Skip to content

The Face of Fear In-HER-ent

July 2, 2014

I came across an article the other day having to do with Natural Law and the Roman Catholic Church. My first thought after reading it was this: Why must man always compartmentalize GIFTS?



The Roman Catholic Church, as well as numerous other Denominations, are guilty of fear. And let me remind you, fear drives the sheep over the cliff. The RCC did what the RC is: compete and control through desire of worldly ascent. In doing so, it placed itself in a contentious spot. It is the toddler still, trying to mimic a God they created through their systems, understood as their faith and belief orchestrated through the hands of a few privileged members long ago—sometimes in moments of sensually heated strokes of a brush, and sometimes in clandestine modules of think tank entitlement, often creating for themselves more than for those having to live in the flesh the realities of life on earth, rock, sand and sea. This reminds me of the emperors of war engaging in strategies using miniatures, and moving these about on a table representing their intended domain, with the women always smothered in some nasty cadence that smells of rotting apples, except their Virgin Mary, who was never woman. Is this the Son of Adam? Is this the Son of God? No. Then who/what is this thing called the Roman Catholic Church? The answer is quite simple. It is an enigma.

It is not a reality for someone like me, orthodox spiritual, in that I do not need its belief system to believe as I live. This takes nothing away from what I am in God Purpose. I look at the RCC and its members and I say, “Wow, what a grand sweeping movement of fiction!” At times beautiful—at times quite ugly. But it is still not a reality for me in that I do not need its belief system to believe as I live. What am I saying here? I am saying that it does not serve in my Faith (prayer communion living through experience and Gift). Now, this does not mean I do not see that this institution is a commonplace figure in societies, and has been for a very long time, and has influenced many, both in good ways and bad ways, but so has many other institutions … some, having even been born of RC expenditure. In this sense, the RCC has paid much into society, but not all would agree that this influence has been the “right” way of growing and living. And still, it holds the greatest tradition of mystics of all traditions, both good and not so good; rather, I should clarify in this by saying: use of mystic and mystical tradition, good and bad. And I think this has been its allying and revelatory breath—not completely void of prophetic voice (although even some who claim atheism as truth can also be used in this), but not in compliance with the Law of the Prophet on Truth. In short, it has rejected the Prophet.


I am still surprised when I hear a Catholic say, “It is impossible to tear down the RCC. Even Christ Himself said that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Those of us who EXPERIENCE God not painted to religious decor of ROMAN CATHOLIC, which let me remind Catholics, is NOT the Language of the WORD of God, for even if one went by the bible in this statement, Roman Catholicism does not exist. It’s a fabrication of the minds of men. Man picked out a passage and stamped a decree. Rubbish! God allowed a religion to flourish for the sake of Spirit Art—the mystics—and the detention of the wayfarer. Man thinks too highly of his fabrications. But what happened to this elaborate orchestration? What disease prevails in its halls? This conditioning of mind can only come from the over-brining in set curriculum. Where did God ever say anything about CHRIST as a Roman Catholic institution? To us, this is the mind of one who has been told the world is flat and still believes the world is flat, without ever having looked beyond the the window of his upbringing. Well, friends, I am ‘hear’ to remind you that the world is not flat. God is not ruled by man’s dictates—at least not in the REALITY OF THE SPIRIT, and God IS Spirit. I can see why the Roman Institution cracked its nasty whip on the gnostics, then vanquished them.


Why would the Son of God come to become religion in the world? It is not the world we are to seek. This is temporary and the Christ is created for the WORK OF THE FATHER … and the Father is not partial, for PARTIALITY IS A SIN. Do not allow yourselves to be deceived into believing that any of these institutions are the church. The church rests in She, which is the restitution on Love, and Love is God. Is the Roman Catholic Church the Restitution on Love? You who are Roman Catholic, ask yourselves, what of those not Roman Catholic? GOD IS NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS! Please … be careful of your discrimination, your favoritism … your partiality … this alone could tear down the Roman Catholic Church. Sigh.


Man build up what Yeshua tore down … Think about it.


The Roman Catholic Church has been too long too big and too brutish, playing rough and insulated in its degrees and practices. Today, who is listening? For the last three years I have heard at least a dozen times, and have read at least two or three times, from Catholics, that most Catholics do not pay attention to the pope, or what the Vatican says (which I find interesting given the handling of the clergy sex abuse). Then along comes Pope Fran, and suddenly much of the world is paying attention, but what has he really changed, or what has he really said? He jumped into politics because his think tank advised him that this is where he will be most heard, but I see this as an ill fit (possibly Malachy was correct). Was Jesus political? Jesus never did 99% of what the RCC priests, and others permitted the title “priest, bishop, and pope” have done. One thing Jesus did not do while on earth, according to Scriptural message, is marry a woman, but he also never advocated marriage within any religious tradition, and He never announced any title claiming it be any believer’s marriage—no marriage to a Roman Catholic Church, to a Russian Orthodox Church, or to any other. Jesus as Prophet was not in the position to marry, as His Work and Worth are unique, unlike other. As a matter of Scriptural fact in the REALITY OF THE SPIRIT, He taught that one NOT be married within these confines. The RCC did the exact opposite of what Christ ministered, and in this pretense, denied SPIRIT partnering. Spirit cannot be where it is denied. If one is completely devoted and married to an enigma, as a child might be attached to a toy, how might God’s messengers be able to join within? Ah, gotta be frank here and tell these men and women, “My dears, put away the things of a child, because there is no room at the inn within all that fairy-tale play … with all your dependency on the priests, and all your saint adoration and such.” You see, God is a jealous God. He cannot draw near if one does not draw nearer to Him. The religious member then argues that his saints are of God, are Spirit, and help him draw nearer to God. Our question is this: How do you know your saints are of God? How do you know that the Papal Curia haven’t made up stories, seriously now, and announced a man as saint who has molested children? How do you know whether or not your own popes have molested children? Did you ever think the angels might be trying to tell you something? Master sends his servants and Son to inspect the vineyards and what happens? We do not mean to rub salt in the wounds, but … It is said in Holy Scripture:

And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.


Angels are real! God’s messengers are real! Why plays with toys when the real is within reach should one choose to not be deterred by ….

But okay, what are we really looking at …

For starters, we see a most pronounced discrimination of women. Christ demonstrates what is to be, but the RCC through their DOCTOR Augustine, made the incoherent decision to remove women from the place where Jesus performed the most sacred miracle of all!  To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out (John 10.3). God opens for the birth of the new, that these might suckle wisdom. Wisdom is She. Oh, but Christianity is a patriarchal religion, run by male servants!

A small mind finds room for his own intellect, but a wise one builds a house for many.





If this man had been referring to gays, or those of a particular race, he would likely still be in jail, but the government is okay with this kind of talk, because its women. They do not even see their own partiality. Where did this mindset originate? Good God! What an horrific specimen of ill intent!





The people, not having been transformed by the Transubstantiation Theory after centuries of feeding, at least not according to the RC mandates, have been sipping elsewhere, on the side, away from the eyes of their doctors and saints and teachers of their law. Why? Because the RCC breeds lust. Seriously. Look about it. What do you see? If a poor shepherd goes to the inn to see a child having been born there, does he lust for an expensive archdiocese with golden chalices and robes of fine silk adorned with gem-encrusted crosses and rings and crowns and … Even the former Pope Benedict said as a child he saw the robes of the religious and …

“At the age of five, Ratzinger was in a group of children who welcomed the visiting Cardinal Archbishop of Munich with flowers. Struck by the cardinal’s distinctive garb, he later announced the very same day that he wanted to be a cardinal.”  Wikipedia

… what happened?

“Ratzinger’s 2001 letter De delictis gravioribus clarified the confidentiality of internal church investigations, as defined in the 1962 document Crimen Sollicitationis, into accusations made against priests of certain crimes, including sexual abuse. This became a subject of controversy during the sex abuse scandal.[31] For 20 years, Ratzinger had been the man in charge of enforcing the document.[32] While bishops hold the secrecy pertained only internally, and did not preclude investigation by civil law enforcement, the letter was often seen as promoting a coverup.[33] Later, as pope, he was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys in Texas, but sought and obtained diplomatic immunity from liability.” Wikipedia


The RCC members then shout, “You have insulted us! You are anti-Catholic! (notice how they omit the Roman part) I will have you charged with discrimination.” I then ask, “Has your Doctor Augustine not insulted and offended in his City of God where he refers to the women as shrews? Is your institution not discriminating against women, still, after all of this time? Do they misrepresent Christ?” You see, the rope pulls both ways. And isn’t your saint Augustine alive to you, as you worship … should he be awarded diplomatic immunity from liability, as well? Ahh … the convenience of the enigma.


GOD is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in TRUTH.


The RCC blames science and the secular and those who are not in alignment with its Doctrine, and they have been trying for a while now to keep this side from overpowering their side. Like a competing sport, or a game of tug-o-war, the rope goes back and forth—back and forth—but the reality is that each representative play on the SAME field. The RCC has yet to fully comprehend that their institution is at ground level, and this is where itself as enigma is irrelevant ON Truth. It is a make-believe of titles and practices within a system of religion, organized to suit its own lusts. The “toddler” in his mind plays at something he has yet to fully comprehend in the Life of the Spirit. This is not saying it is without purpose, and this is not saying that it lacks breath, as some are of use in the pastoring of others, but what if a child is lured in … or convinced in some visual manner that the robes of the religious offer a secret hideaway—a place to play out his own designs? Not cannibalism—I hope not—but what then?

The Roman Catholic says, “Do you not see in the world what we have accomplished?” The world? Yes, I see what is in the world, and we are taught not to conform to it.

God does not need an enigma, for the Spirit is its own Mystery, and not a Mystery unavailable to human—regardless of Denomination, and to be more clear in this, it is better to be without the pretenses of religiom than to be married so unanimously to it. God calls for Unity within its own Being, and this is One, and does not have a title or affiliation of worldly convenience, for it has its Kingdom, and those within this are OF THE ESSENCE OF THE SPIRITUALITY OF CHRIST, and this is what prevails … like a reed that bends but does not break.

So, it would require the RCC, and any institution claiming itself of Christ, to become transparent, not transcending.


In the cases of malpractice, how can government find guilty the enigma? If a disease insulates itself enough through much layering, it can escape detection. Here is your Vatican ethics plain and simple. So, how does one get to the bottom of this? “Open the tombs!” they shout. “Open the tombs!”


Interesting thought. What are these tombs? Indentured servitude.


TOAD EERO - revised



ON NATURAL LAW ( Wikipedia)

Greek philosophy emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) on the one hand and “law”, “custom”, or “convention” (nomos, νóμος) on the other. What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. A “law of nature” would therefore have had the flavor more of a paradox than something that obviously existed.[1] Against the conventionalism that the distinction between nature and custom could engender, Socrates and his philosophic heirs, Plato and Aristotle, posited the existence of natural justice or natural right (dikaion physikon, δικαιον φυσικον, Latin ius naturale). Of these, Aristotle is often said to be the father of natural law.[3]

Aristotle’s association with natural law may be due to the interpretation given to his works by Thomas Aquinas.[13] But whether Aquinas correctly read Aristotle is a disputed question. According to some, Aquinas conflates the natural law and natural right, the latter of which Aristotle posits in Book V of the Nicomachean Ethics (Book IV of the Eudemian Ethics). According to this interpretation, Aquinas’s influence was such as to affect a number of early translations of these passages in an unfortunate manner, though more recent translations render them more literally.[14] Aristotle notes that natural justice is a species of political justice, viz. the scheme of distributive and corrective justice that would be established under the best political community; were this to take the form of law, this could be called a natural law, though Aristotle does not discuss this and suggests in the Politics that the best regime may not rule by law at all.[15]

The best evidence of Aristotle’s having thought there was a natural law comes from the Rhetoric, where Aristotle notes that, aside from the “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common” law that is according to nature.[16] Specifically, he quotes Sophocles and Empedocles:

Universal law is the law of Nature. For there really is, as every one to some extent divines, a natural justice and injustice that is binding on all men, even on those who have no association or covenant with each other. It is this that Sophocles’ Antigone clearly means when she says that the burial of Polyneices was a just act in spite of the prohibition: she means that it was just by nature:

“Not of to-day or yesterday it is, But lives eternal: none can date its birth.”

And so Empedocles, when he bids us kill no living creature, says that doing this is not just for some people while unjust for others:

“Nay, but, an all-embracing law, through the realms of the sky Unbroken it stretcheth, and over the earth’s immensity.”[17]

Some critics believe that the context of this remark suggests only that Aristotle advised that it could be rhetorically advantageous to appeal to such a law, especially when the “particular” law of one’s own city was averse to the case being made, not that there actually was such a law;[3] Moreover, they claim that Aristotle considered two of the three candidates for a universally valid, natural law provided in this passage to be wrong.[1] Aristotle’s theoretical paternity of the natural law tradition is consequently disputed.








Let’s look at this in Genesis 38, beginning 6 …

6Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so the LORD put him to death.
8Then Judah said to Onan, Lie with your brother’s wife and fulfil your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.
9But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.
10What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also.
11Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, Live as a widow in your father’s house until my son Shelah grows up. For he thought, He may die too, just like his brothers. So Tamar went to live in her father’s house.
12After a long time Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When Judah had recovered from his grief, he went up to Timnah, to the men who were shearing his sheep, and his friend Hirah the Adullamite went with him.
13When Tamar was told, Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep,
14she took off her widow’s clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife.
15When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face.
16Not realising that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, Come now, let me sleep with you. And what will you give me to sleep with you? she asked.
17I’ll send you a young goat from my flock, he said. Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it? she asked.
18He said, What pledge should I give you? Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand, she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him.
19After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow’s clothes again.
20Meanwhile Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite in order to get his pledge back from the woman, but he did not find her.
21He asked the men who lived there, Where is the shrineprostitute who was beside the road at Enaim? There hasn’t been any shrine-prostitute here, they said.
22So he went back to Judah and said, I didn’t find her. Besides, the men who lived there said, There hasn’t been any shrine-prostitute here.’
23Then Judah said, Let her keep what she has, or we will become a laughing-stock. After all, I did send her this young goat, but you didn’t find her.
24About three months later Judah was told, Your daughter-inlaw Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant. Judah said, Bring her out and have her burned to death!
25As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. I am pregnant by the man who owns these, she said. And she added, See if you recognise whose seal and cord and staff these are.
26Judah recognised them and said, She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah. And he did not sleep with her again.
27When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb.
28As she was giving birth, one of them put out his hand; so the midwife took a scarlet thread and tied it on his wrist and said, This one came out first.
29But when he drew back his hand, his brother came out, and she said, So this is how you have broken out! And he was named Perez. [ Perez means breaking out. ]
30Then his brother, who had the scarlet thread on his wrist, came out and he was given the name Zerah. [ Zerah can mean scarlet or brightness. ]


So the Lord put him to death reads like manmade fiction. If Lord says: Thou shalt not kill … are we to assume it’s okay for Lord to kill? Does Lord kill? No. Who wrote this? The answer would be mystics on the prophet.  But how and why would he write this? The answer is quite simple. He wrote it in fear. 






The following is an article I had saved in SPIR.


Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an advocate for women’s rights and outspoken critic of Islam, sharply criticized Brandeis University today for abruptly withdrawing its offer of an honorary degree.

Facing public pressure, the Waltham university announced late Tuesday it would not honor the Somali-born activist, a week after announcing she would receive a degree at next month’s graduation ceremony.
In a pointed statement issued this afternoon, Hirsi Ali denounced Brandeis officials for bowing to critics who “simply wanted me to be silenced.”

Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s response to the Brandeis statement
“What was initially intended as an honor has now devolved into a moment of shaming,” she wrote. “Yet the slur on my reputation is not the worst aspect of this episode. More deplorable is that an institution set up on the basis of religious freedom should today so deeply betray its own founding principles.
“The ‘spirit of free expression’ referred to in the Brandeis statement has been stifled here, as my critics have achieved their objective of preventing me from addressing the graduating Class of 2014,” she added.

She has come under criticism for a number of inflammatory comments about Islam. In a 2007 interview with Reason magazine, Hirsi Ali was quoted as saying that Islam needed to be defeated.

“Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace,” she said.

A former member of the Dutch parliament who has spoken out against female genital mutilation and honor killings, she said she was “completely shocked” when Brandeis President Frederick Lawrence told her the university was rescinding its offer, just a few hours before issuing a public statement.

“I wish to dissociate myself from the university’s statement, which implies that I was in any way consulted about this decision.”

In its statement, released late Tuesday, the university said it had cancelled the planned honor following a discussion between Lawrence and Hirsi Ali.

“She is a compelling public figure and advocate for women’s rights, and we respect and appreciate her work to protect and defend the rights of women and girls throughout the world,” the university said in a statement. “That said, we cannot overlook certain of her past statements that are inconsistent with Brandeis University’s core values. For all concerned, we regret that we were not aware of these statements earlier.”

Hirsi Ali, a fellow at The Belfer Center for the Future of Diplomacy at Harvard’s Kennedy School, said “it is scarcely credible” that Brandeis was not aware of her public record when it extended its offer.

“I assumed that Brandeis intended to honor me for my work as a defender of the rights of women against abuses that are often religious in origin,” she wrote. “For over a decade, I have spoken out against such practices as female genital mutilation, so-called “honor killings,” and applications of Sharia Law that justify such forms of domestic abuse as wife beating or child beating. Part of my work has been to question the role of Islam in legitimizing such abhorrent practices.”

Hirsi Ali rejected the university’s invitation to discuss such issues on campus, saying she did not wish to participate in “one-sided dialogue.”

“Sadly, in words and deeds, the university has already spoken its piece,” she wrote. “I can only wish the Class of 2014 the best of luck—and hope that they will go forth to be better advocates for free expression and free thought than their alma mater.”

The university had come under growing criticism in recent days for its decision to honor Hirsi Ali. An online petition against honoring Hirsi Ali condemned her “extreme Islamophobic beliefs.”

“The selection of Hirsi Ali to receive an honorary degree is a blatant and callous disregard by the administration of not only the Muslim students, but of any student who has experienced pure hate speech,” the petition stated.

On Tuesday, the Council on American-Islamic Relations also called on Brandeis University to withdraw the offer.

“We believe offering such an award to a promoter of religious prejudice such as Ali is equivalent to promoting the work of white supremacists and anti-Semites,” the group stated.

Hirsi Ali immigrated to the Netherlands in 1992 and served as a member of the Dutch parliament from 2003 to 2006. She wrote the screenplay for “Submission,” a film about the oppression of women in conservative Islamic cultures. In 2004, the film’s director, Theo van Gogh, was killed in Amsterdam by an Islamic extremist.



Does anyone smell fear on the breath of the president of Brandeis University? I certainly do. He is afraid that the school will be targeted. What has the freedom of speech come to in America? Was it ever really a freedom to begin with? I cannot fully blame the president of this university. He has an institution to protect. WE have seen this before—the protection of institution—but I think his protection is more along the lines of safety. The president fears an attack on the school, and I don’t need to spell this out. He has the safety of his students to worry about. It is as I had heard … the women will be put back to the dark ages. How sad—how very sad for the Face of Humanity.





Peace and Love.


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: