A hoax religion gives its clergy theocratic power, wealth and domain.

A hoax religion gives its clergy theocratic power, wealth and domain. However, a hoax religion is generally a distorted version of greater religion.

For example, the Byzantine and Roman Catholic version of Christianity which led to the Dark Ages, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, and to all the subsequent centuries of military industrial imperialism, was a hoax religion.

The Anglican Protestant version of Christianity wasn't all that much better, and neither are many of the theocratic versions of Protestant Christian denominations that we have today. And theocratic Muslim versions of Islam and theocratic "Orthodox" versions of Judaism would also fall into the same category.

That, however, merely means that the three Abrahamic religions have, to various degrees, been coopted by hypocrites who have distorted their religion to suit their own self-interests -- not to serve the God of Abraham, Jesus and Muhammad.

Remember, Jesus of Nazareth said that he came to usher in an age of conflict and division, and he said that at the end of the age hypocrites would be claiming to "do many wonderful works in the name of the Lord" even though they actually "work iniquity."

What is needed now in the world is truthful education, because the truth really will liberate and empower us.
.

Mathew 13:12, like Luke 19:26, are misunderstood and misused by the "religious right."

The "religious right" takes isolated sentences from the Bible to "prove" their political ideology. For example, Luke 19:26 states that Jesus of Nazareth said: "I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from those that have not, even what they have will be taken away."

The Reaganite "Relious Right" focuses on that and on the statement that Jesus came to give us "life more abundantly." They think that justifies their claim that their wealth is a reward from God, and that the poor deserve their lot because they are just lazy. However, they simply ignore everything else Jesus said about the rich and poor, and they misinterpret the context and meaning of Luke 19:26.

In Luke 19:8-26 Jesus was talking partly about the fact that we generally reap what we sow, and he was specifically talking about the rewards of earning an honest and fair profit from an honest investment. However, Jesus qualified such statements and he also said that it is wrong to reap what you did not sow, or profit unjustly because you were tempted by greed and lust for money. Moreover, he said that you should do unto others as you would have others do unto you, and treat all others as you would want to be treated if you were them -- and be fair, just, kind, and generous.

Moreover, in another sense, what Jesus said about the “haves and have nots” was also a kind of prophecy. He said that during the age he ushered in, and especially now at its end, a corrupt, wealthy, powerful few would take more and more so that the majority and the poor would have less and less.

That has been the case during the passing age, and it's gotten so bad that now 20 percent of the American population owns 95 percent of the nation's wealth, while 80 percent of us are expected to get by on the remaining five percent. And it's getting worse in that regard.

And by the way, Jesus also rebuked the commercial profiteers who were profiting unjustly and had turned the temple into a "den of thieves." He hated greedy profiteers, and he even said it would be "easier for a rich man to try to fit through the eye of a needle than to enter heaven."

Rising religious pluralism threatens Theocrats, thus increases conflict.

It was predictable, and it is not surprising to me.

It was as predictable as the liberal and progressive reaction to the rise of the theocratic "religious right" in 1982 as they rose to political power with Ronald Reagan.

It took awhile for people to realize what was happening, but gradually we began to see objections to the hypocrisy and bigotry of the "religious right." We began so see reminders of the Jeffersonian "wall of separation between church and state." We began to see objections to Christian imposition into public schools and public squares. And it was all in reaction to the theocratic imposition of the "religious right."

Now the conflict has changed. More and more people recognize the agenda of Theocrats, and more and more people are understanding that the Founders wanted not only freedom of religion, but freedom FROM Theocracy. (See Quotes From the Founders Regarding Religion.) And Theocrats hate truths that expose their misguided beliefs.

I also believe that the growth of the number of religiously unaffiliated people is also an inevitable reaction against the hypocrisy, "religious" bigotry and theocratic imposition of the "religious right." And I think once the hypocrites have been put in their place by this message About Christianity, that will change.
.

The increasing, persistent lies about poverty that blame the victims.

About half of the people in American have the wrong idea and attitude about the cause and the nature of poverty, and, because of what they've been led to believe by the religious and political leaders they follow, they tend to generalize and blame the victims.

That attitude is, of course, partly the result of a human tendency to judge others as inferior. However, it is mostly the result of carefully crafted political propaganda cloaked as religious truths. It was not created by accident, or by coincidence. It was created and spread deliberately.

Why? Because some people who gain great wealth become greedy and selfish, and they want everyone to believe in a lie --- that the rich are blessed by God and the poor deserve to be poor because they "lack faith" and are just "lazy and not self-reliant."

That's what many wealthy people themselves want to believe, and it's what they want everyone else to believe. And its what the most influential American political figure of the last half of the 20th Century, Ronald Reagan, led many Americans to believe. But it's not true. In fact, as you will see, that idea and attitude is not only the opposite of the intent of Jesus of Nazareth, but in violation of the intent of the Founders of the United States of America.

The Real Apocalypse: The Revelation At The End of The Age (Aeon, Yuga, Olam, Kalpa, etc.)

The Real Apocalypse: The Revelation At the End of the Age

“Apocalypse” is a Greek word that actually means to "uncover, reveal, or unveil" the truth that has been ignored, forgotten, misinterpreted and misunderstood, and the Greek phrase “apokalupsis eschaton” literally means "revelation at the end of the age."

That, of course, is not what the most commonly accepted meaning is. According to that, Apocalypse means a cataclysmic event, all-consuming destruction, an epoch battle and war, and so on. That is painfully evident in all the books and movies that depict such horrible catastrophic events, and in all the "fire and brimstone" sermons of right-wing preachers.

The reason the original and true meaning was replaced was probably because most prophecies foresaw and foretold that prior to the revelation (or judgment) there would be terrible “signs” of its coming – signs that would occur or appear as the end of the age approached, which would include horrible corruption, injustice and inequity, terrible conflict, wars and rumors of war, natural disasters and plagues, and many other terrible things.

That is true, because we have indeed been suffering from such horrible and terrible events and circumstances increasingly during the last hundred years. And with each passing day the world becomes more dark with fear, frustration, anger, conflict and suffering for more and more people who feel more and moire helpless and hopeless — even as the relative few who rule the world live higher and higher in the lap of luxury.

Most of the prophecies of the world’s religions envisioned this scenario, these circumstances andthis tribulation, and that includes Judaism and Christianity, upon which Islam was founded. For if we study the major world prophecies we can see that there is general agreement that the fulfillment of prophecy is about the world going through a terrible tribulation prior to a divine intervention, kind of like going through “labor pains” leading up to a new paradigm and greater civilization being born into the world.

That divine intervention is brought about because of the revelation, the Apocalypse, and the intervention is also called an intercession, and a judgment, which will change the world.

All religious scriptures speak of it, but egocentric, ethnocentric Man has not understood. For example, the following are true, but misunderstood.

“A stone smote the image of the King of Babylon, and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.” – Daniel 1:34-35

“And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, but it shall stand for ever.” – Daniel 2:44

“The kingdoms of the world have become the kingdom of the Lord our God and of His Messiah, and He will reign for ever and ever.” – Revelation 11:15

The "stone" is the esoteric symbol for the divinely inspired truth, and it is the truth that shatters the image of the pretenders to the throne. And the truth, delivered by the Messiah, the modern son of man who is God's servant, will ensure that the "pen" ultimately and finally proves mightier than the sword.

"Zion vs Zionism"

What we know as "Zionism" has little or nothing to do with what Zion actually is, because Zionism is about a "religious" justification for claiming land, whereas Zion, in a spiritual sense and according to its spiritual meaning, has nothing to do with land, or with a place or building, or with anything material.

Rather, Zion is the spiritual Source and the spiritual "foundation and cornerstone" (as Isaiah put it) through and upon which the Lord God (or the Great Spirit-Parent, which is God by any other name) sparked, manifested and evolved the physical world of life and form.

In spite of that, the idea of Zionism was the "religious" basis for establishing the modern State of Israel in 1948, and that idea was based upon the claim of a "God-given right of return" of all Jewish people to Jerusalem. And that claim is in question.

In 1948, after Americans and the British ensured that the U.N. approved the establishment of the new Jewish nation, and after the indigenous Arab peoples of the Mid-East objected strenuously, the very first Prime Minister of Israel said the following about that, which is very telling:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been antisemitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that? They may perhaps forget in one or two generations' time, but for the moment there is no chance. So, it's simple: we have to stay strong and maintain a powerful army. Our whole policy is there. Otherwise the Arabs will wipe us out." -- David Ben-Gurion

That is telling for many reasons, because the attitude it expressed is still prevalent in Israel.

However, perhaps even more telling is that Ben-Gurion obviously did not know that the Qur'an commands Muslims to speak with great courtesy to Jews and Christians, because they "all believe in the same God" (29:46), and the Qur’an 2:136136 reveals that Muslims believe in the same God "which was revealed unto Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes, and that which Moses and Jesus received."

Ben-Gurion also stated the still-prevalent belief that God "promised" the land of Israel to the distant ancestors of the ancient Jews, and that is more telling than anything else. That is why it is important to examine the facts of the matter, because while Jews certainly should have the right to go wherever they wish in the world (like anyone else), the horrible consequences of the U.N. decision in 1948 should cause us to at least question how and why the "right" of the modern State of Israel to be established was granted on the basis of religion.

Granted, Israel is there now, and it perhaps has as much right to exist as any other nation established as a result of war and force of arms -- as so many other nations have been. But, because its existence and especially its continual expansion is so problematic, it is time to reexamine the situation.

Facts that expose right-wing Republicans for what they really are (re: "fiscal cliff")

During President Obama's first term and even after he won a second term convincingly, every time the American economy has approached a so-called "fiscal cliff," Republicans have insisted that there must be cuts in "spending" and "Entitlements" like Social Security.

By December 2012 they finally had to admit that there must be a significant increase in revenue, but even then they still insist that along with that there must be cuts in social services.

The amazing thing about it is that the Republicans and "Tea Party" members have been so vehement and so successfully misleading about it, that even most Democrats and most media pundits agree that revenue increases must be accompanied by cuts in social services and "Entitlements."

That, however, is simply not true. In fact, that would be grossly unfair.

Consider that during the last 30 years the wealth of the nation has been redistributed so that the wealthiest 20 percent of the population now own 95 percent of the total financial wealth of the nation, while 80 percent of the population now owns only 5 percent of it.

Now also consider that during that same period of time, while the wealthiest few have been enabled to get incredibly richer, everyone else has become less financially secure, the middle class population has shrunk, more and more people fall into the working poor population which is rapidly growing, and more and more people fall into poverty, are hungry, and even homeless.

In fact, 20 percent of American children live in poverty, because while the wealthiest few get richer, the median (average) household income keeps falling. The incomes of the richest 20 percent of the population grew by 30 percent during the last two decades while the incomes of the lowest paid 20 percent of us declined by more than 20 percent in the same time period, and the buying power of the minimum wage declined significantly.

Politicians may want you to simply forget or ignore all that. But we cannot. We need to be sane, reasonable, honest, and fair.

We need to have sufficient revenue to make necessary investments in our people and in our country.

Republicans try to label it as "spending" to fool you, but they are wrong. We need to make investments, now more than ever.

Furthermore, to cut social services and Social Security would be a crime. And the only "Entitlements" we need to cut are those those that have been going to the wealthiest few, since we have entitled them to pay far less than their fair share of taxes and take far too much out of the national treasury in tax loopholes, deductions, shelters, havens, subsidies and other "welfare for the rich" that we have been allowing them to take.

Boehner's claim that raising taxes on incomes over $250,000 would "destroy small businesses."

The most recent tactic adopted by the most misleading Republicans in reaction to President Obama’s call for those with incomes over $250,000 to pay more of their fair share of taxes is to claim that would “destroy small businesses.” But that is grossly misleading and disingenuous (if not totally dishonest).

The fact is that the personal income tax is on individuals, and therefore on the individual owner of small businesses, not the business itself. Moreover, most very small business owners who have annual personal incomes of between $250,000 and $500,000 have been allowed to pay nothing in income taxes because they been able to deduct all their “business expenses” (most of which are for personal use as well, like vehicles, home office equipment, travel expenses, etc.). Consequently they are able to pay zero income taxes.

No politician is talking about that, but the fact is that very small business owners with personal incomes like that can certainly afford to pay a fair share of taxes.

Now, President Obama’s plea to require those with incomes over $250,000 to pay their fair share of taxes has actually been very clever, because he has cited "The Buffet Rule," which is based on Billionaire Warren Buffet's statement that he should not be able to pay a lower percentage of his income than his secretary.

Mr. Obama's plea has also not only been clever, but also ironic, even though the commercial media has ignored it. For Mr. Obama has used words very similar to the Republicans' biggest hero, Ronald Reagan, in insisting that the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes -- as you can see in a video in the article on Reagan's Legacy -- because Reagan said very clearly that "a bus driver should not have to pay a higher percentage of his income in taxes than a millionaire."

Republicans ignore that, of course, and instead focus on all the things that Reagan said and did that benefitted the wealthiest few at the expense of everyone else, and unfortunately that was Reagan’s main agenda. He had to pretend otherwise of course, as most Republicans do. And since then the cunning deception of the Reaganites has been incredibly successful in their war on labor unions and everything else that restrained corporate power and profit, and that has had a devastating effect on labor unions, worker’s rights and benefits, the environment, and the economy.

A view of the U.S. Economy that all Americans should see:

Most of America’s Founding Fathers intended to establish a government of, by and for the people, rather than a government that would perpetuate rule by a wealthy few.

John Adams wrote: “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men. Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity and happiness require.”

In Thomas Jefferson's writings he showed he felt even stronger about that. He believed in equal opportunity for all. And back in 1801 as president, Jefferson warned against the unregulated and unchecked power of banks and corporations. He realized they had already created a wealthy ruling class of men in America, and he recognized the terrible threat that insufficiently regulated or unlimited banking and corporate power represents.

Jefferson said that “banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” He warned of the danger of private banks getting too big and having too much power, and he warned that they could “deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless.” He also criticized “the aristocracy of our monied corporations” and said they were in “defiance to the laws of our country.” He said they would create government “founded on banking institutions and moneyed incorporations” that would operate under a “guise and cloak.” And he was quite right then, and America should have heeded his words then, and in the 1920s, and especially during the last 30 years.

Good point. But even though Mother Nature will help stop the Randians, we ...

We need to work on stopping them -- the Randian Reaganites and the Randian Libertarians, such as Paul Craig Roberts and William A. Niskanen, co-founders of Reaganomics and both Cato Institute members. (Roberts has been misleading people with hundreds of articles on OpEdNews.com.

Regarding Ayn Rand, here is a relevant quote from an article, Partisan Politics: The Best Way to Determine Leadership, Or a Corrupt, Failed System?

Right-wing Republicans, Libertarians and the “Tea Party” love laissez-faire government. That’s why Ayn Rand has become a cult hero to many of them (along with Ronald Reagan, who was a champion of laissez-faire government). Some of them even consider Rand a prophet. However, Americans should understand that even though Ayn Rand was surely well-meaning and had some good insights, she was sadly mistaken about some very crucial issues.

Rand was an author born in 1905 in Russia, and her family was financially ruined after the Russian Revolution of 1917. She grew up hating Russian Communism, and she moved to America. Then, when the wealthiest few and the capitalist economic system became so corrupt in America that it caused an economic collapse in 1929 followed by the Great Depression, she simply misunderstood, and therefore feared, the New Deal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Ayn Rand did not recognize how needed and necessary Roosevelt’s reforms, regulations, safeguards and protections were, and she feared his regulations would be like those of Soviet Communism in Russia. And, since she hated government control because she had seen what it had done in Russia, especially under Stalin, she supported laissez-faire government that left capitalism unregulated. She believed it was the only social political economic system that "protected individual rights" and ensured “free enterprise.”

In the 1980s Ronald Reagan and the Neo-Conservatives revived that Randian ideology, touting “free enterprise and free markets” and claiming that “big government” was antithetical to freedom. But, unfortunately, all that was propaganda and rhetoric designed to make the American people forget or ignore the lessons of history, and forget or ignore how and why laissez-faire government had almost brought about the ruination of America before Roosevelt saved it in the 1930s and ‘40s.