonry for many years. There is nothing wrong with freely talking about every issue under the sun. As for me, I will keep on talking about torture, the bad policies of the Iraq War, the evils of abortion, eminent domain, our civil liberties (oh yes the Patriot Act has been wrongfully utilized against Toy stores and innocent scientists), illegal immigration, the new world order (David Rockefeller is quoted as wanting an one world government. This is fact not fiction), and other important issues. Even Pope Benedict called for a New world Order. Me personally, I don't blame Bush for everything wrong in the USA unlike some in the far left. In the final analysis, we ought to fight for truth. Good day, Penelope

By Timothy ______________________________

That’s what I did with using my old debates and displaying them to you in 2005. Enjoy. I had this debate about 9/11, Iraq, Bush, etc. with Anne Crosby or Orphan Child around April 1, 2004 at 8:42 am. EST. She is a neo-conservative who agrees with the Bush agenda:

Orphan Child wrote:

Quite frankly, I have confronted you quite often TS. I am not afraid of you, and I am not a neocon. In fact, I am an old school conservative.

Response: You are not an old school conservative now. Do you know why? It's because you support the vast majority of Bush's policies of illegal laws (The Patriot Act and its Section 213 states that police can arrest you and search your property for any reason all without a warrant and not even tell you about them secretly searching your property. Even if there were provisions to do that before 9/11 in Drug cases it still violates the 4th Amendment of searches and seizures without a warrant or just cause for it defines it for all citizens accused in an ambiguous definition of terrorism. No where before 9/11 did the CIA have domestic powers and Patriot Act I and II gives the CIA that power as well. According to Ron Paul, many Congress people weren’t given enough time to investigate the bill more elaborately in Insight Magazine. The Patriot Act was proposed before 9/11 and Bush does have veto power and he still signed it. Section 802’s definition of a terrorist is so ambiguous that it could include a whole host of non-terror actions being labeled as a felony. That's illegal, illegal wars (Iraq was no threat to America, no ties to al-Qaeda, no complex WMDs, therefore no purpose for war), and big centralized government (Homeland SSecurity, Northcom, IAO, etc.) Real conservatives and real liberals oppose that irrational nonsense and garbage. That's garbage. Hugh and Bill are funny cowards. I've come to anyone's face and say what a lousy failure this President is.

Orphan Child wrote:

AQ took responsibility for 9/11, as well as taking responsibility for many other terrorist attacks. It seems you would like to forget that AQ has been in the terrorism business for a couple of decades now. Response: Of course it’s reasonable for some low-level rag-tag al-Qaeda members taking responsibility for 9/11. 9/11 was a terrible event. Osama (the head of al-Qaeda) on the other hand denied any involvement in al-Qaeda in an Ummat Pakistani interview on September 28, 2001 saying it's against his religion to kill innocent men, women, and children even in the course of battle. He swore on the Koran. This whole interview is found on www.khilafah.com/home/cat...92&TagID=2 (The Khilafah.com Website) I don't agree with everything Osama says, but I will here the man out and Osama was a victim of CIA manipulation from Afghanistan in the 1970's onward. I don't forget that alQaeda is a CIA creation for decades. It's a known historical fact that from 1979-1992, the US gave $6 billion to the mujaddehin to fight for jihad. Osama was a well-known supporter of the MAK and other jihadists in the 1980's that were paid by him and armed by the CIA. MAK evolved in al-Qaeda by Osama.

The ISI and CIA supported Osama's activities and new evidence point to this support even after the Gulf War when Osama disagreed with U.S. troops on American soil. Al-Qaeda committed terrorist acts but in the early days, America supported them. That was the time he became the big boogeyman and patsy. Even according Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars, the U.S. gave Muslim radicals $3 billion in funding. A lot of the tapes you hear of al-Qaeda members and Osama are proven frauds. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/ is a site of a MSNBC article by reporter Mike Moran exposing the CIA ties with Osama bin Laden. He said this is blowback or we prop up a man and now he’s the great enemy will have to fight. He’s right and the Osama that you see today is a total product of the CIA. I won’t believe a lie. Osama bin Oswald had nothing to do with 9/11 by sophistication, influence, power, and devices. Also, the BBC reported that many hijackers (7) are proven alive and well after 9/11. There is no way they could of done it since they were alive after the fact or do you want to believe in the Easter Bunny instead. To believe Osama has the power in a cave to use 4 planes without intercept to sensitive U.S. targets in perfect symmetry to kill 3,000 people with no warning detected is garbage and a LIE.

Orphan Child wrote:

Are you trying to make me believe that you would of supported any efforts to avert 9/11, previous to 9/11? You do not support any efforts to avert another 9/11, post 9/11. Response: I support preserving freedom (including protecting this country) whether before or after 9/11. What I don't support is fingerprints, illegal laws, unnecessary penalties for minor offenses, a high deficit; jobs outsourced overseas, continuation of this fake Drug War, the IAO Big Brother apparatus. There's a difference between wanting to protect your country and blatant in your face Big Brother and Bush is the greatest Big Brother, government expanding, illegal law creating President in American history. Bush should have protected this country when he received warnings from 14 countries outlining that planes were going to hit buildings. Condoleezza Rice (CFR agent) lied about this blatantly.

Orphan Child wrote:

Terrorists were trained in private airfields in Florida. One right up the road from me. Response: That’s a half-truth. Many of the accused hijackers were trained in American airbases in Florida not just simple and private airfields. MSNBC now admits that military documents that it is possible for Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami to train as foreign nations since their locations were in 10 Radford Boulevard where foreign trainees are usually found. This is Pensacola Airbase, a military (not a private) facility. The website where it can be found is at http://www.propagandamatrix.com/alleged_hijackers_may_trained_us_bases.html (Prison Planet Site linking up with MSNBC)

In the website it mentioned that: “THREE OF THE alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla.—known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source.” http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive/scoop/stories/3c/30/200208152149.5c2ae3a6.html (Scoop Archive Site) is another site proving it again.

Orphan Child wrote:

Nobody stood down that day. Nobody was prepared, pure and simple. All of this confirmed by mainstream news articles. Response: This is silly and desperation on your part. The fact is that NORAD did stand down. NORAD is very advanced and tracks every object in the atmosphere worldwide. To

say that NORAD wasn't prepared for the greatest terror attack in American history is ludicrous and overly ignorant plus not rational. You are not thinking rationally obviously just like Bill in AZ and Hugh. NORAD had 90 minutes to protect the Pentagon after the Second Tower was hit. NORAD can easily immediately send planes in 5 minutes to guard D.C., but didn’t until after the Pentagon was hit. Why? There are more than 7 bases in continental America to protect us. They did nothing so they stood down allowing 3,000 people to be killed. General Myers said he could respond until after the Pentagon was hit which was over 90 minutes after the first Tower was hit in NYC. This doesn’t add up. http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html (Center for Cooperative Research) is a site with mainstream sources proves the inconsistencies of the NORAD lies. New information from Michael Ruppert's Beyond the Rubicon has Dick Cheney, by an executive order, in May 2001 to handle all war games. During 9/11, Cheney stood down NORAD (admitted from testimony from Mineta and Alex Jones recorded military folks who told him that NORAD stood down as well) from intercepting the plane (or missile) to the Pentagon. Cheney also headed 5 war games during 9/11 as cover to execute 9/11. (NORAD say this as 22 blips on their screen) Ruppert's book proves this and lists Cheney as one of the suspects involved in 9/11.

Orphan Child wrote:

And if you want to use Payne Stewert as an argument, go ahead if you like. I have debunked that old saw about four times now.

Response: Who is Payne Stewart? I don’t know who he is. Tons of scholars disagree with the idiotic story of 9/11 giving by the White House. They include me, Carol A. Valentine, Alex Jones, Paul Watson, John Kaminski, and Jim Marrs, liberals, conservatives, and libertarians. There are legitimate questions about 9/11 that the administration has failed to answer and that isn’t extremist but common sense. It isn’t way out for the government to be involved in 9/11. The government has been involved in terrorist attacks for a very long time: just look to the Reichstag, wars, etc. I see no refutation by you in refuting the people that I’ve mentioned whom are telling the truth on what happened during 9/11.

Orphan Child wrote:

Please do use real sources. It would help a lot. Response: I’ve shown tons of real sources before and in this refutation.

Orphan Child wrote:

Clinton was in office for the genocide at Waco. I don't particularly care if he was an internationalist, he didn't take care of the national defense. Response: Clinton was in office during the genocide of Waco and is an internationalist. There are indeed a lot of national security failures he did and I don’t deny that.

Orphan Child wrote:

How can you really bring up the 70's and 80's, and try to pin the blame on the present administration? That is a stretch. The most recent cite there is 20 years old. Response: You know why I cite them. It’s because it connects the dots. There is nothing wrong with showing the past to let you understand the present and improve the future. Have you learned that logic? I do cite recent sources, which is another lie.

One is W199- EYE in 2001, which Bush signed to prevent the FBI to investigate the bin Ladens or face imprisonment. One example of this is from http://www.propagandamatrix.com/bush_took_fbi_off_laden_trail.html (Propaganda Matrix Site linked to the Times of India) when Osama bin Laden’s brother was refused to be investigated by the government. This is recorded in the Times of India and the BBC (both mainstream new articles) Who are you trying to con neo-con? Don’t you know that FBI agents are angry over this tragedy and bringing up lawsuits now including one from Minneapolis over this? Even recently according to Newsday, at http://www.newsday.com/business/nybzsell0319,0,4764348.story: “Bush campaign gear made in Burma His campaign store sells a pullover from nation whose products he has banned from being sold in the U.S.” There are tons of sources exposing this man.

Orphan Child wrote:

Your delusions are yours to have and hold. But please get your story straight, before launching an attack upon rational people.

Response: I have no delusions. Give me one example of my delusions which tons of people in America and millions worldwide have. I’ve got my story straight. You don’t, but continue through half-truths, character assassinations, and backups from pseudo-patriots like Bill in AZ and Hugh Tombstone. If you truly love liberty you need to oppose the Patriot Act, Homeland SSecurity, the war in Iraq, the UN, WTO, GATT, etc. and not align with Bush. Bush is not a patriot or a true Texan. Bush is supporting the United Nations by solely using their Resolutions to fight in Iraq and promising along with Blair future U.N. cooperation in the aftermath and reconstruction of Iraq. He isn’t even a Texas but born in New Haven Connecticut. He’s a Northerner faking a Southern bravado. I’m a Southerner born in Virginia and Bush isn’t and isn’t a Christian being a member of the Satanic Skulls and Bones and Bohemian Grove. People who want rising deficits, more American G.I.s killed in illegal wars, job and economic woes, environmental threats, illegal laws to remain coming forth, the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights burned is not a rational person to me. You are Refuted. By Timothy

SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA FIDE SOLA GLORIA DEO SOLA GRATIA SOLA CHRISTO SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS SEMPER LIBER