SEX & SEXUALITY:
by Charles J. O’Byrne
(Playboy, September 2002)
when John Lennon asked u to 'imagine there is no religion' .... he didnt mean 'no God'. God is one. Religion is just a brand 'Hindu' 'Muslim' 'Christian' These brands have been used by 'Modi' 'Osama' 'Bush' for politics These guys are answerable to God.
The Jesuit Oath
& The Cardinals’ Oath
By: K. B. Napier
The Jesuits are often the first men to be sent to ‘new’ territory. They are hard men, with razor-sharp intellect. Yet they are also murderous in heart, as this Jesuit Oath reveals. If you are being swayed by calls of unity and by assurances that Roman Catholicism is changing, then think again, for Rome never changes.
As you read the awful, chilling words*, remember the atrocities done in the name of Rome, by Roman Catholic militia’s everywhere, including in Mexico and other Romanist countries. Rome’s murderous intent has never been lost or revoked. Neither has this oath. More murder and violence come from the hands of the ‘holy’ Jesuits than we can ever imagine.
Jesuits burrow their way in to positions of high authority so that they might influence or even change governments and their policies. They are quickly taking over top positions in the media, thus they influence the news and what we think.
Following the Jesuit Oath is a copy of the authentic oath+ taken by cardinals, who occupy some of the highest ranks within the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Note how the oath is subversive, making allegiance to Rome above that of country or even God. The ‘ecumenism’ espoused by Rome is merely a device to get all churches and Christians back within its fold. It also uses charismaticism to effect the same goal.
(* Source: ‘Divine Calendar’, Vol. 2, edited by Augusta Cook; Published by Dank and sons, 1916)
(+ Source: ‘Why Priests Should Wed’ by Dr Fulton. He was murdered some years ago in Nova Scotia by a Roman Catholic mob...Romanism encourages violence toward its enemies!).
The Jesuit Oath
“I now, in the presence of the Almighty God, the blessed virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the Archangel, the blessed St John the Baptist...and my ghostly father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by St Ignatius Loyola, do, by the womb of the Virgin... swear that His Holiness the Pope is Christ’s vice-regent, and is the true and only Head of the Catholic or Universal Church... I do now renounce and dis-own any allegiance is due to any heretical King, Prince, or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws or magistrates, or officers.
I do further declare the doctrine of the Church of England, and Scotland, and of Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestant or Liberal, to be damnable, and themselves to be damned, who will not forsake the same. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding I am dispensed with, to assume my religion heretical for the propagation of Mother Church’s interest, to keep secret and private all her agents, counsels, from time to time, as they interest me, and not divulge directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstances whatever.
I do furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants... as I am directed to; extirpate them from the face of the earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex, or condition, and that I will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive those infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of the women, and crush their infant’s heads against the wall in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poison cup, the strangulating cords, the steels of the poinard, or the leaden bullets, regardless of the honour, rank, dignity, or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed to, by any agent of the Pope, or the superior of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus.
In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, my soul, and my corporeal powers; and with this dagger, which I now receive, I will subscribe my name written in blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false, or weaken in my determination, may my brethren and fellow-soldiers of the militia of the Pope, cut off my hands and my feet, and my throat from ear to ear, rip my belly open, and sulphur burn therein, and all the punishments that can be inflicted on me on earth, and my soul be tortured by demons in an eternal hell for ever.
In testimony thereof I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist, and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger, dipped in my own blood, and sealed in the face of the holy covenant.”
The Cardinals’ Oath
‘I, ............…..............., Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, do promise and swear, that from this time to the end of my life, I will be faithful and obedient unto St Peter, the holy apostolic Roman Church and our most Holy Lord, the Pope of Rome and his successors, canonically and lawfully elected; that I will give no advice, consent or assistance against the pontifical majesty and person; that I will never knowingly and advisedly, to their injury or disgrace, make public the counsels entrusted to me by themselves, or by messengers or letters; also that I will give them any assistance in retaining, defending and recovering the Roman Papacy and the regalia of Peter with all my might and endeavour, so far as the rights and privileges of my order will allow it, and will defend against all their honour and state and I will direct and defend with due form and honour the legates and nuncios of the apostolic see, in the territories, churches, monasteries, and other benefices committed to my keeping; and I will cordially co-operate with them and treat them with honour in their combining, aiding and returning and that I will resist unto blood all persons whatsoever who shall attempt anything against them.
That I will by every way and by every means strive to preserve, augment and advance the rights, honours, privileges, the authority of the Holy Roman Bishop, our Lord the Pope, and his before-mentioned successors; and that at whatever time anything shall be decided to their prejudice which is out of my power to hinder, as soon as I shall know that any steps or measures have been taken to the matter, I will make it known to the same, our Lord or his successors, or some other person by whose means it may be brought to their knowledge.
That I will keep and carry out and cause others to keep and carry out the rules of the Holy Father, the decrees, ordinances, dispensations, reservations, provisions, apostolic mandates and constitutions of the Holy Father Sextus, of happy memory, as to visiting the thresholds of the apostles at certain prescribed times, according to the tenor of that which I have just read through. That I will seek out and oppose, persecute and fight (omni conatu persecuturum et impugnaturum) against heretics and schismatics who oppose our Lord the Pope of Rome, and his heretoforementioned successors, and this I will do with every possible effort.’
What we have above is a self-proclaimed right to kill or remove anyone who stands against Rome. This cardinals have done since Rome first began its journey as a false church, when it removed itself from the ranks of Christian churches everywhere. It is the oath of men who sent assassins to murder Queen Elizabeth, and the ill-fated Guy Fawkes to kill the whole government of Britain.
By God’s grace we have been saved time and again from Roman domination, often by way of loss of life and living. Yet, today, foolish people are intent on handing Britain back to Rome without so much as a whisper! Be warned. Be alarmed. Be vigilant. Rome does not change. its aims are still murderous and treasonous. And the heart of the Inquisitor still beats in Rome, ready to make itself plain once again, when Rome gains the ascendancy again.
The Symbols of the Pope
Though we are unable in this Article to reproduce the various symbols used by the Pope for himself, we hope you will recognise them from the descriptions given. We also hope that you will see, from them, just how pagan Roman Catholicism really is.
The mitre or hat of the Pope
This is a replica of the mitre worn by the pagan fish-god, Dagon, and is found in inscriptions dating back to 1000 BC.
This universally-recognised symbol of the Pope and his office represent the keys of Janus, the mythical ‘god of the hinges’ i.e. the hinges of a door, which allow access to the house. The word ‘Cardinal’ is ‘cardo’, meaning hinge...thus they ‘allow’ people access to God and to His house on earth, the supposed Roman church.
Circle with a cross on top
This is the female sex symbol
Circle with a cross underneath
This represents the Egyptian symbol of life, found in inscriptions as far back as 2000 BC.
A ‘P’ standing on a leaning cross
Means Christ anointed (but used by the Pope as His supposed representative on earth). But can also refer to Satan as a christ (Eze. 28).
The Letters ‘IHS’
These do NOT represent the letters placed on the cross of Jesus, but are shortened from ‘Isis, Horus, Seb’, a reference to an Egyptian formula speaking of the sun god, etc.
Jesus Christ Movie Star
For those who missed it in the not-com version of TIME — the magazine — here's my review of that brutal and powerful film about Jesus Christ....
Sunday school may have taught them the words of the Gospels, but for millions of children, Hollywood provided the pictures. They were pretty pictures: stained glass in motion, from the First Church of De Mille. Handsome men — their beards neatly curled and trimmed, their robes immaculate — trod on tiptoe through a Judea as verdant and manicured as Forest Lawn. They may have represented Israelites of two millenniums past, but they often looked Nordic; God must have had blue eyes. And they spoke the King's English: King James', with an assist from any screenwriter willing to gussy up his fustian. In these prim tones, the heart's revolution that Jesus preached became an Oxford don's lecture, and his ghastly, redemptive death a tableau painted on velvet.
Mel Gibson's first achievement in "The Passion of the Christ" is to strip the biblical epic of its encrusted sanctimony and show biz. It takes hard men to work this Holy Land, men who labor under the twin burdens of poverty and the oppression of Roman occupation. Their clothes are dirt-dry and sweat-drenched. By jolting the viewer to reconsider Hollywood's calcified stereotypes of the New Testament, Gibson wants to restore the immediacy of that time, the stern wonder of that land, the thrilling threat of meeting the Messiah on the mean streets of Jerusalem.
Any Jesus film with violence is bound to roil some people. But the film's carnage is emetic, not exploitative. The crowning with thorns, the scourging at the pillar, the agonized trudge up Calvary show what Jesus suffered and why; and James Caviezel's spiky, ferocious, nearly heroic performance is a perfect servant to the role. This is not a movie for all believers — or for all moviegoers. But it is, nonetheless, a believer's movie. Gibson believes in the power of Jesus' message. He believes in the power of cinema to rethink traditions, to make Jesus live in a skeptical age. And those willing to accompany Gibson on his dangerous ride through the Gospels may believe he has created his masterpiece.
I didn't write this review last week about "The Passion of the Christ." I wrote it in 1988 about Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ," changing only the names and the movie title. In manner and method, the two films have much in common. In theology and box office, they're worlds apart. "Last Temptation": liberal, condemned by conservative Catholics. "Passion": conservative, condemned by liberals, agnostics and many Jews. "Last Temptation": boycotted by religious groups, defended by the major studio that released it, earned $8 million in its entire run. "Passion": boycotted by major studios (little Newmarket released it), defended by the faithful, earned $23 million on its first day.
Just between the few of us, I'm written out on the Gibson movie. I did a review in the magazine ("The Goriest Story Ever Told"), which was maybe the only mixed review the film got. And I wrote about some of the attacks on Gibson and his "Passion" ("Holy Hypocrisies") on this web site. In the day since that was posted, I've received more than 150 e-mails, the vast majority of them with subject headings like "Thank you," "Well put," "Bravo," Kudos," "Amen, brother," "Loved the article!" and "wow." Most of the notes cheered me for pointing out what reader David Tuggy called "the deep intolerance of the professionally tolerant." And while any old leftie is naturally squeamish about being praised by cultural conservatives for attacking those usually on his own side, I am surprised by and grateful for the e-mail, and take this opportunity (in lieu of individual replies) to thank you who wrote in.
And now, allow me to baffle or anger my new flock by getting to today's subject: a simple, informative survey of a dozen or so film biographies of Jesus, noting particularly how their depiction of the Messiah's conviction and death compared with Mel Gibson's. The alleged Messiah is once again hot (in the more attractive sense of that word), and readers may be helped by these scattershot notes on other examples of the genre. All of the films, including "Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter," are available on video and/or DVD from amazon.com. Let's get to it.
FROM THE MANGER TO THE CROSS , 1912
Here is the first major film on the Jesus story, and probably the earliest feature-length film — 1hr.12min. in its restored version — made in America. Directed by Sidney Olcott (who made 18 other shorter films that year) and written by its Mary Magdalene, Gene Gauntier, the picture was shot in Palestine and Egypt. One charming shot shows Mary and Joseph sitting in front of the Sphinx. Virtually every shot is a static scene, a tableau, illustrating the intertitles.
Like Gibson, but 92 years before him, Olcott uses a blue filter for the Holy Thursday night scenes in Gethsemane. The Passion section, which consumes the last 14 minutes, has no more juice than the rest of the film. Back then, of course, directors didn't have access to the fake-blood squibs and other effects of today's gore artists. (The blood Mel used was fake, wasn't it?) Remember, too, that in 1912 film was in its infancy; that D.W. Griffith and others were still creating the medium's visual vocabulary and sentence structure; and that, for most Christians and lots of non-Christian moviegoers, "From the Manger to the Cross" was not simply a novelty. It was, in cinematic and possible religious terms, a revelation.
THE KING OF KINGS, 1927
Cecil B. De Mille, a preacher's son but with some Jewish ancestry, had scored a titanic hit with "The Ten Commandments" in 1923 — to its time, the top-grossing film after "The Birth of a Nation." Four years later, the extravagant auteur went from Old to New Testament. Another hit, thanks to De Mille's showmanship and expert marketing, and a color sequence for Easter Sunday, with Jesus surrounded by enough doves for a John Woo movie. "The King of Kings" played around the world for decades after it was released, until the proselytizing efforts of the Church of the Nazarene managed to put the 1979 film "Jesus" (with Brian Deacon as the Christ) in towns and villages all over the world. Except for the Bible, it is probably the most visible tool of missionary propaganda.
In the book "Spectacular! The Story of Epic Films," the elegant historian Carlos Clarens (using the pseudonym John Cary) gave a fair evaluation of "King of Kings": "De Mille's version of Christ was a fundamentalist one: H.B. Warner was indeed 'a sweet Jesus, meek and mild,' and this time sheer reverence held De Mille in check. There were a couple of zebras drawing Magdalene's chariot, and the earthquake that follows the crucifixion was as stunning as the Red Sea parting, although virtually thrown away.... De Mille's sincerity was on a par with his stern ruling that, during production, the actors portraying the Christ and the apostles refrain from drinking, gambling, cussing, night-clubbing and even having intercourse with their wives."
In the 1hr.52min. edition distributed by Kino International, 48 mins. are devoted to the Passion and Resurrection. As Clarens notes, the De Mille signatures of gigantic sets (a 30-ft. eagle statue in Pilate's chambers) and special effects (in the earthquake a man grabs at a rock that breaks off and carries him to a crashing death) take a back seat to the hallowed story and processional pace. H.B. Warner's Jesus is in the gaunt El Greco mode; the scenes are essentially brisk illustrations of the Gospels. Nearly all the dialogue and narrative intertitles are from the Gospels. The exceptions: a few that mitigate supposed Jewish guilt for Jesus' death. Magdalene: "The High Priest speaketh not for the people." And a Pharisee, at the end: "Lord God Jehovah, visit not Thy wrath on Thy people Israel — I alone am guilty."
KING OF KINGS, 1961
Samuel Bronston reinvented the epic for the '60s. Actually, he exploited the popularity of other people's late-'50s Biblical spectacles ("The Ten Commandments," "Ben Hur") to acquire financing for grand frescos of national heroes ("El Cid") and collapsing monarchies ("The Fall of the Roman Empire") in smart, stately films from screenwriter Philip Yordan and ace auteurs Nicholas Ray and Anthony Mann. Ray's "King of Kings" has Jeffrey Hunter, who was gorgeous and effusively manly in "The Searchers" a few years before, as a Jesus with star quality to spare — which the original must also have had. In orange hair and what looks like portable Nativity-color underlighting, Hunter is such an erotic slab of beefcake, he turns every Messianic agony into an ecstasy.
The film, though, has a strange, stately calm, an antidramatic tone that the melodramatic music tries to vivify. The Passion scenes (about 40 mins. of the 2hr.40min. film) lack wallop, especially in comparison to the hammer-on-nail-through-flesh-into wood impact of the Gibson film. The raising of Jesus' cross, a big moment in any Gospel film, is shown from above — a God- or pigeon's-eye view of the crucifixion. Count on the pictorials to keep you awake; watching the movie is like having someone thumb, slooooowly, through a book of religious art history. The film's last shot, after Pentecost, shows the fishermen leaving their nets in a string on the beach, and the long thin shadow of Christ bisecting it, to form the final image of the cross that symbolizes Jesus' sacrifice for humanity.
THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW, 1964
Gibson has snorted his derision over the two earlier Jesus films that have earned the most sustained critical acclaim. Asked a year ago by TIME correspondent Jeff Israeli for an analysis Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Il Vangelo secundo Matteo," (The Gospel According to St. Matthew) he faked a big yawn. Of Martin's Scorsese's "Last Temptation," he said, "You've got Harvey Keitel as Judas saying" — and here Gibson shifted into a Brooklyn accent — "Hey, you ovah dere." Maybe his was just dissing his strongest competition. He knew that these films were closest to his, in setting, rigor, power and bloodshed.
Seen when it opened, the Pasolini film was a tonic shock: a low-budget black-and-white pastoral Christian film, worlds removed from the elephantine variety of Hollywood's Biblical epics, made by an atheist Marxist homosexual. "The Gospel" seemed stranger in light of Pasolini's later work, which grew more sensational, culminating in the 1977 "Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom," which transposed de Sade to the Nazi era.
Pasolini said he responded to the literary brilliance and narrative propulsion of the Matthew gospel. He made the film, in part, to show that the greatest story ever told was, among other things, a great story. His dark-haired, dark-eyed, unibrowed Jesus (played by Enrique Irazoqui, a Basque Jew who, like the other performers, was not a professional actor) spits out the parables and prophesies with a brisk ferocity, like a union organizer with a spiel to finish before the end of the lunch break. He is testy with his inquisitors and abrupt with his Apostles. He's a man-God in a hurry to fulfill his mission. Sooner dead, sooner resurrected.
Thus, in the 28-minute Passion segment of "Il Vangelo," does Jesus stride to his death, across the same countryside (Matera, in Puglia, near the heel of the Italian boot) where Gibson shot much of his film. And the mob rushes after him. One screams: "His blood be on our children!" This is the phrase, implicitly condemning Jews for the murder of Christ, that Gibson said he removed from his film. (Turned out, he removed only the subtitle for the Aramaic translation of the curse.) We leave for another day the debate over whether a film is anti-Jewish if it repeats a line swathed in 18 to 20 centuries of Gospel tradition. Anyway, in the Pasolini film, with Italians chasing Italians, the curse seems one not of race or religion but of clan. Besides, Pasolini, a poet before he was a filmmaker, would be unlikely to excise a controversial line
In the Beginning came, as they tell us, the Word.
What was the word?Was it God? Was it Light? Love? Order?
What was the "Order"?Was it "Be"? or "Let" there Be?
For these are two different things. "Be" would imply that before the "Word" there was absolute nothingness. No matter. No energy. Not even Dark Matter. But if the "Word" was "Let there Be", then, perhaps there had been "something", just waiting for the right circumstances to happen. An egg, waiting to receive "excitation" when the probabilities will allow it.What was the very first thing uttered in this universe? Was it actually a word? or a Bang? a Big, gigantic Bang, which we can hear until this very day, some 13.7 Billion Years after.
Or was the "Order", a path, or a number of possible paths, shapes, natures, attitudes and behaviors of the things to come?
Is there such an "Order", as opposed to "Chaos" and "Randomness"? Or is this "Randomness", and the tendency for this Randomness to increase, "Entropy", a part of that "Order"?
Are there pre-defined "paths" for everything to happen? Where would "our choice" fit into this? Or did such "Order" lay out zillions of "potential" paths, each presenting "opportunity to happen", "probability to occur"?
Can one "improve such probabilities"? Is that it? Is this what it is all about? That we just have pre-defined paths, and all we can do is to work really hard to make our "chosen path" more probable than others?
Can we absolve ourselves of "responsibility" then, since the limit of our responsibility is to make desired "outcomes" more probable, not more probable than "undesired" results, but more probable as compared to their original chance, if we were not there to influence such chance?
If we can accept, that the limit of our abilities, is to merely improve the probabilities, can we live and function as happier human beings, more in harmony with ourselves, with others, and with the universe which surrounds us, the universe which we can not change or alter in any significant way.
Is this something we can accept?
If Jesus were to come back to Earth
I am pretty sure He wud disown the Christian Church
The church has always bowed to the State
Joan of Arc was burned as a witch by the Church
Gallileo was imprisoned for life by the Church and died in his cell
The Vatican bought peace with Mussolini
by agreeing to remain silent while millions of Jews were gassed by Hitler
The pilot of the plane that carried the Atom Bomb: destination Hiroshima
was blessed by the Bishop of America
CENSORSHIP by The Catholic Church
Every year, the Catholic pope declares a black list of books that Catholics are not supposed to read. Reading them means a certainty of your going to hell.
I was talking to a bishop in Nagpur, because a few of my books had been listed by the Catholic pope as not to be read by any Catholics; whoever reads them is paving his path towards hell. And this is not new, this is an almost eighteen-hundred-year-old tradition in the Catholic Church. Before this century, they used to burn and destroy any book they decided was dangerous for Catholics. Now they cannot do that, but at least they can prevent the Catholics—who are a great majority in the world, seven hundred million people.
I simply said to the bishop of Nagpur, "At least somebody must have been reading my books; otherwise how do they decide? Either the pope himself must be reading, or some associate cardinals in the Vatican must be reading—without reading, you cannot decide that a book is dangerous to the Catholic belief."
He was in a dilemma: he could not say yes, he could not say no. Because if he says 'Yes, somebody reads it,' that means that person is bound to fall into hell. And if that person is not going to fall into hell, then the whole idea is ridiculous; then nobody is going to fall into hell. It is just to keep people's eyes closed: no facts should be allowed to be known to them that go against their belief. splendid
I was a devout catholic
went to church every day to read the Epistle in church
then Benedict became Pope
Rock music is evil
Gays and les will go to hell
I said bye to the catholic church
my best friends then were les
they are good christians
The church has focussed on things that are not relevant
on condemning contraception by artificial means
on condemning genetic research
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars
and to God the things that are Gods
the church has no business to talk about other things that fall in the domain of Science and the State