I read an article that says ... a gay man in the RCC is not allowed to be a priest unless he has a bit in his mouth. actually, these are our words, but it does say what needs to be said. can you imagine being a priest in an environment like that? (I thought to beacon the rules of syntax to demonstrate that each group speaks in its own tongue anyway … the question is: which tongue(s) did YOU follow?)

thankfully something will be coming out shortly that will be like a loud clap, maybe even a hard slap, to wake the dead … and those continuing to brew their medieval concoctions calling it God's Mouth … will not be able to deny what this is---what it means for the changing of the Seasons. 

let's look at the principles in pope george as institution's doctrine. priests on up are not permitted to marry another person. this by itself sets men up for an unnecessary struggle that could turn ugly, and become of a devastating circumstance. but let's look closely at the man …no man even remotely thinking about becoming a priest in an environment like the roman catholic church understands the nomenclature on this. the experience does not yet exist for him unless … he has some desire for something he 'has' (carrying with) already experienced in the all male arena. if it's a communal experience he can do this without the body, right? if you say you believe in Spirit you can commune as One within God (where 2 or more gather). you could be next to nothing in flesh and bone or no longer in the flesh at all and be communing. for if you receive first Heaven you have already moved on from the life of the protestant (protesting the One). and there is certainly no need for titles and orders or anything else of something religious, or political.

but if you desire pastoring of others then you are saying you want to work in some capacity with people. a priest never having married and raised children is not the best suited for pastoring of couples and couples with children. if he is not permitted a married relationship  … how can he possibly understand the depth of the experiences that people in relationships have? good and bad. and those with children? no children no experience unless he comes into that environment having once been married and having raised children where he was a partner in that responsibility for a full length. it does not count as much having worked around children, teaching and what not because … those of us who have experienced this from birth through to when the kids move out, and get their own place, and no longer rely on mom and dad for money …  the stress and the pressure and the responsibility is very different. like grandma says: love my grandchildren, but it's nice to know I can give them back to mom and dad. there are things in family as you grow in parenting and in relationship over many years that cannot compare to play pastoring. play pastoring as a priest coming in without having experienced marriage to a woman … not having experienced day in and day out raising of child, the ups and downs of sharing this life with another nonstop, including finances … and managing of a home …yard … education, illnesses … death of child, pets, and on and on. he may have some experience in some of these, but he is not well suited without having had marriage and raising of children … as a sort of braiding within his lifework. if he desires pastoring families. it's like hiring a person to fly an aircraft when he has only ever been a rider. he is without the necessary experience that bears witness in understanding.

okay, let's say the man wants to host the liturgy. he just wants to be the man to celebrate with cup in one hand and that golden cross in the other. if people want this, it seems like a fairly easy process. any child could simulate this and have it look credible. but does the priest want to sermonize? on what about what to marrieds and parents? can he relate without having these same struggles? he would have to speak only on what he has some experience in, right? but if he has a bit in his mouth, how can he speak clearly that others will understand?


what does a roman catholic priest know about being married to a nonbeliever? or even a non-Catholic? what does he understand about a civil marriage of belief and non belief? I am. are you getting this? I am. YOU are a nonbeliever until you believe … in the truth about what you are. I AM is a place of remittance (I am the way … ). you are a nonbeliever in WHAT IS GOD until you begin to come into your Spirit ID. you don't know what you don't know. you are in unbelief until you hear your name called … for {work} in the Spirit. this is not necessarily having to do with religious acclaim. this is not formula fed … it is not ritualistic as study. this carries no weight (my burden is light). there are no stumbling blocks unless you choose masters of enslavement, and in enslavement you are in denial of your Spiritual WEllbeing. your Spiritual Growth.  


 it's truly surprising I am sure for some that these gay+ advocates are upset about their pope's stance on the gay man in the priesthood, because it's been more than obvious that there would be no change in their doctrinal position … just a clarifying on it (will explain why). on the surface those watching the pro-gay+ were saying, hey, he hasn't changed a thing and you fell into the catholic cool-aid head first in that "who am I to judge".haven't you noticed how much he has been judging in his political pontificating … as well as an industry that judged to establish itself as "the church"! come on!!! 

and we say why we are not surprised … because we understand roman catholicism as a race, and as an enslavement on principle. they have not been born into light but darkness on Truth regarding Spirit … if ID is as PAUL says … not to be born on tablets of ink, but of the heart. and this be not confined to replicates. 

but why did vatican announce their position at this time? hasn't this always been the case … even if their priests have not abided by it? the gays and pro-gays+ didn't get their way because why? the clergy child sexual abuse. the vatican is backed into a corner (as we said some time ago) and must make it look like they are … purists within their doctrine. their only recourse at this stage is to blame others for their own errant and dangerous doctrinal environments. they think that if they state most definitively that there is a ban on gay priests that it now falls on the PRIESTS if anything goes wrong, and on the PARENTS if not parenting carefully.

ONCE AGAIN, THE BISHOPS ON UP ARE OFF THE HOOK. once again, they shuffle the problem. they judge alright … WE TOLD YOU SEVERAL TIMES THAT THEY WOULD BE PLACING THE BLAME ON THE PRIESTS+, but would not be addressing their ignorance and denial----their own errant nature and their own crimes. 

imagine the situation: man goes into the priesthood and ten yrs later he is in love with a young man half his age, wayyy to young for his own good. he wasn't gay when he went in, but because he is limited in his experiences, he has become confused about who or what he really is. it's almost as if it has been forced on him (was shown this most ostentatiously). his seminary days were filled with passes made at him by other men, including his superiors … and after a while, he starts to crack. or a man enters unchecked, and with so many enlisted with limited skills in detecting intent less than pure … he sexually abuses children. the system is such that he can and he does … over and over again. 

but the vatican now thinks it can wave away their responsibilities in this parenting … housing … teaching … and say, hey, the priest is the offender, the evil, the criminal, the heretic … not us. 


the priesthood cases vary. not all are the same, but there is a pattern of offending priests. and recall we shared about the victim becoming the victimizer? a person of ill intent is first a victim in some way. even a person doing the most vile things learned this from something he was exposed to, likely experienced himself in some manner …somewhere … at some point in his life. the environment plus something going on inside him that is impure, deceptive and ill advised. eastern theology+philosophy instructs through EXPERIENCE and a paramount questioning of ego that goes deeper than the race. race isn't even an issue. color of skin isn't an ingredient in this process. title and name only come into the process if called to a position that demands excellence, excellence in the road to recovery … for all. the bishop

the EXPOSURE of things that cause men and women to do harm or to lie and live in denial is what needs to be investigated in the RCC and institutions like it. but why do most clergy remain silent, pastors buddying up in their ecumenical rah-rah with these offenders, liars … deniers? maybe because they, too , are guilty in these crimes? or they fear losing clout? losing their seat at the tables of … ink? 

thing is, in burying the silver … what happens? it will be given to another. yes? partake of instruction with a great amount of silver, and gain much gold with it. 

I could share in these Writings like the flying of the eagle … it's that fluid with me, but there is no wind where there is no gold. man isn't ready? or is it that he has been taught to deny one like me?




I did a wee search to better understand what words/statements he made that would fall into the category of hate. I saw that he proposed bans on some things relating to moroccan immigrants and paying those in the dutch cities to leave and ripping certain parts out of the quran because he says much of the teaching of the islamic prophet is unacceptable, pose a threat to dutch citizens. he asks that you walk down the dutch streets to see for yourself how these cities are changing under the migratory insistence of government (the street dangers). he believes islam's prophet to be evil and said if he had been alive today he would be classified as a terrorist. on this last part I completely agree, and, of course, if what you see happening in the dutch streets is true according to his words … he has a point, but do understand that it is intimately of government laws that helps its citizens  ...or hurts its citizens … . but the real question is how is it that islamists don't see it? you flood cities and towns with a rising demographic harboring staunch religious beliefs, you get what you pay into and support: a staunch politically motivated religious system. and btw, wilders is agnostic, a former roman catholic … having been raised in industry that gruffly rejected religion for something the liberalists called progress. hmm … is rejecting a caliphate religio-political operation like roman catholicism only to replace it with another caliphate progressive, progressive teaching ad progressive practices? does government now believe that islam is their progressive prophet? how so? and in what manner do they intend to keep their secular attribute while harboring lies? ;)

hmm … hypocrisy lands you playing the devil's advocate. if you are handing preachers to islamic raced children and saying which one best emulates the prophet of islam … what do you think they will say? and if taught to be devout to the instrument of their prophet, what are you really handing them? anyone who denies the reality of this is a denier and quite possibly a liar … for political religious gain. no doubt in my mind that the democratic party in america used the muslim for votes and political power, and still is. will the jew get blamed for this?

what comes is going to be quite the … eye-opener.



I do not fully agree with levin. I see him to be correct about obama favoring islam, but I do not believe he is seeking to destroy israel. I agree with levin on the fact that obama was raised in an ideology that steered him a certain way and that his mentoring from jeremiah wright is a serious issue in obama's understanding of christianity, but especially JESUS, the Christ and any Writings on these teachings … but I do not not believe obama was trying to trash christianity at that prayer breakfast. if "christianity" in the name of roman catholicism, lutheranism or any other christian claiming sect was attacking, murdering, torturing … using militancy and forcing people to convert or to believe and practice its methods, or was silencing opposing voice, causing harm to those disagreeing with it … which these did (all of the above) then christianity is guilty hands down … but more specifically those whose manifesto teaches to be of this force. these more specifically are the guilty, but also those of old dominion who could have spoken as time wore on but continued in its own perilous journey, based on THEIR MASTERS, like popes and bishops, rabbis and such … those in partnership with emperors and presidents, the legal systems of its day. here, there … anywhere. IOW, is mark levin without stain?

and please understand that JESUS if myth would not be sourcing militancy. and the Christ never once instructs believer in Truth to follow rome or to follow gods on indecent prospect. this is where obama misses the mark. he sounds as if he is blaming JESUS rather than stating the obvious … on these terrors. roman catholicism, for example, does not follow JESUs; their industry looks nothing like {this} … if you think it does, you have been dually deceived. 

which brings one to the current pontiff's predicate. he states that the muslim and the christian worship the same god. but which god? roman pontiff as institution or the prophet of islam? roman catholicism or islam? he makes an ungracious and very CATHOLIC statement based on … what? he dismisses the CHRIST entirely by saying the christian worships the same god as the muslim. do you see his error? which demonstrates his religious indwelling---what he really believes, insists on. and his warning of what he calls the dualist gnostic and not to follow these is really of hypocritical apartheid. isn't he the one advocating a dual belief and practice? and interestingly, he does not mention the jew or judaism in that predicate. why not? would this offend the jew? he had no problem with offending and lying about the christian! but yes, those of pope audience believe as pope, not Christ. 



hmmm … the point about 'the white' is made and is something for government to consider and is why some time ago we said that salkin' should lego of religion and move into the political arena. labeling of white and black, etc in this day is a bit of a stranglehold. I made the point regarding my trial duty summons  … what choice did I have? they label me white … it is this jurisdiction that places me in that category … but why? what is this really saying? is it even relevant to serving on a jury? only if people cannot move beyond the black and white image and … here, as we stated above, is the intimacy of government laws so … the reality is that government is parenting poorly. and we know these parties use color, race and religion … minority and poor … female, male … to gain access to power and influence … as their right for might. 

now … jew-ism not a race?  lego of judaism and you have a case, salkin' ;D. like cedilla. a cedilla-type inference.  

from our vantage point, it is zionism that is the stronger, bolder message and yes, it is necessary to turn the opinion on what this is. zionism to me is not jewish, not really … despite it being made up of jews ;). if you look at what wilders says of israel … what he experienced while first visiting … you get a sense of this. I know it from my childhood. I, of course, did not have a name for it … but I experienced it once during festivities in a school or a church … I honestly do not remember … I was only about seven years old. I was walking by a group of jewish people celebrating their customs while the christmas was being celebrated and I heard music I had not heard before, but I knew it to be of me. my mother, an accomplished pianist and organist played mostly music of the churches of rome … and she wanted me to play, but this did not move me they way the other music moved me… so I rejected the roman music and became an artist, and later an artist of Spiritual Voice. now, had I been exposed to it where I could learn it, I would have become a musician, but this was not to be. I was to be learned in something different and moving … for a purpose. one hearing does not always go where one wants but where one is needed. sometimes it takes many years before this is revealed … 


you see, I would not have become jewish ... had I learned to play that music … and I would have added to it what is within me to add to make it something other. this is growth. good growth, if not obsessive or demanding. I have no interest in judaism, but I am interested in the arts of honest intent and foods/customs where healthy and how these can become more for health and wellbeing. look at the blend and the youth's desire for the food of india. I don't eat meat and do not care for heavy sauces, but I like the spices and the blend of these and other areas and do use them where I can. I experiment with what I can eat, but am not bound to any ethnic dish … or religion. salkin's challenge is to demonstrate how zionism is not judaism. hmm? look at the journey … the influences … were these not influenced by others along the way? can anyone truthfully say they are self-taught about anything? or that their religions are exclusive or THE mouthpiece of god, while religious attribute like paganism is written all over it :D 



clearly roof has been exposed to some things unlawful and terribly indecent, but I find it interesting that he says blacks are stupid. if you go on any forum where well read, educated people post comments you will read one telling another that he is stupid or something like it. those in heated disagreement call each other names and say things unpleasant often … it's how many people communicate. look at what atheists call conservative christians. and if a person makes a point about alt-right that doesn't suit the atheist, he is called racist, bigot … anti-semitic, and a fundamentalist christian, even if the that person has no interest in christianity and was merely making a logical point, but in truth, the atheist left logic the moment he left truth. OUR SOCIETY SETS VERY POOR EXAMPLES and man screams put him in front of a firing squad or lock him up and throw away the key … never willing to admit his own ignorance in the matter. I would like to see in honesty how many atheists were for capital punishment, warring on other nations  throughout history. today it's politically correct to say something to suit agenda but the hate persecuting is … obvious among them that deal in hypocrisy.

now  if roof lived in communities where black crime is high, or where he witnessed, even experienced, black crime … or saw blacks do "stupid" things, he is not being dishonest, not necessarily wrong in his view on stupidness, nor would a black person experiencing the same of white, or any other 'group', large or small … and the question should be WHAT IS HIS ENVIRONMENT? what has he witnessed? did he have female friends raped by black men? one cannot ignore the environment and the feeding, exposure in this. and he is young! and it looks like he has been enveloped in something unjust. had he been exposed to blacks that he found "smart" … interesting, had he had "teachers" of influence that could engage him …  he would not have been in that church with a gun. and this goes for much of the crimes committed in society. 





look up the first star trek tv season episode of dr kirby on the planet X--something III 

the doctor, presumed dead, is using alien technology to produce androids

how familiar that sounds in the Realm of the SPIRITs. one could actually show how this is happening in the world through various methods. but let's take the doctrine and say it's like a vaccine that has a couple of dangerous ingredients. much of the world insists your child receive it … and will blame you and child if you don't, but you know more than what the world believes … based on the limited info provided to world … by the "experts", whose desire is often to SELL something to the public, sell to government something. possibly a quick drug to solve problems of an epidemic or a disease of another form … and government is not invested in the health, safety and wellbeing of child or citizen and makes law that you and child get vaccinated … its way. instead of investigating the source(s) and intent of the Seller, government takes the wide road and labels you … dangerous. and you are forced to become like them (them being all in denial on the truth about the vaccine) … so you must leave. 

fast forward to a novel written by another not like the growing machine of imperfect parts that make up the imperfect model.  the story has the vaccine as a live SPIRIT on a mission to destroy Earth. it uses the pharmaceutical industry and ignorant religionists of all stripes to mastermind this and … the vaccine is the instrument to do it. the evil as spirit can transform itself (see sirius black in the harry potter series) and become another form … taken the form of a live ingredient making up the vaccine, that it was able to disguise itself as something "good" prior to its entry into the bloodstream of its victims. and once it interacts with the CONDITIONS OF MAN, it goes into attack mode. the doctors creating the vaccine were hasty in their research and for various reasons pushed the vaccine onto government sources in charge of public safety … these sources then pushed it onto the head seats of government ... and these heads insisted the public receive the vaccine. and in the story, if you do not get injected you are rejected. 

quite the story.

or how about an evil getting into the waters that people drink? government allows an ingredient that's supposed to purify the water, but what it kills off is the one thing that is keeping the water from becoming thoroughly contaminated. let's say the story goes that one little but powerful piece of the puzzle is necessary for keeping the world from complete and utter destruction but government in its rash and derelict methods … forces this quirky but good out … setting up conditions that will eventually cause and implosion … for all living creatures.

now that is some story! 



still doing business with unjust nations?

how does trump differ from obama or the clintons? 


and where is the proof it was russia? these agencies say this and say that, but why should anyone believe them? do these agencies not not have their own agendas, too?

where are the clean bishops … that will keep the government and its agencies honest? one cannot look look to the religionists as these are not impartial and one cannot look to the house of representatives as these are not impartial … so where does one look to know the truth about what is being said … to make safe and honest choices?

where is the House that knows truth from folly? are these industries of church and state not under your skin causing you to behave irrationally and without proper Peace?

look over here! look over there! on this side he wants to sell you islam and on that side he wants to sell you roman catholicism and over there … another desires to sell you nothing. he expects that you pay, but he gives nothing in return so … where is your heart going to lead in marriage with the mind? the East?  as you have already seen the fruits of the others … or have you not? the EAST … as it is the Season for this Fruit. but, will you find yourself running to try and catch up? or maybe you are no longer viable … for seed.