New Civilization News: HWJV    
 HWJV35 comments
30 Jul 2004 @ 15:03, by Craig Lang

How Would Jesus Vote?

What would the politics of Jeshua Ben Yusef be, if He walked the Earth today? My short answer is that we probably don't know. But it would probably be something very different from what anyone would expect.

I'm writing this article for our church newsletter. I think it has alot to say to those on both the right and the left, who tell me they are "followng Jesus".
.

========================================

In my day job, I work with quite a few rather conservative individuals, some of whom hold very religion-oriented perspectives on their beliefs. Within my extended family, I have also heard comments such as "My politics? I follow Jesus". The assumption, at least for the speaker of those words, is that "Following Jesus" means voting Conservative. Others whom I associate with in the progressive movement describe things such as the "liberation theology", the "Christian left" and "spiritual politics". So to a lot of people, "Following Jesus" actually means voting left-wing - usually Democrat.

I have sometimes wondered about this phrase, "following Jesus". If one follows one's spiritual faith, then what, if any, are the political implications? What would the first century itinerant preacher, teacher and healer named Jeshua Ben Yusef have believed about his political world? And if He were physically alive today, what would he say about the state of affairs we have now created for ourselves?

Since I was not present in the first century it is pretty much impossible for me to know what Jeshua Ben Yusef experienced. However perhaps we can make some pretty good guesses based upon what we know of His lifetime, historical context, etc.

By most teachings, Jeshua was part of a poor to middle class family. Church history describes His family as carpenters, who lived in a relatively minor village. The important thing though, was that the country they lived in was undergoing military occupation, and this had been the case for many years. During the early first century, the political scene was seething. Like many others, Jeshua Ben Yuseph would have been trying to eke out a living under the harsh conditions of the time, under a regime that ruthlessly supressed dissent. Whether or not He was politically active is not clear. But just like today, I imagine that the undercurrent of political unrest was there for all to experience. It was probably an inescapable part of daily life.

While today, we can not know what it was like to live under Roman occupation, we can find communities undergoing similar experiences. For example, Palestinians under Israeli occupation might be a good analogy. A quick look at that community reveals the forment which permeates their population. We can well imagine a similar situation in Jeshua's day.

So, was Jeshua a revolutionary? Teachings such as "Turn the other cheek", and "Love your enemies" imply otherwise. Was he a conservative? His harshest criticisms were reserved for the authorities, implying that He was anything but a supporter of those in power. Instead, He appears to have adopted a philosophy which can best be described as a modified pacifism. It was a view very different from the prevailing political spectrum - both then and now.

Although we know very little about the life of Jeshua during his teens and 20s, there is some interesting literature in the Jewish, Buddhist and New-Age traditions to suggest that at some point, He studied in the east. Whether or not this is true, it appears that He was exposed to ideas which were very contemporary, often very leading-edge for His time. It appears that he later taught some of these in His ministry. For example, Marcus Borg's book Jesus and Buddha offers a fascinating one-to-one comparison of the teachings of Jesus and Buddha. The similarity is truly remarkable.

So what we seem to find is a contemporary man, who has studied many leading edge ideals. With them, He has adopted a new philosophy which very much flies in the face of the prevailing traditions - both of the opressors and of the opressed. In many ways it resembles what in Buddhism is called as "The Middle path". It was a new way, both radical and unsettling, yet moderate at the same time. In first-century Judaism, it became part of what was known as "The Way".

So now we return to the question: if Jeshua Ben Yusef were alive today, under similar circumstances, what would he have done? What would his politics be? If He were exposed to American politics during an election year, and if He voted at all, how would He vote?

My bet is that if He were alive today, he would probably not be very kind to those who currently claim to follow him. The power elite of this society, the conservatives, and the monied, are those whom The first-century Jesus most often criticized. And yet it is those who, today, most often claim to follow him. So Jeshua Ben Yusef would probably not be a Christian conservative.

But would he be a "liberal"? I am going to bet that the answer to that would also be "no". In His day, He criticized "politics as usual" - which for the "left wing" of that day was the idea of a messianic liberation. Renouncing the violence of the Zealots, He turned to a new road, and embraced a philosophy which included a large element of pacifism. Today, I often wonder how impressed he would be by the politics of confrontation which seems to be part of the left-wing. I often wonder if to Him, this too would look like politics as usual.

So my bet is that just as in the first century, a Jeshua Ben Yusef of today would form an entirely new movement. I suspect that He would most likely be seen today just as he was seen then - a radical, itinerant preacher, teacher and healer. He might be accepted only by a few contemporaries, and would be greatly opposed by many in power. And if He voted at all, which I doubt, he would very likely not vote for either the "Christian right", or the "liberals".

Perhaps His new path would resemble the eastern "Middle Path". Maybe it would look a bit "new-agey", or maybe not. In the end, I suspect that it would be an entirely different way - something to thoroughly shake up our present day world. And just like then, it would probably be something very different from what anyone expected.


[< Back] [New Civilization News]

Category:  

35 comments

30 Jul 2004 @ 17:27 by vibrani : Craig
but didn't he barge into the temple and have a tantrum about the money changers? He wasn't very passive about that. I wonder if he would be politically involved at all (in anything that didn't include his clan) - seems he didn't care about that much when he was Jesus. Maybe it could have helped him if he was more involved? I do agree that he didn't like followers. He might be a new age speaker or healer, maybe publishing his own writings. I think he'd remind people of the following, that would probably be his focus even today:
If God is truly infinite, then there is not the smallest place, nor the shortest moment where God is absent. God, to be truly infinite, must (by definition) be everywhere, all times, with all life. There can be nothing that is not God, nothing that is not made of God, because in the beginning there was only God and nothing else - pure creativity. God already filled all of existence. There couldn't have been any room left over because if there was, then God wasn't infinite. Thus, God only had Itself out of which to make everything God created and thus, despite the illusion of separateness, we can not actually be separate from God because there is nowhere else to be separate from God.

Are YOU willing to take the REAL risk: To see yourself and all others through the eyes of an unconditionally loving God - One who will love you FOREVER no matter what you do? One who loves Its children so much, It's willing to give them eternity to learn from their mistakes rather than punish them? Are you willing to believe in your own goodness? Willing to "risk" that you can handle that much love FOREVER?

##################
CL Note: excellent comment Nora.
I think that your last paragraph is one good way of describing spiritual growth, to come ever closer to seeing the world through eyes as close to God's as we can.  



30 Jul 2004 @ 22:44 by craiglang : Pacifist does not mean passive
Hi Nora,

Interesting comment. Great feedback. Thanx.

I think that being a pacifist, and being passive are two different things. I said he preached elements of pacifism, but as you pointed out, he was still capable of expressing anger.

My own beleif is that Jeshua realized the futility of an armed insurrection aggainst the Romans. He concluded that the only way that the Israelites would succeed at that time would be by following a different path. I believe that this was a path that was far and above that of ordinary politics as usual.

Anyway, that's my $0.02... :-)
Thanx again for the comment.
-Craig  



30 Jul 2004 @ 22:53 by vibrani : The Hebrews
at the time were not really the problem. The problem was the Roman occupation that was controlling the region. Lots of fear, combined with many so-called messiahs, false prophets, need to survive - you know how that goes. The Romans versus the Hebrew's religion and laws, and the people's need to find hope, a way out of the violent occupation and oppression by the Romans was understandable. The consciousness of the time, in general, was where it was - so it's hard to judge what would have been best for their lifestyle, especially if they couldn't have conceived of it themselves in a way that wouldn't conflict with their religious beliefs. That's why most of the Hebrews did not stray. Besides, they did see what was happening to those who split off. I'm sure Jesus thought no matter what he said or did would have made a difference to the Romans, and if he had a messiah complex it wouldn't have mattered because he'd have to play it out to the end in order to be the martyr. (One theory.)  


30 Jul 2004 @ 23:02 by craiglang : Very true
Still, what we know didn't work was a military revolt. And I think that's what Jeshua saw. Then, as today, a different path was needed. The biggest hope for today is, I think, that that path is far more doable today than it was then.

BTW: when I started to type this, only half of your comment was in place. I did a screen refresh and saw the other half... :-)
Very interesting. Thanx again for your comments. They are very insightful.  



30 Jul 2004 @ 23:20 by vibrani : :-)
Thanks, Craig. Yes, I agree, the path today is more doable, and the consciousness is different. Since then look how many wars there have been, geez, we'd hope we'd have learned SOMETHING all this time! Isn't that the ironic side?  


30 Jul 2004 @ 23:47 by celestial : Jesus
Also became enraged at a certain fig tree for not producing and spoke a rebuke to it which caused it to wilt and shrivel up. (Was this just a FIGment of the imagination or was it symbolic of something else.)

A lot of Christians speak as though Christ is still alive today; that he overcame death and still lives, even to this day. If true, why don't they ask him in person! I've read several accounts of his crucifixion and there is no way anyone could survive that and walk out of a tomb three (3) days later. What actually happened is totally different than what is taught today.

But symbolically, they persist in taking the sacrament, eating his flesh and drinking his blood. They won't use tomato juice (the color of blood) but use grape juice instead.

His "CONCEPT" of forgivness is his crowning glory, not the crown of thorns.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 00:09 by b : He is a Spirit
If we are body, mind, spirit then He is a spirit, very much alive an hundreds of millions of people communicate with Him in spirit every day.  


31 Jul 2004 @ 01:01 by celestial : There is a lie, a conspiricy
Concerning Jesus death. There Is no way that he could have recovered from the wounds inflicted, much less to do it in three days. I have no problem with him being a spirit; the problem I have is with the resurrection and the way it has been marketed for 2000 years.

Something else transpired there and the current religious leadership doesn't want to admit the truth as to what actually happened to his body. THEY are AFRAID of the TRUTH. THEY FEAR TRUTH.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 01:11 by vibrani : JC's death
I think so too, Celestial, that there's no way he could have survived such a horrific death. What do you think happened to his body?  


31 Jul 2004 @ 01:48 by celestial : Here is what I believe happened,
After a lifelong study, to date.

His "resurrection" was effected via "fast route reincarnation."

CAUTION: THIS MAY BE TRAUMATIC TO THE FAINT OF HEART.

John 6:54-56....(Jesus words)
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

So, his followers remembered his words after the execution and took his body and cannabilized it. Period.

Thus we have the sacrament so difussed that the truth is covered up so that it is not even recognizable.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 01:50 by skookum : I think
If Jesus were here... first thing he'd do is waste all the lawyers and politicians. Start fresh. :0)

He was never very fond of the establishment.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 01:57 by celestial : YES
I always loved that toy board where you would write on it and then pull up the clear acetate cover and everything was erased. I need to buy myself another one of them.

We really don't need lawers or politicians, we have the internet NOW.
GOVERNMENTS, AS WE KNOW THEM, Will fade a w a y, eventually.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 06:28 by vibrani : Celestial
you are quoting the bible, which we know is made up of many contradictions, and outright lies. Secondly, that would be so forbidden and repulsive to people. Don't you think that even that phrase is not to be taken literally? And there is a lot of evidence to show that Jesus never even said that, in those words.  


31 Jul 2004 @ 07:58 by celestial : Enamrani,
I am very aware of some of the contradictions and lies in the bible.
Unfortunately, I do not know them all.

Yes, cannabalism is forbidden and seems repulsive. That is why I stated "CAUTION..."
The phrase not to be taken literally is hard to say. I personally do believe that Jesus did say those words. Until proof is offered otherwise, I cannot believe otherwise.

This is where I am in my belief of what actually happened then. Such a belief system was so alien and percieved to be a threat to the government that great effort was spent trying to stamp it out; An impossibility when the followers consume their own leader. All they did was scatter the belief to the four winds.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 08:40 by craiglang : The Etheric body
One interesting hypothesis I have read is that it was the etheric body which was present after the resurrection. In many eastern traditions, as well as in some hypotheses in parapsychology, the etheric body can often manifest as a physical presence.

This idea appears to be quite compatible with the stories of advanced Yogis in India, who's etheric bodies persisted for quite some time after death. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that in the Eastern/Vedic tradition(s), the physical body vanished as well - thus the empty tomb.

The book by Swami Rama on "Meditation and Christianity" talks alot about the similarities between Jesus and some of the ultra-advanced Yogis. I didn't go into that in the article, but in many ways, Jesus appears to be the textbook example of an advanced Vedic adept.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 08:54 by craiglang : The language of the spirit
is metaphor. And I think that is what the bread and wine are - symbols. I think we need to look again at the Eastern traditions on this, where symbolism is heavily used to capture the spiritual ideals. My own sense is that very little in Jeshua's message should be taken verbatim/literally. My own belief is that, like other higher spiritual beings, he spoke in symbols, metaphors, and parables. Methinks that the bread/wine, blood/body are that.  


31 Jul 2004 @ 09:33 by craiglang : Revised 7/31/04
to update wordsmithing, correct typos, etc...  


31 Jul 2004 @ 10:06 by celestial : My beliefs change as I find more truth.
My beliefs are not set in stone, so to speak, and I've found that if I start pushing the envelope of my beliefs that something better comes along to replace them.  


31 Jul 2004 @ 10:08 by craiglang : Indeed
That's a great philosophy and a very effective way to view the world. IMHO we are here to learn.
Thanx,
-Craig  



31 Jul 2004 @ 10:36 by hgoodgame : What seems most true for me
in this discussion about Jesus and the Bible is a quote I remember from Joseph Campbell. "Whenever the poetry of myth is interpreted as biography, or history, or science, it is killed. The living images become only remote facts of a distant time and sky.. When a civilization begins to reinterpret it's mythology in this way the life goes out of it, temples become museums and the link between the two perspectives is dissolved. Such a blight has certainly descended on the Bible and on a great part of the Christian cult."  


31 Jul 2004 @ 12:05 by ov : Was Jesus a Shaman?
An interesting article on Amanita muscaria indicates that perhaps Jesus was a Shaman and the death and rebirth was an Amanita Muscaria trip. It would also explain the 'miracle' of how Jesus could make water that was more intoxicating than wine.

#####################
CL Note: Interesting comment Ov.
The "Shamanic Model", as I've heard it called, also can be a new way to look at the story of Jesus's 40-days in the wilderness. One can think of that as a long vision quest.

A lot of material I have recently studied leads me to think of Him as being a super-yogi as much as a super-shaman. But perhaps they are the same thing. Interesting food for thought.
Thanx,
-Craig  



31 Jul 2004 @ 12:06 by scotty : Jesus death !
Far from it being a 'certainty' that nobody could survive the trauma of crucifiction many of the victims did in fact survive and it was the task of the soldiers to pass among the victims at the end of the day to break their legs - thus preventing them from being able to staighten up a little to relieve their lungs and continue breathing...they also used to peirce their ribcages with a lance - this was to prick and puncture their lungs.
Crucifiction caused death by suffocation - it sometimes tooke a day or two for the victim to die - as jesus had been crucified on a Friday they didn't want him to be left there lingering on the Saturday - their Sabbath.
It was predicted that the son of man would die on the cross and not one of his bones would be broken .. as he had been anounced dead by the soldier the breaking of his legs was not necessary.

It is quite possible and even probable that he was merely in a coma - or why not even a very deep trance where his breathing and heartbeat would be absolutely minimal - with careful nursing (his body had been given to Mary afterall - I'm sure she nursed him with great tenderness ) it is quite possibe that he would have been able to walk away from the tomb on the third day - if not before !

Lot's of supposing and maybe's yes - but I think it's just as credible and more believable than a dead man getting up and walking away from the tomb three days after his incarseration - no matter who his father may have been!
I believe that there was even a film made that went on to show Jesus as being not only alive but that he'd actually married and had children !  



31 Jul 2004 @ 16:25 by craiglang : Christianity is not the only
religion/mythology where the hero has returned from the dead. I believe that the mythology of several cultures have this character to them as well.
I liked Heidi's comment about mythology. However, since much of the background of the Bible has been established in historical context, it is a very historical myth. But then, that could be said about a very well written novel, too...  



31 Jul 2004 @ 16:25 by craiglang : BTW
some truly excellent comments, folks.
Thanx.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 19:01 by vibrani : Historical myth
Yes, but there still is no proof that Jesus ever lived or died aside from the only "historical" record keeper of Josephus.  


31 Jul 2004 @ 19:31 by craiglang : Unless
you accept the Gospel of Thomas, and the other Gnostic gospels. I believe that some of the Gnostic texts are from times contemporary with Jesus (though I could be wrong on that).

Also, in the study of Biblical archaeology, what emerges is largely historical context. It doesn't do much to prove the actual events, but it does establish the context for the story. One also has to consider the integrity of historical records, etc. Thus, although the historical context may become well understood, we may never actually be able to know for sure if the stories are true.

So, in the end, one key aspect of religious belief is that for any specific faith, one simply needs to accept as givens, the stories that make up scripture, and build one's faith system from there. Thinking about it, I suspect that's true for most religions.  



31 Jul 2004 @ 22:23 by ov : Gnostics
Yup, the gnostics were going strong 2000 years ago, there were lots of different sects though, and it was in many ways close to our modern new age movement with some good stuff buried in lots of quack.

One of the big gnostic themes of the time was that Jesus didn't die on the cross, some say that it was somebody else in his place, and others say he wasn't up there long enought to die, hence no broken legs to speed death along, and the piercing of the lung to drain blood and water was more likely to prolong life than shorten it, provided it was done right. Elaine Pagels wrote about this, and the entire Holy Blood & Holy Grail is that Jesus lived on and established a blood line that runs through almost all of European monarchy. Could be true, might not be, who knows.

Hard to say what happened with the religion before Paul the Usurper got his hands on it. Interesting story behind the Jerusalem Church that was headed up by Jesus' brother James inline with the Messiah being a political dynasty, and this Church was eventually wiped out but remanant were believed to have merged into the Ebionites. Very controversial and strongly disputed by all those that have vested interest in the JC afterlife insurance.

Very interesting history in the 300 years preceding the Council of Nicaea which is almost entirely about eradicating the gnostic influence from early Christianity. Reintroducing the gnostic element is essential for making the shift from a child oriented religion based on obedience to authority, to an adult oriented religion based on co-creation. The gnostic side has been kept alive through mysticism: sufi for moslems, theosophia for christian, and kabala for jews.

Any proof of all this was detroyed, though the dead sea scrolls being discovered 2000 years after the fact was a boon. Josephus accounts were so far after the event that they can only be hearsay. So it's true we don't have proof that Jesus even existed, let alone that he did what is purported. We don't have any proof of Moses either, and definitely none of the tablets carved in stone. We can be more certain of Mohammed's existence. And even more certain of the Persian Bahai. But if you are looking for proof in the area of religion you have kind of missed the point of it all, imho.  



1 Aug 2004 @ 05:32 by swan : Another theory is that the crucifiction
was an initiation rite that came after years of preparation. Could be a Yogic tradition, as Craig says, as it was about controlling the body functions in such a way one would go into a trance state and the body would shut way down. It is similar to the initiations that took place in the pyramids in Egypt. I couldn't find exactly the information I was looking for but this is close:

Having passed through the "strait gate that leadeth unto life", the neophyte entered the Holy of Holies. On one side of this chamber there stands a great porphyry sarcophagus. This was the Baptismal Font, upon emerging from which the neophyte was "born again". At the time of his initiation, the candidate was attached to a couch in the form of a cross and plunged into a deep sleep. He remained in that condition for three days and nights, during which time his spiritual Ego is said to have "ascended into Heaven and descended into Hell," while his entranced body remained within the sarcophagus. On the night before the third day he was carried to the entrance of a gallery, where at a certain hour the beams of the sun struck him full in the face and he awoke to be initiated.

As to the original question "How who Jesus Vote" I guess he would go to the voting poles like the rest of us and scratch his head in dismay.  



1 Aug 2004 @ 08:39 by jmarc : loaves and fishes
i have looked into this matter and find relevant passages in Luke chapter 9...

12Late in the afternoon the Twelve came to him and said,
"Send the crowd away so they can go to the surrounding
villages and countryside and vote again,
because we are in Florida here."
13He replied, "You give them a butterfly ballot."
14They answered, "We have only five republican voters
and two democrats--unless we go and buy votes for all this
crowd." (About five thousand media pundits were there.)
15But he said to his disciples, "Have them sit down
in groups of about fifty each, and recount the ballots again." The disciples did so,
and everybody sat down. 16Taking the five republican votes and
the two democrat votes and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks
and shook them till the chads were released. Then he gave them to the press to
set before the people. 17They all counted again and none were satisfied,
and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of hanging chads that were left over.  



1 Aug 2004 @ 12:07 by craiglang : Ninth Chapter of 'Joseph', continued...
18And thus did the polarity of the right and left continue in this day. 19And God saw this and said "your people are not ready". 20And there was weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many believed that they were to be taken up, but it was not so.  


1 Aug 2004 @ 12:55 by ov : loaves and miracles
This is probably an aside, but it bothers me that I very rarely see any commonsense applied to this fish and loaf miracle, and that this hides the true miracle behind the event. The true miracle is the 'ice breaker' which moves an event into action, such as a party coming to life, and this is obscured by the false miracle of a superior providing food out of nothing and distributing it to the doting masses.

There were a lot of people that showed up to listen to Jesus talk, they showed up because the word was out that he was a good speaker, maybe they had people putting up posters on lantern posts much like we do today. However they got the word out doesn't matter, what does matter was that this was an entertainment event that people chose to attend, they weren't all walking around in this field outside of town like something out of a zombie flix and to their great surprise noticed that somebody was talking. Then like now, when people decide to go on a day outing they take some things with them, like some lunch, and probably a guord of water. Then this person starts talking about how we all need to cooperate and get along and share with others and be altruistic, and after hearing that how are you supposed to take your lunch out from beneath your robe and start eating without sharing it with your neighbors, so everybody is sitting on their lunch and there is no food to be found. Jesus sees what the problem is, he knows that all of these people have brought their lunch, so he 'breaks the ice' and shares what he and his disciples have brought, and once the food starts circulating around it is okay for people to bring out their own food and the next thing you know the gathering has turned into a huge potluck, just because somebody had to be first and break the ice.

So, when was the last time you heard this particular viewpoint, or even had the insight to think of it yourself? Anybody here?  



1 Aug 2004 @ 16:33 by craiglang : An interesting viewpoint
Hi Ov,
Yes I've heard a similar point made several times, though not in the same way you have described.

There has long been a debate in the Christian community between those who take things such as the "loaves and fishes" story to be literal accounts of the miraculous, and those who consider it to be a metaphor for the lesson of sharing.

One argument goes that many of those who had gathered to hear Jesus speak had not brought food with them (for whatever reason). The miracle, then, was that those who had brought food began to share with those who had not.

I think that your idea was somewhat different still, in that you theorized that people actually brought things to eat with them - and it just became acceptable to bring them out. That is an interesting third argument that I had not heard.

Although we will never know what actually happened, I lean towards the "sharing theory", myself. But who knows the ways of God...  



1 Aug 2004 @ 16:42 by vibrani : There are also
code words, as in loaves and fishes to be that for the apostles and Jesus, not literally bread or fish.  


1 Aug 2004 @ 16:54 by jmarc : interesting that he had them
"Have them sit down
in groups of about fifty each" to recount their loaves and fishes. This diversity in groups coming up with different solutions may have led to a little competition to see which group could come up with the most food, with the benefit of maximum abundance resulting.  



1 Aug 2004 @ 21:43 by ov : Sharing
Thanks for that info Craig. I'm not a Christian, or a member of any of the patriarchal religions, and the only time I get into religious conversations seem to be with the fundamentalists. It is good to hear that the metaphorical crowd survives well. I've also noticed that within the last couple of decades the idea of the Pagan Christ, the christ archetype within us all, is starting to gain some credibility, and maybe this might make the metaphor group look like rational centerists. A consistent message of the inner christ group of books is that if the church does not reintroduce a modern adaption of gnostic principles the religious institutions will not survive.

The ice breaker and the sharing philosophies are closely related. It's kind of like the Rosa Parks situation where it just takes one person to have the courage to stand up and make a visible presence, but that also requires that lots of foundation work has been done ahead of time so that once the spark is set off there is an environment in which it can cascade, and it also means that there are witnesses to courageous ice-breaking event. Timing is everything.  



Other entries in
6 Oct 2015 @ 03:38: NEW AGE: LUCIFER’S PREFERRED RELIGION, REPLACES GREAT RELIGIONS
11 Dec 2008 @ 21:17: Bless the beasts and the children
27 Aug 2008 @ 08:32: Theology of the Other
27 Feb 2008 @ 09:48: CHURCH CRIMES: WHO EXPOSES? WHO PAYS?
25 Jun 2007 @ 11:12: When Christians Torture
22 May 2007 @ 10:08: Who Is Davis Mac-Iyalla And Why Is He Here?
9 Aug 2006 @ 15:56: Constantine - The Making of a Saint
4 Aug 2006 @ 22:56: Medieval Book of Psalms Unearthed
3 Aug 2006 @ 11:06: Fundamental Madness
2 Aug 2006 @ 23:32: Implications of the Da Vinci Code



[< Back] [New Civilization News] [PermaLink]?