At this time our planet and group identities stationed in time are undergoing stages of the Deconstruction of the Cross in our physical body, spiritual bodies and other matter life forms that have been impacted by crucifixion. This is effectively the remembering, thus the release and erasure of the memories of blood sacrifice and spiritual vampirism from the past, present and future timelines.
The purpose of the artificial cross architecture is to enslave humanity through the crucifixion and blood sacrifice of their inner spiritual being or Christ self. Religion was created by the NAA to keep these cross implants and their religious belief systems of mind control in place, so that, humanity would live in fear of the retribution from his False Father Alien God. This Archontic controller mechanism was to keep humanity subservient to the continual feeding of their False God Vampires. One of the most prolific ways to feed the bloodthirsty vampires is mass killing in wars, especially in the name of God or religion. This is blood sacrifice which in all cases is Satanic Ritual Killing which feeds Satanism as well as satanic forces to spread on the earth. The NAA entities are in the majority a satanic force, so this way of life of blood sacrifice is aligned to their vampiric killing mentality.
As the April and May newsletter is the massive topic of Deconstructing the Cross, this also peels back the many, many layers of which the Cross theology has promoted a spiritual disease into the subconscious and conscious human mind. The Cross theology is the basis of genocide, blood and human sacrifice through torturous death, and continual wars made in God’s name. Humans have accepted this anti-human war agenda through mind control and mass deception around our true origins. None of this has anything to do with God or Christ, and is a NAA mind control program inserted to cause fear and salvationistic worship of the Alien Gods, rather than support humanitarian and life giving value systems that would empower the entire planet.
This week may we consider the source, origin and basis of Religious Violence and how this has impacted our culture, society and belief systems that transcend any and all Religion. Inner violence towards the self and others, promotes external methods of violence, there is no possibility of knowing God through intentional and premeditated violence, and the blood sacrifice of a human being. There is no such thing as a Holy War or Just War. For the last two thousand years the agenda has been to spread violent religions across the earth with the primary use of Christianity and Islam worshippers who are numbered in the billions.
May we consider long range impacts of religious violence and its subtext to the collective mind of humanity, in so that we may commit to remove all inner violence against our own person, to remove all violent thoughts, actions and deeds from our personal behaviors. The mass consciousness program towards committing violent actions, whether inner or outer violence, is made strong, and as we remember the Cross and what it has done to humankind, we can terminate all of its collective influence made upon our bodies, hearts, mind and spirit.
May we lead by example and may we hold a moment of silence to strengthen our group purpose in solidarity, brotherhood and sisterhood in the Christ- Sophia, in so we all share the goal of the highest spiritual expression for all of us individually and collectively as we unify as one peaceful heart in service. Thank you for your courage and bravery.
Beloved God, help me to be an instrument of your perfect Peace.
I am the Cosmic Sovereign law Made Manifest. I am God, Sovereign, Free!
The following excerpt is a discussion on the moral implication of Religious Violence:
The relationship of Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because one view is that Christianity advocates peace, love and compassion while it is also viewed and proven as a violent religion. Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching. However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified (e.g. the Just war theory of Saint Augustine). Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, certain teachings from the Old Testament, the New Testament and Christian theology have been used to justify the use of force against heretics, sinners and external enemies. Many have identified the Inquisitions, Crusades, wars of religion, and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence". To this list is added "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men". A broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover up "harm or damage" that has been perpetrated, not just physical violence per se. Thus, under this definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism".
Another Christian thought is of opposition to the use of force and violence. Sects that have emphasized pacificism as a central tenet of faith have resulted from the latter thought. However, Christians have also engaged in violence against those that they classify as heretics and non-believers specifically to enforce orthodoxy of their faith.
Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and "love of enemies". For example, theologians assert that Jesus' pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism".
Many authors highlight the ironical contradiction between Christianity's claims to be centered on "love and peace" while, at the same time, harboring a "violent side". For example, that despite its central tenets of love and peace, Christianity—like most traditions—has always had a violent side. The bloody history of the tradition has provided images as disturbing as those provided by Islam or Sikhism, and violent conflict is vividly portrayed in the Bible. This history and these biblical images have provided the raw material for theologically justifying the violence of contemporary Christian groups. For example, attacks on abortion clinics have been viewed not only as assaults on a practice that Christians regard as immoral, but also as skirmishes in a grand confrontation between forces of evil and good that has social and political implications sometimes referred to as Spiritual warfare. The statement attributed to Jesus "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" has been interpreted by some as a call to arms to Christians.
Some feel that Christian faith fosters violence because Christian faith is a religion, and religions are by their very nature violent; moreover, the merging of religion and politics are two sides of the same coin—abuse of power.
Miroslav Volf acknowledges that "many contemporaries see religion as a pernicious social ill that needs aggressive treatment rather than a medicine from which cure is expected." However, he contests this claim that "(the) Christian faith, as one of the major world religions, predominantly fosters violence." Instead of this negative assessment, Volf sees that Christianity "should be seen as a contributor to more peaceful social environments". To examine the question of whether Christianity fosters violence, four main arguments that it does: that religion by its nature is violent, which occurs when people try to act as "soldiers of God"; that monotheism entails violence, because a claim of universal truth divides people into "us versus them"; that creation, as in the Book of Genesis, is an act of violence; and that the intervention of a "new creation", as in the Second Coming, generates violence. Writing about the latter, Volf says: "Beginning at least with Constantine's conversion, the followers of the Crucified have perpetrated gruesome acts of violence under the sign of the cross. Over the centuries, the seasons of Lent and Holy Week were, for the Jews, times of fear and trepidation; Christians have perpetrated some of the worst pogroms as they remembered the crucifixion of Christ, for which they blamed the Jews. Muslims also associate the cross with violence; crusaders' rampages were undertaken under the sign of the cross." In each case, the Christian faith was misused in justifying violence through abuses of power by dominating controller egos.
Volf asserts that Christian churches suffer from a "confusion of loyalties". He asserts that "rather than focus on the character of the Christian faith itself, a better explanation of why Christian churches are either impotent in the face of violent conflicts or actively participate in them derives from the proclivities of its adherents which are at odds with the character of the Christian faith." Volf observes that "(although) explicitly giving ultimate allegiance to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, many Christians in fact seem to have an overriding commitment to their respective cultures and ethnic groups."
Islam has been associated with violence in a variety of contexts, including Jihads (holy wars), violent acts by Muslims against perceived enemies of Islam, violence against women ostensibly supported by Islam's tenets, references to violence in the Qur'an, and acts of terrorism motivated and/or justified by Islam. Muslims, including clerics and leaders have used Islamic ideas, concepts, texts, and themes to justify violence, especially against non-Muslims.
Jihad is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the word jihād translates into English as "struggle". Jihad appears in the Qur'an and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)". A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the ten Practices of the Religion.
Muslims use the word in a religious context to refer to three types of struggles: an internal struggle to maintain faith, the struggle to improve the Muslim society, or the struggle in a holy war. The prominent British orientalist Bernard Lewis argues that in the Qur'an and the ahadith jihad implies warfare in the large majority of cases. In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that "one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct".
In western societies the term jihad is often translated as "holy war". Scholars of Islamic studies often stress that these words are not synonymous Muslim authors, in particular, tend to reject such an approach, stressing non-militant connotations of the word. There is another word in Arabic that means struggle and is never used when referring to war. Jihad, has by association been used in times of war more often.
Terrorism refers to terrorism by Muslim or individuals and motivated by either politics, religion or both. Terrorist acts have included airline hijacking, kidnapping, assassination, suicide bombing, and mass murder. As an ideology in the 20th century, only Communism, with its murder and mass killings, are responsible for more deaths and violence than is Islam. In terms of Islamic violence, both ancient and modern history are replete with Islamic intolerance and ensuing violence against every other ideology, such as modern violence against Western institutions, as well as historical violence against Hindus, and perpetual violence against Christians.
These conflicts are among the most difficult to resolve, particularly where both sides believe that God is on their side and has endorsed the moral righteousness of their claims. One of the most infamous quotes associated with religious fanaticism was made in 1209 during the siege of Béziers, a Crusader asked the Papal Legate Arnaud Amalric how to tell Catholics from Cathars when the city was taken, to which Amalric replied: "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens," or "Kill them all; God will recognize his."
(source adapted: Wikipedia, Religious Violence)