Most recent contributions

What Would Jesus Say To Barack Obama? At this years National Prayer Breakfast, Barack Obama confirmed to the American People why the First Amendment inhibits a secular interpretation of religion (see Washington Post).   In his typical ideological promoting of Socialism under the banner of Marxist Social Justice, Obama quoted the parable of the talents and stated:  “But for me, as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’ ” — but is Obama’s rendition of this parable valid?

The parable of the Talents is one of many Gospel teachings that is very difficult for the modern Christian to understand, because of the removal and anathema of an important teaching of Jesus that was outlawed by the Roman Emperors who ruled the Church (see Emperor Controlled Dogma).   But even more important is the fact that the manner that Obama has presented this parable in his speech, is in reverse and in denial of its spiritual meaning and intent. The true meaning of the parable of the Talents presents one of the core Gospel teachings that confirm that each person is born into life in accord with their previous actions, as presented and explored in The Biblical Foundational Mindset — which original teaching is further confirmed in the pre-Nicene teachings on Predestination.  Because the Roman Emperors who ruled over the doctrines of the Church after the year 325 had outlawed the Gospel teachings on the pre-existent soul, many modern Christians have been duped into embracing a Marxist doctrine of Social Justice because they totally lack an understanding of the Conditions of Birth from an original Gospel perspective.   Thus the question: The Gospels confirm that all things in this world are preordained — and in acknowledging this well defined biblical teaching, the question then becomes: When the Laws of God drive a person into poverty, is the Christian obligated to make a person not only comfortable in their poverty — but comfortable to the degree that they support the abandonment of First Gospel Principles?   While we would be doing good if we can assist them in bringing about meaningful change in their lives, when we instead assist them in their ungodliness, then we are working against the Will of God.

As explained in the  parable of the Talents, not only does each of us receive in accord with our own abilities that are based upon our actions in our previous lives i.e., “…each [is given] according to his own ability.” — but when we use our own God-Given gifts and Talents on the thinking and lifestyle of this world, as the prodigal sons we have therefore squandered away our own inheritance.  When the Laws of God bring poverty upon a person because of their own actions in their more distant past — and we make them comfortable in their poverty — are we not then opposing the Will of God?  Thus, Barack Obama’s reasoning is in direct conflict with what Jesus actually taught.

In the study, Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty, it is demonstrated that those who live in poverty are in fact poor, because under the Secular Progressive domain, they have abandoned biblical morality and marriage.   Thus, their poverty and the conditions under which they live, are the direct result of their own choices and actions.  Yet, in this culture of entitlement, they expect others to provide for them, regardless of the fact that they have brought their lifestyle upon themselves by the choices they have made and the leaders they have elected to follow (see  The Folly Of Social Justice – The Counterfeit Dogma Of Jim Wallis And The Marxist Left).   Yet, Paul correctly states:“But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner — not even to eat with such a person“ (1 Cor 5:11 NKJV) — and the Gospels present the cause of their poverty and turmoil in the words of Jesus: “…sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee”(John 5:14 KJV).   

What Paul is stating is that it is of course a sin to support the immorality and sinfulness of those who choose to dwell in sin.   If Christians are commanded by Paul to have no part in the sin of those who have abandoned biblical morality — to the degree that a Christian should   “…not even to eat with such a person” — and Jesus warns the person who he healed to cease from sin, lest a worse thing such as even greater poverty come upon them — then when Christians use their money and resources to indiscriminately support and promote lives of sin, then they have in fact cast themselves in the role of the servant who squandered away his God-Given Talents on the things of this world — which is in reverse of Barack Obama’s interpretation.   

The poor and disenfranchised in this country is the direct result of the failed Secular Progressive agenda they have embraced.  Author, and one time welfare mom Star Parker, portrays the poor as the victims of Uncle Sam’s Plantation.  God-fearing people are in no manner obligated to support the lifestyle of those who abandon morality and biblical standards.   While it is good to provide food and clothing to those in need, to take away from those who are living by spiritual standards, to give to those who have abandoned spiritual standards, is in and of itself sin.  

The objective of Marxism and their doctrine of Social Justice, is to make the whole of the population dependent upon the government.   The idea that Jesus wants Christians to support those who have abandoned Gospel First Principles, and have openly embraced lives of immorality — those who have rejected the institution of marriage and brought forth children out of wedlock — those who have squandered away their lives on alcohol, drug abuse and addictions — is so adverse to the Gospel teachings, that Barack Obama should be embarrassed to promote his doctrine of Social Justice as being biblically ordained.    But then again, when it is realized that Obama’s idea of the balance of church and state is to give the Catholic Church an extra year to abandon their teachings on reproduction and abortion, the whole idea of Obama as a constitutional law professor must be questioned.   If the state can enact a law that inhibits the religious positions of the Church, then the whole concept of First Amendment Religious Protection is a bogus fraud.  

The history of what has been portrayed as the War on Poverty, has proven the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin to be correct.   And just as important is the fact that if you use your God-Given resources to make those who have abandoned the biblical teachings comfortable in their sin, then you are in fact yourself promoting a life of sin which is portrayed as unforgivable apostasy to the Gospel in the scriptures (see The Lie).   While you should provide food and necessities to those in need, when you give indiscriminately — and make lives of sin easy and comfortable — then you make yourself a proponent of sin.  

A wise servant will provide greater assistance to those who sincerely strive to embrace and live in accord with Gospel teachings and a biblical lifestyle.  Therefore, to even promote the idea that Jesus wants you to reward those who have abandoned the Gospel teachings — providing them comfort in lives where the Laws of God has brought tribulation upon them — i.e.,  “…sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee” — is to make yourself an instrument of sin.   While it is good to feed the hungry, your greater assistance should be reserved for those who repent, and seek to change their ways.       

In Reply To Barack Obama in the Name of Yeshua/Jesus


Brother of Yeshua/Jesus

Having been asked many questions pertaining to the Trinity — and always from the perspective of clarifying the great confusion that exists across a wide spectrum of believers and non-believers — in the below I have adapted one such a reply which I ma…

Is there such a thing as a test or standard of legitimacy?   Thus, the question: If there is a Higher Law than that of man — and man’s laws are in conflict with this Higher Law — then the question becomes: Is the law of man that is in conflict w…

When myself and Emmanuel Pohoreski appeared in Superior Court in Graham, North Carolina, expecting to defend my motion to the court dated Sept. 14th, 2011 (see Motion), we were handed a notice of dismissal because Alamance County did not want to pursue…

If you think like an Atheist — live like and Atheist — and believe in the cultural tenets of Atheism — can you also be a Christian?  The answer to this question has in fact put the Church on trial in a court in Graham, North Carolina.   What on the surface may appear to be little more than a violation of the seat belt law, those familiar with the essence of the matter understand that the case has brought into question the very source and originality of Church doctrine and dogma.   Is the Church truly representative of the Original teachings of Jesus and TheWay?  Or is it more factually the religion of Mithraism masquerading under a biblical cloak that in practice, it rejects every part of?   While it is truly rare that a legal challenge to the validity of the Church can be brought about in the United States, this challenge is only possible because the state has far exceeded its true Constitutional boundaries.  Provoking the question: Is this legal challenge truly about a religious opposition to what the plaintiff’s Allan Cronshaw and Emmanuel  Pohoreski  state is a violation of the First Amendment protections of the freedom of the practice of religion?   Or is it a means to put the Church on trial for heresy in the adoption of fourth century Roman paganism?   Perhaps it is both.  But defendant Allan Cronshaw expects to take this case up to the Supreme Court where both the dogmatic Church as well as secular apostasy to the Constitution can be put on trial in the Highest Court of the Land.   Therefore, each seeming loss on appeal, is only one step closer to the eventual goal of the Spiritual Rebirth of the Nation in accord with the original vision of our Constitutional Framers (see American Spirituality)!

As the leader of the Ebionite Spiritual Restoration Movement, plaintiff Allan Cronshaw has provided a web page (see The Cross and the Seat Belt) — and throughout this article it is demonstrated conclusively that the Church is a modern fraud that in practice, totally rejects the Gospels and New Testament (see The Lie) — and under the cloak of wolves in sheep’s attire, promotes Roman paganism in place of the Original Spiritual Gospel Message (see Govt. Takeover Of Religion) to a blind faith-believing congregation who prefers dogmatic snake-oil to the Truth and the Original teachings of Jesus and TheWay.   As Mr. Cronshaw has pointed out, this should come as no surprise when it is recognized that the Apostle Paul predicted that the Church which calls itself Christian, would replace the worship of God with the worship of Satan (see The Church Of The AntiChrist) — and that the time has finally arrived where the Church itself can be put on trial and confronted with its long history of spiritual apostasy and opposition to both the original teachings of Jesus and TheWay, as well as the Kingdom of God (see Apostate Church).   In fact, Allan Cronshaw not only claims to be a type of reincarnation of the person known as James, the brother of Jesus (see Brother Of Yeshua/Jesus) — but also claims to be an eye witness to the death and destruction of the original Spiritual Christians when they were hunted down by the emperors henchmen for refusing to accept the religion of the emperor (see The Death Of The Religion Of Jesus).   And he has portrayed himself as having been sent back into this world on a mission to tell the people the Truth, and to bring about the conviction and the downfall of the infidel — and in this instance, both Church and State who have each violated the essence of their own First Principles — principles that have brought their validity into question.

Defendants Allan Cronshaw and Emmanuel Pohoreski state that the existing seat belt law is based upon an Atheist Paradigm of thinking (see Darwinism & Secular Humanism), and from both a biblical and spiritual perspective, is a bogus fraud the entraps the people into a spiritually impotent mindset and lifestyle (see The Great Canard Of Atheism And Evolutionists).   And rather then denying God and what they have set forth as Higher Spiritual Reality in the manner of the Church which the defendants have portrayed as a type of western equivalent of a House Church in Communist China where no deviation from government approved dogma is permitted, the defendants have instead taken a stand against what they portray as an unconstitutional statute, and in the process have brought the validity of both Church and State into question.   While it would be legally impossible to initiate a cause of action that would put the Church on trial for heresy, the unconstitutional actions of the state of North Carolina has enabled the defendants to put the foundational dogma of the Church on trial.

Under the heading of The Great Question Presented To The Court, is presented the meaning of Religious Freedom as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary where it states: “Within Constitution embraces not only the right to worship GOD according to the dictates of one’s conscience, but also the right to do, or forbearing of which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society.”   So, from a Constitutional perspective, the ONLY question set before the court must be limited to whether the defendants refusal to wear a seat belt is “inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society”, and whether the practice of the defendants religion which rejects the competing religion of Secular-Humanism — a quasi-religious manner of thinking which is founded upon a mindset and Atheist philosophy that rejects the Biblical teaching on Divine Providence, and therefore requires the wearing of a seatbelt — will bring harm to a person in another car in the event of a collision.  While there is not a single case on record where the drivers failure to wear a seat belt has brought harm to another driver or pedestrian, the Court has chosen to turn a blind eye to the failure of the law to provide a necessary religious exemption — even though in North Carolina, other exemptions are provided (see Exemptions To Seat Belt Law) — including an exemption to those who have a phobia about wearing a seat belt.   And when it is demonstrated that even young children are exempt from the seat belt law when riding in a pickup truck, either the sanity or ideological objectives of the court must be brought into question. 

Will the court of North Carolina follow the very clear mandates of the Constitution and established rulings of the Supreme Court which all support the position of the defendants?   A very simple legal question has been presented before the Court on the defendants web site and legal motions (see The Cross and the Seat Belt).  But without any justification as to why the defendants practice of religion should be denied, the Alamance County Court has ruled against the First Amendment protection of the practice of religion.   And this in effect has enabled the defendants to put both Church and State on trial — the Church for spiritual heresy and a total rejection of the Original Gospel Teachings — and the State as apostates to the Constitution and the validity of its rulings.  

It has been demonstrated by the defendants that the dogma of the present day Church has virtually nothing in common with the religion of Jesus that was inaugurated at the beginning of our Common Era (see The Heightening And Expansion Of Mind).   It has also been demonstrated that the wearing of a seat belt is very much a denial of the Truth and the Facts as proven by both science and genuine Christian Mysticism (see What’s Wrong With Wearing A Seat Belt?).   And when a person chooses to knowingly live a lie in abject defiance of the Truth, then their spiritual progress and development is gravely inhibited.   Further, the position of Einstein that there are two separate spheres of mind — the one he portrays as the “intuitive gift”, and the other as the “linear-rational faithful servant” — and demonstrates that because our culture suppresses the intuitive, that man has consigned himself into the abyss of ignorance with respect to man’s true reality and potential (see Intuitive Mind vs Linear-Rational).    Defendants reject the cultural assumption that the events in this life are subject to luck, chance or accidents, and demonstrate the reality of the biblical doctrine of Divine Providence in all things.   And in the process the defendants provide an answer for the proverbial question that has perpetually haunted most religious people in the explanation as to Why Does Bad Things Happen To Seemingly Good People.  Which begins with an understanding of the Conditions Of One’s Birth – Life – And Death.   And it is further demonstrated that because the congregation of faith-based believers live and think in accord with the Paradigm of Thought established by Atheism, that the Church has been spiritually castrated and rendered impotent.   Therefore, rather than live a lie and deny the Truth, the defendants have instead chosen to invoke their First Amendment protection of their sincerely held practice of religion.

The appeal of the previous ruling of Judge James K. Roberson is set for a hearing on December 5th in the Alamance County Superior Court.   Defendant Allan Cronshaw states that the case was orchestrated by the Laws of God in order to put the validity of both the Church, and the State on trial for the respective heresy and apostasy to their Core Foundations.    In fact, what is being put on trial is very much the Truth, Justice and the American Way.   In the manner of true infidels, the Church is poised against the Original Teachings of Jesus — while the State has thus far attempted to rule the Constitution as being invalid.   The defendants take the position that a loss in Court, will effect a positive response from the Angelic Jury that has been called to preside over the future of both Church and State based upon their responses.

Most religious people look for a Messiah who will come and confirm the validity of their religious beliefs, and set up a New World Order where mankind will live in peace.   The Jews expect a Messiah who will confirm them as the Chosen People — th…

Government Intervention In Religion: The Cross And The Seatbelt

What is Constitutional Immorality?  This is when a Constitutional God-Given Right that by American Jurisprudence is UnAlienable, is dismissed and negated without so much as even a reason provided.  And while Atheists and Marxist Secular Progressives routinely extend their middle index finger upward at God in their attempt to undermine the American Spirituality that formed the foundational bed-rock of God-Given UnAlienable Rights based upon the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God (see American Spirituality), when the actions of a state which is sworn to uphold the Constitution in the name of representing the Will of the People, parallel that of the Atheists, then truly we have a tyrannical American abomination that can only be portrayed as Constitutional Immorality!  The Atheist agenda is to incrementally undermine the people’s individual rights — removing even the mention of God and Constitutional Rights from the American cultural arena — in order to inaugurate a European type socialist state.   While this has been largely accomplished in states such as New York and California, the South is the next target.  Thus, if the South Rises Again, it will be to save the Nation from the Atheist folly that strives to undermine the whole of our Constitutional form of government.  

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Religious Freedom as: “Within  Constitution embraces  not only the right to worship GOD according to the dictates of one’s conscience, but  also the right to do, or  forbearing of which is not inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society.”  And with respect to these organic Constitutional Rights of Man, the Court has ruled that “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as Legal Principles to be applied by the courts” (West Virginia State Board of Education vs Burnette 319  US 624, 638, [1943]).  As an Atheistic symbol of the paradigm of thought which rejects the biblical doctrine of Divine Providence — which symbol is in direct conflict with everything that I know to be true — unless it can be demonstrated that my religious objection to wearing a seatbelt is “inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society”, then the state is Constitutionally duty-bound to provide me with a religious exemption from the law.   And this is especially true when it is realized that the law already provides exemptions to  “Persons with a certified phobia of seat belts; Persons tending to a child’s personal needs; Situations where all seating positions equipped with seat belts are occupied.”  Further, the state of North Carolina even permits people not only to ride in the open bed of a pick-up truck, but also permits children under the age of twelve “If an adult is present in the bed or cargo area of the vehicle and is supervising the child”.   An Internet search on children riding in the back of a pickup truck provides factual statistics of alarm.   Quoting one article: “Any pickup passenger is better protected when riding in the cab of the truck than when riding in the bed” ( Read more: Child Safety in Pickup Trucks | eHow.com  ).   Which means that if there existed any consistency in the laws, a child in an open bed would be required to wear an approved motorcycle helmet.  Again, none of these exemptions to the existing law have a claim of a higher order than that of First Amendment Protection which the court has chosen to ignore without so much as providing even an explanation — i.e., for an American, a blatant violation of fundamental principles that can only be portrayed as being Constitutionally Immoral.   

What is a Paradigm of Thought?  As I use the term above?  Its like the fruit of a mindset or school of thinking.  Not only does the Atheist and Secular Humanism and Progressive mindset reject God — but there exists a whole philosophical school of thought that provides the Atheistic mindset an environment to spawn and manifest.  And in the case of the seatbelt, the Atheist Paradigm of Thought rejects Divine Providence and the biblical doctrine of predestination.   What the Atheist Paradigm of Thought does, is reject the many statements of Jesus.  As an example: When Jesus told the woman to “sin no more, lest a worst thing come upon you”, Jesus was making reference to The Laws that react to each person’s actions (see The Laws That Perfect Mankind – Cause And Effect).   Because of their own self-imposed ignorance of the Laws, the Atheist Paradigm of Thought maintains that Jesus was in error.    Where the Atheist attributes all events to chance, luck, natural selection or the unknown, the early Church maintained that all events have a preexisting cause — and that not even a sparrow can fall to the ground, apart from the Will of God.   In the same way that a Swastika is a symbol of Fascist Socialism, the seatbelt is a symbol of the Atheist Paradigm of Thought that rejects the biblical doctrine of Divine Providence. 
   
While on the surface the refusal to wear a seat belt on religious grounds may appear odd, this is because governments have so thoroughly imposed their dogma upon the Church over the course of the last 1700 years, that the majority of believers who call themselves Christians have totally lost sight of what the original teachings and objectives were.   Rather than submit to the emperor, the first Christians chose death in the lions den.   Why?  As a Spiritual Religion, the original teachings had virtually little in common with modern government imposed Church dogma.  Thus, A. Powell Davies warned that the Dead Sea Scrolls had confirmed what biblical scholars had suspected and believed all along — i.e., that the Emperor Constantine and the Pagan Church of Rome created a religion of blind faith and belief where he wrote that: “Biblical scholars were not disturbed by what they found in the Dead Sea Scrolls because they had known all along that the origin of Christianity was not what was commonly supposed to have been” (quoted by Millar Burrows in More Light on the Dead Sea Scrolls).  And with respect to what the Dead Sea Scrolls revealed that remains ignored by the Church, Prof. John Allegro acknowledged that the facts “…may upset a great many basic teachings of the Christian Church.   This in turn would greatly upset many Christian Theologians and believers.   The heart of the matter is, in fact, the source and originality of Christian doctrine” (August 1966 issue of Harpers Magazine).   And the Adam Clark Bible Commentary stated that if one of the core doctrines imposed upon the Church by 4th century Pagan Rome is not true, that  “…the whole Christian system is vain and baseless” (see The Ten Words).    Which means that the question that is presently being raised in a North Carolina Court, is not only whether the practice of religion is subject to the whims of the state, but also the decrees of the Roman Emperors who forced their edicts upon the Church with the sentence of death.  As detailed at this   American Spirituality link, our (Deist) Constitutional Framers saw Christianity as the highest source of spiritual truth, and the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to impose restrictions upon government, and created the necessary environment for Spiritual Christianity to again be reborn and established — fulfilling its potential to lead mankind out of the dark ignorance of this world, and into the Light of True Enlightenment.    

Thus, these long ignored statements prompts us to pose the question: Why didn’t the biblical scholars understand the true origin of Christianity prior to the discovery and examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls?   To answer this question we must consult the findings of Prof. Elaine Pagles who correctly writes: “It is the winners who write history – their way. No wonder, then, that the viewpoint of the successful majority has dominated all traditional accounts of the origin of Christianity… It suggests that these religious debates – questions of the nature of God, or of Christ – simultaneously bear social and political implications that are crucial to the development of Christianity as an institutional religion. In simplest terms, ideas which bear implications contrary to that development come to be labeled as heresy; ideas which implicitly support it become orthodox”  (see Pagles, The Gnostic Gospels).    In not learning the lessons of history, modern believers have overlooked the fact that when despots rule, they not only annihilate all opposition — but they “…write history – their way” — and they corrupt and burn whatever writings stand in opposition to their supremacy and rule. Which means that those doctrines of belief that are seen as orthodox and promoted by the modern-day Church today, is drawn from the side of “…political implications that [were] crucial to the development of Christianity as an institutional religion” under the direct control of Pagan Rome.    

In the case of the Christian Church beginning in the fourth century, to disagree with the doctrines affirmed by the Emperor Constantine, carried with it the sentence of death.   Thus, Edward Gibbon writes in the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: ”Constantine easily believed that the heretics, who presumed to dispute his opinions or to oppose his commands, were guilty of the most absurd and criminal obstinacy… Not a moment was lost in excluding the ministers and teachers of the separated congregations from any share of the rewards and immunities which the emperor had so liberally bestowed on the orthodox clergy. But as the sectaries might still exist under the cloud of royal disgrace, the conquest of the East was immediately followed by an edict which announced their total destruction”.    Thus, in the same way that whoever did not embrace the religion of the emperor met with the sentence of death, whatever scriptures did not conform to the approved version, was immediately destroyed (see http://BibleCorruption.com ).  



The State Master Encyclopedia lists the original cause of action on religious grounds when I opposed the New York seat belt law in 2004, but New York never set a hearing on the issue.   Upon retiring to North Carolina, I was again ticketed — even though I explained to the officer that I held a Constitutionally protected religious objection to the mandatory seat belt law which I oppose on the grounds that it is anti-biblical, anti-spiritual, and exists as an Atheist quasi-religious symbol that promotes a mindset and paradigm of thought that is founded upon abject ignorance of the Laws of God.   


In the initial trial before Judge James K. Roberson in Alamance County, the court was provided biblical citings, detailed scientific proofs, as well as testimony that demonstrated my Constitutionally protected position (see North Carolina Motion Papers).    Further evidence was submitted to the court that demonstrated that (1) the Spiritual Christians were hunted down and murdered in the fourth century because of their rejection of the  pagan religions dogma of the Roman Emperor Constantine (see The Corruption Of The Church); (2) that the original pre-Nicene Church was a purely Spiritual Religion that taught the believer a process founded upon  “…a religion of the spirit that expressed itself in the heightening and enlargement of human consciousness” (see Expansion Of Mind); (3) to the degree, that documentation was presented which demonstrates that the primary objective of the pre-Nicene Church was the spiritual maturation and enlightenment of the believers (see Religion As A System Of Education).   And that when Jesus taught that all his followers were to seek out and learn exclusively from the One Teacher (see Spiritual Intuitive Development) that reveals all truths to the mind of the sincere and faithful seeker, the wearing of a seatbelt to appease the fruit (Paradigm of Thought) of Atheism, is a rejection of Divine Providence and the direct Teachings and Revelations of the True Prophet — all to appease and worship at the altar of  the  government ordained Atheist Paradigm of Thought. 


Further evidence was presented to demonstrate that while the spiritual essence of the Church was put to death in the fourth century, the dogmatic rulings by the Emperor Justinian in the 6th century cast the Church into the abyss of absolute ignorance with respect to the functional workings of the Laws which control every aspect of life in this world.   And because the faith-based Christians no longer possessed the necessary knowledge to understanding the movement of the Laws in the lives of mankind and all things (see The Spiritual Castration Of The Church), they became totally alienated from the true spiritual meaning of the Gospels.   Now, when the spiritual essence of the Gospel is once again in the process of being reborn, those who travail in TheWay find themselves confronted by the prevailing cultural Atheist Paradigm of Thought, and government officials who will impose UnConstitutional restrictions upon the people. 

Allan Cronshaw
aka Brother Of Yeshua/Jesus 

One of the things that Rick Perry was heckled about in Portsmouth (see Hecklers In Portsmouth), was whether he believed in science with respect to the theory of evolution vs the Bible.   And while Rick Perry did not commit himself as to the age of…

When properly and factually understood, there is absolutely no difference between the findings of the enlightened scientist, the Apostle Paul, and the enlightened Mystic — except, perhaps, the key word enlightened.   But the very word enlightened…