Are there Christian Icke fans?

[dhama_initiative]

And if so, how they reconcile the two belief systems? Icke doesn't believe Jesus died for our sins, but that he was a volunteer conciousness?

[dedicate]

not many fundamentalist Christians are going to be interested in Icke. There are some, due to the fact that fundamentalism doesn't totally cover the themes David covers. They can get that here.

But I think you have a problem with Christianity. "Jesus died for our sins" means different things to different Christians.

[kingmonkey]

Who's Christian Icke? :D

There are plenty of christian conspiracy researchers. So some of em probably go for his ritualistic child abuse/satanism type stuff.

[dedicate]

About 2 years ago, I purchased an MP3 disc with litterally 100's of hours of radio interviews featuring David Icke. Honestly,, I listened to those interviews many many times. Not once did I get the impression that Icke held some of the views he apparently presents at his seminars.

In fact,, I said to myself, "This guy is close. He's real close." It was those religious experiences he had in South America and the transformation that he described that could only be described as religious in nature. (So what if he didn't see angels and the glory of heaven! It's still one of the "Varieties of Religious Experience").

His rejection of religion is an athema, if you ask me. It doesn't make sense. I believe it is hold over from his upbringing and training. I mean he does respect Shamanism and Ramana,, which is religion. Doesn't make sense.

[planetsadhana]

you might get a few liberal christians...

i believe jesus was anti establishment..a guru and prophet...who planned to leave a legacy to raise people to christ consciousness through his teachings and devotees....

but this idea was highjacked by the church of rome and the the rest is history

[planetsadhana]

i think ickes spiritual viewpoint is closer to non dualism....

ramana maharashi or nisargadatta in terms of

infine love is the only truth everything else is an illusion....

[kingmonkey]

When Icke talks about his bisbelief of religion, i think he means the monotheistic variety, not the more nature based/Buddhist consciousness type ones.

[dhama_initiative]

Who's Christian Icke? :D

There are plenty of christian conspiracy researchers. So some of em probably go for his ritualistic child abuse/satanism type stuff.

Oh I know, I knew a guy years agon who was well into distrust of masons, illuminati, vatican, zionists, the media, satanic abuse. Yet this guy was an "fundamentalist" evangelical christian with old fashioned moral values and a literal belief in the bible.

[metacomet]

Christ himself was against organized religion and all forms of moneyhandling.

Christ himself would listen to and appreciate David Icke.

Christ himself would most likely have been crucified by Christians at this point in history - because the Christian and Catholic foundation is based on organization and money handling.

Christ himself would be an icke fan.

[armoured_amazon]

And if so, how they reconcile the two belief systems? Icke doesn't believe Jesus died for our sins, but that he was a volunteer conciousness?

Icke supporter.

I believe Icke shares a lot of valid information but he's not always right. I also believe that Christianity as a whole is interpreted incorrectly by pastors, priests and celebrants and that the 'religion' is not the truth. :)

I don't think Christ would be an Icke fan. Christ would not be a 'fan' of anything lol.

[dhama_initiative]

Another thing that confuses me is, Icke and his fans say that people should be free to have any kind of sexual life they choose, and TPTB want us "trapped" in regular family and judge people who don't do the same. Yet some Christian and conservative conspiracy people, say TPTB want us to sleep around and they are trying to undermine the traditional family, which is the correct way to live. Personally, I'll be down with the Icke version even if I choose monogamy for myself.

[armoured_amazon]

Another thing that confuses me is, Icke and his fans say that people should be free to have any kind of sexual life they choose, and TPTB want us "trapped" in regular family and judge people who don't do the same. Yet some Christian and conservative conspiracy people, say TPTB want us to sleep around and they are trying to undermine the traditional family, which is the correct way to live. Personally, I'll be down with the Icke version even if I choose monogamy for myself.

I've not come across that. I guess it depends on what 'traditional family' means. :)

[eternal_spirit]

I'm as Christian as Icke is. Meaning we where both born into Christianity (just the way it was at that time in Britain) But we don't go to Church and practice the faith religiously.

Or bow down to Jesus or what ever it is so called practising Christians do and believe.

[dhama_initiative]

I've been felling hostile/uncaring toward Christianity for the past few months, but I saw something on TV that made me thaw. It was a documentary about Noventhree, the boy in malaysia who had a huge tumor on his face and had to have loads of operations to try and get rid of it, untill he eventually died at around age 8. His family were devout Christians and their faith in the documentary really touched me.

[metacomet]

People dislike Christians because they dislike totalitarianism.

Totalitarian Christians may believe that everyone is going to hell, that everyone must declare Christ their lord and must believe that Christ died on the cross literally transforming the world etc.

Totalitarian Christians are in the majority and are an easy target.

There are still millions of other Christians who believe nothing except the principles taught by Christ. Most everything else is conjecture and political laws from the Old Testament.

Christians who understand this are far more likely to enjoy David Icke. Not just listen, but actually enjoy his work.

[armoured_amazon]

There are still millions of other Christians who believe nothing except the principles taught by Christ. Most everything else is conjecture and political laws from the Old Testament.

Christians who understand this are far more likely to enjoy David Icke. Not just listen, but actually enjoy his work.

+1

[guybrush]

I'am a Christian.

[barbitone]

In my opinion, "Religion" is just the suppression of real spirituality. Religion is based on seperatism whereas spirituality is based on oneness.

In other words, the word "Religion" is really an expression of restriction of spiritual awareness. Spirituality doesn't have an opinion, it just "IS".

[armoured_amazon]

In my opinion, "Religion" is just the suppression of real spirituality. Religion is based on seperatism whereas spirituality is based on oneness.

In other words, the word "Religion" is really an expression of restriction of spiritual awareness. Spirituality doesn't have an opinion, it just "IS".

Perhaps you need to realise that a true Christian is not 'religious'. ;)

[phildee3]

Are there Christian Icke fans?

And if so, how they reconcile the two belief systems? Icke doesn't believe Jesus died for our sins, but that he was a volunteer conciousness?



I'm an Icke fan,
and a Christian.

I don't think Icke is a "belief system"
in fact, I don't think that true Christianity is either!

I've not yet seen anything that David has said which conflicts with original Christianity.
Have you?

[coco]

Christ himself was against organized religion and all forms of moneyhandling.

Christ himself would listen to and appreciate David Icke.

Christ himself would most likely have been crucified by Christians at this point in history - because the Christian and Catholic foundation is based on organization and money handling.

Christ himself would be an icke fan.

People dislike Christians because they dislike totalitarianism.

Totalitarian Christians may believe that everyone is going to hell, that everyone must declare Christ their lord and must believe that Christ died on the cross literally transforming the world etc.

Totalitarian Christians are in the majority and are an easy target.

There are still millions of other Christians who believe nothing except the principles taught by Christ. Most everything else is conjecture and political laws from the Old Testament.

Christians who understand this are far more likely to enjoy David Icke. Not just listen, but actually enjoy his work.

There you go making sense again!! :)

[amethyst]

And if so, how they reconcile the two belief systems? Icke doesn't believe Jesus died for our sins, but that he was a volunteer conciousness?

Depends on what you mean by "Christian".

What one person thinks of as Christianity is the complete opposite of what someone else who is steeped in religion, might think of Christianity. Because authentic "Christianity' looks nothing like what the present day "religion' and "man rules and regulations" type of Christianity looks like.

[size_of_light]

Another thing that confuses me is, Icke and his fans say that people should be free to have any kind of sexual life they choose, and TPTB want us "trapped" in regular family and judge people who don't do the same. Yet some Christian and conservative conspiracy people, say TPTB want us to sleep around and they are trying to undermine the traditional family, which is the correct way to live.

You've hit upon the intellectual juncture in the road where it dawns on most sane people who get there to go with what they think is right for them and not on what anyone else tells them that they should do.

Not only that - but also that they shouldn't really feel too concerned or react if others disagree with how they choose to live their lives.

At last count 9,945 threads on this forum were solely dedicated to a stubborn refusal to grasp those simple points.

[phildee3]

You've hit upon the intellectual juncture in the road where it dawns on most sane people who get there to go with what they think is right for them and not on what anyone else tells them that they should do.



Exactly.
One can reconcile the Christian "right way" with the Ickian position by differentiating "law" from law enforcement.
I have chosen what I consider to be the "right" way - monogamy within the Christian sacrament of Holy Matrimony - but I absolutely do not agree with restricting another's freedom to live their chosen way either.

Only by experimenting, and making mistakes, do we discover what is the "right way" for ourselves.

Enforced Christianity is fake Christianity.
True Christianity is absolute freedom ("the truth shall make you free...")

[stfd]

And if so, how they reconcile the two belief systems? Icke doesn't believe Jesus died for our sins, but that he was a volunteer conciousness?

I am not exactly an Icke fan or suporter, i do however agree with many of his views, hence i am here.

I am Orthodox Christian and as such i can't agree with some of his views particularly the ones concerning religion.

I don't have to 'reconcile' with anything as i have made my choices and drawn my conclusions on the matter.

Additionally, i dont believe Jesus is 'an Icke ' supporter ( hehe pretty funny , is like in southpark :D )

[dhama_initiative]

"I've not yet seen anything that David has said which conflicts with original Christianity.
Have you?

Pretty much everything he says contradicts the traditional evangelical Christianity I grew up with.

As for "original Christianity", I don't know what the truth is. Books from the mainstream Christian world say that the Gnostics were mislead, their gospels were obviously untrue and the council of Nicea simply confirmed what true Christians had considered scripture for years. Books from the more pro-gnostic/"new age" viewpoint say the opposite - that Constantine and the apostle Paul's version stifled the real Jesus. After reading two opposing sets of books, I don't know which ones to believe.

[stfd]

"I've not yet seen anything that David has said which conflicts with original Christianity.
Have you?

Pretty much everything he says contradicts the traditional evangelical Christianity I grew up with.

As for "original Christianity", I don't know what the truth is. Books from the mainstream Christian world say that the Gnostics were mislead, their gospels were obviously untrue and the council of Nicea simply confirmed what true Christians had considered scripture for years. Books from the more pro-gnostic/"new age" viewpoint say the opposite - that Constantine and the apostle Paul's version stifled the real Jesus. After reading two opposing sets of books, I don't know which ones to believe.

It is unfortuate and sad to read that you are confused :(
I say this not out of courtesy but because is what i actually feel.
Hopefully you will find the right way , hopefully you will draw your conclusions put through the prism of your heart and mind only.
If i can help in any way let me know, i know a couple things on the matter.

[phildee3]

Pretty much everything he says contradicts the traditional evangelical Christianity I grew up with.



Boy, you are confused!
Are you in Amerika?

You couldn't have grown up with traditional evangelical Christianity unless you are 2,000 years old, and none of what Icke says (that I've seen) contradicts that.
You must be speaking of the modern, so-called, Christian evangelists -
fundamentalist, neo-con, NWO, illuminazi, zionist, fakes.



As for "original Christianity", I don't know what the truth is. Books from the mainstream Christian world say that the Gnostics were mislead,



If the fakes say the gnostics were mislead,
then the truth must be...

Put away your conflicting books.
Go to the source -
within.

There you will find the truth.

[steevo]

I know a Christian who likes Ickes work. That particular person believes in 90+ percent of what the bible says and probably 95%+ of what Ickey says(these are just rough estimates obviously).

[phildee3]

I know a Christian who likes Ickes work. That particular person believes in 90+ percent of what the bible says and probably 95%+ of what Ickey says(these are just rough estimates obviously).



Yeh, d.i., you're obviously looking at the fundies as representative of Christianity,
but they're neo-cons, and obviously diametrically opposed to Icke.

[dhama_initiative]

I guess when I say "traditional" I mean the tradition of British christians in Victorian times. I've never visited the USA.

[steevo]

Yeh, d.i., you're obviously looking at the fundies as representative of Christianity,
but they're neo-cons, and obviously diametrically opposed to Icke.

huh ?

[dhama_initiative]

The dominant type of Christianity from constantinople to today is that of the apostle Paul, who says that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins. Icke disagrees with this. AFAIK

[steevo]

The dominant type of Christianity from constantinople to today is that of the apostle Paul, who says that Christ died as a sacrifice for our sins. Icke disagrees with this.

I cant remember what Icke says about this but I would say that Christ didnt die for our sins. He spoke the truth and lived the truth, and if that meant he had to die, then he was prepared to do it. We all need to take a leaf out of that book. (I'm not religious btw). i dont mean that we should die for telling the truth, I mean that we should live the truth no matter what the consequences are.

[phildee3]

Icke disagrees with this. AFAIK



AFAYK...

Did he actually say this?
Anyone?

[dhama_initiative]

In "The truth will set you free", "the robots rebellion" and "heal the world" , the only 3 Icke books I have read from cover to cover, in all 3 books Icke says that Jesus was a volunteer consiousness who was executed for what he said againts the establishment, but he did not die as a sacrifice for our sins. In fact, Icke says he didn't die at all, but survived the cross and faked his death (a story I have read in other "new age" books also.)

[phildee3]

In "The truth will set you free", "the robots rebellion" and "heal the world" , the only 3 Icke books I have read from cover to cover, in all 3 books Icke says that Jesus was a volunteer consiousness who was executed for what he said againts the establishment, but he did not die as a sacrifice for our sins. In fact, Icke says he didn't die at all, but survived the cross and faked his death (a story I have read in other "new age" books also.)



I don't understand what is meant by "volunteer consciousness,"
nor do I know what one means when they say "died for our sins."
Neither of these are very clear without explanation and could, in fact, be taken to mean the same thing.

As far as I'm concerned, and through my Christian experience, Jesus has paid my karmic debt through his suffering (not death; - death is not a punishment but a relief from suffering!).

I'm not sure if David would disagree with this.

[dhama_initiative]

"I'm not sure if David would disagree with this. "

Based on the 3 Icke books I have, I am pretty sure he would disagree with it. Like you said the wording in the Icke books is hard to understand, the wording is translations of the bible are hard to understand. Your interpretation of them may be different to mine. Icke says in RR that the idea that Jesus had to suffer as a sacrifice for people's sins is ridicilous to him. AS far as I can make out Icke believes that Jesus' sole aim on Earth was to teach people about spirituality. I personally think this contradicts your and other Christian's beliefs.

"I don't understand what is meant by "volunteer consciousness,"

If you want to know more I suggest you read any of Icke's books, where he talks at length on the subject!

[phildee3]

AS far as I can make out Icke believes that Jesus' sole aim on Earth was to teach people about spirituality. I personally think this contradicts your and other Christian's beliefs.



I don't have any beliefs - and I don't think David does either.

We both go by our experiences, and the resulting knowledge.

If he has experienced the Christ force as spiritual teacher, that's fine.
It doesn't contradict my experience.
Why should he "believe" that my experience is any less valid?
It doesn't contradict his.

If he actually thinks that because he has one experience of Christ it is the only right one, and all others are wrong, he is making the same stupid mistake that mainstream, sectarian, churchgoing "Christians" make - and it is them that we both criticise for doing that very thing!

[dhama_initiative]

I don't think he thinks all other experiences of Christ are wrong, just the one where he suffers for our wrongdoings. He says the apostle Paul was decieved by a negative alien claiming to be Christ. Thus Pauline Christians who read the new testament after the gospels are following the negative influence of this alien.

As far as I can gather Icke believes that everyone has the right to believe what they like, but that doesn't mean he won't tell them that they're wrong.

[phildee3]

I don't think he thinks all other experiences of Christ are wrong, just the one where he suffers for our wrongdoings.



Please provide a quote for this.
It's a bit unreasonable to expect someone to trawl through three whole books to find it!



He says the apostle Paul was decieved by a negative alien claiming to be Christ. Thus Pauline Christians who read the new testament after the gospels are following the negative influence of this alien.



Could be.
That would explain why the organised "church" follows practices contrary to Christ's teachings.



As far as I can gather Icke believes that everyone has the right to believe what they like, but that doesn't mean he won't tell them that they're wrong.



As I said, I dont have any beliefs.
Jesus suffered - fact which David accepts.
He did not deserve it - another fact.
So, then, his suffering created karmic credit.

I have experienced the effect of claiming that, and my karmic debt being wiped off the slate.

Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse.
Perhaps he didn't "suffer for our wrongdoings" in the sense that he intentionally placed himself in that position by willing it to happen.
He just did and said what was right and got beat up for it.

Our being able to claim that karmic credit is retrospective, not premeditative.

Now, does that reconcile with David's views?

[dhama_initiative]

"Now, does that reconcile with David's views? "

In my opinion, no, but that's just my interpretation of Icke's words and the feeling I get from them. You don't have to agree with me. I'm not married to my views - I came here to learn, I may be wrong about a lot of things. If I read a post that convinces me to change my opinions, I will.

I have seen Icke use the phases "my beliefs", "I believe" etc many times. I personally am not a fan of arguing about semantics. I think the english language is limited and has words which are inadequate to describe somethings. I was not comfortable with using the phases "evangelical" or "new age" to describe the worlds I have been a part of in the past, but I needed to communicate my story clearly, and those were the best terms I knew to explain to people. Unless I spent pages adding qualifiers like "what most people in the western world today would call the evangelical church..." Thats why I don't like arguing about semantics. I don't see the point in adding loads of qualifiers, as long as you are communicating clearly. It will turn out wrong in places, because language is limited.

[phildee3]

"Now, does that reconcile with David's views? "

In my opinion, no, but that's just my interpretation of Icke's words and the feeling I get from them. You don't have to agree with me. I'm not married to my views - I came here to learn, I may be wrong about a lot of things. If I read a post that convinces me to change my opinions, I will.

I have seen Icke use the phases "my beliefs", "I believe" etc many times. I personally am not a fan of arguing about semantics. I think the english language is limited and has words which are inadequate to describe somethings. I was not comfortable with using the phases "evangelical" or "new age" to describe the worlds I have been a part of in the past, but I needed to communicate my story clearly, and those were the best terms I knew to explain to people. Unless I spent pages adding qualifiers like "what most people in the western world today would call the evangelical church..." Thats why I don't like arguing about semantics. I don't see the point in adding loads of qualifiers, as long as you are communicating clearly. It will turn out wrong in places, because language is limited.



But you are not communicating clearly.
You used "evangelical" to mean the Victorian, English church.
Why didn't you say "Victorian, English church" (which was anything but evangelical, and I've never heard anyone claim that it was)?

Likewise, why don't you simply quote where David disagrees with me?

I can only think that he doesn't.
It's just your wishful thinking.

[dhama_initiative]

Why would I wish for Icke to disagree with you? It would make my life much simpler if Icke's views were compatible with what I understand Christianity to be. I said he would disagree with you because thats what I genuinley believe. I don't understand why that would be a "wish" for me. I wish the opposite, I wish more people agreed and things were easier for me to sift through.

I don't have any Icke books to hand at the minute as I am not staying at home, but the book where I saw the most detail about his views on Jesus was Robots Rebellion, in a chapter called "bible stories". Unless, his own views on the subject have changed since the 90s.

[infin8_possibility]

Perhaps you need to realise that a true Christian is not 'religious'. ;)

Hi AA, you've frazzled my head a bit. First you say "'religion' is not the truth," then you say "Christian is not religious."

It is my understanding that anyone that labels themself a "Christian," Is wittingly or un-wittingly giving themself to a set of teachings and values to live by. And being sub-servient to the "faith" regulated by religious leaders and organisations.

How would you describe your beliefs?

8.:)

[armoured_amazon]

Hi AA, you've frazzled my head a bit. First you say "'religion' is not the truth," then you say "Christian is not religious."

It is my understanding that anyone that labels themself a "Christian," Is wittingly or un-wittingly giving themself to a set of teachings and values to live by. And being sub-servient to the "faith" regulated by religious leaders and organisations.

How would you describe your beliefs?

8.:)

LOL I'm good at burning brains!

Well, any set of people are subservient to a faith, every single person here shares the 'belief' that brought us here. And if we are all 'infinite consciousness', is that not too, a group? Belonging to a group is not a dirty word.

Christ taught us how to connect to our Creator without dealing with religious leaders and organisations, so how am I subservient to them?

Am I subservient to the Creator of all things? Of course! :)

Currently I struggle with the 'love one another' concept but that's not really related to this thread. :o

I'm soooooooo exhausted today so I may not have explained myself properly, feel free to ask.

eta: I believe because I have seen. I'm still figuring a lot of the other stuff out.

[infin8_possibility]

Christ taught us how to connect to our Creator without dealing with religious leaders and organisations, so how am I subservient to them?


Well who do you think wrote the scriptures and built the churches? Jesus of Nazerath?

Im not having a go AA, Im just interested in your beliefs.

Have the last word...

[armoured_amazon]

Well who do you think wrote the scriptures and built the churches? Jesus of Nazerath?

Im not having a go AA, Im just interested in your beliefs.

Have the last word...

Like I said, I believe because I've seen; I'm still figuring all the other stuff out so am loath to give you incorrect reasoning. :)

[dhama_initiative]

Am I wrong on this thread? I feel like Phildee is trying to make me think I haven't seen things I've read with my own eyes. I get the feeling that any evidence or quotes I give to support my view will be dishonstly taken out of context, or if he can't do that he'll simply say I've lied about it. No one has to "trawl through big books" to get to Icke's views on Jesus - they all have an index section at the end. I feel like I've been treated unfairly, to be honest. I feel like the points I've made have been treated dishonestly, because he doesn't care about the truth, just about "proving me wrong".

It's a shame, because i like Phildee. I just think he gets too bitchy and takes it too personally when people disagree with him.

[zero1]

Christ himself was against organized religion and all forms of moneyhandling.

Christ himself would listen to and appreciate David Icke.

Christ himself would most likely have been crucified by Christians at this point in history - because the Christian and Catholic foundation is based on organization and money handling.

Christ himself would be an icke fan.

Right. Organizing truth is the best way to bury it and turn everything to shit.

[dhama_initiative]

Like I said, I believe because I've seen;

What have you seen? If you don't mind me asking!

[ashanti_kingdom]

Icke is very close to the truth, but not quiet. I come here to read how insane people are getting and also try and answer some questions.

Anyone that comes here does not come by mistake, you come to Icke's forum cos you want to know more just like a muslim,Hindu or Christian would.

I am a christian and believe in Jesus(now that is up to me not you).

Shalom everyone

[phildee3]

Why would I wish for Icke to disagree with you? It would make my life much simpler if Icke's views were compatible with what I understand Christianity to be. I said he would disagree with you because thats what I genuinley believe. I don't understand why that would be a "wish" for me. I wish the opposite, I wish more people agreed and things were easier for me to sift through.

I don't have any Icke books to hand at the minute as I am not staying at home, but the book where I saw the most detail about his views on Jesus was Robots Rebellion, in a chapter called "bible stories". Unless, his own views on the subject have changed since the 90s.



Right -
I just read through that chapter.
My views are essentially compatible with David's.

I see no conflict, there, with Christ's teachings (which I call original Christianity),
but both of us have the same gripe with Pauline Christianity (which he calls "Christianity" throughout the book and I call "fake Christianity").

What you understand Christianity to be is what David understands it to be - ie. the belief system started by Paul.

David has no word for the spiritual path of an adherent to Christ's teachings
although there were many disciples of his before Paul.
I call this "true Christianity."

This is my religion
and it does not conflict with David Icke's views.

[analog]

And if so, how they reconcile the two belief systems? Icke doesn't believe Jesus died for our sins, but that he was a volunteer conciousness?


Im sure there are, take Alex Jones for example, He is a Christian and has said that his beliefs about good and evil can coincide with David Ickes.

[mikethepunk]

you might get a few liberal christians...

i believe jesus was anti establishment..a guru and prophet...who planned to leave a legacy to raise people to christ consciousness through his teachings and devotees....

but this idea was highjacked by the church of rome and the the rest is history

I believe the same. I guess I am a Christian since I believe in the real teachings of Jesus.

[dhama_initiative]

Right -
I just read through that chapter.
My views are essentially compatible with David's.

I see no conflict, there, with Christ's teachings (which I call original Christianity),
but both of us have the same gripe with Pauline Christianity (which he calls "Christianity" throughout the book and I call "fake Christianity").

What you understand Christianity to be is what David understands it to be - ie. the belief system started by Paul.

David has no word for the spiritual path of an adherent to Christ's teachings
although there were many disciples of his before Paul.
I call this "true Christianity."

This is my religion
and it does not conflict with David Icke's views.



I am interested in how the idea of Jesus as paying a karmic debt fits in with pre pauline Christiaity. And when you are capable of speaking politlely, without descending into bitchy rudeness when someone has a point of view different to yours, or creating straw man arguements, I will try to discuss it with you.

[arten]

you might get a few liberal christians...

i believe jesus was anti establishment..a guru and prophet...who planned to leave a legacy to raise people to christ consciousness through his teachings and devotees....

but this idea was highjacked by the church of rome and the the rest is history

Well I believe along similar lines except there was no man called Jesus they corrupted the name of the guy doing the preaching because that is what Satanist do. They corrupted astrology from 13 signs of the zodiac to twelve, they changed the Julian calender to the gregorian calender and they change their own names at the drop of a hat.
According to that little french prick Sarkozy we are still living under Roman Law.

[eternal_spirit]

According to that little french prick Sarkozy we are still living under Roman Law. Beats Shariah or Talmudic law. LOl makes me laugh oh the Catholics are false lol lololol. Other brands of Christainity are real give me a break, and no don't bother sending link or explaing I've heard all about it.

What if all religions are off shoots of earlier religons that's what Icke writes about, and is prob the truth.

[arten]

Beats Shariah or Talmudic law. LOl makes me laugh oh the Catholics are false lol lololol. Other brands of Christainity are real give me a break, and no don't bother sending link or explaing I've heard all about it.

What if all religions are off shoots of earlier religons that's what Icke writes about, and is prob the truth.

Christendom is False full stop, same with Islam. Next! PMSL