Pro Rege Papers

You know; it’s interesting the lack of difference between the Republican and Democratic parties today. One’s headed for the cliff at 100 mph.; the other is going in the same direction at 99. (I’m not going to tell you which one is which) Meanwhile, their programs are becoming similar as this country becomes more and more addicted to socialism.

The Bush administration isn’t helping too much. Bush has instituted more healthcare programs, more education funding, and is spending money like a drunken sailor. But that’s not fair to drunken sailors, because they spend their own money. (Ronald Reagan, at the 1984 Republican National Convention) The only thing that looks like a possible step in the right direction is his attempt to bring Social Security down to eye-level. But, that one got shot down by the media. (aka, the 4^th branch of government) Wait a second, we have the majority in both houses, but we can’t get anything done besides put a few good judges in the Supreme Court.

I’m not saying that the Democrats are much better, but what we really need is someone who will show some real guts against big government; instead of bending to the media and demands of European countries to “modernize.” This nation did not become great by just sitting around, waiting for Washington to do the job.

Lines are becoming blurred between Republicans and Democrats. What happened to the days when Republicans were conservative and Democrats were liberal? Oh, I see those are bad words now. Did you notice how John Kerry (remember him?) reacted to being called a liberal? Oh boy, I’m starting to feel like an old man.

To win the war in Iraq, we need to put soldiers over there, root out the insurgents, and get the job done. But we won’t do that because the public demands the troops to come home. By the way, why did we let the Iraqis make their Constitution? We liberated them from tyranny, why don’t we make sure that their not going to revert? It’s not like we don’t have experience in making Constitutions that work. Ours has been going strong for 230 years. But I guess the essence of democratic freedoms these days is women voting. As long as you let women vote, it doesn’t matter what else you put in. However, if you look at history, you will see that the right of women to vote is not the basis of a free society. Neither is abortion. What about the principles that this country was founded on? For example, religious freedom???? There’s an idea.

Okay, I’m done with my ranting, on to a more reasonable topic tomorrow.

I don’t have the time to write much else, so I’ll just mention the following that I read in a blog recently: The message of the Judas Gospel (see my post) is the same as saying that Abraham Lincoln asked John Wilkes Booth to him so that Abe could join his well-distinguished ancestors in heaven. That’s a powerful but true comparison. It shows the non-sense of it all. Oh yeah, that’s right; you’re not supposed to use reason or un-common sense in these matters. “Just go with your gut.”

Not.

Most people don’t know that the Constitution was just one of many original documents that ruled our country in the early days. Before the 1790s, we had the Articles of Confederation, the Federal Charter, the New England Contract, the Eastern Seaboard Pact, the United Province Compact, and the United States Constitution. All these ruled the country and provided law and order for the people simultaneously. We have newly discovered them in a vault in Providence, Rhode Island.

However; one of these manuscripts, the U.S. Constitution, eventually outdid the others by including things people wanted. This particular document was written by one James Madison. But it we don’t know if that’s really true.

People just chose which charter they wanted, and were ruled by their government of choice. But the U.S. Constitution was the most popular document that was chosen by men of influence. These leaders imposed their way of government on the rest of the country.

You’ll probably hear in mainstream history courses that the Constitution was written in 1787. But that’s all you can expect from a bunch of propagandists. Just ignore them. The real truth resides with the other documents. No one has known the real history of the U.S. until now. People have their opinions, but they are just speculation.

These new finds will rock the political and academic spheres of our country forever.

(O.K. for those of you with no sense of humor and full of complete seriousness; I’m joking. But it stands to show how outrageous this whole deal about the Judas Gospel is.)

A better title would be “The Gospel of Satan.” I just read the National Geographic Magazine’s article on the Judas Gospel. First of all, before I delve into my rampage; I would like to put forth the question: “Since when does National Geographic cover heresies?” I guess it’s just part of their general trend toward politicizing everything.

The Judas Gospel is a document that was discovered in the 1970s, and is one of the many Gnostic Gospels (see my post on them) that were written in the 2^nd and 3^rd centuries A.D. This particular manuscript was supposedly written by Judas, or one of his followers, and presents a completely different message from the canonical gospels. This “gospel” says that Judas was the beloved disciple of Jesus. In other words, Judas was the only one of the disciples who actually understood Jesus and His mission. The other disciples were jealous of Judas and were worth nothing to Jesus. (Don’t ask me why He called them, then) So according to the Judas Gospel, Jesus asked Judas to betray Him, so that He would be able to die and therefore separate the soul from the body. At that point, Jesus would be free to practice His divine nature. The whole point of Gnosticism is to separate the soul from the body. After this, Judas killed himself so that he could also reveal his divine spark.

This is a completely outlandish and twisted account. Yet NG gives it more credibility than the canonical gospels. Why? Because it contradicts Christianity and gives people an excuse for not believing.

There are many, many problems with the concept put forth in the Judas Gospel. I’m going to give just the ones that I have thought of, but there are new ones I think of everyday.

Judas died, so how was he able to record the events? (Unless it was his private diary, or something.)

Jesus was divine, and came to earth to die for the sins of mankind. The Judas Gospel contradicts the whole message of Christianity.

The Judas Gospel contradicts the other canonical gospels in almost every fact. Why should we trust it more than the ones that have been in the Bible since the very first days of Christianity?

The letters of Paul, and the rest of the New Testament for that matter, do not back up any of the Judas Gospel’s “facts.” In fact, Acts condemns Judas just as the Gospels do.

BIG PROBLEM: The Judas Gospel does not fulfill the Old Testament. The whole point of Christ’s coming was to fulfill Old Testament prophecy, promise, and covenant from the time of Adam on down. The Judas Gospel makes itself irrelevant by not accomplishing salvation. If Judas was the genius in matters concerning Christ’s mission, why did he not fulfill it?

The article in NG has many problems itself. It says that the four canonical Gospels were anti-Jewish and wanted to portray Judas as the archetypical Jew. In other words, the authors wanted to take advantage of the situation. This is false. One of the Gospels is specially designed for Jews. The Bible says nowhere that Jews cannot be saved.

Ignatius has been really attacked for no reason. According to NG, Ignatius imposed the 27 canonical books on the church, and that before that; Christianity had been a very diverse religion with many gospels circulating and being accepted. This is the pit of falsehood. The true early Christians had the four gospels early on, and accepted them, because they knew the authors. The message agrees with everything else. Then the Gnostics came in and proclaimed their falsehood. Some were taken in, but not many. Gnosticism was recognized immediately for what it is: heresy. The NG account makes it look like Ignatius was the first one to say anything. In reality John speaks against it in Rev. 2:24.

Another thing is that NG attributes the “popularity” of the four canonical gospels to a hunch on the part of early Christians. The article paints the picture of predominately poor Christians coming into a book copying shop and asking for John’s Gospel, Luke’s Gospel, etc. The early Christians were not poor! Joseph of Aramethea had money, so did Philemon, Priscilla and Aquilla, etc.

As I notice with many other documentaries on this subject, the sources of truth for this article are liberal scholars who don’t give a whit about the Bible. They would be happy to accept anything that undermines God’s Word.

Again, I have to say that just because they wrote back then doesn’t mean everything they wrote was true. Fiction has been around for a while.

Okay, so Mousauii just got the official verdict of life in prison.

That’s just sad. It shows where this country is going. We are heading for complacency, injustice, and social ruin.

At least he is going to be confined by himself with no one else near him. At the end of the trial he walked out and said, “I won, America lost.”

He sees the truth, why don’t we?

So evolutionists say that mutations are one of the best things that can happen to mankind. (Or any other type of life, for that matter) If this is true, why are mutations so feared?

In Chernobyl, after the radioactive leak, there were several mutants that arose from the radiation. Only problem is that after they arose, they fell. All the mutants died out almost immediately. This happens with all mutants. This is interesting, because mutants are supposed to be good things that survive.

Another problem with mutations is that the “good” ones are way too rare in the cells where they matter (reproductive cells) for any type of order or progress to be achieved. If one “good” trait evolves, fine. But that trait is useless unless it is developed along with other traits that profit the species. “Natural selection” is not going to see any profit in the trait.

For example, with the bombardier beetle, you have many chemicals and enzymes that must mix in the right place at the right time in order for the beetle to fire the mix without blowing up himself. If one of the components evolved (and that’s a stretch of the mind) without the others, Mr. Beetle is going sky high. As someone once said, “nothing works until everything works”

In the whole hubbub raised about global warming, which itself is unproven and questionable, it is intriguing that the scientists who support it are saying that the deterioration of the magnetic field and other things are going to cause increased rates of mutation. The result, they say, is not wonderful evolutionary progress, but cancer and disease that will kill millions.

In the recent discussion about nuclear weapons, some people say, including Iran, that the U.S. has used nuclear without need against countries, but doesn’t want any one else to. Therefore, they say, we are hogging the power and want to te the world. However much I can agree with the last statement, the U.S. did not use atomic weapons against Japan for no reason.

It was clearly evident in the months leading up to the end of the war that Japan was becoming more and more desperate. With Japan in the early ‘40s, “desperate” meant “suicidal.” In Okinawa, the Japanese fought to the and many American lives were lost because we had to kill every single one of the enemy. That battle was the terminus of a growing tendency of . The kamikazes were becoming more and more devastating to our navy by the day.

This mentality is a direct result of Shintoism. Shintoism worships the ancestors. You’re supposed to please your ancestors the best way you can. The best way to please them is to become a warrior and (preferably) die. This fanaticism lead to, in this case, the Japanese generals attempting to wrest control from the emperor, because he wanted to surrender to the U.S. after the had been dropped.

Anyway, the plan of invasion, though probably successful, would have ended up in millions of lives lost on both sides. The Japanese were developing kamikaze subs, tanks, , and everything else that blew up. They were also mounting defenses on the shore. The government was educating the people on how to resist the American forces and how to die in honor. For the invasion plan, go here.

If the U.S. were intent on being cruel and ruthless, we would have dropped a nuke on Tokyo, Kyoto, or some other more populous city. That would have had a larger effect in lives. But that was not our intention. We dropped it on Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were strategic places and did not involve a catastrophic loss of life.

Not to mention that after the surrender, we came in there and general Macarthur rebuilt the country. We required them to give up radical Shintoism and the worship of the emperor. We gave them a constitution that promoted growth and wealth. Wait a second; maybe that’s what we should do in Iraq. Oh yeah, we are under the U.N. now, which forbids anything that might solve a situation. Anyway, this productive reform instituted by us is why Japan is such an economical super-power today.

I hope you anti-Americans will realize now the facts of Hiroshima and move on to something else.