Gabrielle Letter 3

Friends share things with each other, including their thoughts. A friend leaves his neighbor free to deal as he wills with what has been shared with him. And this is how I want it to be with this Gabriele Letter. It assumes a receiver, that is, a reader, who is willing to accept the statements as given and then to freely think about them, letting himself be stimulated into developing his own thoughts, recognitions and conclusions.
This letter will give you little detail, but much insight of a basic and concise nature. Everyone can and will make up his own particular rhyme to fit with this, according to his experiences, to what he has lived and what is in his world of thoughts.

A great part of mankind wastes away its existence far from the belief in the law of God which is the love for God and neighbor. Many are so wrapped up in their own egoism as if they were married to it. Egoism knows only hardness, lack of love and lack of consideration. It uses others for its own purposes.
People who see their all-too-human aspects as a means to their own well-being are, in the final analysis, weak. If they hear about the love for God and neighbor, they simply smile and call the person who believes in it and speaks about it a utopian. People who are caught in the straightjacket of their egocentricity negate anything that is connected with God and with higher values. They greatly overrate themselves. Behind all this lies a secret fear that they overplay with seemingly convincing words.
Whoever turns away with a mocking smile from the statement “God is love and the love for neighbor” should ask himself: “Whom do I belong to?”

True love is the love for God and for neighbor. Whether people reject this fact, smile at it or ignore it – it is simply so. I believe in it. I want to base my letter on the truth, which is the law of God, the love and the love for neighbor, because only the truth gives people a feeling of worthiness and makes them free. A person in whom love has become truth keeps away from the ping-pong games of intellectual exchanges, where egotists strive to overtrump each other, considering their thought patterns as the measure for all things. The seeker of truth searches with heart and mind and the additional help of his conscience. He gains inner self-reliance and steadfastness because he struggles within himself for the clear recognitions that show him the steps into a conscious life. He never binds himself to dogmatic attitudes.
God’s love is inviolable. No human being can bend or distort it. Any attempt to do this is doomed to failure.

Even though the law of God, the love, is the infinite, almighty power that nothing can surpass, as a result of the free will of men, it can be hindered in its effects by the self-will and egotism of the human being. All the more so, through hugely negative efforts, as the pronounced and advanced greed for power of an institution which, in its thoughts and actions, does not orient itself to the criteria of the commandments of God. Wherever the commandments of God are not respected and heeded, the Spirit of God cannot blow.
Church Christianity has marked the so-called Christian Occident, its customs, morals, social order, yes, its whole culture. At all levels of public as well as private life, battles and wars took and take place. Nature and animals, too, have had to suffer unendingly under the murderous ambitions and the warring, aggressive doings of mainly “Christian” people.

Everything I say here is meant in a general way and is not related to a particular person.
For example: If a negative, all-too-human characteristic, like “egoistic” or “inconsiderate,” is addressed to a certain person, that is against the law of freedom. If the word “egoistic” or “inconsiderate” is used to generally explain something, then it is impersonal, that is, it is not said in relation to a particular person, thereby being in the law of love for God and neighbor.
We should really question what we think, speak and do in order to explore and grasp their content, which gives information on the worthiness or unworthiness of what we express with our life. For it is written: “I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter.” (Mt. 12:36) From this one can deduce that every person is responsible at every moment for what he or she thinks, speaks and does.

The causal law emerged from the sum of all personal offenses against the law of God. This is why it is also called the person-law; every person contributes to it according to his personal violations. And so, we have to be alert in order to figure out what is the love for God and neighbor, and what is self-love, which is the same as the causal law. The roots of our behavior, that is, the content of what lies hidden behind our thinking, speaking and acting, give information about ourselves.
If the shell of our behavior puts us in a totally different light than its content, then basically we are not as we present ourselves. We are not as one in ourselves, we are divided.

The one who strives for an aware life, who wants to be clear, upright and free from within, in order to find his way out of the spinning top of the narrow ego, of being held captive in egocentricity, will endeavor to grasp his subcommunications, those things that take place below what he consciously thinks, says or does. This person comes to know himself more deeply than a superficial person. He gradually frees himself from being tied to his own person, to his “personal,” “human,” and “all-too-human” aspects; he gains a certain distance to himself; he will master his life better and better and be able to help and support others selflessly, that is, without wanting acknowledgement and ovations of thanks. From within, he becomes increasingly more impersonal, independent, self-reliant and free. The horizon of his consciousness broadens: He knows what is going on around him; he is far-sighted and acutely perceptive, thus becoming capable of truly bearing responsibility.
People whose consciousness and subconscious are both filled with spiritual knowledge react rashly. Without control, they blurt out whatever moves them. The controlling authority, the consciousness and conscience are switched off by the operating subconscious. The person concerned hardly recognizes this conflict anymore. If the controlling authority, the consciousness and conscience, is intact, then we notice – if we monitor ourselves – that we think differently than we speak, and that we speak differently than we think. The subconscious registers the content of our thoughts and words alone; the consciousness registers the deception, that is, the shell, not the core. The person who does not monitor and examine himself believes that he is just the way he thinks and speaks.

Because most people do not question their thoughts, their conversations and their so-called good deeds, they are of the opinion that they think positively. They believe in their thoughts, which are, for instance, how friendly and helpful their neighbor is, or that he is dressed in a nice and orderly fashion, or that he is moral and well-behaved and much more. Such and similar thoughts are positive – but only when the content of the thoughts agrees with them. Only with a conscientious self-critique and self-analysis, can we get behind what is really romping around in the world of our thoughts and words, that is, what we have stored in our subconscious. What a person stores in his subconscious – the content of his behavior patterns – is what forms his true nature, his character. Over the course of time, our character marks our body; it is the expression, the cast or imprint of our character.

Our body constantly proclaims who we really are. For example, when a participant in a conversation speaks against the way we portray ourselves or even acts against us, that is, acts in such a way that it could damage our image – how do we react? Do we stay calm and relaxed, or does our subconscious become active, first setting our solar plexus in action via our central nervous system, so that we react in an agitated, fidgety manner and finally, with anger? Without our thinking about it, it bubbles out of us and indicates who we really are. Our body, the reflection of our character, reveals our thoughts, words, gestures, yes, our total behavior.
In situations in which we are affected, in which we “lose our heads,” whatever is concealed under our “positive” façade comes to light. It becomes evident or we even react with an outburst. The consciousness, which upheld the illusion of the positive, doesn’t have a chance anymore. It loses control. The mask of sanctimoniousness collapses; the ignoble, ugly or malignant aspects, which we stored in our subconscious, come to light. We show – and are shown – who we really are. At this point, the nerves then block the “positive” singsong of the consciousness. This would be the moment in which the “loving one,” who thought he was anchored in the law of love and love for neighbor, could have recognized himself. But does he want to? When the first surging of the senses has ebbed away, when the nerves have calmed down somewhat, then many a one thinks: “What was going on with me? I don’t even know myself this way.”
However, the one who has never questioned himself will cling to his accustomed, hypocritical self-image, which he also nurtures. He will quickly draw the mask of good behavior over the faux pas, thinking: “Despite everything, I know I have thought and spoken rightly, that is, ‘lovingly.’” It is totally possible that our words were kind and loving, but our surging emotions spoke in completely different tones. What is behind this emotional turmoil? What lies behind it is exactly what comes to light when people displease us or when we don’t get what we want, even though we may even have arranged it in such a “good, kind and friendly” manner, or when we fear that our neighbor’s statements could expose us, or other such things.
The thoughts and words that are stored in the consciousness as mere shells and block what is stored in the subconscious, cannot be brought into concordance with the love for God and neighbor. It is nothing more than a put-on sham-love, a self-love, a love that is focused on our person – we also call it egoism. Egoism can be dressed up with many frills and embellishments; it can be veiled with tactics and cunning evasions of the human ego for a long time, until one day the subconscious is filled to such an extent that it takes charge of the consciousness. Then the consciousness is no longer able to weigh and measure things and the subconscious gains control of our body, of our thinking, speaking and doing.

The term “love” has often become merely a hollow word. To most people “love” means physical love. It is the motive force for processes that bind; it leads to unhappiness, to greed, to possessiveness and to exploitation, because it is the love that is focused on a person, which demands the best only for itself and which says: Everything “good” only for me. Only the best is good enough for me. Everything for my well-being and my life. How things are going for the other one in this is of no consequence to so-called “love,” above all, when someone we once praised acts differently than what we “positively” thought toward him.
The egoist will continue to see his fellow man in the shine coming from the lantern of his selfish, personal consciousness for as long as his fellow man fits into his consciousness standard, his shine, and is useful and of benefit to him. When we have learned to question our concept of what “love” means to us, we will gradually find out that the love for God and for neighbor must be another kind of love.
The critics who think they can take apart the word of God, which is spoken into the present time, trip over the word “impersonal” again and again. They are of the opinion that “impersonal” means depersonification, a negation of personality. If the critics, who are mostly church Christians, would read their Bibles more closely, they could see that it has nothing to do with building and expanding on the human personality when Jesus, the Christ, says, for instance: “You, therefore, must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mt. 5:48) It is not the “personal” or the “human” or the “all-too-human” that characterizes the image of God that Moses talks about, but instead this highest ideal image is much more the human being, and it is that person, who – in accordance with his divine origin and destiny – personifies in his life the divine, the divine basic powers and principles.

The personal, or the human, is cut to fit the person, to fit his more or less egocentric thinking, wanting and doing. The impersonal does not depersonify the person – quite the contrary. It is a lawful yardstick, which weighs and measures according to the divine principle of justice, which alertly observes the ego, the personal, the ultimately base humanness that is focused on the person. In the last analysis, the “personal,” or “human,” everything that is solely focused on the person, is self-love, which is expressed in the so-called all-too-human aspects. In the all-too-human there is again a hint of the “human,” which is so important in our world. Particularly the attribute of the “personal humanness” often gives a special attractiveness to scintillating, willful or “striking” “personalities” in our externalized society. The all-too-human, but also the human, has nothing to do with the human being in the Bible, of whom it is said that he is the image of God.

God, who is also the Father-Mother-God, made man according to His image. Man sinned and sins deliberately against that image, the human being, and thus, against God. Through this, the human being has become his own personified self-love, that is, his personal “humanness.” It is as this personality, equipped with specific traits and peculiarities, that one person mostly meets another – precisely on the “human” level. They assess each other according to their “human aspects” and compete with these, when it comes to such things as prestige, recognition, influence and power and even more illusory blossoms of human egocentricity. The one strives to outdo the other; the one with the stronger ego then triumphs as the victor.

The impersonal, the law of God, the love for God and for neighbor, does not judge; it does not make value-judgments; it does not damn and chastise. God loves the perfect being in the innermost part of the soul of every human being. God radiates His impersonal love into the causal law without looking at the person, in order to help the one who truly asks for help. And so, He helps the person to recognize himself, to recognize what does not correspond to the divine in his causal “humanness,” in his ego-shell, in order to then dismantle this with the help of the Christ of God.
However, God is not the personal law. He is not the causality, with which the person surrounds himself. Nor does God affirm the person’s “personal” aspects, but leaves it up to him to recognize himself in the “perversions,” in the peculiarities of the base human nature, with the strength of the Eternal, and to freely decide for the “divine” or for the “human.”

The eternal law of love is the life. None of the seven basic powers can be dissolved. Life is life, indelible, eternally existing.
Every human being bears the eternal life, because in the person is a spirit body, which, shadowed, we call soul. The soul incarnated at the birth of a child. The incorruptible core of being of the soul, the law of love, is the very basis of the soul. The law of God, the core of being of the soul, is divine life-substance and therefore incorruptible; it cannot be dissolved or changed. The person who offends against his eternal, divine existence, against the law of love and of love for neighbor, that is, against the seven basic powers and against the principles of freedom – equality, freedom, unity, brotherliness and justice – changes himself. He envelops his eternal being with low-vibrating energies that are foreign in kind to the image of God; with this, he burdens his soul, but not the law of God.

And so, God, the Creator, the Absolute, the Pure, is the life in the soul of the person, in nature, in every animal, in the material and condensed stars and planets. If God were to forsake us, He would destroy His creation, the pure in everyone and everything. He would also destroy a part of our soul. As a result, the soul would remain imperfect. Through the Redeemer-deed of Jesus, the Christ, everything imperfect, the sins against life, will transform into perfection, into the law of love for God and for neighbor. The Christ of God guides all pure souls, which have again become the divine being, back to God, the eternal Father.

If God were to withdraw from Himself, then the Absolute would be destructible, and burdened souls could no longer regenerate, that is, purify, themselves.
Our spiritual body, called soul in its burdened state, consists of spiritual particles, just as the physical body consists of cells. The spiritual particles can be burdened by the person, but, as already mentioned, not the core of being, the pulsating divine law-energy of the soul. The burdens of the person are registered in the soul’s particle structure as energy. This negative radiation from the burdened soul particles surrounds the soul as a fluidum. This is the fine-material soul-body.
In order to differentiate this from the ether body of the pure spirit beings, we call this envelopment of the soul the astral body. It consists of various astral coverings, also called astral garments. The astral garments have different colors. They take shape according to the violation against the divine law, against the seven basic powers, including the five principles of equality, freedom, unity, brotherliness and justice. The radiation of the soul is our aura. It marks our physical body and shapes our character. The radiation of our soul, the astral veils that surround us invisibly, is our fluidum, which is generally called aura.

The soul’s fluidum – its astral garments – consist on the one hand, of the burdens of the former human being and on the other, of the kind of life the present person in three dimensions leads. The soul’s radiation – its garments – is also registered in the corresponding planetary constellations of the material cosmos and in the planets of the purification planes. The total picture, soul and astral garments, is in the material cosmos as a matrix image. Via this matrix, the soul, if necessary, returns to a new human body, if, as a human being in the temporal, it has to clear up with people or with the nature kingdoms whatever drew it into this new state of becoming human.
Many people ask “Why am I a human being, when in the very basis of my soul I am eternal existence?” Most people are in the Earth-school in order to purify their souls, that is, to garb themselves with the garment of virtue, of the love for God and for neighbor. As guidelines, God gave human beings the Ten Commandments through Moses, and Jesus, the Christ, the teaching of love for God and for neighbor in the Sermon on the Mount, so that a person in the Earth-school has a concept that enables him to walk the path of purification of his soul. In today’s time and through the prophetic word, the Christ of God teaches us again the path within to the Kingdom of God, which is within, in every person.

And so, on the path to life, a person should cleanse his soul of the violations against life, against the law of love and love for neighbor, and cleanse it of the sins against the seven basic powers and against the principles of freedom. The one who compares his life on Earth, his feeling, thinking, speaking and doing, with the Ten Commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, in order to recognize himself, and repents of what is against the inherent laws of life, clearing it up and no longer doing it, will successfully finish Earth’s school of life. Already as a human being, he will then discard one astral garment after another, or at least brighten it. What then gradually crystallizes out of this is the human being in the image of God, the image of which Jesus said: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Through the fulfillment of the spiritual principles of life, the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, the all-too-human, or the “human,” which many people are so proud of, transforms into positive energies. Through this, the person becomes wise, because he respects life. Wise people are no longer dependent on words of praise and opinions of others. People who stand in the life that is God no longer want to be built up and glorified. They are no longer “human.” A person under the sign of true life is in communication with the all-wise power of selfless, impersonal love. This is what God wants from His human children who are in His Spirit, the sons and daughters of the law of love.

What has become of many people from today’s point of view? The masses have become all-too-human yes-men, conformists, indoctrinated people, ruthless, hard-hearted, inciters, character assassins, criminals, violent criminals, warmongers, those who commit fratricide, and glorified “saints” who express their “shine” through titles and means, and often through violence and brutality. These are all the evil spawn of high-grade “humanness,” of the “personal,” of egoism and vanity – and unfortunately there is still much more of this. Such negative, undignified, and in the end, malignant character traits of many people develop through the desecration of the All-Law of love and of love for neighbor.

The first principle is equality. What do we humans understand under equality? One thinks that everyone should be treated the same and have the same income and possessions. Another is for the right to have a say in all important political organs, in committees and panels, and at work. Still others don’t care what equality means; for them it is important that they have enough to eat and drink and a roof over their heads. Others shake their heads, saying: “Equality means equal rights, equal position, equal treatment, equal thinking and much more.” That sounds like the French Revolution, which, however, wasn’t carried through. People, thus opines the neighbor, are not willing and are also unable to fulfill the further principles of freedom, unity, brotherliness and justice.

The outlook of the latter is, generally speaking, correct. If the majority of people think this way, which cannot be shrugged off, then why do most people in the western world call themselves Christian? Why did God give man the Ten Commandments and Jesus the teaching of love for God and for neighbor if they can’t be lived?
God is real and a realist, which can’t be said of most people. And the one who claims to be a realist usually wants to point out with this that only what can be grasped and experienced materially is valid for him; all higher truth, the Spirit that is eternal and effective through all things, is neither real nor existent; and the teaching of love for God and neighbor is thus a matter for dreamers, utopians and “crackpots,” and therefore, not to be taken seriously. The “realist” is saying with this, though, that the positive powers do not exist in him. That would mean that man is merely a mass of bones and flesh, over which the skin is drawn – and nothing else.
If God – like many people – were a flag that waves in the wind of opinion-makers, then we would have no spiritual future, because we would have no soul. Those who are of the opinion that this or that won’t work, or that the fulfillment of the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus is not possible as the churches claim are asked the following question: Why do they then go to church and pay tithes? It is inconsistent not to do what God called upon us human beings to do or even to deny it, and then in the same breath to call oneself Christian.

There is no objection if the church faithful sail under the name “Catholic” or “Protestant”; for they are then, simply Catholic or Protestant – but never Christian, for both church institutions basically act against God’s commandments and against the teachings of Jesus. The lukewarm church adherent doesn’t take the rituals and dogmas so seriously, but remains tied to the church, just because his parents belonged to this “congregation” or because there would be a scandal in town if he, the lukewarm one, didn’t pretend to go along with the masses. As a Catholic at the end of his life he asks for a so-called priest, to talk with him and give him the last rites. Even on his deathbed, he holds fast to denominational customs; for what would those who keep up the pretenses with him, the people in town, say if he didn’t go through with the ritual? Perhaps, “damned for eternity!” So, the priest has to come.

Through their behavior toward the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, many clergymen – as priests also generally call themselves – often have just as much, or just as little, knowledge as the sinner on his deathbed. But in such a situation, no conversation and no last rites are of any use, only a dialogue with God – for He is also present in the dying person. Whoever then repents from his heart and asks for forgiveness in his thoughts, insofar as it is possible for him, truly has Christ at his side. Christ does not give any good advice or even the “last rites” to the dying person. What Christ can forgive the sinner will be forgiven at the hour of death. What the dying person has caused by his thoughts, words and actions to other people, who today still do not want to forgive him, Christ cannot forgive either. This means that Christ cannot erase, or dissolve, this guilt in the person’s soul.

Let’s stay with the principle of equality. In order to make the principle of equality in the law of God more understandable, in the law of love and love for neighbor, I would like to go back to the talents. The following is written about talents.
“For it will be as when a man going on a journey called his servants and entrusted to them his property; to one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away.
He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them; and he made five talents more. So also, he who had the two talents made two talents more. But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master’s money.

Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here I have made five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’ And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here I have made two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a little, I will set you over much; enter into the joy of your master.’

He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not winnow; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sowed, and gather where I have not winnowed? Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’” (Mt. 25:14-30)

The man in this parable, apparently the owner of a large estate, is the Father-Mother-God. On the way to becoming a human being, God gave each being talents to take with it on its earthly journey. They correspond to the respective mentality of the spirit being, to the region of heaven, to the basic power that is the nature of the being, for example, talents from the spiritual principles of the divine Order, of Will, of the divine Wisdom, Earnestness, Kindness, of the divine Love and of Gentleness. The divine talents are aptitudes for us human beings, certain capabilities, we could also call them divine energies, that on the one hand, we should put to work for our personal well-being and on the other hand, for the well-being of our fellow man as well as for the well-being of the nature kingdoms, that is, for our dwelling planet, Earth. A part of the talents that come from the Spirit is the unity, the working for everyone and everything.
How do so-called Christians see the God-given talents? Most people, whether Catholic, Protestant Lutheran or free-thinker, hardly develop them. The masses think only of their own well-being and are satisfied with being an employee, for instance. These are people who have become used to taking orders from employers or superiors, to taking on work they have to carry out, which they then more or less do. Perhaps one or another has developed a talent, which he nevertheless has “buried,” for it serves only his well-being. All other capabilities, that is, talents, that slumber in him, he does not activate. Why should he? He remains an employee, because it is more comfortable to bear little or no responsibility and to receive instructions, which he then carries out without greater responsibility.

The employee gets his salary, which may be considerably less than the income received by the employer or superior. If the salary isn’t enough, then those “above” are watched from out of the corner of the eye and corresponding judgments are given, for example: “ambitious so and so” or “offspring of success, clambering up the ladder of success while treading on those below” or “who elbows others out of the way to climb higher” or remarks like: “... it’s easy for him to talk, he inherited the firm he heads from his parents” or “... he has connections since he comes from a ‘prestigious’ family” or – and this is usually the last thing to be noticed – “because he is honest and hardworking.”
Dear reader, let’s do an analysis of the real talents, the aptitudes, that every human being has brought, and which are in accordance with his spiritual-divine origin.

According to the principle of equality, there should be neither employer nor employee. Why this inequality? The answer lies in the fact that only the fewest understand what it means to be a Christian and many don’t even want to accept Christianity. They prefer to stay in the lower ranks and bow down to those above. Every person can do as he wants, but then, it has nothing to do with the commandments of God and above all, with the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, in His Sermon on the Mount! This is why I say over and over again: Everyone can think and act as he pleases, but he should not use the name “Christian,” because Christ has nothing to do with this world, nor with anything that is built on human egoism. A person can be Roman Catholic or Protestant Lutheran; there is only one thing against these two institutional terms, namely, the word “Christian” – for that is what these two “Christian” institutions are not.

Why does inequality exist? Because Christians are not Christians. Unity turned into egoism, equality became inequality. I repeat: Every one can act the way he wants to – but it has nothing to do with being Christian, or even with Christ!
When we let the “differences in the world” pass through our mind, we realize that many employers abuse their position of power, no matter what circumstances or achievement they should thank for this, whether good connections, or an inheritance or even their own diligence. One could not object to the latter, if the person concerned did not think solely of his bank account and his well-being, like those who occupy such a position because of connections or inheritance.

However, we should also take a close look at the many employees who are not willing to expand their capabilities, their talents. Many of them are content with being responsible for only a small sector and to remain those who take orders. For them, leisure time, sports, vacation, eating and drinking are more important than developing their talents. But when it comes to telling their employers and superiors what they really think, then they are big-mouths somewhere else, and their words betray their envy of others for their good income, their bank account and their property. And at their regular table in the pub or bar, more things are then brought up – always against the others, seldom against themselves, which means: Their fellow man is constantly and critically examined, perhaps even cynically, but seldom does one look at oneself critically .
These days people go on strike, in order to let “those up there” know “what we really think.” Mostly it concerns money; everyone wants more money. Seldom does anyone ask himself: Does my performance reflect my capabilities, my aptitudes?
Inequality has become something that is taken for granted. That’s how the law is, one-sided, and everyone wants rights for himself, whether employer or employee, whether rich or poor. Many a one thinks he is in the right when he says: “Why should I spread around my hard-earned money? To whom? Who gives me anything? Then I’ll give to him, too. But how much?” Or vice versa: “I give to the one who gives to me.” Will it be the same? In the careful safeguards that take place during “exchange transactions,” we recognize the mistrust, and not without reason. When everyone thinks solely of his own well-being, of his bank account, of his possessions, which he wants to increase for his personal well-being, then none should call himself Christian. And certainly not when he is being a big-mouth at his regular table in the pub or during a strike – otherwise, it’s all the same to him, just as long as there is enough for him.

Let’s talk about inheritance. Is it right that children inherit from their parents? Well, according to the standards of Christian values, is it fair at all to possess so much more, that parents can leave behind a considerable inheritance?
How often does one hear: “The parents used all the strength they had to build a good family business with many employees.” And to be regarded as a benefactor, they then say: “We gave work and bread to many employees.” However, the workers’ salary is a far cry from the profit the employers made with their family business. After many years, the employers have accumulated not only considerable assets in their bank accounts, but also possessions like land and property. Houses are also part of their assets, from which they collect rent to fill up their bank accounts even more. That is the usual inequality in the world.

The present owners take it for granted that their children are the heirs who will carry on the family business the way they have. One can hear or read again and again that heirs brought their inheritance to ruin, because each of the heirs wanted his share for his own personal concerns. Consequently, many a family business had to be dissolved. The heirs who continue to run the business don’t even need to develop their divine talents – they simply inherited the business, and beyond that, no “effort” is needed.
Everything that a person invests for himself personally that is beyond his needs, that is, hordes, is against the divine principle of equality, against the commandment of God, the love for God and neighbor.

Many a one rightly says: “Neighborly love is often exploited. Why should I share my wealth with someone who is a so-called idler? No, you should not! Every person who calls himself Christian should contribute to helping every person develop his talents, and not bury them in that he lives off others.
Nor does a person do justice to love for neighbor when he merely donates money to the poor in order to soothe his conscience. True love for neighbor means to give a willing person the possibility to further his aptitudes, his talents, and later to multiply them for the good of all – namely, for all those who promote the principle of equality. For the same thing holds true for all equally: Pray and work.
The same is true for people in underdeveloped countries. It doesn’t do much good to simply donate money for them. For one thing, it may very well help these people to still their hunger; they need food, and also medicine. But bread and medicine are soon used up. What then? For another, their land was taken from them, as has happened to many people. They were dispossessed. The rich have helped themselves and continue to do so.

Let us ask what is God’s will: a church worth billions, so-called houses of God embellished with gold, church authorities who show off their titles in expensive robes – or people who have shelter, clothing and food, who develop their talents and put them to use for the good of all according to the principle of “pray and work,” who again will be and are as God wants: those who personify the image of God. And how is it with the state authorities who are the adherents of church officials? What happens with the taxes and contributions that they demand from the people? How is the money administered? How and where is it applied? Isn’t a lot of tax money squandered? Where is it channeled and for what purposes squandered? In part, it is spent for weapons; in part, it is channeled into the church coffers. It is also reported every year that hundreds of millions of the national budget is wasted in bureaucracy and squandered in pointless projects.

We read and hear about love for God and neighbor. And so, the question arises: Is the Son of God an army commander who turns people into soldiers, to whom He teaches the art of killing? God did not give the beings that were developing into human beings any talents for this. God gave the people the commandments, one of which reads: You shall not kill.

Many a reader may think that the churches are against war. But are they really? One could think so when one reads in SPIEGEL ONLINE (A German magazine of international standing) of Feb. 1, 2003: “Bush raises the holy wrath of the churches. George Bush likes to present himself as being deeply religious; but at least the German churches damn his Iraq politics with unusually sharp words. The highest Protestant calls the impending war ‘not morally allowed’ – and the highest Catholic finds that Bush is no better than the Islamic fundamentalists ...
In the ‘Bild am Sonntag’ (a German Sunday paper) Karl Lehmann, Bishop of Mainz and President of the German Bishops’ Conference, writes that according to the Church’s point of view, war may be considered only under extreme conditions. It may be used to ward off an imminent attack – or to fight a crime against humanity, such as genocide.”

Further in the text, it says: “Previously, Kock, the Chairman of the Protestant Lutheran Church Council in Germany, sharply criticized Bush, saying that the US President is a ‘religious fundamentalist.’
And, that Bush presents himself as though he has to fulfill a religious mission. Islamists who call for holy wars would argue similarly.
Kock said to the ‘Stuttgart Newspaper’: ‘Such reasoning causes me dreadful fear.’ It is hard for reason to get anywhere against such an irrational attitude,’ Kock continued. He also said that he has little hope that a war can be prevented and that Washington is not at all earnestly endeavoring to find a diplomatic solution to the Iraq conflict.”
What the churchmen say fits with all those who are little or not at all convinced about the existence of God, or who have not yet preoccupied themselves with the issue of love for God and neighbor. For example, theologians Kock and Lehmann reject a war in Iraq for theological reasons. Note well: for theological reasons. Bishop Lehmann said: “From the point of view of the Church, war may be considered only under extreme conditions.”

Karl Lehmann further argues: “... from the point of view of the Church, war may be considered only under extreme conditions. It could serve to ward off an imminent attack – or to fight a crime against humanity such as genocide.”
Who were the “extreme” examples for crimes against humanity and genocide? Especially in this catalog of “examples,” the Church is right at the forefront along with others. For instance, it was the Church that called for the bloody Crusades, in which those of other faiths were killed by the hundreds of thousands. It was under the aegis of the Church that the natives in South America were tortured and murdered. And still during the 20th century, Pius XII tolerated, or rather furthered, the genocide of the Ustascha regime in Yugoslavia.

One should always go forward as a good example. If Karl Lehmann condones war under extreme conditions, then he should have all priests trained as soldiers and put them on the frontlines in the battlefield, thus setting a good example.
According to the Church’s point of view, war may be waged in extreme cases. But war is always fratricide, no matter what one calls it. Jesus taught us peace. “Christianity” is bent and distorted. It has become a mixture of paganism and ecclesiastical conceptions. If we want to concern ourselves more with the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, then first of all, we have to turn away from the church institutions and turn within, for the Christ of God dwells in the person himself.

Jesus wanted all people to be equal. He wanted the community in and with Him, which means freedom. He wanted people to become the images of God, by following and personifying the commandments of God and His teachings, the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. He wanted every person to activate his inherent talents, thus contributing to unity and consequently, to the true common good. Jesus wanted brotherliness, and not fratricide. Jesus wanted justice and not rights. Jesus is the Prince of Peace and, in the last analysis, the churches are nothing more than a pagan army. The one who condones war under extreme conditions is not on the side of Jesus, the Christ. In extreme cases, he pleads for fratricide.

What are “extreme conditions”? Karl Lehmann means with this, “crimes against humanity like genocide.” If Jesus had condoned a war – whether a preventive war or a war under extreme conditions – then with the power of the Spirit, He would have long since razed the church institutions to the ground and killed the church lemmings who blindly adhere to paganism and take His name in vain. Who committed the greatest crimes against humanity? Who committed genocide? The churches! Karlheinz Deschner writes about this: “After intensely studying the history of the Christianity, I know of no organization in antiquity, the Middle Ages and present times, including and especially the 20th century, that at the same time is so long, so continuously and so terribly burdened with crime as is the Christian Church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church.”

And the question arises: Why, then, are weapons produced?
“These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”
Did Jesus talk about a just war? Every war is fratricide. Is that the justice of the God of the churches? Who takes from this the right for himself to talk about a “just war”? With what legitimacy? From whom? Not from Jesus, the Christ! Not from God, for the law of God is love for God and neighbor. So, from whom?

“Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.” (2310) – The state and the state church are in agreement; they are one. Their statement is valid. They determine right and duty.
“Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.”
Violence, to make peace? Did Jesus, the Christ, teach this? Who is the example for such a conviction, for such a posture, for such a way of behaving? Jesus, the Christ, it is not. God, the Eternal, it is not. – Who then?

“Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin.” (2313)
Wasn’t it the Church that was involved, right into the 20th century, in all these crimes that are called mortal sins here? Are these words valid only for lay persons? And can, or may, the Church afford this? Is it exempted from mortal sin? – “One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.”
In its Catechism, the Catholic Church says: “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons – especially atomic, chemical or biological weapons – to commit such crimes.” (2314) What does the American President Bush have to say about this?

Because the churches do not embody the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, they determine what is forbidden and what is allowed. Read and be amazed: “The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.” (2321)
Conclusion: Churches accept war and thus, fratricide with approval!
Jesus was a pacifist through and through. Again and again, church representatives stress: “We are not pacifists,” and so, they are not Christian, either.
Many people are presently preoccupied with the war in Iraq. In some countries, including America, there are protests against the war. And so, people protest against a war that is directed against human beings. Few think any further. But war is also taking place in the forests, on and in the fields, in the barns of factory farming, on animal transports, in slaughterhouses, in laboratories conducting animal experiments. Everywhere, where animals are abused and deliberately killed, war is taking place. War always shows the weaknesses of an attacking country. And anyone who is in favor of murdering animals can also call himself a weakling, or even an aggressive debauchee.

On March 7, 2003, Radio Vatican put out the following report via internet:
“Great Britain
According to the opinion of the Catholic military bishop, British soldiers can view their participation in a possible Iraq war as ‘morally honorable.’ The order to go to battle would be issued for the ‘attainment of a morally good purpose,’ as it says in a pastoral letter published today from Bishop Tom Burns to the Catholic members of the British fighting forces. During the course of the Iraq crisis, all participants, above all in the army, had to search their conscience. Marching orders would follow only when all political means are exhausted, according to Burns. The military bishop stressed that church leaders had left the decision as to when this point is reached in the hands of the government. Thus, it is a ‘lawful order from a lawful government.’ To obey this does not bring the soldiers into conflict with the church’s teachings. London Cardinal, Cormac Murphy O’Connor, and Anglican Primate, Archbishop Rowan Williams, had recently emphasized in a mutual statement that the moral legitimacy for a war against Iraq did not exist at that time.”
These statements speak for themselves.
The true Christian, the one who truly believes, looks for the reason: Why war against people, animals and the Mother Earth at all, when we are supposed to be Christians?

Once more: Why war?
Why was the peaceable teaching of Jesus, the Christ, rejected, a teaching that would have led to security, unity and prosperity?
One answer among many possible ones is that most people are conformists. A conformist is not a free person. He is a person who adapts his attitude to the prevailing opinion, for instance, an adherent of a state church, which by way of threats has made and continues to make its faithful dependent. On the other hand, those with the mandate to govern in a state and their opposition are opportunists who out of utilitarian considerations become conformists in order to collect their sinecure from the state and keep their positions. Many conformists, who are involuntarily adherents of state and church, have become “yes-men” out of fear of possible repercussions. Still others – above all those who have already climbed higher on the state ladder of success – are adherents of the state churches for utilitarian reasons, because church leaders appear to be a “promising” means for securing their success.

The creation of dependency is a fundamental and important component of the “church system.” This is clearly, if not nakedly, expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That the sacramental ritual of baptism is mystified, classified under the “mysteries of God” as it were, is shown by the heading of the chapter, “The Celebration of the Christian Mystery,” in which the following can be read:
“Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us. From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders, holding them in respect and affection ...” (No. 1269)
And so, the baptized infant has already been condemned to dependency and can’t even raise an objection to this.

During the past centuries, the state has become a structure of conformity, which the church institutions fill out, because the state let itself be infiltrated by the powers that be in the Church. We should ask ourselves again and again: Why did it happen this way? Whoever is capable of making a healthy analysis – which means to be free of membership in a powerful church and free of its direct influence – reaches the conclusion that most people are conformists, whom the churches have turned into dependent church-lemmings by baptizing them as infants, by following through with indoctrination, by making them afraid of eternal damnation and by the celebration of its rituals.

The next sentence reads: “The faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.” For one thing: The divine commandments may very well be mentioned by the Church – but what about their fulfillment? How does the Church want to instruct people about it when it merely preaches about the commandments? For another thing: Why does human reason need to be healed? With what was it wounded? Countless people suffered damage to heart and mind through a church teaching that is contradictory in itself, which, for instance, inflicted upon them the duty to love a distant and cruelly avenging God, whose terrible and unfathomable mysteries meant a constant threat, and at that, beyond death, “eternally.” The absurdities along with a simultaneous and massive claim to validity not only annulled human reason, but also led to the capitulation of a healthy ability to make judgments. On the way to indoctrination, the defects developed in the process were then “purified” and “healed.”
Especially a just reason can teach much to the clear thinker, the free person. In any case: to become free or to remain free.

Let us continue with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There one can read under No. 2244: “Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God...” That’s true. But not for the Catholic Church. Through divine revelation and through His life, Jesus, the Christ, brought the inner religion. What happened to it?
“The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man.” This high-handed statement by the Church, which serves its claim to omnipotence, brings consequences for public life in our state and our society. For this reason, judges who belong to the Church are very limited in their ability to make free decisions.

If judges are believing Catholics, they should follow the teachings and instructions of the Catechism. And so, one could say that they, too, are indoctrinated.
Because the churches, the state and the judges who give judgments without letting justice prevail are one, they are also in unity where the voters are concerned, the people who should vote a government into power. The people who are held in conformity, and who first of all belong to the Church and then to the state, are the so-called “gullible voters.” Governments – no matter what they call themselves – are tied to the churches, because the latter drive the “gullible voters” to them. And so, the mandate holders of the state bow down to those above and are thus eager subordinates of the church leaders, in order to, as I already said, count on enough gullible voters. The churchman who favors a certain political party then preaches forcefully in his church for those who as a party offer the most advantages to the church. And judges, too, who belong not only to the state, but also to the Church, sometimes prefer to administer justice in the judicial chambers for those who, like them, are church conformists.

That this is so is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There it literally says: “The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.” (No. 2242) According to No. 121 of the Catechism, the Old Testament is also a part of the Gospel: “The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked.” There it says in Deuteronomy, among other things: “If any case arises [before the court] ... which is too difficult for you, then you shall arise and go ... to the Levitical priests, and to the judge who is in office in those days, you shall consult them, and they shall declare to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you from that place which the LORD will choose; and you shall be careful to do according to all that they direct you; according to the instructions which they give you, and according to the decision which they pronounce to you, you shall do ... The man who acts presumptuously, by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die ...” (Dt. 17:8-12)
The Church practiced this for centuries, for example, through its “holy” Inquisition. The state was the lackey of the Church at that time, as well; it willingly carried out the “executions” of the most varying kind. Besides: Even today, anyone who does not comply with the will of the Church is still fought by it – today, by character assassination – but ultimately, as then, with the goal of elimination. Today people who don’t belong to the Church are still ostracized and discriminated against.
The churches were responsible not only for the cruel persecution, torture and burning of hundreds of thousands of “witches,” but also for engineering the bloody Crusades. Countless “pagans,” Jews, Indians and those of other faiths were slaughtered at its behest.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in the chapter with the lofty heading “The Life in Christ,” one can read the following:
“In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.” (No. 2298)

“After intensely studying the history of Christianity, I know of no organization in antiquity, the Middle Ages and the present times, including and especially the 20th century, that is at the same time so long, so continuously and so terribly burdened with crimes as is the Christian Church, particularly the Roman Catholic Church.”
One can also read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “At the same time the conscience of each person [in the service of the Church] should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.” (No. 2039)

This means: pure dependency! The Church and its teaching, its law, should thus be the measure for all things. A clear renunciation of the use of conscience and reason. Thus, a ban on thinking. Total subordination, even the giving up of oneself, is demanded. In doctrinal statements, the Church often refers, as we know, to Paul, who said in his letter to the Romans: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4)
The liaison between state and Church is, as we will hear, anchored in church doctrine. The Church pronounces its judgment out of its, allegedly God-given, authority and the state carries it out. An unholy alliance!

Whoever liberates himself from ecclesiastical constraints, because he has recognized that the churches are state churches, and not the people’s churches, who bases himself solely on the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, and lives according to these step by step, hardly has a chance against this pagan imperium of power. Jesus, the Christ, has nothing in common with such a state-church-conglomerate, where the motto is: “You give to me, then I’ll give to you, and then we are in agreement.” That cannot be either, because church and state have little concern for the people. The people are, after all, the “gullible voters.”

Freedom, one of the five divine principles, develops from the principle of equality. Where there is inequality, as is usual in the world, where there are those in power and subordinates – which is accepted as a matter of course – true Christianity cannot take root. The churches reject the basis for a better world, the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus. They say it is utopian and meant for a better world. And so, the question arises: Through what or through whom shall a better world emerge? Should it simply fall from heaven, without mankind doing anything for it? Or should we humans improve ourselves, each and every one? However, for this, the power apparatus of the Church is not necessary.

Every divine principle is also contained in all the other principles. For this reason, without living the principle of equality, freedom cannot exist.
Many people are of the opinion they are free. To think you are free – because you are not externally imprisoned, for instance, or because you can pretty much do or not do what you want, or because you think you are free of responsibility – can, however, never mean freedom. Freedom is the alignment with the one power, with the divine law of love and love for neighbor, which is all-ruling. Only the person who believes deeply, who has experience in fulfilling the commandments of God, knows what freedom means. Freedom in the spirit of the divine principle is the same as secureness in God’s all-ruling love; it is a security and straight-forwardness in all matters that pertain to an earthly existence.

Freedom also means independence from people, from money and property, from striving for recognition, prestige and power. A person who is free in the spirit of freedom is aware of his responsibility. What he promises he also keeps. One can depend on him, in the family and in society, as well as at work. His heart is in his work and he is also industrious, trustworthy and competent in his activities.
“Pray and work” is for him a balanced life. His pay is also the service for his fellow man. People of freedom earn their living, but will never bow and scrape, because what they do they do with the power of the Spirit and thus, carry and fill it out according to the law of life.

Many people are of the opinion that when they refuse one of their fellow men because the one or the other seems unpleasant to them, then they are free; or when two people quarrel and one parts company with the other, no matter for which reason, then he thinks he is free; or when an employer is not satisfied with the work of an employee, because defects crop up in the work process, and reprimands the employee who then gives notice, the latter thinks he is then free. There are many things in our earthly existence that are unpleasant for us. If the one who finds himself in dire straits rejects everything that seems offensive to him without seeing his own part in it, then he thinks he is free. But, the one affected can be sure that whatever made him react in such a way could tell him some things about himself.
If instead of actively dealing with it, we avoid the learning task a day gives us through an unpleasantness, then we believe we are thus free. But we can be sure that what we have left behind will follow us. There is never a disturbance – in business matters as well as in interpersonal relationships – where only one of those involved is guilty. The one who despite everything is of the opinion that he is totally innocent, could question his thoughts, words and behavior patterns. Since no energy is lost, whatever goes out from us follows us. Generally, this means that our deeds follow us.

Do not kill, neither people, nor consciously, that is, willfully, animals and plants; then you honor the life in all things and become free according to the will of God, according to his law of love for God and neighbor, which means freedom.
Be honest and sincere. Never bear false witness against your neighbor. Then you will gain the freedom that truly makes one free.
Do not steal. Stealing means to take possession of what does not belong to the one who stole it. To consider something stolen as one’s own property, to not want to return it, is lasting theft. The one who becomes a thief remains unfree; and the one who remains a thief harms others in the long run. It is not only that he cannot become free; he also violates the unity. This holds true for the individual as well as for groups and organizations of all kinds.

The one who includes God’s commandments in his thinking and living, also concerning the divine spiritual principle “pray and work,” will respect his fellow man and not cheat him. He will neither covet the wife of his neighbor nor his neighbor’s possessions and property. He will render unto Caesar what is due to Caesar and to God what is due to God.
God, who is the law of love and freedom, has no principle of force in His law, even where an earthly state authority is concerned. God, the Eternal, never spoke, not even to the respective ruling people, of a “state authority.” Without hesitation or self-doubt, an authoritarian church attributes such statements to the All-Highest.

Let us think logically: If God is the All-Love, Wisdom and Greatness, if His law is perfect, if the excerpts from the eternal law, the Ten Commandments, do not force us, then God will not control us human beings. God is the sole authority, because He Himself is the law of infinity. God says in His commandments “you shall.” The one who wants to make people dependent and unfree speaks the revocable “must,” which is often pushed through in our world with force and brutality. God does not have the principle of force in His All-Law, because He simply is not violent.
Every state authority instituted by God?

As already said, the law of God consists of the seven basic powers, the first of which is the basic power of Order. God’s Order, like all His principles, is perfect. So that we humans may again open up our divine heritage, the seven basic powers, which are the true life, He gave us the first steps toward this in the Ten Commandments, and Jesus, the Christ, gave us the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount. God does not demand. On the other hand, the Church teaches and demands, for in its Catechism we read under No. 1899 the following well-known words of Paul: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.”
Paul, who was a faithful vassal of cruel Roman constitutional law, is unsurpassable for that time – as far as his creative writing is concerned. With great audacity, he composed the most daring stories about the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, and about the laws of God, which he mixed with the cruel Roman law. And for anyone who can think, it is now clearer than ever before why both church institutions, the Catholic as well as the Protestant, fell prey to Paul.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church it says: “There is no authority except from God.” The authority of the state is embodied by the representatives of a state and its respective government. And so, one could say that every representative of a state and those assigned to him, all his fellow government workers, the government as a whole, are appointed by God. Whoever opposes this state authority appointed by God resists – as it says – what God has appointed, and the one who resists Him, that is, God, will incur judgment.
One must really thoroughly consider this statement and let it “melt in one’s mouth,” so to speak. According to this church statement, God would have appointed Hitler and his cohorts, for instance, a violent mass murderer, a murderous tyrant, who subjugated all those who did not bow down to him and did not pay homage to him with “Heil Hitler.”
And so, if God instituted “state authority” to every nation of this Earth, then, in my estimation, no country should be allowed to wage war against another country. It would then be solely in the competence of God to cancel this “state authority,” because, after all, He instituted it. Unless God, who supposedly appointed such violent state criminals as Hitler, waged war via another country or countries – for example, through Russia, England or America – against this ruler, against this country, to whose state God gave – as to all other states as well – state authority. In such a case, God would be waging war against Himself, in order to depose the representatives whom He Himself appointed, simultaneously killing millions of people and plunging others into suffering and need. With this, He would not only be opposing what He has appointed, that is, resisting Himself, and consequently incur judgment; He would also be a mass murderer like the one whom He fought against through other states. God would also be breaking His commandment: You shall not kill.

From this perspective, how do things look for the Iraqi state, which is currently in the sights of Americans for a war? If we start with the premise that “every state authority is appointed by God,” then President Hussein – as “state authority” – would have been appointed by God. If President Bush and his government, which must also be seen as appointed by God, now go to war against Hussein, who, then, is fighting against Hussein – God or the USA? And if President Hussein and the Iraqi people defend themselves – is God then defending Himself against the armed forces of the USA? Who then is opposing what God appointed here, and who will incur judgment?
There have been countless wars in the history of mankind! Who triggered these wars, which were always followed by crimes – God or the respective ruler or the disobedient people?

Here is statement against statement. Now who should believe what? The surest way is to live according to the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, and then the Spirit of God can come over the person and baptize him with the Spirit of love for God and neighbor, with freedom in God. And besides: Jesus let himself be baptized by John the Baptist with water. Jesus was a grown man and could freely choose.
An infant cannot understand the divine teachings and therefore cannot choose freely either. “Go therefore and teach all nations” is the commandment of Jesus, to teach those people who understand His message. The one who accepts them and lives accordingly receives the baptism, the Spirit of truth. God gave the people the Ten Commandments. Since the Church does not keep them, it is also not authorized to baptize people in the name of the Spirit of God, neither infants nor adults.

A heading in the Catechism of the Catholic Church reads: “Outside the Church there is no salvation.”
This statement, as it is there, has often been repeated by the “Church fathers,” from whom a large part of the so often referred to church “tradition” is derived.
Under this heading, one can read that Christ “... is present to us in his body which is the Church”... “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” (No. 846)
“The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude...” (No. 1257)
As a matter of course, it is claimed that God Himself “has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism...”
What a statement! Any commentary here would be superfluous, because we would hope that everyone can think for himself.
We can read what threatens the lemming who suddenly wakes up one day, and sees clearly now as a result of his own thinking. In accordance with the words of the Apocalypse of John 18:4 “Come out from her, my people...,” he now makes a long-due decision, but in “Der Glaube der Kirche in den Urkunden der Lehrverkündigung;” (The Belief of the Church in the Documents of the Teaching Proclamation) Neuner-Roos, 915, p. 546, we read the following:

An infant, which cannot make decisions, will, as already mentioned, be baptized without freedom of choice into an institution that literally indoctrinates him from cradle to grave. In this way, many become lemmings, driven by the anxiety psychosis of eternal damnation so that they hold out until the grave. In the eyes of the Church, the one who liberates himself from this is not only a leper, he will “doubtlessly be lost.”
And if the “eternally lost one” should join a Christian community that is not part of the Catholic and Protestant “conglomerate,” he will literally be cast out. The state church then has him persecuted through the state, the indoctrinated judges and their servile journalists, being branded with vicious defamation. The result of this is that those defecting from the Church have to accept many disadvantages. The persecution campaigns, which indoctrinated judges then declare to be “expressions of opinion,” will, whenever possible, be used as grounds for indirectly punishing the “lepers,” “the eternally lost ones,” with the damning seal of expression of opinion. And why? Merely because he no longer belongs to the lemmings who blindly do what a coarsened Church demands.

Unity can never develop without equality and freedom. One cannot conclude there is unity from the statement “we are in agreement.” Perhaps they are merely in agreement as long as they have others for scapegoats?
Many, many people mostly look solely at the other one – because “the other one” is not the way they think he should be. No person is just like another, because each one lives in the world of his ideas, which he is convinced is right. Unfortunately, it is this way: Each one looks only through the “glasses” of his own small world, which is put together from his ideas and opinions.
But the carpenter of his own small world wields hammer and chisel on himself, mostly without being aware of it, for what a person thinks and says, how he acts and shapes his existence, marks his character and his appearance.
When two people share the same opinion, when their ideas are alike, having been shaped by them in the same way, then both of them, usually only for a short time, agree on these points. They exchange ideas – energy flows. In this energy cocoon, which one thinks is complete harmony, both then find seeming happiness at first. On the basis of this “unity,” which for many means being-one, most marriages are made.
When the communication energy from these points of agreement is used up, then the former basis is no longer present. One is taken aback and feels estranged. Other aspects in their way of thinking, feeling and wanting come to the fore. They no longer understand each other. Their attitude toward each other is suddenly destroyed; they talk past each other; this leads to quarrelling, and may even lead to divorce or separation.

Wherever one looks, over and over again two or at the most three people team up against the one or the other, whereby the third party is soon excluded. It seldom concerns a mere matter. There are always people involved who do not correspond to the ideas of those who are in alliance. This being against “others” is the cement, so to speak, that holds these buddies together.
And so, it can be said, and one also sees it, that the whole world is in conflict – whereby “the world” is not the Earth. The world is made up of people, of their ideas and opinions. The way the world is shaped is the result of this. The world cannot be placed on a par with the Earth. Everything that is on the Earth and that has been created by people out of their all-too-human aspects, their “personal” aspects, the egocentric, is “the world.”

Mankind and its world have nothing in common with unity, which is from God. Unfortunately, the masses of people are a much-divided, power-hungry and power-obsessed society clan, in which every clique wants to push through its own interests. In this process, not only the view for unity is lost, but one also fights against the formation of true unity, for each one wants to feather his own special and particular nest.
On the other hand, the Earth symbolizes unity. If humans would let the forces of Mother Earth prevail, this planet would be a paradise. But no – each one is against the other. And just as people are amongst themselves, so do they also act toward their dwelling planet, the Earth. The result of this is war against brother, against sister, war against animals and nature, war against minerals, and so, war against the whole planet.
Jesus said in the following sense: Wherever two or three are gathered in My name, I Am there in the midst of them. The “Christian” western world has unloaded Jesus, the Christ. The Prince of Peace had to give way, because under the leadership of the church institutions the western world has become a warlike society that follows church doctrine and does not orient itself to the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, the Christ. Right up until this very day, the church institutions have taken His name and abused it in the most disgraceful manner.

The divine principle of unity can develop solely out of the principles of equality and freedom. If these two principles are not lived, then there is no unity either.
So-called civil servants talk a lot about the common good. For the government of a country, common good means the well-being of all the members of a community. Who belongs to this “community”? Is it only those who are loyally subordinate to the state and the state churches, by saying yes – even against every bit of reason and against their own conscience – to whatever state and church decide, approve and practice? Many a one had to and has to still today make the bitter experience that even though he gives to Caesar what Caesar demands, by, for example, paying the accrued taxes according to law and order, the state nevertheless puts him at a disadvantage, if he, for instance, does not belong to the state church.

Whoever talks about the common good, about the well-being of all the members of a community, should answer the following question: Why then – if the state approves of the welfare of all – are there so many people who live under the poverty level? Especially for the church institutions that call themselves Christian, the welfare of all people ought to be a Christian concern. However, in Germany, their desire is that through state subsidies, the state continue to feed their golden calf worth billions and also continue to collect the church taxes that they demand from their faithful, so that these may continue to remain members of a church worth billions.
The divine principle of unity has nothing in common with the “common good” of a state and a state church. The well-being of all begins with the first principle, equality. The divine principles as well as the commandments of God and the teachings of Jesus, the Christ, were bent and distorted by the people of the “Christian” western world. The masses of people became followers of church institutions that provide the best “example” for power, prestige and chasing after money and property.
The inequality among the followers of the institutions where money and property is concerned stirs up, particularly in those with low income, hatred, envy and the craving to also possess what is taken for granted by the wealthy: money, property and prestige. And so, the one who juggles the terms “unity” or “common good” at this level is trying to deceive the masses of people.

For us humans, this means that every kind of thinking in terms of individual lots leads to a break with cosmic unity, thus excluding the welfare of all. Mankind, particularly Christianity, is far from such great thoughts. The “Christian masses” are not only “of little faith,” but unbelieving. The root of every evil, of every violation of the divine principles, is the church institutions, which, on the one hand, live as examples, thus setting the standard for what is against every Christian value. On the other hand, the followers of the church institutions have adopted inequality. Each one thinks only of himself, whether it is the “small-minded one” or the power-obsessed one, each one wants and demands only for himself.
What crystallized out of this during the 2000 years of “Christianity,” particularly in our time, is staring many in the face. It is the discrepancy between the wealth of the one and the bitter poverty of the others. Especially the people of the Third World are suffering, where countless brothers and sisters die of hunger. On the other hand, the churches not only hold on to their wealth of billions, but increase it, and billions are given out for purposes of war, probably causing millions of people to suffer need, misery, infirmity, homelessness, or they have lost their lives. Besides that, billions are expended for the exploration and conquest of outer space and much more.

The one who tries to imagine all this in his thoughts and becomes aware of it, and then still talks about the common good, about the welfare of the human community, would have reason to seriously doubt his sanity. What happened to divine equality, to freedom in God and the unity of all in His Spirit? Equality got stuck in egoism, in indifference, instead of developing equality, which shares fraternally and where one selflessly supports and helps the other. Freedom got stranded in the egotistical “we are united against the others,” and unity in the individual’s striving for his own personal well-being.
Since the church institutions and their adherents argue that the Sermon on the Mount, which contains the divine principles, just cannot be lived, that it is meant for another world, one should ask: For which one? And who should shape this “other world”? Hasn’t Christianity had a long 2000 years to let this world evolve in the sign of Jesus, the Christ, the Redeemer of all people? Now if Jesus, the Christ, brought mankind redemption – which the churches also say, without knowing, however, what this means – then Christians, with their Redeemer, should also have had the strength to redeem the Earth from its servitude.
But how did Christianity act right up until the present time? Directly and indirectly, on a large scale as well as a small one, it wages wars, and through wars it upholds fratricide right through our time. Even today, Mother Earth is violated and exploited. People took and take living space away from the animals, torture them in bestial ways, hunt them as prey, slaughter them and then consume the pieces of their carcasses. To take their dignity away from them, animals are treated as wares without feelings – a dignity that man has long since sacrificed on the altar of lack of dignity. However, despite the bestial and cruel human excesses, animals have nevertheless retained their dignity – in contrast to human beings, many of whom have become inhuman monsters who crush and destroy everything that comes into their clutches.
Unity also contains brotherliness and justice. The one who does not contribute to the true common good does not promote unity either and thus, the welfare of all. The words of Jesus: “What you want others to do for you, do it for them first,” contain all five divine principles. These basic rules of life, the five principles, are also an inherent part of the life of the Earth with its minerals, plants and animals.
Divine unity also teaches us that when your neighbor feels well, you will feel well, too; when your neighbor feels bad, you will feel bad at some point, too. This results in the law of sowing and reaping: A person will reap what he sows.
Especially in our time, the law of cause and effect is becoming more and more visible. It will touch the rich as well as the poor. Let us be aware that God’s mills grind slowly, but surely and justly.

As already presented, each one of the five divine principles is contained in each of the others. Just as the three afore-mentioned divine rules for life, the principles of equality, freedom and unity, were not accepted by the people, but were rejected and reversed, as it were, into inequality, into lack of freedom and egoism, people also sacrificed the fourth principle on the altar of egoism, the principle of brotherliness. The reverse of the fourth principle is: masters and servants, whereby during the present time, servants may also give themselves the titles of masters. Nevertheless, they remain under the rule of the excellencies, eminencies, the professors, doctors, hereditary princes and princesses, counts and earls, highnesses, and so on. They rank beneath all the further “worthy ones,” who put themselves above the common “ladies and gentlemen of the people.”
A very primitive German saying, according to which people act especially in this our time, shows very crassly and clearly how “Christianity” deliberately proceeds against the love for God and neighbor and against brotherliness. It reads: “If you don’t want to be my brother, I’ll bash your brains in.”

The person for whom this statement seems too hard as a counterpart to brotherliness does not follow the news media that, despite many hypocritical appeals and implausible statements, supports fratricide, above all, where preventive wars are concerned. The churches reject these, whereby at the same time they condone defensive wars in special cases. With all the talk about war, we should realize that it is not Jesus, the Christ, who condones a so-called defensive war, but solely the churches. Jesus taught us peaceableness and the love of enemy. We can read in the Sermon on the Mount:
“About the love of enemy:

“About killing and reconciliation:
You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times:, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny”