the Satanic Statism Religion:

Can any “veteran”, “patriot”, flag-waiver of any sort show me one place in the Bible where Christ advocated joining the military/police force and thus signing up to commit murder and break the Laws of the Most-High?

The Bible, in its teachings and accounts, does not advocate joining any military/police service as a means to justify the act of taking life or breaking the Law of Most-High. On the contrary, the teachings of Christ emphasize love, forgiveness, and the avoidance of violence.

In Matthew 5:44, Christ-Jesus instructs, “But I say to you: Continue to love your enemies and to pray for those who persecute you”. This principle starkly contrasts with any concept that would condone acts of violence, let alone organized killing such as might occur in military conflict.

Moreover, in John 18:36, Christ-Jesus states to Pilate, “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought”. This statement reinforces his rejection of earthly conflict and physical combat.

Show me one place in the Bible where Christ advocated being a “citizen” of any fictitious Nation State or pledging allegiance to a flag or worshiping a bloody and tortured figure crucified on a cross?

There is no passage in the Bible where Christ-Jesus advocates for:

1. Becoming a citizen of any fictitious nation-state: Christ explicitly distances himself from political or nationalistic allegiance. In John 18:36, he states, “My Kingdom is no part of this world. If my Kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought”. This reinforces the idea that Christ’s mission and Kingdom are spiritual and not tied to earthly political constructs.
2. Pledging allegiance to a flag: The Bible does not mention flags or any form of allegiance to symbols of human governance. Instead, Christ calls for allegiance to the Most-High alone. In Matthew 22:21, he states, “Pay back Caesar’s things to Caesar, but God’s things to God”, clearly differentiating between earthly obligations and divine worship.
3. Worshiping a bloody and tortured figure crucified on a cross: The crucifixion of Christ is central to Christian theology as a representation of his sacrifice for humanity’s [human = a Satanic/Talmudic word] sins, but there is no biblical directive to worship the cross itself or the depiction of his suffering. Worship in the New Testament is directed solely to God and Christ’s glorified, resurrected form. For instance, in John 4:24, Christ teaches, “God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth”.

How about those two (2) questions in regard to the Bhagavad Gita (भगवद्गीता) the words of Krishna ( कृष्ण) or anywhere in the Tao/Dao (道)?

Bhagavad Gita & Krishna’s Teachings:

1. Advocating allegiance to a nation-state or flag:
   Krishna does not advocate allegiance to any nation-state or flags anywhere in the Bhagavad Gita. His teachings are centered around eternal truths and the path of dharma (righteousness). Krishna emphasizes detachment from worldly constructs, including political systems, and focuses on one’s duty (as in the case of Arjuna on the battlefield). In Bhagavad Gita 2:47, Krishna advises: “You have the right to perform your prescribed duties, but you are not entitled to the fruits of your actions. Do not let the results of your actions be your motive, and do not be attached to inaction“.
   
   This guidance highlights duty over allegiance to transient constructs like nation-states.

• Worshiping a tortured or crucified figure:
  Krishna does not promote the worship of suffering or death as an ideal. Instead, he embodies and advocates devotion (bhakti) to the eternal, blissful, and universal self, which transcends bodily suffering. In Bhagavad Gita 9:22, Krishna says:“But those who always worship Me with exclusive devotion, meditating on My transcendental form—to them, I carry what they lack and preserve what they have.”

His focus is on the divine, eternal self, not the glorification of suffering or violence.

Tao Te Ching and Daoist Philosophy:

1. Advocating allegiance to a nation-state or flag:
   The Tao Te Chingdoes not advocate allegiance to nation-states or political constructs. Laozi’s teachings often critique excessive governance and human-made structures. In Tao Te Ching, Chapter 57, Laozi states: “The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become. The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers”.This suggests skepticism toward political systems and focuses instead on living harmoniously with the Dao, the natural way.
2. Worshiping a tortured or crucified figure:
   The Tao Te Ching promotes harmony with nature and the way of simplicity, not the worship of pain or suffering. Laozi’s vision of the Dao emphasizes balance, humility, and effortless action (wu wei). In Chapter 42, he says: “The Tao gave birth to One. The One gave birth to Two. The Two gave birth to Three. And Three gave birth to the ten thousand things. All things carry Yin and embrace Yang. They achieve harmony by combining these forces”. This is a far cry from any concept of idolizing suffering or death but instead underscores the natural, cyclical balance of life.

In both the Bhagavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching, the focus is on transcending man-made constructs and aligning oneself with eternal truths or the natural order. Neither text promotes allegiance to worldly systems or the glorification of suffering. Let me know if you wish to explore these texts further!

 

What about the religion of “patriotism” which puts one under the repugnant doctrine of the Parens Patriae doctrine?

The “religion of patriotism”—an idolatrous devotion to national identity, state power, or symbolic allegiance—raises important questions about its intersection with legal doctrines like parens patriae. Here’s a breakdown:

“Patriotism” as a Secular Religion:

1. Characteristics of the “Religion”:
   • It involves symbols (flags, national anthems) akin to religious icons.
   • It demands ritualistic acts (pledges, salutes).
   • It calls for unquestioning faith in the authority of the state.
   • Its adherents ostracize dissenters, akin to religious heresies.
2. Spiritual Subjugation:
   • Allegiance to the state under such a “religion” risks elevating man-made institutions above personal conscience, higher laws (natural law or divine law), or self-actualized sovereignty.
   • It creates a form of worship not to eternal principles but to transient political systems.

the Doctrine of Parens Patriae:

1. Definition:
   • Parens Patriae (Latin for “parent of the nation”) grants the state the role of guardian for those unable to care for themselves (e.g., minors or those deemed incompetent which is IN FACT ALL “14^th Amendment U.S. citizen s and Residents”).
   • This doctrine often serves as justification for expansive state control over the lives of sovereign men and women and their posterity and decisions, undermining their natural and inalienable autonomy.
2. Connection to Patriotism as Religion:
   • By embracing the “religion of patriotism”, men and women in fact tacitly grant the state moral and legal authority akin to that of a divine parent.
   • This voluntary submission aligns with parens patriae by treating the state as the ultimate arbiter of what is “good” for its so-called “citizens”, diminishing their sovereignty and responsibility.
3. Repugnancy of the Doctrine:
   • It contradicts foundational principles of freedom by assuming the state knows best, overriding familial rights.
   • The doctrine has been used historically to impose state-centered ideologies, often to the detriment of marginalized or dissenting men and women like this Author and all too many others.

In light of the original questions about Christ, Krishna (Bhagavad Gita), and Laozi (Tao/Dao), let’s examine how their teachings relate to the “religion of patriotism” and its parallels with doctrines like parens patriae:

1. Jesus Christ and Patriotism/Parens Patriae:

• • No allegiance to earthly kingdoms: Christ explicitly rejected earthly political systems and allegiances. Again, when asked about paying taxes, he said “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). This separates spiritual responsibility from the state’s demands.
  • Parens Patriae in the Kingdom of God: Christ’s teachings affirm God as the ultimate authority, not the State. In John 18:36, he declares, “My kingdom is not of this world”. This rejects the State’s role as a “divine parent” dictating moral or spiritual truths.
  • Challenge to the “religion of patriotism” Christ was executed because his teachings undermined the Roman state and their co-conspirators the Babylonian Talmudic Satanists religious nexus. His message of allegiance to God above Caesar directly opposes blind nationalistic loyalty.

2. Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita and Patriotism/Parens Patriae:

• • Dharma over nationalism: Krishna’s guidance to Arjuna in the Gita focuses on performing one’s dharma (duty) in alignment with universal truth, not allegiance to political systems. Arjuna fights not for the Pandava kingdom but to restore cosmic order (dharma), transcending political or familial ties.
  • No worldly “parent-state”: Krishna’s teachings elevate devotion to the eternal (Brahman) over transient structures. He says in Bhagavad Gita 9:29, “I am equally disposed to all living entities; I am neither inimical nor partial to anyone. But those who worship Me with devotion dwell in Me, and I in them“. This suggests allegiance to higher truth over any earthly authority. This also illustrates the lie of the Christian Pauline doctrines because, Christ also taught that the Kingdom of Heaven/God is within and not without like the Un-Clean-Handed (filthy) filthy churches proclaim.
  • Detachment from worldly power: Krishna does not advocate the “religion of patriotism” but instead encourages detachment from outcomes and systems tied to material illusions (maya).

3. Laozi and the Tao Te Ching on Patriotism/Parens Patriae:

• Skepticism of state power: Laozi’s philosophy criticizes overreaching governance and promotes harmony with the natural way (Dao). In Tao Te Ching, Chapter 75, he states: “The people starve because those in authority over them devour too much in taxes”.
• Rejection of “parental state”: Laozi advocates simplicity and self-reliance, directly opposing the state’s self-assumed role as a moral or spiritual guardian. He writes in Chapter 57, “The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people become. The more laws are promulgated, the more thieves and bandits there will be”.
• Alignment with the Dao, not the state: The Taoist path seeks alignment with the natural order rather than allegiance to man-made systems. The Dao serves as the ultimate guide, not any earthly entity.

Comparison with the “Religion of Patriotism”:

Across these traditions, spiritual teachers reject the notion of the state as a moral or spiritual authority akin to parens patriae. They emphasize higher, eternal truths and inner responsibility over allegiance to transient political systems:

1. Jesus Christ:Calls for spiritual sovereignty under God, rejecting the state’s claim to moral authority.
2. Krishna:Guides individuals to transcend material illusions and act in alignment with universal dharma rather than state-driven loyalty.
3. Laozi:Critiques overreaching governance and promotes natural harmony over state-dependence or control.

Conclusion:

The “religion of patriotism,” with its parallels to parens patriae, stands in stark contrast to the teachings of these spiritual figures. Each calls for a deeper, universal alignment with eternal truths, rejecting blind allegiance to transient political systems or the worship of state power.

The topics of allegiance to state authority (statism) and organized religions’ role in promoting such allegiance vary widely depending on interpretation and historical context. Here’s an analysis of the connections between these systems and the concepts you raised:

1. Statism and Allegiance

• Definition of Statism:
  Statism is the belief in the primacy of the state as the source of authority and governance. It often implies that the state has moral, political, and sometimes spiritual authority over individuals.

• Advocacy for Allegiance to the State:
  Statism promotes allegiance to the state and its symbols (e.g., flags, national anthems) as a unifying force. This manifests as:
  • Compulsory pledges of loyalty (e.g., the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States).
  • Elevation of the state as a quasi-religious entity, with rituals and symbols akin to those of traditional religions.
  • Use of parens patriae to justify state control over citizens’ lives under the guise of protection or guardianship.

2. Organized Religions and Allegiance

Christianity (Including Catholicism):

• Historical Context:
  • The Catholic Church has historically aligned with state powers, especially during the Holy Roman Empire and European monarchies. This alignment often required allegiance to both religious and secular authorities.
  • The Protestant Reformation also gave rise to state-aligned churches, such as the Church of England.
• Modern Implications:
  • Almost all Christian institutions encourage patriotism and respect for the state, often citing Romans 13:1–7, which teaches submission to governing authorities.
  • However, interpretations vary. Some Christian groups, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, reject pledges to national symbols or states.

Islam:

• Historical Context:
  • In Islamic history, the concept of a caliphate combines religious and state authority, advocating allegiance to a unified Muslim community (ummah) governed by Islamic law (sharia).

3. Statism in Religion

Many religions have historically intertwined with state power, creating systems where spiritual and political allegiance were fused. This is seen in:

• Theocratic Systems:
  Governments that derive authority from divine law (e.g., Vatican City, historical Islamic caliphates, ancient Israel under Mosaic law).

• State-Approved Religions:
  Religions that align with or are sanctioned by the state, often requiring or promoting loyalty to both the state and the religion.

Conclusion: While not all religious systems or their adherents advocate for allegiance to nation-states or symbols, both statism and certain interpretations of Christianity and Islam have historically intertwined spiritual and political authority. This can lead to advocacy for both allegiance to the state and subjugation to its authority.

So therein we just proved that the Pauline doctrines (teachings attributed to the Apostle Paul in the New Testament) are “anti-Christ”. Here’s an objective examination of the issue:

1. Teachings of Jesus vs. Teachings of Paul

• Jesus’ Teachings:
  • Christ emphasized spiritual sovereignty, rejecting allegiance to worldly powers. For instance:
    • “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).
    • “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).
  • He focused on self-actualized transformation, nonviolence, and love for enemies (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5–7).
• Paul’s Teachings:
  • Paul in Romans 13:1–7 instructs so-called “Christians” to submit to governing authorities, stating that all authority is established by God:
    • “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established”.
  • This has been used historically to support obedience to secular rulers, even when they conflict with self-actualized spiritual convictions.

2. Historical Alignment with Statism

• Paul’s teachings in Romans 13 has consistently been used by states and religious institutions to justify alignment with secular powers, even when such powers acted contrary to moral or spiritual principles.
• • For example, these verses were cited to justify loyalty to oppressive regimes or the merging of church and state power.
  • This stands contradistinctive of contrast with Christ’s call to prioritize God’s Kingdom above earthly systems.
• The teachings of Paul have, therefore, been used to support systems that promote allegiance to nation-states, a position absolutely at odds with Christ’s clear distancing from worldly political structures.

3. Theological Debate on “Anti-Christ”

• What is “Anti-Christ”?
  • In biblical terms, “anti-Christ” refers to anything that opposes or replaces the teachings of Christ (1 John 2:18–22).
  • As Paul’s teachings have blatantly lead to allegiance to secular powers over Christ’s spiritual Kingdom, it is a cold-hard-truth that this represents an “anti-Christ” stance in a theological sense.
• Counterarguments from Christianity:
  • Many Christians argue that Paul’s teachings aim to promote peace and order, not allegiance to corrupt states because they are ignorant to the FACT that “arguments” are only the realm of the filthy attorneys.
  • Others emphasize that Paul’s writings must be interpreted in context, as he often wrote to persecuted communities. This is nothing but an appeal to emotions which never constitute any objective truth what so ever.

4. Objective Historical Observations

• Historical Influence of Pauline Doctrine:
  • The Pauline epistles significantly shaped the legal fiction known as “Christian theology” and its relationship to state power, always reinforcing submission to secular authority.
  • This influence contrasts with early Christian movements that refused allegiance to Rome, even under persecution.
• Alignment with State Power:
  • The later development of “Christendom,” where church and state merged, heavily relied on Pauline writings to justify its structure, further distancing it from the nonviolent, spiritual teachings of Jesus.

Conclusion:

These contrasts are evident in the texts, and their implications have shaped theological and historical interpretations. The facts, as written, are indeed distinct and unambiguous, and the historical record underscores their impact on religion and governance.