Planned Perversion

 

The year was 2002. Most of my readers will have memories that go back at least that far. In the United States, sodomy was outlawed in several States. Marriage was between one man and one woman. Pairs of homosexuals couldn't adopt children. Women were biological females and men were biological males. There were but two genders recognized by the federal government and by all State governments. Pronouns were something used without thought in correspondence to a person's sex; you didn't get to "pick" which pronouns you used or have invented pronouns like "zhe" and "hir." This was only 21 years ago.

How did things get so dystopian so quickly? Just as the creation of the Vatican II sect was a concerted effort by the enemies of Christ's One True Church, so too was the acceptance (and even celebration) of perversion. Like an Alta Vendita for sodomites, 1989 saw the publication of After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s by Marshall Kirk and Dr. Hunter Madsen. A perusal of its contents will reveal that its plan to have society accept homosexuality as "normal" and as worthy of "rights" has indeed won. That victory paved the way for the "transgender" insanity that overturns objective realities for fictitious ideas. The transgenders followed the same strategy. 

This post will expose the work of Kirk and Madsen, and hopefully raise awareness of  the sodomite strategy and give the means to expose/counteract it.

WARNING!! This post contains material that is extremely graphic, and may be found very disturbing. Reader discretion is advised.

Who were Kirk and Madsen?

Dr. Marshall Kenneth Kirk (1957-2005) was a writer and a researcher in neuropsychiatry, having graduated from Harvard University with a Bachelors degree in psychology. Kirk became enamored with genealogy and was internationally known as one of the few major American authorities on medieval and ancient genealogy. He was plagued with both physical and psychological problems his whole life. A sodomite who hated Christianity, he partnered with Dr. Hunter Madsen, an advertising executive, to make homosexuality acceptable by the year 2000. 

They began by writing an essay in 1987 entitled The Overhauling of Straight America, with Madsen using the pseudonym of Erastes Pill. In that essay, the despicable duo hatched a plan to "...desensitize the public to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal." (See library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm). Isn't that exactly how it's viewed today by the vast majority of our society?

Kirk and Madsen then expanded their plan in great detail two years later in their book After The Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. ("ATB"). With a well thought out plan, and sodomites in high places to put it into practice, we arrived where we are today; where a woman is given the circular definition as someone who identifies as a woman. Pure insanity.

After ATB was published, Kirk became a sodomite celebrity, appearing in Newsweek magazine, Time magazine, and the left-wing rag The Washington Post. He was found dead inside his apartment in July of 2005, approximately four and one-half months prior to what would have been his 48th birthday. No cause of death was ever given. There was speculation that he had died from AIDS due to his unnatural lifestyle, but the "powers that be" wouldn't allow that information to be made public.

If their agenda was made public, why did it work?

There are several reasons:

• people rarely pay attention to what really matters. Consider how many men can tell you every statistic on every athlete in all or most sports, but know little or nothing about the things of God

• many laughed it off as a "pipedream"

• those involved in the occult see perversion as "normal" anyway, and many occultists have societal influence. They wanted it to work. 

• the Vatican II sect had become infiltrated with sodomites and Modernists, neither of whom wanted to stop it, but wanted the plan to succeed. They put up no resistance, nor warned the people

• some well-meaning "conservative" Vatican II sect members, and Protestants who maintained traditional moral teachings on sexuality made the fatal mistake of labeling it as a "Gay Agenda Conspiracy." Conspiracies can and do happen, but with so many using the word to justify every whacky idea, many shrug it off as nonsense. 

• the lack of a true pope and the Catholic Church in Her former glory to stop it. 

Kirk and Madsen didn't want to effect mere political/legal change, rather they wanted to produce cultural change, which comes about by changing what people believe about something; changing what and how they talk about it; changing what people accept and what they value. The power of such change is that, unlike political change, it is not easily overturned because it's not dependent upon or sacrificed to the whims of elected leaders. 

The Plan Exposed

In this section, I will be quoting from ATB (as well as Kirk and Madsen's prior essay) and (a) show the step-by-step plan to normalize the abnormal and unnatural; (b) give concrete examples that demonstrate how it was actually carried out, and (c) a reality check--the facts vs. their propaganda.

Step 1:

TALK ABOUT GAYS AND GAYNESS AS LOUDLY AND AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.

The principle behind this advice is simple: almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one's fellows doing it or accepting it. One may be offended by its novelty at first--many, in times past, were momentarily scandalized by "streaking,'' eating goldfish, and premarital sex. But as long as Joe Six-pack (i.e., "the average American") feels little pressure to perform likewise, and as long as the behavior in question presents little threat to his physical and financial security, he soon gets used to it and life goes on. The skeptic may still shake his head and think "people are crazy these days," but over time his objections are likely to become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional...Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject, and that a sizable segment accepts or even practices homosexuality. 

Even rancorous debates between opponents and defenders serve the purpose of desensitization so long as "respectable" gays are front and center to make their own pitch. The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome...The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message--of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream. Bit by bit over the past ten years, gay characters and gay themes have been introduced into TV programs and films (though often this has been done to achieve comedic and ridiculous affects). On the whole the impact has been encouraging. The prime-time presentation of Consenting Adults on a major network in 1985 is but one high-water mark in favorable media exposure of gay issues. But this should be just the beginning of a major publicity blitz by gay America. (Emphasis mine).

How it worked:

Once upon a time, television looked like I Love Lucy. Ricky and Lucy, although married (both in the show and real life), they did not sleep in the same bed. When Lucy was pregnant, they could not show her bulge nor could they use the word "pregnant." Euphemisms like "expecting," "with child," and "in a family way," were substituted. To publicly acknowledge Lucy as having had sex with her husband was avoided.

Jump to 1969 and  The Brady Bunch. Mike and Carol Brady may have slept in the same bed, but even the most difficult topics, laughable by today's standards, saw resolution in thirty minutes with a return to domestic bliss. In 1975, One Day At A Time premiered. The show depicted things heretofore taboo. It centered around the character of Ann Romano, a Catholic woman who decides to divorce her caring husband of 18 years to "find herself." She drags her 17 and 16 year old daughters with her to a shabby apartment building where they meet Schneider, a lewd building superintendent always trying to seduce the women who live there. The show dealt sympathetically with divorce and remarriage, premarital sex, contraception, feminism, and a host of other sins portrayed as desirable. Over this time, standards gradually sank regarding sexuality, violence, and profanity, and along the way people shrugged their shoulders.

Today, we find no shortage of  homosexual television characters. Beginning with the 2001-2002 television season, NBC featured seven homosexual characters on Providence, ER, Friends, and Will and Grace. The latter show centers on a heterosexual woman and her sodomite best friend, Will. An actor on Will and Grace, Eric McCormack, revealed the show's mission: "When old ladies out there say, 'Oh, I hope he meets a nice man,' that's when we'll know the show has succeeded."

ABC featured two sodomite characters on Spin City and NYPD Blue. CBS included two sodomite characters on The Ellen Show and The Education of Max Bickford. The latter show also featured the first transgendered character.

While premium cable networks operate with greater content freedom, Showtime broke new ground with the demonic show Queer as Folk, featuring many sodomite characters and graphic perverted sex.

Here is a list of 39 (yes thirty-nine) "LGBTQIA+" shows: See: mashable.com/article/best-lgbtq-tv-shows. 

In the movies we see "positive gay characters" more and more after 1989. Here is just a partial list:

• Paris Is Burning (1991)
• Late Bloomers (1996)
• But I'm a Cheerleader (1999)
• Brokeback Mountain (2005)
• Jennifer's Body (2009)
• Pariah (2011)
• The Way He Looks (2014)
• Tangerine (2015)

Superheroes are portrayed in film as "gay" such as LEGO Batman, and Power Rangers (2017).

In pop music:

• Degenerate pop singer Katy Perry had a hit song in 2008 entitled I Kissed A Girl, about a lesbian encounter. It is sickening beyond description to see the parents of young girls (aged 10-15) at Perry's concerts singing along to that perverted garbage with their kids; I have to wonder about their fitness as parents

• The equally degenerate pop star Lady Gaga has two songs dedicated to sodomites; Alejandro (2010), and Born This Way (2011)

• Arguably the most popular singer in the world today, Taylor Swift, is an "ally" of perverts. In the music video for You Need to Calm Down, Swift features nearly a whole parade of  sodomites and homo-activists. She even wears a wig with the same colors as the bisexual flag. Spin magazine quotes her as saying, "Rights are being stripped from basically everyone who isn’t a straight white cisgender male." Yeah. Right. Sure. 

Reality Check:

So, is being homosexual "no big deal"?  It's OK because we must "live and let live"? Homosexuals and transgenders "aren't hurting anyone"? Until 1973, when political pressure changed it, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. It was considered a mental disorder with good reason.

Homosexuality and Psychotic Violence

The top six American male serial killers were all homosexual:

• Donald Harvey claimed 37 victims in Kentucky
• John Wayne Gacy raped and killed 33 boys in Chicago, burying them under his house and in his yard
• Patrick Kearney accounted for 32, cutting his victims into small pieces after sex and leaving them in trash bags along the Los Angeles freeways
• Bruce Davis molested and killed 27 young men and boys in Illinois
• A gay sex-murder-torture ring (Corll-Henley-Brooks) sent 27 Texas men and boys to their grave; and Juan Corona was convicted of murdering 25 migrant workers (he had sex with their corpses--"necrophilia").

The pathology of eating one’s sexual victims also characterized Milwaukee’s Jeffrey Dahmer in 1992. He not only killed 17 young men and boys, but cooked and ate their body parts. The association between serial murder and homosexuality isn’t recent. Two gays compete for the spot of “world’s worst murderer.” During the Nazi reign of terror, Auschwitz executioner Ludwig Tiene strangled, crushed, and gnawed boys and young men to death while he raped them. Though his grand total is uncertain, he often murdered as many as 100 a day. Gilles de Rais (Bluebeard) brutally destroyed the lives of 800 boys. Each lad was lured to his home, bathed and fed. Just as the poor boy thought "this is my lucky day," he was raped, then killed by being ripped or cut apart and either burned or eaten. Even if the "10% of the population" is homosexual/bisexual were true, murder is disproportionately high among sodomites. 

A study of 518 sexually-tinged mass murders in the U.S. from 1966 to 1983 determined that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced homosexuality and that 19 (44%) of the 43 murderers were bisexuals or homosexuals (See Cameron, Dr. Paul,  [1983] "Is homosexuality disproportionately associated with murder?" Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Assn Chicago.)

 Lesbian Aileen Wuornos laid claim in 1992 to "worst female killer" with at least 7 middle-aged male victims. She single-handedly topped the lesbian nurse team of Catherine Wood and Gwen Graham, who had killed 6 convalescent patients in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Jim Warren, who worked as a counselor at the Washington State Corrections Center, did the intake interview for almost all the younger murderers (i.e., under age 36) in the state of Washington from 1971-82 (during the growth of the so-called "gay rights movement"). He was "probably the only one who examined the entirety of each of their case files." Warren testified that he was struck with how frequently homosexuality turned up in the cases (See Warren, J,  [1989] Testimony before the Law and Justice Committee of the Washington State Senate December 15).

The data supports that most violence comes from within the sodomite lifestyle and gets exported. It does not come mostly from the outside against them. Homosexuals are a danger to society, not the other way around. The FBI reported 431 hate crimes against homosexuals for the U.S. in all of 1991. Only one was "confirmed" for Washington, D.C. — yet D.C. "gay" activists claimed 397 incidents! When pressed, they admitted that at least 366 of these "crimes" consisted of "verbal harassment." (See Washington Blade (1993) "FBI releases stats on hate crimes." January 1, pg.1). 

Objection: These are "outliers." Sure, some homosexuals are evil. Can't we say this of every group of individuals?

Objection Overruled

First, the number of homosexuals being violent is disproportionately high. There's good and bad in all people, but those who act upon homosexual desires make violence prevalent among sodomites and not a rarity that can be ascribed to "outliers." Second, most people don't realize that what sodomites do in private. Here are the facts below. Ask yourself, "Would anyone who is not seriously disturbed do these things?"

Homosexual Practices:

• Anal sex (sodomy properly so-called) is practiced by 80% of homosexuals. Tearing or bruising of the anal wall is common, and opens the body to reception of germs through the rectum.  According to J.R. Daling, et. al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no. 14 (April 9, 1982) the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000% among those who engage in anal intercourse. Anal sex also raises the risk of rectal prolapse, perforation that can go septic, chlamydia, cryptosporidiosis, genital herpes, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis B and C, as well as syphilis

• Rimming is the practice of licking and stimulating the anus of another. The amount of fecal matter consumed, and exposure to disease is significant over time 

• Golden showers is the practice of urinating on the other person. About 20% of sodomites regularly drink and bathe in their partner's urine

• Fisting is the practice of inserting the hand (and sometimes the arm up to the elbow, or further) into the partner's rectum. Many sodomites have the sphincter muscles so weakened they soil themselves. (See Darling cited above)

• Scat Sports involves ingesting your partner's feces and/or rubbing it all over the face and body

• Toys is the term used for inserting objects into the rectum. Most commonly used are gerbils, placed in plastic and inserted in the rectum until the animal suffocates and dies. The thrashing of the poor creature gives the sodomite his perverse pleasure. 

Normal behavior? Not prone to hurt others (or themselves)? Think again.

Step 2:

PORTRAY GAYS AS VICTIMS, NOT AS AGGRESSIVE CHALLENGERS

A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower it's guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means that jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured. (It almost goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability such as NAMBLA, ("North American Man-Boy Love Association") must play no part at all in such a campaign: suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.)

Now, there are two different messages about the Gay Victim that are worth communicating. First, the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: "As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. Nobody ever tricked or seduced them; they never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn't willfully contrary - it's only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you!"(Emphasis mine). 

How it worked:

One of the most stark examples came after the death of Matthew Shepard. Homo-activists and sympathetic media exploited (and continue to exploit) this terrible incident, attempting to create a victimization mentality around homosexuality. Television and print media covered the story far longer than the normal news cycle, and the made-for-TV movie, The Matthew Shepard Story, created a spirit of martyrdom.

Yet, when homosexuals aggressively victimize someone else, the story goes unreported. Take, for instance, the case of young Jesse Dirkhising, who was brutally raped and murdered by two homosexuals. Matthew Shepard's case was no more brutal than this young boy's, but Jesse went unacknowledged by gay activists, civil rights groups, and the mainstream media. (See americansfortruth.com/issues/jesse-dirkhising). 

Reality Check: Homosexuals are overwhelmingly more predatory than victims.

Homosexuality and Child Molestation:

• Over 90% of child molesters are male

• 25-40% of molestations are same-sex, far in excess of the percentage of homosexuals

• 43% of sex between teachers and pupils is homosexual

• 50% of sex between foster parents and foster children is homosexual

• In a study of 21 "group home" sex scandals — 71% were homosexual

• Of those who commit incest: Homosexual parents — 18%; Heterosexual parents — 0.6%

(See Freund K, Watson RJ (1992) "The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study." Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 18:34-43). 

Are Homosexuals "Born That Way"? The Myth of the "Gay Gene"

There is no "Gay Gene:"

1. Correlation is not causation. In the morning if you hear a rooster crow in the countryside, it means the sun will rise. Only the ignorant and superstitious would believe that the crowing of the rooster caused the sun to rise. One action (crowing) came before the other (sun rising) on multiple occasions, but that is mere correlation.  Some genetic and biological factors correlate with a higher incidence of homosexuality among select populations. However, there are no genetic or biological factors that have been shown to cause homosexuality. There is a long and extensive body of research that shows a strong and consistent correlation between smoking and various diseases, such as lung cancer. The correlation is so strong, you could reasonably say smoking cigarettes causes a great risk of developing lung cancer. No factor(s) have been linked anywhere near to the necessary degree needed to make the same claim about causation and homosexuality. (See scientificamerican.com/article/massive-study-finds-no-single-genetic-cause-of-same-sex-sexual-behavior/). 

There may be factors that cause a predisposition to homosexuality, but that doesn't make it a desirable trait. There is some evidence that there is a predisposition to alcoholism. Does being a lush and driving drunk suddenly become morally acceptable? Theologically, since the Fall, humanity is in an imperfect state and we are at war with our three enemies--the world, the flesh, and the devil. Even normal desires become wrong and must be resisted and altogether avoided, such as adultery and heterosexual promiscuity. That there are bad predispositions is not at all surprising from a theological viewpoint. 

2. The "Gay Gene" is a myth. 

Contrary to what sodomites would like you to think, scientific research has yet to find a so-called "gay gene." There is no region of the human genome that conclusively links homosexuality to any specific gene sequence. Claims by researchers that Xq28 is an "area of interest" in the genetic make-up of homosexual males has never been successfully verified. To date, there is no area of the DNA even remotely associated to lesbianism, and that surely weakens the "gay gene theory" even more. 

Studies of twins indicate a genetic contributing factor correlating to a higher occurrence of homosexuality. However, the earlier twin studies which claimed a much stronger correspondence for homosexuality among twins has now been refuted. Among homosexuals with an identical twin, in only approximately 20% of cases was their twin also homosexual. If homosexuality was a genetically predetermined trait, then the correspondence would be 100% and prove causation.  (See Cheryl L. Weill, Nature's Choice: What Science Reveals about the Biological Origins of Sexual Orientation NY:Routledge [2009], pgs. 65-68). 

3. "Prenatal Hormone Theory" proves nothing. 

There is not one iota of evidence, as of this writing, that when an unborn child is exposed to hormones in the womb atypical for their gender the male brain is "feminized" and the female brain is made "masculine." A careful study of children with Disorders of Sexual Development shows this theory lacks verification. The idea of homosexual brains differing from heterosexual brains finds its genesis in overstated assertions about the differences between male and female brains. (See e.g., Weill cited above). 

Step 3:

GIVE PROTECTORS A JUST CAUSE

A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those to respond to assert and explain their new protectiveness...It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle. (Emphasis mine). 

How it worked:

With the Masonic principle of "Separation of Church and State," there was an appeal to "the rights of Man." The infiltration into society by sodomites and their acceptance has lead to full "celebration." Even false sects, like Protestantism, denounced perversion in the not too distant past. The lunacy is apparent. Take the slogan "love is love;"--- no, it is not. I remember a satirical cartoon, in which a woman was about to kiss a cow, and the caption read: "Love is love." Even the ancient, pagan Greeks understood three kinds of love; eros (romantic love), philia (love of relatives and friends), and agape (love that directed to God and to others for the love of God. As Christ said, "Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (St. John 15:13). 

I love my wife, I loved my parents, I love my best friend, and I love God. The love I have for each is both felt and expressed very differently. If you apply romantic love to your parents, it's not "love is love," it's called "incest" and is morally wrong and mentally sick. Applied to animals, romantic love is beastiality. Applied to children it's pedophilia (which the clergy of the Vatican II sect know all too well--both those in and out of jail). Applied to persons of the same sex, it's homosexuality; which is just as morally depraved, unnatural, sinful, and sick as the other perversions. An immediate objection I hear is, "If homosexuality is a mental illness, then it can't be sinful." 

While it's true that "Whoever has not the use of reason does not sin formally by transgressing the moral law because of ignorance..." (See theologian Jone, Moral Theology, [1961], pg. 20), the person who is not habitually insane is morally responsible for those acts done while in possession of reason. Hence, a person who is a kleptomaniac has a mental illness to steal. Knowing that stealing is wrong, they have a moral obligation to seek professional help and do all they can to stop themselves. Failure to do so, or "celebrating thieves pride" would constitute grave sin. The Vatican II sect encourages this "sin of pride" among sexual perverts. 

Reality Check:

By "protecting" perverts, we endanger society's children, who are being actively recruited by sodomites. 

• Pro-sodomite books such as Daddy's Roommate, and Heather has Two Mommies are part of many curricula and attempt to portray unnatural relationships as "normal"

• The pro-sodomite/pro-transgender curricula in  The Safe Space Kit advises that, during casual conversations and classroom time, one should “make sure the language you are using is inclusive of all people. When referring to people in general, try using words like ‘partner’ instead of ‘boyfriend/girlfriend’ or ‘husband/wife’, and avoid gendered pronouns, using ‘they’ instead of ‘he/she’. What’s wrong with referring to a man as “he” and to a woman as “she”? Well, the glossary helps us to understand the definition of gender as “a social construct based on a group of emotional, behavioral and cultural characteristics attached to a person’s assigned biological sex” (See catholicexchange.com/the-new-school-homosexual-propaganda-and-your-kids)

The sodomites themselves know that they can pervert others to their sinful and depraved "lifestyle." In 1987, "gay activist" Michael Swift had this to say:

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress,… Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.… The family unit-spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence —will be abolished.… Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory.… All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men.… We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions.… Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks. (See Gay Community News, Feb. 15–21, 1987; Emphasis mine). 

Step 4:

MAKE GAYS LOOK GOOD

In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign should be more aggressive and upbeat: to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know--this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities use it all the time in ads that announce proudly, "Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was _________?" But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as "queer" people-- shadowy, lonesome, fail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits. (Emphasis mine). 

How it worked:

Homosexuals are portrayed in the light most favorable to them in all facets of society. Even laws favor them. Transgender madness is a "civil right."

Reality Check:

Are "Gays" really "Good"? 

Besides the violence, mentally ill behaviors, and child molestations being disproportionately high, they also spread diseases and are a danger to themselves thereby burdening the healthcare system.

Even the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) has noted these problems. For example, among men who identify as homosexual:

• Problems with body image are more common among gay men, and gay men are much more likely to experience an eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa.

• Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population, and not just in larger cities. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate ("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines.

• Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in the general population. . . Adolescents and young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide . . .

• Gay men use tobacco at much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several studies.

(See Robert J. Winn, “Ten Things Gay Men Should discuss with Their Healthcare Provider,” GLMA, May 2012). 

The federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has reported the following distressing facts concerning women who identify themselves as practicing lesbians:

• Among adults, a study that examined the risk of psychiatric disorders among individuals with same-sex partners found that, during the previous 12 months, women with same-sex partners experienced more mental health disorders—such as major depression, phobia, and post-traumatic stress disorder—than did women with opposite sex partners

• Another study “found that lesbian and bisexual women who were ‘out’ experienced more emotional stress as teenagers and were 2 to 2.5 times more likely to experience suicidal ideation in the past 12 months than heterosexual women. Meanwhile, lesbian and bisexual women who were not ‘out’ were more likely to have attempted suicide than heterosexual women.”

• “Studies have found that lesbians are between 1.5 and 2 times more likely to smoke than heterosexual women.”

• “A number of studies have also suggested that lesbians are significantly more likely to drink heavily than heterosexual women.”

(See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Top Health Issues for LGBT Populations Information & Resource Kit. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 12-4684. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2012, C1-2). 

Homosexuality and promiscuity:

• 28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners:  "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." 

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• 79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309."  

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

• Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354."  

(See exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)

Homosexuality and the Mortality Rate:

A study was conducted in Vancouver British Columbia and published in 1997 in the International Journal of Epidemiology (Vol. 26, 657-61: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/3/657).

 Pro-sodomite researchers actually tried to debunk the assertion that homosexuality is infested with disease and shortens the life expectancy of both male sodomites and lesbians. Despite their attempts to downplay the practical consequences of their research, it is difficult to ignore that the study concluded with the statement that "under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre [Vancouver, BC] are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871." Much to their chagrin, the study revealed "life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men." 

Transgenderism is Child Abuse:

We are told that children who "come out" to their parents as a "boy trapped in a girl's body" (or vice-versa) are brave  kids, and should be affirmed as the "gender with which they identify." Parents should allow them to change their name, clothes, and get surgery to mutilate their bodies. Those parents who abuse their children are "heroes," while parents who want them to get real help to fight gender dysphoria are portrayed as "bigots," and even (ironically) "tyrannical child abusers." The FACTS tell tell us who the real "good guys" are--and it's not those who get "gender-affirming care" for their confused children.

 

The American College of Pediatricians issued an incredibly brave statement in 2017. Daring to oppose the new pagans and the PC crowd, they stated the following salient points:

• The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

• Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder.

• No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

• A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking. Gender Dysphoria (GD), formerly listed as Gender Identity Disorder (GID), is a recognized mental disorder in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5). The psycho-dynamic and social learning theories of GD/GID have never been disproved.

•  Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous.

•  According to the DSM-5, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

• Rates of suicide are nearly twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries.

• Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse. Endorsing gender discordance as normal via public education and legal policies will confuse children and parents, leading more children to present to “gender clinics” where they will be given puberty-blocking drugs. This, in turn, virtually ensures they will “choose” a lifetime of carcinogenic and otherwise toxic cross-sex hormones, and likely consider unnecessary surgical mutilation of their healthy body parts as young adults.

(signed) Dr. Michelle A. Cretella, M.D.

President of the American College of Pediatricians

Dr. Cretella has since been subjected to endless criticism, ostracization, and bullying-tactics. This brave doctor continues to speak the truth. She no longer holds her position as President of the American College of Pediatricians. As she herself stated in 2016, "...professionals who dare to question the unscientific party line of supporting gender transition therapy will find themselves maligned and out of a job." (See dailysignal.com/2017/07/03/im-pediatrician-transgender-ideology-infiltrated-field-produced-large-scale-child-abuse). 

Step 5: 

MAKE THE VICTIMIZERS LOOK BAD

At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights-long after other gay ads have become commonplace-it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. (This will be all the more necessary because, by that time, the entrenched enemy will have quadrupled its output of vitriol and disinformation.) Our goal is here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs, and convicts speaking coolly about the "fags" they have killed or would like to kill; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. (Emphasis mine). 

How it worked:

By the logic of Kirk and Madsen, bigotry, hate, and phobia are the only possible motives for opposing "LGBTQIA++" beliefs and demands. Such vilification is not only a bullying tactic to stigmatize and silence detractors; it also happens to be false. You are "homophobic" and "transphobic"--i.e., YOU have a mental disorder if you disagree with their morally degenerate lifestyle. WOKE cancel culture will try to destroy you. Consider the occultist J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter franchise. When she had the courage to mock the "inclusive" language of the transgender madness (even a broken clock is right twice every 24 hours) she was removed from the Museum of Pop Culture for "transphobic remarks."

Reality Check:

Homosexuality is a moral disorder leading to mental, physical, and spiritual destruction. Transgenderism is a mental illness to be cured, not a reality to be celebrated. We are not evil for wanting them converted and cured by speaking the truth. Those who stand up for God and truth are not evil, and sodomites are not poor victims who are "born that way."

Perhaps, worst of all, "born this way" advocates will take away all impetus to do good. After all, if our behaviors are genetically determined, not only are bad acts acceptable, but a life of virtue, such as that lived by St. Francis of Assisi, can be equally dismissed because he was "born that way." Virtue, like sin, is a matter of choice. Sodomites seek acceptance so as to better destroy what's left of the family and the members of the One True Church. 

Turning the Tide

Without reference to God's Law (or even Natural Law), the homosexual lifestyle has been shown by empirical evidence to be unhealthy physically and emotionally. Homosexuals are disproportionately violent, child molesters, disease-ridden with shortened life spans, and counterproductive to society. Furthermore, they want your children to join in their wicked ways. Those who oppose them are "homophobic" (implying a mental disorder for being moral and/or Christian) and are subjected to harassment, social ostracism, loss of job, and discrimination charges. Here is my proposed antidote to Kirk and Madsen: How America Will Conquer Its Acceptance of Immoral Perverts:

First, do not use their "preferred pronouns" or terminology. Never say "gay, " "queer, " or any appellation other than sodomite--it refers to their sick behavior and reminds them of how God destroyed Sodom for the sin named after it. For transgenders, use the name but not the pronoun. It is a violation of your First Amendment right to the Free Exercise of Religion to demand you affirm a lie; that a person of one gender can be another or "gender-fluid." Frame it as a violation of YOUR rights. YOU are the victim because of your religious beliefs. Tell anyone who opposes you they are bigoted and "Christophobic." 

Second, refuse to "celebrate" so-called "gay pride" and boycott any business that does--and let them know it.

Third, we need a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage to be a union of one man and one woman, and declaring homosexual conduct as criminal conduct that may be proscribed by law. (This would overturn all U. S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary, beginning in 2003). 

Fourth, after the amendment, criminalize homosexual acts by statute as it used to be. Define and proscribe all homosexual activity. 

As in Uganda (which criminalizes homosexuality), there should be two classes of criminal acts, both felonies; "the offence of homosexuality" and "the offense of  aggravated homosexuality."  "Aggravated homosexuality" is defined to include a homosexual act committed (1) with a person under the age of 18 by a person over the age of 18; (2) committed by a person who is HIV-positive; (3) committed by a parent or guardian of the person with whom the act is committed; (4) committed by a person in authority over the person with whom the act is committed; (5) committed with a disabled person;(6) committed by a serial offender; or (7) committed by a person who administers any drug, matter, or thing with the intent to stupefy or overpower another person to enable a same-sex act to be committed. A person charged with "aggravated homosexuality" is forced to undergo an HIV test and if convicted will be imprisoned for life without possibility of parole, or executed, depending on the circumstances to be decided by the jury. 

All other homosexual acts constitute "the offense of homosexuality," and if convicted will bring a mandatory seven years in prison. The APA will once more recognize homosexuality as a personality disorder, and conversion therapy will not only be permitted, but mandated for those who profess same sex attraction.

Lastly, all public promotion of homosexuality by a corporation or educational institution shall be subjected to large fines. Sound draconian? Not if you realize the very foundation of our civilization is at stake. The Vatican II sect aids and abets the sodomite agenda. Of course, the ultimate answer is the restoration of the Church and Catholic countries as existed prior to Vatican II. While we pray and try to convert others, we must use whatever secular means we have at our disposal to sway public opinion and elect anti-sodomite, pro-family politicians. I'm not overstating the case when I tell people that one of the greatest threats to the human race--mentally, physically, and spiritually---is the acceptance and active support of LGBTQIAA+ sexual perversion. That and the Occult Explosion are the greatest threats humanity now faces.

Conclusion

 The agenda of Kirk and Madsen worked. It continues to work for transgender madness. A look at the facts shows that LGBTQIAA+ people have serious mental health issues as well as moral problems that go against both nature and God. To oppose sodomites and attempt to get them both mental and spiritual help is what they desperately need. The lavender lobby is going beyond the usual hackneyed argument "you can't impose your religious beliefs on others." Instead, they are beginning to attack religious teachings about homosexuality, arguing that such doctrine “harms the LGBTQIA+ community” and people who believe that sexual perversion is immoral, unnatural, and a mental illness are themselves mentally ill as well as hateful bigots that need to be banned from public discourse.

The Vatican II sect is part of the problem. "Fr" James Martin said in 2017, at Fordham University, "I have a hard time imagining how even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend [in a same-sex "marriage"] and say, ‘That is a loving act, and that is a form of love that I don’t understand but that I have to reverence." (See news.fordham.edu/inside-fordham-category/lectures-and-events/building-bridge-catholic-church-lgbt-community/).   

According to the book The Changing Face of the Priesthood by Vatican II sect "priest" Donald  Cozzens (published by The Liturgical Press in the year 2000), sociologist James G. Wolf's research concludes 48.5% of priests and 55.1% of seminarians were homosexuals. The percentage is highest among "priests" under age 40, which in Wolf's research (published in 1989), would mean those born in and after 1950, with "ordinations" taking place in/after 1974 after the Modernists opened the floodgates to admit sodomites. Cozzens reports the number of sexually active homosexuals in the Vatican II "priesthood" was a full-fledged "network" of perverts. This is all the more alarming, as Cozzens is sympathetic to the sodomites.

We must stand up and be prepared for persecution. God has this to say of sodomites and their supporters:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1:24-32; Emphasis mine). 

Contending For The Faith---Part 18

 

In St. Jude 1:3, we read, "Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." [Emphasis mine]. Contending For The Faith is a series of posts dedicated to apologetics (i.e.,  the intellectual defense of the truth of the Traditional Catholic Faith) to be published the first Monday of each month.  This is the next installment.

Sadly, in this time of Great Apostasy, the faith is under attack like never before, and many Traditionalists don't know their faith well enough to defend it. Remember the words of our first pope, "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect..." (1Peter 3:16). There are five (5) categories of attacks that will be dealt with in these posts. Attacks against:

• The existence and attributes of God
• The truth of the One True Church established by Christ for the salvation of all 
• The truth of a particular dogma or doctrine of the Church
• The truth of Catholic moral teaching
• The truth of the sedevacantist position as the only Catholic solution to what has happened since Vatican II 

In addition, controversial topics touching on the Faith will sometimes be featured, so that the problem and possible solutions may be better understood. If anyone has suggestions for topics that would fall into any of these categories, you may post them in the comments. I cannot guarantee a post on each one, but each will be carefully considered.

Worlds Apart

In the next couple of posts in this series, I'm going to be explaining various worldviews.  What is a worldview? In the simplest terms, a worldview may be defined as how one sees life and the world at large. In this manner it can be compared to a pair of glasses. How a person makes sense of the world depends upon that person’s vision, so to speak.  The interpretive lens helps people make sense of life and comprehend the world around them. Worldviews also shape people’s understanding of their unique place on Earth.

By examining different worldviews, you can understand better why people who adopt a certain worldview act the way they do. It also brings the worldview of Traditionalist Catholicism into sharper focus and allows us to try and make converts when we understand the other perspectives and their weaknesses. The first worldview to be examined will be pantheism--which undergirds almost all Eastern pagan religions and most of the occult practitioners. This post is my compilation from various sources, the most important of which will be referenced at the end of the post.

Getting Glasses--Answering Big Questions

As stated previously, worldviews function in much the same way as a pair of glasses through which a person sees the world. Rather than a disconnected or disparate group of unrelated beliefs, a carefully examined and reflective worldview consists of a network of interconnected ideas that form a unified whole. This system of beliefs then responds to the big questions of life, focusing particularly upon issues central to human concern. These issues especially include thoughts about the human predicament (why man is the way he is and why he faces the challenges he does). A person’s worldview supplies a general context for life, providing a vision of what one considers authentically real.

More than just an interpretive lens, a worldview perspective shapes, influences, and generally directs a person’s entire life. Since people behave as they believe, their worldviews guide their thoughts, attitudes, values, interpretations, perspectives, decisions, and actions. Living a well-balanced life based on realistic values requires thinking about basic and critical questions. When a worldview attempts to answer them, it functions like a chart or plan used to navigate through the journey of life.

Therefore, a well-thought-out course, or worldview, needs to answer seven ultimate concerns that philosophers identify as “the big questions of life:"

 1. Ultimate Reality: What kind of God, if any, actually exists? 

2. External Reality: Is there anything beyond the cosmos, or is what we perceive all there is?

3. Knowledge: What can be known and how can anyone know it? 

4. Origin: Where did humanity come from? 

5. Morals and Values: How should I live, and what things are important in life? 

6. Problem of Life and Resolution: What is wrong with the world? How can humanity’s problem be solved? 

7. Destiny: Will I survive the death of my body and, if so, in what state? 

When a worldview elucidates reasonable answers to these ultimate questions, life (and death) issues become much more comprehensible and easier to get through.

Are Worldviews for Everyone?

Every person thinks about the big questions of life to some degree. People who grasp the worldview concept and seriously reflect on the subjects involved undoubtedly develop more functional and coherent belief systems than those who do not. Unfortunately, many people consider philosophical reflection in general— and worldview consideration in particular—a waste of time. Ironically, however, even this position of apathy reveals a philosophical viewpoint (in that the sentiment “philosophy is a waste of time” is itself a philosophical position). Philosophy is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid. A generally unexamined or scarcely examined approach to life may explain why so many people hold underdeveloped, disjointed, and poorly understood worldviews. Though such incomplete positions may be difficult to articulate, they do exist.

A person’s worldview orientation begins very early in life and is formed by multiple factors. These influences coalesce and have a cumulative effect in developing an individual’s broad outlook on life. Some of these elements are more important than others. For example, religious training (or the lack thereof) has a much greater impact on shaping a basic worldview than language, gender, or economic status. In fact, throughout much of history in both the East and West, a person’s religious framework has established the very core of his broader worldview.

Many people, as they mature, retain the same worldview they inherited, but do so only after examining it to decide if they want to continue living according to its principles and values. Upon approaching adulthood, most young people begin to examine what they’ve been taught and then decide whether the beliefs of their upbringing are really their own or just a system "on loan" from their parents. While worldview orientation is usually inherited or adopted from one’s family and culture, it can also be deliberately chosen through reflection and analysis. 

Thus, people may challenge their childhood influences and make a change. This alteration can obviously be significant and is referred to in philosophy as a paradigm shift. To modify the classic reflective statement by the Greek philosopher Socrates, there comes a time for some when the unexamined worldview is not worth believing and living out.

Pantheism: God and the Universe are One

Here are the tenets that comprise the worldview of pantheism:

1. Ultimate Reality: What kind of God, if any, actually exists? 

Pantheism is “the doctrine that . . . nature . . . is identical with God.” This means that nature, like electrons, rocks, animals, humans, is Divine, because “all is God, and God is all.” Since pantheism makes no distinction between God and the universe, the miracle of Genesis 1:1 that states “God created” the cosmos would be impossible, because there is no God outside of the cosmos to create it. Church teaching and pantheism are contradictory ideas. The Vatican Council of 1870 condemned pantheism:

CANON 3. If anyone saith that the substance or essence of God and that of all things are one and the same: let him be anathema.

Some form of pantheism is found in Hinduism, Buddhism, and occultism, to name but three applications of pantheism. "God" is not really personal; He is really an "it" comprised of all there is. 

2. External Reality: Is there anything beyond the cosmos, or is what we perceive all there is?

Ultimate Reality is viewed as purely spiritual in nature, and not physical. This solely spiritual reality is also considered totally impersonal (or transpersonal—beyond personal and impersonal) and therefore non-rational and amoral. The Ultimate One is said to have no boundaries or divisions. It is the all-pervasive being. This singular entity reflects and encompasses all of reality and is considered wholly interrelated and interpenetrating. All divisions and distinctions are viewed as being only apparent, not real, and therefore ultimately illusory.

Some forms of pantheism proclaim that the physical universe only appears to be real but is in actuality an illusion. Other forms of pantheism declare that the universe somehow emanates from God or is created out of God (ex Deo, as opposed to the Church teaching of ex nihilo--"out of nothing"). 

3. Knowledge: What can be known and how can anyone know it?

Pantheism asserts that human beings suffer from a type of metaphysical amnesia—an ignorance of their divine nature. While one in essence with God or Ultimate Reality, human beings erroneously perceive themselves as separate, distinct, and particular entities. This striking error in identity results in maya (the Hindu term for illusion). Understood as a type of false knowledge or dream state, this condition deceives man in terms of his ultimate self-perception. The illusion about one’s true identity must be overcome to, in a sense, “reunite” with Ultimate Reality.

The key to knowledge, then, is to transcend the world of experience, which is only maya, and to uncover one’s identity as part of the divine. This is done through such practices as "mindfulness meditation," yoga, etc. 

4. Origin: Where did humanity come from?

"God" or the universe, always existed. Humans are merely part of  "god," deceived in believing each person is a particular instead of part of the All.  Humans are "god" but don't yet realize it. Once "god-realization" is achieved, it remains to "awaken" as many others as possible, thereby ending the "universal amnesia."

5. Morals and Values: How should I live, and what things are important in life? 

Pantheism subscribes to moral relativism. Moral Relativism is not one doctrine, but rather can be classified into two (2) distinct and broad theses, both of which deny an external, unchanging Moral Norm. Cultural/Normative Relativism is the teaching which holds that a person must behave in accordance with the accepted norms that have evolved in his/her society. Conceptual Relativism holds there is no such property as good or evil; rather goodness is a function or relation between an action and society. The very meaning of "right and wrong" is relative to any given society. Pantheism holds to both tenets. 

6. Problem of Life and Resolution: What is wrong with the world? How can humanity’s problem be solved? 

People are plagued by not realizing they are part of the divine and must awaken to that realization.

7. Destiny: Will I survive the death of my body and, if so, in what state? 

Reincarnation is the belief among many pantheists (esp. Hindus and Buddhists) that you will be "incarnated" (given a body) again ("re-") in order to progress and work out your karma (good and bad deeds) and ultimately escape the cycle of rebirths by attaining moksha or nirvana (a state of perfection which usually, but not always, involves the extinction of the self into "Oneness"). 

Why Pantheism is a False Worldview

Four basic criticisms:

1. The universal amnesia regarding our "divinity" cannot be satisfactorily explained.

If humanity is really "part of the divine," how is it that we are unaware of it? Wouldn't "god" know he is divine? Why does it take some guru, or yoga, or pagan meditation for "god" to realize who he is? How do we account for this "universal amnesia"?

2. How does the pantheist know that HE is not the one mis-perceiving reality?

The pantheists claim that Christians who believe in a world external to their senses are caught in the grip of an illusion, because "all is one." How does the pantheist know it is we who are deceived by our common sense experience and not himself for thinking that "all is one;" contrary to what reason and sense experience tells us?

3. If pantheism is true, we can never distinguish between fantasy and reality. 

The burden of proof is clearly on the pantheist to tell us why we should abandon our common ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy. We should believe what our experience tells us is true unless or until we have good reason to think otherwise. The pantheist reverses this and would have us believe what is counter-intuitive is true despite the lack of evidence. This is absurd.

4. If pantheism is true, there is no good or evil. 

If all is "God," then God allowed the mass murders committed by Joseph Stalin, and God allowed the altruism of St. Francis of Assisi. How can they be morally equivalent? Inanimate objects are divine on the pantheistic worldview. They have "spiritual energy." Does that mean they are self-aware? If not, how can they be equally divine with rational creatures? If so, do we harm them by throwing them or breaking them up? Don't they then have rights of some sort?

As to reincarnation in particular, here are but two reasons (apart from Church teaching) that reincarnation is both false, and the very idea of cycles of rebirth is not "giving people more chances," but actually quite evil:

1. One lifetime is enough to decide your eternal fate. What difference does it make if a person lives 7,000 years in various incarnations or 70 years in one lifetime when compared to eternity? Are not both infinitesimal when compared to eternity? Everyone is given ample opportunity to get to Heaven, and no one goes there unless they choose it! Not all experiences admit of second chances. The Hindus are fond of comparing life to a test that a kind teacher lets you retake if you fail. I could just as easily analogize to someone committing suicide by shooting himself in the head. There is no "do over," and the result is permanent. Provided that the person was of sound mind, the choice was freely made.

2. Reincarnation does nothing to explain evil and is unjust unlike Hell. Children can be baptized because they did nothing wrong in contracting Original Sin. It is simply the deprivation of sanctifying grace caused by the Fall of Adam. In a similar way, if a wealthy couple squanders millions of dollars, their children will be born into a poor state through no fault of their own but those children can work their way to wealth. Children who die without baptism are generally thought to enjoy some natural happiness (Limbo) because of no personal fault. Contrast this with reincarnation. In what sense does your self continue? If you have no memory of what you did in a past life (and you may not even exist as the same gender or on the same planet/dimension), in what sense do you survive death? If there is no bodily continuity, memory, or intellectual awareness, it seems like you're suffering for what someone else did, which is unjust.

Reincarnation also offers no solution to the problem of evil. For example, if someone is born with no arms because they assaulted people in a prior life, and they assaulted people in a prior life because before that life they couldn't control their temper, whence did evil originate? It's an infinite regress of past lives with no explanation. How did suffering begin in the first place if each life of suffering was caused by past bad karma? Moreover, there would be no free will in the view of reincarnation. Eventually, everyone will come to the same state of nirvana. So it doesn't matter if you're Hitler or St. Francis of Assisi, you both get to the same place regardless of what you do. Morality is relative. For one person bad karma may involve beating his wife, but not for another in a different society. On the other hand, Heaven and Hell are freely chosen with the wicked punished and the good rewarded.

Conclusion

Pantheism has been infallibly condemned as heretical by the One True Church, and with plenty of good reasons. It is a worldview rife with self-contradiction. Take the claim that one can only know "god" and that you are part of "god" by "emptying the mind in mediation" and the like. Pantheists say that "god" is unknowable in an intellectual way. Yet, the very claim, “God is unknowable in an intel­lectual way,” is self-defeating. For what is being affirmed is that nothing can be understood about "god" in an intellectual way. However, the pantheist expects us to intellectually know this truth that "god" cannot be understood in an intellectual way. In other words, the pantheist appears to be making a statement about God to the effect that no such statements can be made about God. 

Thus, the worldview of most pagans and occultists, resting on pantheism, is illogical, evil, and false. 

(Sources were many, and of special mention:

Dooyeweerd, Herman. Roots of Western Culture: Pagan, Secular, and Christian Options.Trans. John Kraay. [2003]; Harris, Robert A. The Integration of Faith and Learning: A Worldview Approach. [2004]; Sire, James W. Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept, [2004]). 

The Stigmata: Bearing The Wounds Of Jesus Christ

 

To My Readers: As my work and family responsibilities have been piling up, I decided to put together a post on a very misunderstood spiritual phenomenon, the stigmata. This compilation comes from a variety of approved sources, most notably theologian Carty, The Stigmata and Modern Science, [1958], and theologian Farges, Mystical Phenomena Compared with their Human and Diabolical Counterparts, [1926]. The information is compiled by me, and I take no credit except in condensing the information into a concise post. Above is a picture of St. Gemma Galgani (died 1903; canonized 1940), who bore the stigmata.

In my post, I make no mention of the man who arguably is the most famous alleged stigmatist, Padre Pio. I have most serious doubts about his authenticity as both a stigmatist and as a "saint." For the reasons why, please see my post:

https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/01/was-padre-pio-ecumenist.html

Feel free to comment as usual, but it may take me a bit longer than usual to respond this week. God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

What is the Stigmata?

The stigmata has been defined by theologians as "participation in the Passion of Christ in a way that is shown outwardly by marks on those parts of the body where Christ bore His wounds. It is a charisma or supernatural gift.”

The external marks of the wounds of Christ are then only the material element of Stigmatization; to be regarded as stigmata in the ecclesiastical sense they must be accompanied by a participation in the sufferings of Christ. Not all marks or wounds, even if they be on those places where Christ bore His wounds, are regarded as even the material element of Stigmatization. To be regarded as stigmata in the ecclesiastical as against the medical meaning of the term, these wounds must not be mere surface marks such as are sometimes produced by hypnotism, but must be deep wounds such as, for example, those of St. Francis of Assisi; they must not vanish after a short time but must remain fresh for years without suppurating, and when they bleed they must emit fresh blood. In addition, these wounds which form the material element of Stigmatization must be accompanied by a participation in the physical sufferings of Christ’s Passion and by the profession and pious practice of the true Faith in the Catholic Church, before they can be regarded as stigmata in the strict sense.

The phenomenon of the stigmata is a sign of the reality of Christ’s passion on the Cross. By God’s will, certain saints who have loved and meditated on the sacrifice of Christ crucified have participated in His sufferings. They offer those sufferings with the same spirituality as Saint Paul, who said, "I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the Church." (Colossians 1:24). 

A few theologians have taught that the apostle Paul himself had the stigmata, and that when he says, "… I carry the marks of Jesus branded on my body" (Galatians 6:17), he wasn’t saying it metaphorically, but literally. For stigmatists, the wounds of Christ on their bodies are an unmerited grace; therefore, if they are a form of grace, God is the one who gives them. Stigmatists do not ask for these mystical experiences. The vocation of the stigmatists is to suffer a share of the Passion of Christ—which exceeds all earthly sufferings. St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, to whom Christ appeared with His Most Sacred Heart, participated in the agony of Christ in the Garden and felt that death itself could hold nothing so painful for her. 

What must it be then to share in all the sufferings of the Passion, including the crucifixion, as most of the stigmatists are asked to do? Need we wonder then if Almighty God allows the stigmatists to get a glimpse of Thabor occasionally? Need we wonder if He gives them special gifts? St. Paul says: “we are the sons of God . . . and joint heirs of Christ, yet so, if we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him.” (Rom. 8:16-17). 

In the cases the Church has approved, the stigmata is a grace of God granted to few saints; the stigmata are physical manifestations of Christian mysticism. We must keep in mind that when the Church recognizes a phenomenon as authentic, it accepts the phenomenon but in no case does it propose that it be believed as a doctrine of faith. Moreover, the Church doesn’t canonize anyone just because they have the stigmata. What the Church does when it canonizes is recognize the exemplary Christian life of a saint, whether or not he or she has the stigmata.

So, why does God grant the stigmata? Through the stigmata, God expresses his pleasure in the holiness of life related to the conscious acceptance of the Cross taken up spiritually. It is, then, an experience of suffering colored with joy for the grace received.

A stigmatist receives the mission of being a prophet to remind humanity of the realities that are truly important. They help us to see the extremes to which Christ went to redeem us. They help those who suffer to conform themselves to Christ, offering their own sufferings for the salvation of souls.

Signs of True Stigmata

In the history of the stigmatists, we find that the stigmata were always accompanied with other charismata such as living for years without earthly food, the gift of prophecy, the gift of reading the secrets of the heart, the faculty of distinguishing between sacred and profane objects, the gift of perceiving the presence of the Blessed Sacrament in places hidden from view. If any fault against faith or morals is detected in the stigmatists by proper authority—the Bishop or the Holy See—it is a sign that the person in question is not corresponding to the graces that go with the stigmata, or that the stigmata were not genuine. As long as the proper authority issues no condemnation, the faithful need not be disturbed by shrill warnings from unauthorized individuals. In the long list of the stigmatists since St. Francis of Assisi, only a few of those who had real external marks of the Wounds of Christ were found to be unfaithful.

A few Catholic theologians who hold peculiar views about the stigmata refer to the few cases of lapse with apparent triumph, as if they proved that the possession of the marks of the Wounds of Christ was of no consequence. The extraordinarily high proportion of stigmatists faithful to their glorious but painful vocation, amounting to nearly 100%, may be attributed to the fact that, in the Providence of God, only those receive the stigmata who have been tried in the crucible of suffering for many years and who have been found faithful.

What are the criteria that the Church uses to determine whether or not the stigmata are authentic?

1. The stigmata are located in the same general places as the five wounds of Christ.

2. The stigmata all appear at the same time.

3. The stigmata appear spontaneously while the person prays in ecstasy.

4. They cannot be explained by natural causes.

5. They do not deteriorate into necrosis.

6. The do not give off a bad smell; on the contrary, sometimes it is said they smell of flowers.

7. They do not become infected.

8. They bleed daily and profusely.

9. They remain unchanged despite treatment. They do not become worse.

10. They cause a significant modification of the bodily tissues.

11. They do not close perfectly and instantaneously.

12. They are accompanied by intense physical and moral suffering, as from participating in the sufferings of Christ. (The lack of pain is a bad sign and a cause for doubt.)

As to the first criterion, skeptics will ask why some stigmatists have the wounds in the HANDS instead of the WRISTS which according to the Shroud of Turin (and historical/scientific evidence) is where Christ bore the nails. Some stigmatics did have them in the wrist, like St. Francis of Assisi and St. Gemma Galgani, just to name two. The stigmata’s purpose is not to present us an exact medical model of Jesus’ wounds. Otherwise, all genuine occurrences of them would look exactly alike — yet they do not. Instead, through this extraordinary phenomenon, those who witness it are called to grow deeper in union with our crucified Lord. 

As if the above were not enough, the entire life of the person involved is also studied.  He or she must be a person who practices Christian virtues heroically — in particular, their great love for humility and for the cross should stand out.

Throughout history, many cases have appeared; there are so many that the stigmata can be classified as follows:

1. Stigmatization of divine origin.

2. Stigmatization of diabolical origin.

3. Stigmatization of undetermined origin.

4. Stigmatization of neurotic and/or psychological origin, in the case of people who suffer from hysteria and who cause their own wounds, although it may be unconsciously etc.

Answering Skeptics

There are those who claim that all stigmatists belong to the fourth category, those who are fakes, or they have natural explanation relating to mental illness. This is true of atheists and agnostics. That there are fakes and natural causes; conceded. That all are fakes or have natural causes; denied. Authentic stigmata can be distinguished from natural causes and fakes because the genuine stigmata:

 

• conforms to the wounds of our Lord, whereas those of a pathological nature would emerge at random on the body
• bleeds especially on days when our Lord's passion is remembered (such as Fridays and Good Friday)
• emits clean and pure blood, whereas those of the pathological origin suppurate
• can be great at times without harm to the person, whereas that of a pathological nature would seriously weaken a person and require a blood transfusion
• cannot be healed through medication or other treatments, whereas one of pathological origin can
• appears suddenly, whereas that of a pathological origin appears gradually over time and can be linked to underlying psychological and physical causes

Another amazing fact concerning the stigmata are the numerous documented cases where various natural laws, such as gravity, are suspended. For example, we see in the life of the Servant of God, Domenica Lazzeri (1815-1848) where a respected observer, Lord Shrewsbury John Talbot testified in 1837 while observing Domenica lying in her bed:  "Instead of taking its natural course, the blood flowed upwards over the tops of the toes, as it would do were she suspended on a cross."

Then too, how can those like Maria von Morl (1812-1868) who continuously bore the stigmata for exactly 33 years (Christ lived 33 years on Earth), not develop any kind of infection in the large, open wounds on the hands, feet and side over the course of numerous decades?  How is it that there has never been a documented case of infection in the wounds of any of the hundreds of known stigmatics?

At the same time, how can anyone explain the amazing speed at which St Gemma Galgani's (and many others) stigmatized wounds would heal each week? Beginning on Thursday evenings, Gemma would be drawn into ecstasy, and would soon develop the crown of thorn wounds on her forehead. By Friday at noon, she would have the stigmata on both her hands and feet--large open wounds that would be bleeding profusely, with the sheets on her bed being completely saturated in blood. At 3pm on Friday, all of the wounds would stop bleeding and begin to close up, and by the next day (Saturday) the wounds would be completely healed with no scabs--in less than 24 hours, the only evidence of the large nail sized wounds the afternoon before would be a round whitish colored scar, as witnessed and testified by numerous people on many occasions.

As stated above, the Church doesn’t canonize anyone just because they have the stigmata, but if someone does have the stigmata and the Church concludes, after rigorous study, that they are false, then that is an impediment for a future canonization of that person, even if he or she leads a holy life.

Those of Diabolical Origin

The great theologian Cardinal Bona has been quoted as holding the opinion that the devil not only can produce the marks of the stigmata but that he has actually done so. He writes: “ . . . The marks of the wounds (of Christ) can be imitated and impressed by the fiend, as so many examples too painfully have proven.” (See De dicretione spirituum  [1672], Chapter VII by Cardinal Bona [1609-1674]).

It is to be noted that all the Cardinal says is that the marks of the wounds “can be imitated and impressed” by the devil; he does not say that the devil can produce deep wounds that remain fresh for years. He adds that there have been many examples of diabolical stigmata, but in none of the examples commonly quoted do we find reference to deep wounds that have remained fresh for years.

 The case of diabolical stigmata most commonly referred to, especially by writers who endeavor to disparage the true stigmata, is that of Magdalena de la Cruz, and when referred to, the facts of the case are generally distorted. The following are the facts of the case: Magdalena de la Cruz was born in Spain near Cordoba in 1487. At the age of twelve she was solicited by the devil who appeared to her in human form, and she remained under his power for more than forty years. She entered the Franciscan Convent of Sancta Isabel de los Angeles in 1504, of which convent she afterwards became Abbess. She gained a great reputation for holiness and for thirty-nine years exhibited a series of pseudo-mystical phenomena among which were the stigmata which bled. These she frequently exhibited to people who visited her. 

In 1543 she fell dangerously ill and confessed that her holiness was only a pretense and that the extraordinary phenomena in her life were the work of the devil. When she repented, all these phenomena, including the stigmata, ceased and never reappeared. She passed the last seventeen years of her life in the convent of Sancta Clara, deeply penitent, and died in 1560. With regard to her stigmata, it is not stated that they were deep wounds or that they were permanent. As she was fond of displaying them, it may be presumed that they were produced by the devil for each occasion, and that they disappeared during the intervals. At all events they disappeared in 1643 when she repented and never reappeared. Hers is the most extreme case and most commonly quoted of the devil’s attempts to deceive people by counterfeiting the stigmata, and it is to be noted that Divine Providence did not allow the deception to be permanent. Much the same may be said about all other cases of stigmata “imitated and impressed” by the devil. 

Conclusion

The stigmata is a rare and beautiful gift of God, which reminds us of what He suffered for our redemption. It is also a reminder of the true sanctity that women can achieve. Over 70% of stigmatics were women. It is understandable that atheistic writers should seize on the fact to discredit this form of miracle, that is confined to the Catholic Church, by representing the stigmata as the effect of emotionalism or hysteria. They will also ask why these wounds would appear in the body of a woman since Jesus Christ was a man.

The answer is simple, and upholds the dignity of women. The vocation of all true stigmatists is to bear a portion of the physical sufferings of Our Lord and in a mysterious manner to keep Our Blessed Lady company at the foot of the cross. At the actual crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord on Calvary, there were three women present, including Our Blessed Lady and only one man, St. John, the Beloved Disciple. Notice three to one in favor of women. 

While Christ reserved the dignity of the priesthood for men, and given them more frequent opportunities for martyrdom than women; and for the honor of keeping Our Blessed Lady company at the foot of the cross, while not excluding other St. Johns, He has chosen members of the female sex. Women outnumber men in many callings where courage and constancy of a high order are necessary. For instance, prior to Vatican II, women outnumbered men in the mission-fields; the number of women in the various religious orders and congregations was far greater than the number of men. Such is the arrangement of Divine Providence. 

While most of us will never be stigmatics, we can all meditate on the Passion of Our Lord, and perform the Stations of the Cross on Fridays. Attend Mass while contemplating the bloody death of Christ on the cross, as you see its unbloody re-presentation through time and space before your very eyes. Let us bear with patience our daily crosses. As Christ told us, "If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for My sake, shall find it." (St. Matthew 16:24-25)

St. Gemma Galgani, pray for us! 

The False Teachings Of "The Spirit World"

 

It's hard to believe the number of popular "self-help" and "spiritual books" written by those who have claimed to have (a) channeled spirits or (b) were suddenly "spoken to" by "God." Just to focus on three such authors, Neale Donald Walsch claims "God" dictated his book  Conversations With God; Helen Schucman who claimed a spirit declaring itself to be the "voice of Jesus Christ" dictated A Course in Miracles; and Judy Zebra "J. Z." Knight (born Judith Darlene Hampton) who channels an "enlightened spirit of  a human warrior" that wrote Voyage to the New World: An Adventure Into Unlimitedness will be examined. 

They have all written follow-up books and have far-reaching influence. Interestingly, even though Walsch, Schucman, and Knight do not have anything to do with each other, and in spite of claims that their books come from very different sources, they all have the same basic false claims stated slightly different. These claims show a decidedly occult worldview.

There are three basic teachings of the occult:

1. Moral and Cognitive Relativism. Moral relativism teaches there are no absolute standards of right and wrong; cognitive relativism teaches there is no objective truth (listen to Millennials who speak about "my truth" and "your truth.").

2. "You are God." Pantheism teaches the universe conceived of as a whole is God, so everything is "part of God." Panentheism teaches everything is in some way a part of God, because God exists in the universe like a soul exists in a body. Both of these philosophies are at the root of most paganism and virtually all of the occult. Humans are exalted to "God status."

3. The Denigration of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His One True Church. True Christianity is made to seem irrelevant, inferior to other things, and even evil. 

In this post, the occult connection between these authors' writings will be explored. In fact, you could see the similarity between any so-called "message from the spirit world" and the authors I mention. Ditto for those claiming "God" spoke to them (you will see the stark difference between those phonies and authentic private revelation from God, like Christ to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque regarding His Most Sacred Heart). The Holy Bible tells us to test the spirits. Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: and this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh, and he is now already in the world. (1 St. John 4:1-3; Emphasis mine). 

The Teachings of Demons

First, I will present a brief summary in which I expose the spirits’ (i.e., demons') views from chan­neled literature, which are at open odds with Church teaching. Then I will quote the spirits in more detail to further document their beliefs.

God

The spirits teach that God is ultimately an impersonal force (an “it”), like electricity or a “personalized” universal energy that constitutes everything. God is “infinite power,” “all life,” “universal consciousness,” etc. The consensus of “most channeled material” is that “God is all that is” and that “the universe is a multi-dimensional living Being,” i.e.. God.

Jesus Christ

The spirits teach that Jesus is an evolved spirit or a man just like us. Jesus was the person who highly emulated the Christ spirit which is also part of us all. The spirits say that Jesus has died and has now evolved to a higher state of existence just like other people have. Thus, one spirit confesses that Jesus was only a representative of the impersonal divine force living in all men (the Christ spirit) and that Catholics who believe in Jesus Christ as the Incarnate Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity are "delusional."

Human Beings

The spirits teach that humanity's true nature is perfect and one essence with God. Original sin and even personal sin is denied.

Sin

The spirits teach that sins are merely “mistakes,” “an illusion,” or ignorance of one’s own deity, and that sin in the Catholic sense is nothing with which God concerns Himself.

Salvation

The spirits teach that “salvation” involves realizing that one is already part of God. Each person must accomplish this for himself by practicing various occult techniques.

Death

The spirits teach that at death there is no final judgment. It is merely transition into the wonderful spirit world or Heaven. Hell does not exist.

Satan

The spirits teach there is no devil. (I'm reminded of the famous saying: “The devil's greatest trick is convincing the world he doesn't exist.”). 

Conversations with "God"?

Neale Donald Walsch (b. 1943) was baptized and raised in the One True Church. He claims to have studied comparative religions for years, but was never a devout Catholic. In 1992, Walsch, then 49, was angry and despondent over the course his life had taken. His marriage ended in divorce, a fire then destroyed all his belongings, after which he was in a car accident wherein he suffered a broken neck. After he left the hospital, he was alone, broke, and living in a tent. He picked up aluminum cans for the deposit money in order to eat.

It was then he decided to write an angry letter to God asking why He allowed all this to happen to him. As he finished writing the last question, Walsch claims the pen moved on its own and he found himself writing words as though taking dictation (known as "automatic writing"). Walsch states he knew this was "God" dictating the responses, although he does not explain how he knew God was responsible. Later, he would deny automatic writing, and assert he was writing down what "God" told him.

In an interview with Larry King, Walsch claims he heard a voice saying, "Do you really want an answer to all these questions or are you just venting?" (See cs.cmu.edu/~zechner/cwg/lkl-ndw.html). He turned around he saw no one there, yet Walsch felt answers to his questions filling his mind and decided to write them down as his pen moved. The resulting "dialogue" became the best selling book Conversations With God in 1995. It spent an incredible 135 weeks on the New York Times Bestsellers List. There were eight other books in the series to follow, and Walsch is worth approximately $81 million dollars today. 

The elements set forth above will be examined in Walsch's books. As there are a total of nine (9) books in the series, quotes will be culled from more than just the first book, and citations will be given accordingly (For example 3:27, means book 3 page 27 in the series). I obtained copies of originals years ago and the pages might be different from other editions, or pdf versions.

Sin is non-existent and morality is subjective. In his first book, pg. 152, we are treated to this gem: 

There’s nothing "wrong" with anything. "Wrong'" is a relative term, indicating the opposite of that which you call "right." Yet, what is "right"? Can you be truly objective in these matters? Or are "right" and "wrong" simply descriptions overlaid on events and circumstances by you, out of your decision about them?

I'm sure if Mr. Walsch's publisher refused to pay him the royalties on his book, I'm willing to bet he would see something very wrong with that and sue. The danger of this nonsense should be self-evident. We can't be truly objective about murder, lying, stealing, etc. being immoral? It gives the green light to sin.

God loves you as you are; there is no need to amend your life. 

You must first see your Self as worthy before you can see another as worthy. You must first see your Self as blessed before you can see another as blessed. You must first know your Self to be holy before you can acknowledge holiness in another (1:26)

 Walsch claims "God" taught him Original Sin is a "myth," and we are all holy--why? Because everything is holy (part of God; pantheism). Pure heresy.

"True for you, but maybe not for me."

Feeling is the language of the soul. If you want to know what's true for you about something, look to how you're feeling about it. (1:13). 

Notice the phrase "what's true for you"--as if each person can have a "different truth" because there is no objective, unchanging truth. If that's the case, why is Walsch (or "God") asking us to accept what is said in the book as true? Wouldn't that eliminate anything that contradicts it as objectively false? At the beginning of the book we are told by "God" that Words are really the least effective communicator . . . merely utterances... If true, why is "God" communicating words to Walsch and why should we believe these "mere utterances"? It's a self-refuting statement.

There is no One True Religion.

No path to God is more direct than any other path. No religion is the "one true religion," no people are "the chosen people," and no prophet is the "greatest prophet." (7:98).

In one sentence, Catholicism, Judaism, and Islam are denied. All organized religions are false according to Walsch's "conversations with 'God.'"  Furthermore, there is no Hell, and everyone is assured of eternal happiness. Your happy destiny is unavoidable. You cannot be "saved." There is no hell except not knowing this.-- (1:93).

Jesus Christ is NOT God.

In book 2 of his series, on page 244, we are told The Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus were spacemen. Yes, aliens from another planet! Walsch denigrates Catholicism by claiming "God" said: Wait a minute! This God of yours sent you to Purgatory if you ate meat on Friday? (2:44). In the first book we are told by "God" that drinking is not OK. But Jesus took alcohol! says Walsch. To which "God" replies, So who said Jesus was perfect? (1:192).

A Course in Miracles (and the Occult)

Popular occultist Marianne Williamson (running for U.S. President in 2024), is a follower of the teachings of one Helen Schucman (d. 1981) who wrote the occult book A Course in Miracles (1976). In October of 1965, then 56 year old Schucman, a Jewish atheist psychologist and associate professor of medical psychology at Columbia University in NYC, began receiving what she claimed were channeled messages from a "spirit guide" identifying itself as "the voice of Jesus Christ." Soon, Schucman became used to the "voice" which dictated things for her to write down. She acted as a scribe, with her hand moving in what is known as "automatic writing," which I mentioned above. Popular in occult circles, this automatic writing means that the writer's hand forms the words, but the person is unaware of what will be written. This is what also happened to Walsch. It is undeniable Walsch claimed automatic writing, but later said it was locutions dictated by "God."

The result of Schucman's automatic writing was the book A Course in Miracles. The book tells us that our beliefs are unimportant. What is important is the application of the book's ideas which will bring you into a "higher form of consciousness." It further states that what is important is the "inner core of our own being" that unifies all religions of the world. This is a sample of what the "spirit guide" pretending to be the voice of Jesus Christ dictated to Schucman:

Some of the ideas the workbook presents you will find hard to believe, and others may seem quite startling. This does not matter. You are merely asked to apply the ideas as you are directed to do. You are not asked to judge them at all. You are asked only to use them. It is their use that will give them meaning to you, and will show you they are true.

Remember only this; you need not believe the ideas, you need not accept them, and you need not even welcome them. Some of them you may actively resist. None of this will matter, or decrease their efficacy. But do not allow yourself to make exceptions in applying the ideas the workbook contains, and whatever your reaction to the ideas may be, use them. Nothing more than that is required. (See A Course in Miracles: Text, Workbook for Students, Manual for Teachers, Glen Ellen, CA, The Foundation for Inner Peace [Reprint 1977], pg.ix).

Here are the teachings of “Jesus Christ”—the demon who worked through medium Helen Schucman in A Course in Miracles, 1977; citations are listed by volume and page:

Teaching on God: The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself. There is no separation of God and His creation. (1:136). Pure pantheism. 

Teaching on Jesus Christ: There is nothing about me [Jesus] that you cannot attain. (1:5); Christ waits for your acceptance of Him as yourself. (1:187); Is Jesus the Christ? O yes, along with you. (1:83). Once more, YOU are "God." Christ is blasphemously denigrated as "nothing special." 

Teaching on humanity: God’s Name is holy, but no holier than yours. To call upon His Name is but to call upon your own. (2:334); You are the Holy Son of God Himself.  (2:353-54). More self-divinization. 

Teaching on sin: Sin does not exist. (3:81); Sin is the grand illusion… joyously [release] one another from the belief in sin.  (1:375, 377-78); See no one, then, as guilty … [within all people] there is perfect innocence; No one is punished for sins [and you] are not sinners. (1:88).

Teaching on salvation: [Divine] forgiveness, then, is an illusion (3:79);  [It is] a terrible misconception that God Himself [judged] His own Son on behalf of salvation…. It is so essential that all such thinking be dispelled that we must be sure that nothing of this kind remains in your mind. I was not ‘punished’ because you were bad. (1:32-33, 87);  A sense of separation from God is the only lack you really need to correct; Salvation is nothing more than ‘right-mindedness’; You are one with God. (1:11,53; 2:125); Do not make the pathetic error of ‘clinging to the old rugged cross.’… This is not the gospel I… intended to offer you. (1:47).

Teaching on death: There is no death, but there is a belief in death. (1:46); Death is the central dream from which all illusions stem. (3:63).

Voyage to...Hell

JZ Knight explains herself thus on her website:

JZ Knight is the unique channel of Ramtha and author of the best-selling autobiography, “A State of Mind, My Story.” Historians and religious experts who have studied her life’s work call JZ Knight the Great American Channel and recognize her as one of the most charismatic and compelling spiritual leaders of the modern age.

JZ Knight and Ramtha have captivated and inspired audiences worldwide for the last three decades, bridging ancient wisdom and the power of consciousness together with the latest discoveries in science. JZ Knight has appeared on national TV shows, such as Larry King and The Merv Griffin Show, offering spiritual insight and inspiration to thousands of people from all over the world and all walks of life, including many well-known figures from the entertainment world....

Ramtha is an ascended Master Teacher who learned in his lifetime the unlimited potential of our minds for creating reality and the extraordinary in our lives. Ramtha lived as a human being on Earth 35,000 years ago. In that lifetime he discovered the true nature of the human person, the power of the mind, and the malleable nature of physical reality. Through his study of the nature of reality he achieved the supreme convergence of spirit and matter and became an ascended master. His powerful message of hope for humanity has already changed countless lives — none more powerfully and dramatically than JZ’s own life. (See jzknight.com/about).

Knight claims the entity appeared to her in her kitchen in 1977, and dictates what to write through her. He also speaks through her. 

“Ramtha”—the spirit speaking through medium J. Z. Knight in Douglas Mahr’s, Ramtha, Voyage to the New World, 1987; citations are listed by pages.

“Ramtha’s” teaching on God: Ramtha teaches the Christian God is an “idiotic deity” (p. 219); God, the principal, is all things (p. 250). Pantheism strikes again.

“Ramtha’s” teaching on humanity: You are God.(p. 61); God the Father is you .(p. 136); Everyone is what you call a psychic. (p. 139); Love yourself… live in the moment, to exalt all that you are.(p. 149).

“Ramtha’s” teaching on sin:  There is no such thing as evil. (p. 60); For 2,000 years we have been called sinful creatures … [but] we are equal with God or Christ. (pgs. 180-81).

“Ramtha’s” teaching on salvation: Do not preach to this world…. The world doesn’t need saving— leave it alone. (p. 130); Relinquish guilt… do not live by rules, live by feelings. … You are the Lord of Hosts, you are the Prince of Peace. (p. 149); Now to become enlightened is to make the priority of enlightenment first—the priority of love of Self first. (p. 227).

“Ramtha’s” teaching on death: God has never judged you or anyone. (p. 62); No, there is no Hell and there is no devil. (p. 252).

Conclusion

Notice the common themes throughout all these alleged contacts with "spirits," or "God," or specifically, "Jesus Christ." All came from occult automatic writing and/or locutions. Could some be simply money-making scams? Sure. However, did they remain such? Are the recurrent themes all coincidence? All three authors had some rough times in their lives connected to their interaction with spirits, or voices claiming to be God. They all teach the same things, even though there are many ways to be against the Church. 

Directly from Hell, or doing Satan's work--one thing remains clear: The religious teachings of the spirits are exactly what one might expect from demons. Many have gone into the occult as skeptics to "see if it's real" or to make a quick buck--but in my experience and research, I have never known anyone who remained skeptical once they began. 

The next time you see a "self-help book," a book that gives "spiritual guidance/enlightenment" or read about an alleged "message from God," put it to the test. 

Defending Jesus As The Messiah

 

There is a large Jewish population in New York, and among NY lawyers. Having worked with them for years, I know that they will not try and make converts. Even the Orthodox Jews don't proselytize. According to Jewish scholar Rabbi Allen S. Maller:

Judaism lacks a strong missionary impulse because Judaism is a pluralistic religion. Judaism teaches that the Jewish way is right for us, but good people in other religions also have a place in the world to come. Correct behavior in society is more important than correct beliefs about God. Thus, while Jews welcome non-Jews to join us, we do not have a urgent motive to ‘enlighten’ or ‘save’ them.

(See eurasiareview.com/10112022-a-jewish-scholar-explains-why-jews-dont-proselytize-oped). 

Jewish people have more in common with Bergoglio than they probably realize--"Proselytism is solemn nonsense," said the Argentinian apostate. There have been a number of converts from Judaism to "Christianity" (I use that word broadly to encompass Protestant sects). The organization Jews for Jesus  is known for its proselytism of Jews, and promotes the belief that Jesus is the Christ --the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.

Hence, there is now a strong push by certain rabbis to prevent anyone from leaving Judaism. They concentrate on arguments meant to show that Jesus was not, and could not, be the Messiah. In this post, I will expose some of those arguments, and how to respond with evidence that shows Christ is the Messiah as prophesied. For this post, I have used many sources, and take credit only for compiling them into a terse post. I want to acknowledge in particular, a 1949 Catholic pamphlet written by an anonymous priest entitled Jesus Christ is the Messiah: Proven From The Bible.

Jesus Christ: Son of God and "Son of Man"

The term "Son of Man" is used over 80 times in the New Testament.  What does “Son of Man” mean?

When Jesus spoke of Himself and His mission, He often referred to Himself as “Son of Man.” Some, who are not well-versed in the Faith, may think "Son of Man" emphasizes Jesus' Humanity, while "Son of God" emphasizes His Divinity. In the context of Jesus, “Son of Man” seems to relate to Jesus’ self-designation and understanding of being the Messiah (though sometimes in a hidden or “secret” way).

In the Gospel of St. John, a bystander asks Jesus this very question: “Who is this Son of Man?” (12:34). Jesus, however, does not give a clear answer. He instead refers to himself differently: as the light. In St. Matthew 16, however, He is more explicit. When He asks His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” (16:13), Jesus affirms the response of St. Peter: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” (16:16).

One of the most important prophecies Christ fulfilled was that of the "Suffering Servant" found in the Book of Isaiah, chapter 53:

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. Yet who of his generation protested? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied ; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Christ fulfilled all the Messianic prophesies, which in itself would take several posts to examine. In the next section will be specific Jewish objections and their refutations.

Charges Made and Answered

1. Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because He was not a prophet; He appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.

Reply: In the mid to late second century, Judaism established an arbitrary "end of prophecy" upon the death of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi and declared that Jesus cannot be the Messiah since "He appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended."

If this were true, then according to Judaism, the Messiah can never come.  Any Messiah that showed up today, tomorrow, next week, or next year would "appear on the scene over 2,300 years after prophecy had ended" and would not qualify as a prophet either.

2. Jesus couldn't be the Messiah because He could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David.

Reply: Judaism has invented a requirement of patriarchal lineage (i.e. lineage through the father) that does not exist in Scripture.  The Law of Moses allows for inheritance and continuation of lineage through daughters as well as sons. (see Numbers 27:1-7)

In a rather ironic twist, modern Judaism only acknowledges Jewish heritage and legitimacy through a mother's lineage... not the father's.

3. The Virgin Birth is made up by Christians and not found in Scripture. Isaiah 7:14 says that a "young woman" will give birth and not a "virgin."

Reply: "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Emmanuel." (Isaiah 7:14; Emphasis mine).  

In Isaiah 7:11, God tells King Ahaz, "Ask for a sign for yourself from the LORD your God; make it as deep as Sheol or high as heaven."

Ahaz declines in fear saying, "I will not ask, nor will I test the LORD!" (verse 12)

In verse 14, God declares His choice of a miraculous sign for Ahaz: a virgin shall be with child and bear a son.

According to the Jewish "anti-missionaries" the miraculous sign God chose was that a "young woman" would get pregnant (presumably in the normal way) and have a son.  Really?  How is something that happens millions of times every year a miracle?

Yes, the Hebrew of this passage uses the word "alma."  Yes, that word generally means "a young woman," however, young women described using this word are virgins.  A young woman who is not a virgin is called a naarah.  Jacob's daughter Dinah (who is raped by a young man) is described using naarah and not alma.

Between 130 to 350 years before the Messiah was born, Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek---a translation we call The Septuagint.  They translated the Hebrew word alma in Isaiah 7:14 into the Greek word parthenos.  This word parthenos means "a young woman who is a virgin".

4. Jesus Christ is not the "Suffering Servant." That title belongs to Israel. In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. 

Reply: This is a common Jewish claim. Not surprisingly, there are several holes in their logic:

• The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is innocent and guiltless and "had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His mouth."  In contrast, Isaiah describes Israel as a "sinful nation, a people weighed down with iniquity." (Isaiah 1:4)

• The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:3 was not esteemed by Israel ("we did not esteem Him") and yet Israel esteems themselves daily in their prayers.

• The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:8 suffers the penalty of the transgression in lieu of "my people," [Israel] "to whom the stroke was due."  This cannot be Israel.

• The Suffering Servant dies, is buried, and is called rich in His death (verse 9) and yet the nation of Israel has (obviously) never died or been buried.

• The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 serves as a "guilt-offering" (Hebrew: asham).  This type of offering is used to atone for willful sin.  Can the suffering of a sinful nation serve to atone for their own sins much less the sins of other nations?  No!

 Therefore, The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is not Israel. Jesus Christ is the Messiah.

Conclusion

Though there were many factors that led the Jewish people to reject Jesus as the Messiah, it can be stated simply: they did not believe in Him because they did not want to believe. It is the same reason most people throughout history have rejected Jesus as Messiah. It is not that they could not believe, it is that they would not believe. It is not that people need more evidence, it is that they do not act upon the evidence which they have. As Jesus Himself said in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man:

 If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead. (St. Luke 16:31).