A Special Program On World Terrorism (2), October 02, 2001

“And Again the Cock Crowed”

Christian:
Dear listeners, you are listening to The Word - The Cosmic Wave. We greet you warmly today to our roundtable discussion on the topic: “And Again the Cock Crowed.” It concerns a topic that has become particularly relevant due to the deployment of military missions. 40 warships and tens of thousands of soldiers have gathered in central Asia, and mankind holds its breath, and the churches, which see themselves as the representatives of Christianity, approve of the use of military force and the Bavarian Bishop’s Conference talks about military reprisals as being morally necessary and Bishop Krenn of Austria condemns all of Islam as being fanatical and nationalistic, accusing it of despising human rights.

Dear listeners, who is actually speaking this way, and who is authorized to justify military force by referring it to the Christian name, yes, even to think it is necessary? Would Jesus of Nazareth set out for central Asia with missiles or an entire armada, in order to soon strike out and perhaps take the lives of thousands of people? Or did He preach something else?

Perhaps we should first deal with Bishop Krenn, who thus accused Islam: “It is a religion that despises human rights.” Mr. Krenn belongs to a religious community that bases itself on the Bible, on the Old Testament and the New Testament, and considers both books to be a binding basis for the Roman-Catholic faith. What does the Old Testament have to say, for instance, on the question of violence? Maybe we still remember: When Moses returned from Sinai with the Ten Commandments on the stone tablets that God had given him, he had to see how his people had fallen back to their old ways and were again indulging in the worship of idols. And what did he do? He smashed the Ten Commandments, on which it said: “You shall not kill” and he went through the camp and ordered a bloodbath. Literally he is supposed to have said: “Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and for from gate to gate about the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor. And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses, and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.” (Ex. 32:27) Thus far, the literal word of the Bible on which Bishop Krenn swears, and the help of which he wants to accuse Islam of being a religion that despises people.

Or let’s take a look at what the Old Testament has to say about dealing with neighboring nations? According to this Bible, God is supposed to have ordered Joshua, the successor to Moses, to subjugate all surrounding nations. Literally, He is supposed to have said to Joshua: “For I lift up may hand to heaven, and swear, As I live for ever, if I whet my glittering sword, and my hand takes hold on judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries, and will requite those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh – with the blood of the slain and the captives, from the long-haired heads of the enemy.” (Dt. 32:40). Here, too, a citation from the Bible, which Catholic Bishops consider as the basis for their faith.For the one who does not believe me, may I refer him to the Roman-Catholic Catechism, in which it literally says, and I quote: “The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked. (#121) Christians venerate the Old Testament as the true Word of God. The Church has always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext that the New has rendered it void. (#123)” End of quote.

Dear listeners, I ask myself whether the Moslems shouldn’t be even more fearful of a religion that makes this the basis of their faith than vice versa? And I ask you whether the church institutions, which refer back to this Bible, are justified in now calling out for military reprisals against Islamic terrorists? This does not mean that something or other can justify the crimes that were committed in New York and Washington. But it does raise the question whether violence should be called for again in the name of Christ, considering that such calls have left a trail of blood through the history of the western world for 2000 years?
We want to go into this topic in more detail at our roundtable discussion today, and we can also go after what I have just said to see whether it really is correct. Whether the statements of the Churches are really as crass as I have described in this introduction.

I warmly greet in our circle, Gabriele, Gert, Petra and Stefano. My name is Christian. And so, shall we first turn to the question: Are things really so bad in these church institutions? Are they really out for military force to be applied again in the name of Jesus, the Christ? Or are we being unjust to say this of them?
Perhaps Petra could give us a brief press review, a short review of the statements by the Church by quoting them.

Petra:
That these statements, which you quoted in the beginning, were certainly crass, will be proved by the following quotes: In a KNA-release we read: “Limited military deployment is morally called for. The Bavarian bishops view a limited military mission after the terrorist attacks in the USA to be morally called for“. They said this on Friday, Sept. 20th. “In no case may it come to excessive actions, political and military actions of punishment are allowed when there is no other way to seize the terrorists and bring them before an international court.”

A further statement from Friday, Sept. 28th: “Military strikes, suitable actions against injustice. The Catholic Suffragan Bishop of Hamburg, Hans-Joachim Jaschke, justified possible military retaliatory strikes by the USA in answer to the terrorist attacks as a suitable action. ‘The reprisals that Bush announced are not blind revenge, but a cultural feat of civilization, a suitable action against injustice,’ said Jaschke to the Hamburger Evening Newspaper. “In the war against terror, the world needs ‘reasonably applied force.’”

From Vienna we hear: “The Austrian Bishop, Kurt Krenn, caused a stir and triggered protests on the weekend when he made negative statements about Islam. ‘Islam is marked by a certain fanaticism and nationalism, and contradicts human rights,’ said Krenn, who, is seen as the leading representative of the conservative wing of the Catholic Church in the Alpine republic. Krenn, Diocesan Bishop of St. Pöltan, in connection with the strikes in the USA, called Islam a “political religion which should be monitored by the state. Above all we must say – and I say this with great conviction – that we Christians have the better measure of humanity. To call the Koran generally harmless is not good.”

To conclude, one more short release that came out on Sunday, the 16th of September, from the Vatican after the attacks: “The Church does not have a purely pacifist attitude. It is understood that the USA has to do something. However, it should not be a act of pure revenge.”

Christian:
Thus far, from the German press. If I see it correctly, what we have heard is only a part of many statements of position. Afterward, we will hear more statements from the Italian press. But perhaps we should first talk briefly about what we have taken from the German press.

Gert:
The citations that we have just heard don’t actually surprise me, because the statements of the church representatives do agree with the program of this church institution. It is the program of a pagan religion of priests, as we have known for thousands of years on this earth. It has given itself a Christian name, but the citations from the Bible that this institution uses, which you just read to us, are instructions for a kind of behavior that has become completely normal in our world today. And so, when one has violence and hatred as the basis for his religion, one cannot be surprised that this violence and this hatred is also lived. And of course, when another sows violence and hatred, then I have to react in turn with violence and hatred. It is actually logical, and I find it a relatively open and honest thing, that one reacts in this way, because one isn’t doing anything different than what one has in his party’s program. The only thing that bothers me about this attitude is that this attitude of a pagan religion of priests, which is based on revenge and retaliation, is adorned with the name of “Christ,” which, as I see it, is a malicious labeling fraud and an evil slandering of the name “Christ.”

What irritated me somewhat in these statements is admittedly the fact that one has also heard other opinions from the directing heads of these institutions, where the question then arose: So what is true, now? One heard, for instance, that the highest representative of this institution, who presumes to let himself be called God’s representative on earth, called for unconditional peace. But apparently the undercurrents in such institutions, as in all dictatorial conglomerates that deal in power and force, are such that he no longer holds the reins, so that one must then ask: Has the internal schizophrenia now also been raised to be the party program? Or what holds true now? Does it remain open with this call for violence, for retaliation, hatred and discord, or has one simply forgotten to neatly drape the mantle of “Christian” over one’s own intentions?

Gabriele:
I have a question: Is the Bible a book that stimulates one to violence, to terrorism? Are the religions of this church institution a political ideology or what?

Christian:
The churches try to give out their party program, as Gert called it before, namely, the two testaments of the Bible, as the word of God. But meanwhile we know how the Bible came into existence, for instance, the Old Testament. It was put together over centuries by priests and high officials, who wrote their own respective conceptions into the so-called “Holy Book.” It is an ideology of priests – and I would fully agree – and not the word of God, and this ideology is still given out today as the binding doctrine for the faithful of this institution, whereby here and there one attempts to distance oneself somewhat from the so-called Old Testament, by saying it is merely a historical presentation. When one looks at it closely, however, one sees that it is instructions, supposed instructions from God to His prophets. And so, one cannot say that the Old Testament is merely a story about history.

A second attempt to distance oneself from the bloodthirsty nature of this book and to wash one’s hide of it is to emphasize the New Testament. But here one already runs into a contradiction, because on the other hand it is also taught that the Old Testament is fulfilled through the New Testament, and that the Old Testament is not revoked through the New Testament. And besides that: What do we find in the New Testament, for example, over the question of tolerance toward those of other faith? When we read the second letter of Peter, we find literally written there:

“But these” – namely, those of another faith – “like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, [are] born to be caught and killed … They are blots and blemishes.” End of citation from the second letter of Peter (2 Pet. 2:12)
What would we say if we were to find such a thing in the Koran? Certainly Islam is not a pacifist religion, but I think that those, who, as institutions, base themselves on such biblical texts, are not at all justified in calling themselves Christian, and in preaching for a crusade against Islam, which, as is well known, cost the lives of thousands upon thousands of Moslems in the past.

Gabriele:
And so, I find that the church institutions that call themselves Christian do have the right to call for such a crusade, for they have it in their party book, in the Bible. But I ask myself whether it is not here that the root of all war lies, the root of terrorism, that it is precisely in the Bible and thus in the church institutions that call themselves Christian, for in the Catechism it essentially says: “The Old Testament shall be fulfilled in the New Testament,” I don’t know if any of you has the citation here?

Christian:
It is in the Catechism: “that the Old Testament cannot be rejected and cannot be rendered void by the New.” It is written so in the Catechism. The Church considers the Old Testament to be an irrevocable part of the Holy Scriptures.

Gabriele:
And so, then it has the right to call for war, for violence. The only thing is that the meanest and vilest thing is to put Jesus, the Christ, in the forefront and to say, “We are Christian.” That is wrong! They are not Christian.

But I have a completely different question: Why does our government go along with this “sticky flypaper” of these church institutions, which have such a party book and ultimately also incorporate it in their scriptures – and as we hear – also in their statements.

Christian:
Oh, I like this question, because I also just happen to be a lawyer. A party program, which professes acts of violence against those of other faiths and wars against neighboring states as being the commandment of God, is a violation of human rights and would have long since been forbidden by every other organization.
Nevertheless, the state allies itself with these official mainstream churches. Why does it do this?

Gabriele:
Why? That is the big question. It can ally itself – I would almost say “fraternize” – with these official churches. That’s all very nice! Why don’t they just leave the word Christian out of their ecclesiastical party program?

Gert:
Well, one simply needs the word “Christian” in order to lead the people astray. Probably there are still too many people who would have pangs of conscience if one would openly tell what he is really up to. It is so – as we have seen – that the party program is openly oriented toward violence and oppression. This means that power is abused, in order to give to a few the power over many. And in an enlightened society this cannot be done so easily any more by exercising violence; instead, one must downright lead the people astray.

Gabriele:
Yes, but in our present society, where one says that today’s society is an enlightened society, why do people not think? When I say that I am a Christian, then I really must read what Jesus, the Christ, said and taught. Jesus did not teach violence of any kind. Jesus taught peace. Jesus taught forgiveness. Jesus taught us again and again: “What you want others to do to you, do it to them first.” We do want peace – or do we want war? That is the question. If the state and church institutions want war, then they can wage war, but then they are not Christian. But the individuals who are aware of what Jesus taught have to come together and truly make themselves aware of the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, of what Jesus at all wanted, because during all of the whole 2000 years there has been war, war, over and over again war. There are always new battlefields again and again. Well, why are there battlefields again and again? Because we also slaughter our animals, whom Jesus, the Christ, was for. There are slaughterhouses, and that is why there are also battlefields, and because there are battlefields, there are also slaughterhouses. The times today are one great bloodbath, similar tp 1000 years ago, when the Crusaders – of course, Christian Crusaders – waded in the blood of the Moslems.

Christian:
I think that one of the reasons why so many people fall for this labeling fraud of the Churches is that they don’t read the Bible. They don’t read the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus or the horrible things in the Old Testament or the intolerance of a man like Peter. They let themselves be led astray by the churches to live a Christianity that remains without obligation. The Sermon on the Mount – if they have even heard of it – is taught by the churches as being utopian and that one cannot live it in his everyday life. And the state needs the churches, because they lead the faithful to it, and because they keep a certain amount of discipline. And so, the two complement each other.

Gabriele:
Well, that’s ok! But then the word “Christian” has to go – also with the so-called Christian political parties. They can do this if they want to, but the word “Christian” has to go, and true Christians have to come together in the awareness that when the state votes for one of these church party programs, and the Church, the church institutions with their so-called faithful, needs us as so-called voting sheep, then the people who truly have what is called for to be Christian must go to the state, to the churches, and say: “If you want, go ahead and do as the churches call for in their party programs, but do not call yourselves Christian!”

Gert:
This would of course require that those come together who can still use their heads. When someone ties himself to an organization that says: “Believe what I say, for what I say is absurd …”

Gabriele:
Where is, excuse me, who said that?

Gert:
This is an expression of a Catholic church teacher, “Credo quia absurdum,” and this means, I believe, because it is – I say it with my words – absurd or illogical. The one who falls for this, who is still willing to sacrifice his financial means and to make himself dependent on this institution, can no longer think logically, cannot even comprehend the difference between Christian and institution. And then it is not surprising that the churches – as it always was in past centuries –have instigated wars. When we think about the fact that the first world war was a so-called “Christian war,” that the second world war was a war instigated by “Christian” nations. When someone raises “quia absurdum” as a maxim, then he will also be willing to go along with every kind of labeling fraud.

Christian:
But I really believe that people haven’t been able to accept this absurd dogma heaven of the churches for a long time. I don’t think that very many people believe in the physical ascension of Mary into heaven. I also don’t believe that people think that on Judgment Day all the bones of all the people who ever lived will be put together again, so that they can physically enter into a non-physical heaven. Nor do I believe that people still take seriously the pagan ritual of worshipping relics. It is a diminishing minority, and meanwhile less than 8% go to church services on Sunday.
What keeps the people slumbering is tradition. They don’t even think about what nonsense they are required to believe. And they let themselves drift in this tradition, until they wake up someday and see where this tradition leads to.

Gabriele:
But we could have awakened long ago. When we look back 2000 years, again and again war, again and again murder, again and again hunger, again and again pestilence, again and again suffering. Well, we did have our head some place or other – because we did receive a mind from the Spirit of God, a mind that we should put to use and say: “If we are Christian, then we should keep to the teachings of Jesus, the Christ.” Well, what did He teach? “Forgive your neighbor.” If we had started this 1000 years ago, even after the Crusades, then perhaps things would look differently for Christianity today. Perhaps Christianity would then be an example for Moslems. Then today we would not be against Islam or against the terrorists from Islam, but we could be good examples. And I think it would have not even come to terrorism.

Christian:
You are absolutely right! The radical Moslems, who admit to this terror, explain explicitly that among other thing they are waging their war against the crusaders. And when I think of the law of cause and effect and assume that we human beings live on this earth many times, then I have the impression that many a one has resurrected again, that is, incarnated again, who formerly caused such great disaster – Christians, who call themselves so today, who formerly fought against those of other faiths. And I do not want to name any names now, but that so-called Christians approve so much of violence and then many Christians so condemn the community of Islam, causes me to presume that they are the same one who earlier caused such disaster.

Gabriele:
Perhaps we could look into some more press reports, to see what the press says to the whole thing.

Christian:
Well, we do have some Italian voices from the press, perhaps Stefano could add some to the discussion.

Stefano:
We have here citations from Corriere della Sera – already on Sept. 16th: “‘Do not turn the other cheek,’ said the Bishop of Como, Alessandro Maggiolini. If the nonviolence proclaimed in the Gospel were to be demanded of the anguished people of New York, this would actually mean to abuse it. I do not demand any disproportionate actions, or any dreadful retaliatory strikes, but it is certainly unthinkable that a people that has suffered such a devastating attack should turn the other cheek. America has the right to defend itself, and the holy Francis cannot, even though as a Saint he is a role model, step into the position of a Secretary of Defense …”

Gabriele:
Are we not in the middle of the apocalypse? Could we not say today: “It is too late after 2000 years?” What we have done to Jesus and His teachings during these 2000 years is now falling in over us. Isn’t it too late?
Now we are saying no to non-violence. Violence breeds violence; the church institutions have taught this for 2000 years. But now it could be too late, in the midst of the apocalypse, when a pyre is smoldering in the whole world, a burning pyre that symbolizes: Each one is guilty. Each one should beat on his own breast and each one should ask himself: Where is my guilt? And perhaps the churches must say: “our oversized guilt.”

Gert:
I think that the time of the apocalypse is really here. I want to shed light on two aspects. One: The violence that we spoke about, which the churches directly caused, is not the past; it is the present. How easily do the words “Catholic terror organization in Northern Ireland, Protestant terrorism in Northern Ireland” slip over our lips? It is taken as a matter of course that Protestant and Catholic are connected in terror. And here I don’t even want to speak about the connections of the Catholic Church to the Mafia. Injustice and violence are synonyms for the church institutions.
And on the other hand, I want to guide our thoughts to nature: Formerly man may have killed himself and his neighbors, and perhaps also in his surroundings, where his neighbors lived, a part of nature. Today he is killing all of nature. He deals with nature as he does with his own kind, namely, without any kind of respect for the creation of God. And is it not a typical apocalyptic sign, that which we are doing to nature, to our second neighbors, the animals, who certainly, as opposed to man, are not at all guilty of what is happening to them? We abuse, torment and kill the innocent ones: animals, plants, and we are flattening the Earth without consideration for losses.

Gabriele:
It is not only the people who are suffering; the animals are also suffering. Everyone is suffering because of what we have done to the teaching of peace. Would this terrible event in the USA have had to happen if the Christians had changed their ways after the Crusades and had spoken out the “Mea culpa”? If they had become aware of the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, that is, if they had lived peaceableness, if they had striven to be with each other, if they had, as Isaiah said, had made the weapons into plowshares, would the terrible, dreadful event in the USA have happened?

Christian:
It is always difficult to set up a historical hypotheses, but I think that many things indicate that it would not have come to these terrible events in New York and Washington, if Christians had acted as Jesus of Nazareth taught. I’ll even go a step further, I doubt whether Islam would have developed at all. In any case, whether it would have developed to such an extent in all of central Asia, within a century over the entire Arabian Peninsula. All this was surely a reaction to the behavior of Christianity, which already after a few centuries had become a state religion, and which had grown intolerant and militant. The conscientious objectors were shut out of the Church. Christianity had already become a power religion, and therefore we shouldn’t be surprised that a religion has developed in Arabia that wanted to do something against this. And so, it started already 1300 years ago, and you rightly posed the question: Do we not find ourselves already in an apocalyptic situation?
For 2000 years since Rome, mankind has acted according to the motto: If you want peace, then prepare for violence. And it has reaped violence for 2000 years with this motto, and has had to experience again and again that violence creates new violence. Even from a purely worldly point of view, the effectiveness of answering every act of violence with new violence actually makes no sense. It is even more reprehensible to do this in the name of Jesus, the Christ, for He demanded absolute peaceableness.

Gabriele:
Would Islam have grown so large if Christianity had followed what Jesus taught? “Go out and teach all nations and baptize them in My name.” Not go out and baptize the babies. But to bring peace to the people, to teach the Good News of love, of becoming brothers, of unity. The one who then accepts these teaching is then baptized.
Would Islam have grown so large if Christians had done what Jesus, the Christ, called upon them to do? “Go out, teach all nations and baptize them in My name.” And what was His teaching and what is His teaching? Peace, love, unity, reconciliation, justice, freedom, brotherliness.

Christian:
I think to ask the question means to answer it. It would not have come to this development.

Petra:
A theologian, Norbert Fink, had this recognition, as one can read in a press release from the diocese of Mainz, Germany, which says: “Islam emerged from the weakness and disunity of the Christians. Mohammed knew only a degenerate form. He never experienced authentic Christianity.”

Gert:
This means that Islam would not have spread out. But someone else would not have spread out either, namely, the institution. There would be no Catholic institution; there would be no Protestant institution; there would be Christians in the direct following of Jesus, the Nazarene. And that this could not happen, this was also the politics of the Church. For always when one started to teach and then to baptize, then those who had done what Jesus taught were tormented, tortured and bestially killed by the Catholic and Protestant institutions – not by Islam, not by Buddhism, not by Hinduism, but by the institutions. And so, one can say that the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, were torpedoed, perverted and disavowed by all nations by way of the Catholic institution and later by its Protestant offshoot.

Christian:
I see that we have still a voice from Italy.

Stefano:
“Pacifism is heresy,” said a Catholic theologian in La Stampa, on Friday, Sept. 21st. “One should react to aggression in proportion to the aggression suffered. This has always been the social doctrine of the church in relation to a just war, a theory that has been valid already for 1700 years and originated with holy Augustine of Hippo,” said Baget Bozzo.
He added, “Priests, Bishops and Cardinals who have reservations concerning a just war apparently turn a deliberate blind eye to centuries of church teachings.”

Christian:
And so, the dogma: “One has to be in favor of violence.” And this dogma is also confirmed by a very important document of the German Bishops Conference. It encompasses 100 pages and deals with the state of conflict in the world, and in this paper one can actually read that “the threat of mass destruction by atomic weapons can presently still be justified “.
And so, we see that there are no limits to the Church’s approval of warlike violence, when the aging pope, from whose hands the rudder has apparently been taken, attempts to awaken the opposite impression in the pubic. So this, too, is a labeling fraud.
Besides, during the Balkan war he himself once said: “We are, after all, not pacifists.”

I would suggest that the Roman church scholars should call themselves Catholic or Roman, but they should please not call themselves Christian any more, for this is a mockery of Jesus of Nazareth, of the Christ of God, who taught absolute peaceableness.

Gabriele:
So one can actually say that the church institutions, which call themselves Christian, have been the perpetrators of all wars and the root of terrorism for 2000 years. – Jesus is the root of peace.
In this time, each one must decide: Either for Jesus, the Christ, or against Him.

Christian:
Dear listeners, this was the first part of the betrayal of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, which led to the fact that we have given today’s roundtable discussion the title “And Again the Cock Crowed.”

A second betrayal was committed again and again through the fact that man abuses the animals as a means to his end. Recently, discussions are being held as to whether man is authorized to carry out so-called xeno-transplants. What is this anyway? “Xenon” comes from Greek and means foreign. And so, it has to do with organ transplants that go beyond the limits of the species. Animal parts are to be implanted in people, no matter whether it is kidneys, or hearts, or other organs. And in recent days we have had to note that here, too, a green light was given from the side of the churches. One almost tends to say that one act of violence follows on the heels of another. For it is an act of violence when we kill animals in order to take living organs from them, which we then implant into human beings. However, it cannot go so far – so think the churches – that a mixture of man and animal comes about. Perhaps Petra should briefly quote what was really said?

Petra:
In the report cited by Christian, one could read: “The background of why man permits himself such behavior: The Vatican says regarding this: ‘Man forms the high point of Creation and has a unique and superior dignity” – stressed the Vatican. “God transferred to him the rulership over nature and the rest of living beings. Therefore, the use of animals for the benefit of man is allowable. A xeno-transplant therefore does not basically oppose the order of creation. Nevertheless, this use and the corresponding research are allowed only in absolutely necessary cases for the benefit and survival of man” – is stressed in the document. – “The animals must be spared unnecessary pain. Uncontrolled genetic changes should be avoided.” As Christian already said: “According to the viewpoint of the Vatican, an ethical limit would, however, be reached when an animal transplant could influence the identity of the recipient. Morally acceptable are, however, genetic changes to animals.”

Gabriele:
Can anyone still tell me where the dignity of man lies? After all that we read and hear: Where is the dignity of man? Under what category do we find it?

Christian:
I think that here, too, the party program of the Church organization is again having its effect. In the Bible one can read that people should respect their fellow creatures and should nourish themselves with plants and fruits. But then God – according to the opinion of this Bible compiler, is supposed to have said, literally: “The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air … Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you …” (Gen. 9:2-3) end of citation.

I think that the assumption that man is the absolute lord over everything that lives can be traced back to this book, which the churches declare to be the binding basis for their faith. And the dignity of man is not contained in this book. This book is about a monstrosity that can do everything that it thinks is right. This book is not about the child of God, which should be active with care for its fellow creature. Instead, in this book slaughtered sacrifices are presented as a pleasing odor to an angry God; and for the satisfaction of the priests, the temples were like slaughterhouses. All this can be drawn from these terrible passages in this so-called “Holy Book.” About the dignity of man in dealing with the animals can unfortunately little be found in it.

Gert:
Sometimes one has the impression that the one who goes against the creation of God has put the Bible together very cleverly. We Original Christians know that the divine creation was created as a unit of humans, animals and nature, or of spirit beings, spirit animals and spirit nature. What is presented to us here is a conglomeration of falsifications, of distortions and perversions, which also continue in the Catechism under the tenor: “Destroy all of divine creation, where you can.” However, this falsification was not so totally successful, for again and again divine citations got by the falsifiers. It is true that, considering the abundance of the scriptures, they have lost the overview. This is the only explanation for the fact that in this great work of falsification, the Bible, in Jeremiah the following is written about the slaughtered sacrifices, which are praised in the highest tones in other passages: “For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.” (Jer. 7:22) Or it says in Isaiah: “The land will give you its fruits, so that you may eat your fill. He who slaughters an ox is like him who kills a man.” (Is. 66:3 (only the last part)) – contradictions to the otherwise cruel texts hostile to man and animal.

Christian:
I would go even a bit further: The people who wrote the Bible presented God almost like a monstrosity. Many passages read as though one wanted to drive the people away from God. He is described as an angry God, as an arbitrary God, as a God who demands the sacrifice of animals, as a God who orders His prophets to subjugate and murder the neighboring nations. All this can be found in the Bible.
But one or the other ray of light still remained, which was not covered up by these satanic insertions. For instance, the message of the prophet Isaiah about the Kingdom of Peace or the messages of the prophets Jeremiah and Hosea, messages in which peace was called for, messages which conveyed a God who is a loving God.
From time to time, the churches attempt to justify their barbaric teaching about the relationship of man and animal by saying that Jesus of Nazareth said nothing about how to deal with animals. The one who so argues should ask himself how did the Bible, the so-called New Testament, and the four gospels come into being? There was no one there who wrote down a protocol of what Jesus of Nazareth said. Instead, 80 to 100 years after Jesus of Nazareth walked over this earth what one knew from hearsay was written down and what corresponded to the tradition of that time. One of the most important translators of the Bible, Hieronymus, who in the 5th century created the first Latin Bible, wrote that that posterity would consider him to be a falsifier of the Bible, because in each case he had to chose and decide according to his own way of thinking what he thought was right or wrong, or incomplete or what needed to be supplemented. He added many a thing and changed many a thing. And so, the Bible is not the inspiration of God, but the Bible of Hieronymus. And a Bible emerged that basically gives no real basis for what Jesus of Nazareth actually taught. Of course, the Sermon on the Mount is still in it; the farewell speeches of Jesus of Nazareth are still in it, but can it really be that the teacher of peaceableness said nothing about how to treat animals peaceably? Is it not noteworthy that in the so-called apocryphal scriptures – which were not included in the canons of the so-called “Holy Scriptures” –the words of the Nazarene are contained, with which He warned of slaughtering and eating animals. He even added: “Eat no animal, so that you will not be eaten as a cadaver.”

And it is very moving to me that, through the prophetic word for this time, through which the Christ of God reveals Himself to the people again, what is not contained in the Bible is corrected and deepened, namely also the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth concerning how to treat animals. In one of the divine revelations that God gave mankind through the prophetess for this time, Gabriele, it literally says: “Therefore, be considerate, kind, sympathetic and friendly, not only to your own kind, but also to every creature which is within your care, for you are as gods to them, whom they look up to in their need … Never slaughter an animal for your personal use. Behold, nature, the life of creation, provides for you. The fruits of the fields, of the gardens and the forests should be sufficient for you.” (TIMW pp 180-181) This was a citation from the Christ-revelation from the book, “This Is My Word,” which contains much about the life of Jesus of Nazareth. And when one really becomes aware of this, then one sees anew how crass the betrayal, which takes place through the Church institutions, of the teachings of the Nazarene are, also in reference to man’s treatment of animals. Did Jesus of Nazareth seriously give the following advice: “Disembowel the animals, tear out their heart, their kidneys and liver, and implant them in yourselves, so that you can live a few years longer”? It is unimaginable that He would have advised such a thing. The churches do this. “And Again the Cock Crowed”!

So that we do not misunderstand, dear listeners. This discussion does not denounce certain viewpoints about war and peace. It does not denounce the convictions of certain people about the treatment of animals – as terrible as we consider these ways of behavior to be. The main point of this roundtable discussion is the labeling fraud. The bishops may consider violence to be necessary, and the Catholic faithful may consider the slaughtering of animals to be right. But there is one thing they should not do, and that is to thereby refer to Jesus, the Christ, and to call themselves Christian.

May they call themselves Catholic or, as far as I am concerned, even Roman Catholic, or Protestant-Lutheran. But they should stop leading the people astray with the name of the Redeemer and pretending to the people that they proclaim the will of God!
 

Where do the hostilities of world-terrorism lead us?

Further Special Transmissions from CNA

Another special program of the Small Roundtable Discussion in Universal Life e. V.