The Blood of Children Insane Moron Think

San Francisco CA

Description

is on the faggot hater of Berkeley hands. He promotes the Qanon Satanic pedophiles. Trump Lover: His life is a sewer of discontent. Qanon RepubliC00N : Can hardly pay the rent. Richt Fuher A sad loser with shit in his heart. HATESPEECH: Transgender People are not: He is a sissy with a confused mind Living there still. bye bye. move to arkansas... almost last in healthcare, education, one of the highest in low wages and opportunity, with one of the worst food security states in the union. gosh. sounds great Despite all the chaos and destruction, the storm and the floods came with a silver lining for people like Shellnut. "Most importantly, the hurricane drove poor people and criminals out of the city," he says, "and we hope they don't come back." Shellnut has even conjured up ancient Gallic legend to support his theory of Katrina's supposedly sanitizing effects. He says that the name "Katrina" once symbolized a kind of cleansing process that only leaves behind the purest elements of a society. But that's not where we leave Finis Shelnutt. Hopsicker also recognized the name from Iran Contra drug smuggling and the Clinton's Arkansas Mafia. "His real claim on notoriety," writes Hopsicker, "came when he was identified as the man who picked up the duffel bags filled with cash dropped by CIA Drug Pilot Barry Seal at the Triple S Ranch near Hot Springs, Arkansas. An estimated $9 million per week fell out of the sky." Terry Reed's Compromised, which details the bonds of crime and deep politics between the Bush family, the CIA and the Clintons, has much to say about Shelnutt. In the 1980s he was the son-in-law of Seth Ward, owner of the Triple S Ranch, which made him the brother-in-law of future number three man in the Justice Department Webster Hubbell. The connections didn't end there. Shelnutt was also employed by Clinton's close associate Dan Lasater, whose company was in direct receipt of drug "tithes" from Seal. UW Religion Today: How Constantine Created the Christian Church What marks the beginning of the Christian Church, the social organization uniting Christians? The answer depends on the definition of “church.” If “church” means the people who adhere to Jesus’ teachings, then Jesus began it. Some Christians believe that Peter founded the church at the behest of Jesus himself. Others would see the first church as the Jerusalem Church, created by the disciples after Jesus’ death and led by James until his death in 63 A.D. But if the founding of the church is defined as the first body of Christian leaders who could determine accurate Christian belief and establish with sound authority their definition of Christianity across the Mediterranean world, then the single man most responsible for that achievement was Constantine I, the emperor of Rome. Although the creation and organization of the church was clearly a process that took place over several decades, the founding event was the Council of Nicea in 325. If Jesus died sometime around 30 A.D., why did it take nearly three centuries to found the organized Church? There are three main reasons. First, travel and communication were difficult at that time. It was difficult to make decisions and to run organizations that had offices more than a day’s walk, or perhaps horseback ride, apart. When trading businesses established offices in different ports, for example, they had to operate essentially as independent businesses because of the difficulties of coordination. Fledgling Christianity sent out missionaries to establish new Christian communities, but then had to allow each community to run itself, as indicated by Paul’s letters to the churches he established. Second, there was little agreement about Christianity’s beliefs and teachings, the nature of Jesus and God, what writings were sacred, or even how to worship. There was a wide variety of views, many of which were later declared heresies: Donatists in North Africa, Gnostics in Egypt and Arians in Syria. And do not forget the Adoptionists, the Modalists, the Manicheans, the Montanists, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Nestorians and the Meletians, to name just a few. Third, imperial persecutions of Christians happened every few decades. These drove Christianity underground and caused many Christians to turn away. But almost worse were the rifts that appeared afterward between Christians who kept the faith and those who apostatized to save their lives, both of whom still considered themselves Christians. Constantine appeared on the scene in the midst of the so-called Great Persecution, begun in 303, under Emperor Diocletian. By 305, the problems caused by the persecution were overtaken by those of determining Diocletian’s successor. More than six different generals would fight to become next the emperor. Constantine stood out because he became a Christian and unabashedly made Jesus the patron of his army. By 313, just two contenders remained, Constantine and Licinius. The two jointly issued the Edict of Milan, which made Christianity a legal religion and officially ended the persecution. But, it was not until 324 that Constantine finally became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire. Constantine saw Christianity’s belief in one god as a way to unify the empire that had been so badly divided for two decades. But he discovered that Christianity itself was not unified. So, he called the Council of Nicea in 325 to bring together the 1,800 bishops from around the empire to work out official doctrine and provide the basis for a unified Church. Constantine paid for the entire council and even paid for travel, giving bishops the right of free transportation on the imperial postal system. The council laid the foundation of orthodox theology (Catholic theology) and declared several differing theologies heresies. Constantine’s support initially gave Orthodoxy the ability to require Christians to adopt their doctrinal formulation. While during the next few decades, the church’s fortunes waxed and waned, within a century, Christianity had been declared the official religion of the Roman Empire and non-Christian religions were in steep decline. Could Jesus Christ have been eaten? 15 05 2006 If we assume that Jesus Christ (his corpse) after the crucifixion was eaten by his followers, we can explain not only the Christian cannibalistic mysticism, but also many other mysteries of Christianity. The rituals of the Eucharist are similar to the ceremonies of the true cannibals Non-Christians have always been confused by the rituals that simulate eating the body of Jesus Christ (Joshua from Nazareth, the Christian prophet, worshiped as a god or god’s son) or drinking his blood. While eating special consecrated wafers or drinking wine, Catholics, the Orthodox and many other Christians imagine that these are the body and blood of their prophet (or god). Most Christians imagine that by doing this they get closer to their god, acquire a kind of divinity themselves, and some of them even fall into ecstasy. These rituals by their form and meaning remind of the rites of many known cannibalistic cultures – the true cannibals ate people (perhaps they are still doing this in some regions of Africa and Asia) not because they were starving, but because they believed that by eating up a man or a certain part of his body they would overtake his power and courage. In almost the same way, Christians eat the imaginary body and blood of Jesus Christ not because they are hungry, but because they want to obtain sacredness, unity with Jesus Christ, who has resurrected (as they believe), and to consolidate the Christian solidarity. It is still not known what actually happened to the body of Jesus Christ To the fact that the corpse of Jesus Christ disappeared from the tomb where it was left till the end of the Sabbath, Christians refer as a miracle, they present it as the proof of their prophet’s divinity or even his later resurrection. It is a strange argument – apparently, nobody who could not be interested in proving Christ’s divinity guarded the tomb (it will be considered later in this article), so the corpse could have been taken away and transported to another burial place. Didn’t the scene of the ‘Last supper’ imply an order to eat up Jesus’ body after his death? The so-called ‘Last supper’, which took place immediately before the Christ’s arrest and crucifixion, is described in several places of the New Testament. During it, Jesus Christ ordered his disciples to eat bread and to drink wine and suggested that these were his body and blood. The Eucharist has its origins in the ‘Last supper’; however, it looks as if Jesus Christ had in his mind his own true flesh and blood when he spoke about the bread and wine during the ‘Last supper’. The following thoughts of Jesus Christ are cited in the Gospel according to John: ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life <…> For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. <…> This is the bread that came down from heaven…’ (John, 6, 53-58) Christian theologians usually interpret this as a metaphor. Such an interpretation corresponds best with the interests of Christianity, but the words by no means sound metaphorically in the original text of the Gospel. If Jesus Christ perceived his body and blood as a meal that had to be eaten, then it seems that the scene of the ‘Last supper’ – is nothing but the last reminder to the followers about their obligation to eat up their teacher’s body. It is quite probable that Jesus Christ was eaten by his followers As we can infer from the biblical texts, the tomb where Christ’s body was stored was not guarded. True, the Gospel according to Matthew claims that in order to prevent the corpse of Jesus Christ from being stolen from the tomb, the next day after the crucifixion chief Jewish priests and Pharisees assembled in front of Pilate and asked him to post a guard to secure the tomb, and when Pilot told them, – ‘You have a guard…’ – they put (their?) guards at the tomb and sealed the stone. (Matthew, 27, 62-66) This episode does not seem to be a testimony by some Christ’s contemporary, but it rather looks as a fake, which was grafted into the Gospel by a person who was not familiar with the Jewish religion and culture, because the events took place during the Sabbath, and any work (sealing the tomb and possibly posting the guard or even standing on guard) was then a serious crime against the Jewish religion. Even the mother of the prophet and his (apparently) girlfriend or wife Mary Magdalene did not dare even to make preparations for the pending burial ceremony – there is little doubt that that nobody guarded the tomb until the Saturday sunset. Even on the Sunday morning when the two Maries came to the tomb, they found only one man, who tried to convince them that Jesus Christ had resurrected (or two men according to Luke and John). So, most probably none of Christ’s enemies had guarded the tomb at all. The owner of the tomb, Joseph from Arimathea, apparently was Christ’s disciple, so in fact the followers of the Christian prophet could have done with his corpse whatever they wanted, and they could have eaten the body as well. If the body of Jesus Christ had actually disappeared during the cannibalistic party of his disciples, it is quite natural that they preserved their secret. The disclosure of such secret would not only have discredited the then still emerging Christianity, but also Jews, who did not tolerate cannibalism, would have executed all the participants of the last feast. Anyway, even if somebody of the initiated had blurted it out, nobody believed him. Having assumed that Jesus Christ was eaten, many myths and rites of Christianity do not seem strange and mysterious any more As it was mentioned above, the scene of the ‘Last supper’ acquires sense. Its purpose is to persuade Christ’s disciples that they will have to eat the flesh of their teacher and to drink his blood and to convince the ‘apostles’ that by doing this they will overtake Christ’s divinity. Then, there appears to be much more sense in many other aspects of Christianity, including the myth about the resurrection of Jesus Christ itself. The mysticism of the ‘holy’ Grail Christians attach great importance to the chalice from which Jesus Christ was drinking during the ‘Last supper’ and into which, according to Robert from Boron, Joseph from Arimathea later collected Christ’s blood. Christians think that the Grail has various magic powers, and, in order to make use of them, one has to drink from it – thus, in some way one has to drink the true blood of Jesus Christ. It seems that most probably Joseph had a point in collecting Christ’s blood into a chalice, and that possibly it was used for drinking shortly after Christ’s death, and that the Christian fantasies related to wine-drinking during religious rituals are repetitions of a horrible ceremony that took place almost two thousand years ago. The myth about the Resurrection Resurrection was invented long before Christians. There had been many religions that had a god who died and resurrected periodically. Various rites of sacrifice were related to the resurrection of one or another god and the offerings – usually domestic animals – were frequently eaten by the participants of the mysteries. Did not Jesus Christ imagine his death and resurrection in a similar way – that he would resurrect in his disciples who would have eaten his flesh and would have drunk his blood? According to ‘Saint’ John, Jesus Christ explained: ‘The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him’. (John, 6, 56; italics are mine, G.Š.) The Eucharist Having assumed that the first Eucharist was not symbolic, but real and took place not before Christ’s death, but on the following night, the ritual itself appears in a completely different light – it is clear now how the rite managed to unite Christians. After all, nothing has such power of uniting people as a common secret or crime. When people have performed religious rituals that others consider to be inhuman or even criminal, they feel initiated, special different from others. Even now, the Eucharist remains one of the basic rituals that maintain Christian unity. Eating together the imaginary god’s flesh can be also called ‘communion’ – metaphoric acceptance to the community of the Christians who have already performed the ritual or further acceleration of the sense of being one of the Christians. Inclination towards passive cannibalism is psychologically possible It is no secret that Jesus Christ was not a psychically balanced personality. The absence of information about one’s biological father was considered by the ancient Jews to be an irremovable stain, and there is a lot of information in the Bible about the eccentricity of Christ that manifested itself already in his childhood. Therefore, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ could wish to be eaten. Even nowadays, there are some people who crave to be eaten; even the broad public from time to time is informed of some individual cases of pre-agreed cannibalism – when the ‘victim’ finds their future eater via the Internet or so. It is possible that Jesus Christ also had such a drive. The Christian cannibalistic mysticism is apparently still encouraging psychological deviations Various myths about vampirism are widespread among Christians; films about cannibals, blood-suckers and similar heroes are most popular in the places where the Christian culture is dominating. There are so many maniac killers and violent perverts among Christians as nowhere else in the world; again and again in the Christian world there emerge people who want to be eaten. Are not those cases reverberations of the ‘Last supper’? – Most Christians constantly take part in religious rituals that willy-nilly are associated with cannibalism, so they can traumatise some oversensitive persons for the rest of their lives. So, there are many serious arguments that support the hypothesis that Jesus Christ was eaten after his crucifixion. If it is proved or at least accepted as a very probable one, much can be understood and explained in the Christian faith, psychology and in the whole Christian culture. Perhaps it could also be helpful in understanding the inhuman historical cruelty of Christians – in understanding why the millions of decent people who found the Christian ‘communion’ unacceptable were killed in cold blood, tortured to death or burnt alive during the long history of Christianity? is on Berkeley's hands. He promotes the Satanic pedophiles. His life is a sewer of discontent. Can hardly pay the rent. His money' already spent. He is a sissy with a confused mind Living there still. His horse died from blight He's in a woeful plight A spec of lunar light. Whores spend their pedophilic dreams lusting after dogs Tormented in turbulent thought dreams. He plys ahead in darkness, quoting devilish yarns Living on the farm He cerebrally reverberated with a bunch of nonsense like a fucking dumbasss. A sad loser with shit in his heart.