The Mark of the Beast

[OneTrueCathApos]

**We all wonder if there were many more Jews in Europe than six million. We all also know that the Church could have done a lot more than what it did, considering that Hitler was a born Catholic.

I have met a few Jews who have converted as a result of the Holocaust. That’s History repeating itself. In ancient wars the conquered had to adopt the gods of the conqueror.**

We can say we also wonder if there were less…I feel as if you are never satisfied, with what one does for you. The pope didn’t have to do anything since it was a government issue, but he stuck his own neck out to save some 800,000 Jews. Even going so far as telling the bishops to forge the names and information on their birth certificates. He did what he could. Did any other “religion” do anything? Are there any heads of other religions who did anything? I don’t think so.

 

[Lapell]

Maybe YOU are trying to rewrite how to understand the Gospels. Who is a moron? I am not looking for morons. But when there are things said that seem so superficial and said in a supercillious way, you can’t help wonder and, if you feel it necessary, ask questions and speak your mind.

Ben, in this sentence I was using “you” in the sense of the indefinite pronoun “one”, I was not refering to “you” as you, Ben Masada.

 

[Lapell]

**You have told me more than several times to ask questions and speak my mind. Listen Lapell, you don’t have the answers to my questions. That’s why I limit myself to commenting.

Just to prove what I am saying that you don’t have the answers, I am going to ask you a question, so that at least you will stop asking me to ask questions. Read Luke 2:39. Jesus was only 40 days old when Luke sent him back to Nazareth where Joseph and Mary used to live before they came to Bethlehem. In the meantime, the Jesus of Matthew was stuck in Egypt waiting for Herod to die. When this finally happened, Joseph and Mary
decided to return to Judea, where they used to live. But, as they found out that Herod’s son Archelaus had succeeded Herod in Judea, they were afraid to go back home, and went to Galilee. My question is: Were there two Jesuses, one in Nazareth and the other in Egypt or there were to Solomons trying to split one Jesus in two? Now, go ahead and try to answer this question of mine. If you can’t, stop asking me to ask questions that you cannot answer. **

I believe there are two schools of thought about this: one who says the two stories can be joined together. For does the Luke version of Jesus’ chidhood story say WHEN Joseph went back to Nazareth with Mary and the little Jesus? And another school of thought holds it that the two stories can’t be joined together, for they clash, say those of that school. Maybe you expected something else, but here is!

 

[Lapell]

Isn’t there a school of thought among the Jews who maintains that the whole of the Bible AND all of its details are perfectly coherent, no clashing? For instance, the two stories of the Creation really can’t be two stories, but one continuous story, according to these people…

 

[Lapell]

Sorry I sent these posts late, but I HAD NO ACCESS TO MY ELECTRONIC ADDRESS YESTERDAY AND TODAY. I am writing this in the City Library instead of from my workplace.

 

[look3467]

Sorry but this post of yours has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

What was I thinking?

Of course you can not see how it ties in, to understand what I was talking about.

Blessing’s, AJ

 

[Ben_Masada]

From you POV Adam (Adamah) and Eve would have died anyway as a result of being alive. So the fact that they were promised death means only that they had a dead conscience. or dead innocense? Living 920 years what was that about? Also it doesn’t make sence. Looking at the physics of the universe nothing ever goes out of existance. it just changes form. Matter degrades into energy. Engery (if you have enough of it) can turn back into matter. It seems to me the same principle applies to all things. If God who is eternally living decides to start something why would he design it to fall apart and end in nothing? See it has to be in the design. Since Matter and Energy are always existant and we are made of that “stuff” then we take on its characteristics. Yet we, according to you, end in nothing. But this goes against the inherent characteristic of the universe. And since this is so it must be in our design. Ie planned obsolesence. There is nothing wrong with me or mine. If you are correct and I am incorrect I would lay down in peace having done no ill against man or God. I would have the satisfaction of a full life and having genetically passed on my DNA which in your sence is the only thing that is long lasting. I’ve enjoyed this creation. No problem here. But I’m speaking to the Character of God, creation, and physics. This death doesn’t seem to fall into the catagory as a certain necessity. But rather an additive to creaton.

**Questioning God again Sambos? Why don’t you demand of God to change the time prior to your birth? You are not worried about the transformation of energy. You are upset because somehow you have contemplated the possibility that indeed this life is all that we have.

If you were concerned about our energy that is supposed to transform and not end with death, worry no more, the atoms of our body will go to enrich the atoms of the dust. Somehow they will be transforming into something else and not just ending into nothing.

But that’s not what is bothering you. You are okay with God about where you were or came from, but since He made the mistake to allow you to live, now you think He is under the obligation to, so to speak, pay you for this, by rewarding you after death for not having becoming a criminal.

Hey, you guys are good at faith. So, exercise it in terms of trusting that God will give you whatever there is no give after death. Just don’t demand that God must reward you with anything in the afterlife because you might lose the whole thing altogueter.**

 

[sambos671]

**Questioning God again Sambos? Why don’t you demand of God to change the time prior to your birth? You are not worried about the transformation of energy. You are upset because somehow you have contemplated the possibility that indeed this life is all that we have.

If you were concerned about our energy that is supposed to transform and not end with death, worry no more, the atoms of our body will go to enrich the atoms of the dust. Somehow they will be transforming into something else and not just ending into nothing.

But that’s not what is bothering you. You are okay with God about where you were or came from, but since He made the mistake to allow you to live, now you think He is under the obligation to, so to speak, pay you for this, by rewarding you after death for not having becoming a criminal.

Hey, you guys are good at faith. So, exercise it in terms of trusting that God will give you whatever there is no give after death. Just don’t demand that God must reward you with anything in the afterlife because you might lose the whole thing altogueter.**

You’re are a broken record it seems. I’ve already expressed to you I’m not angry or upset or disillusioned or anything that would fit in that definition. I am asking questions that are germane to your belief system. In fact, I go so far as to say that if you are correct I’m good to go. But that is not the issue. In looking a the Characteristics of God and his creation I do not see it coinciding with your belief. Maybe you’re a broken record because you don’t know how to answer or maybe you’re questioning yourself. Do you have a problem with Judgement? Are you scared that you’ve been wrong and missed out on the messiah? Oy Vey! I can play that game too.

BTW is God afraid of me questioning him?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Let’s take your BIG LIE

This simply states that Christians are of the line of Isaac. Which is clearly a no brainer. It says that we too are children of God’s covenant while the Ishmaelites are not.

If you say that this is some sort of “Replacement Theology” then you are a true bigot and need to be banned from these boards for your bigotry. Jesus came to fulfill the law, Jesus is the new Adam, the New Abraham, the New Moses. This is clear from scripture. Your twisted lies which come either from your mental instability or from Satan are pure garbage. The words we have from Christ, came from Christ. Not from Paul. People such as A. N. Wilson have tried to claim that Paul was the inventor of Christianity but this is not true. Read a scholarly work such as “What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity?” by N. T. Wright, and then get over this terrible prejudice you have against truth.

**Okay, let me give you here a class on exegesis. Afterwards, you can write to the Moderator to ban me, because I can’t compromise the truth if you can’t see beyond the length of your nose. I am at the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology, which is Galatians 4:21-31.

First of all, keep in mind that this is an allegory on freedom. Paul was addressing his speech to the converts of the Nazarenes that he had succeeded to turn into Christians. The Nazarenes back in the headquarters in Jerusalem had sent some Judaizers to try to recover their synagogue, and indeed a few of those converts were returning to the Nazarenes. Paul was so upset that he would wonder how so soon they would want to leave the “grace of Chirst” and return to the “other gospel.” That’s how he perjoratively would call the gospel of the Apostles. Then, he declared that even if an angel came down from Heaven with a different gospel from his, he would curse that angel. You can read about these in Galatians 1:6-9.

Now, let’s return to the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology in Galatians 4:21-31. Abraham had two sons: One from the bondmaid woman and the other from the freewoman.
The one of Hagar was born after the flesh and the one of Sarah was born of the promise.

Now, focus on verse 24. These are two covenants: One is the Sinaitic covenant which is Hagar or Jerusalem which is in bondage with her children. The Sinaitic covenant was made with the Jews whose children were in Jerusalem, which Paul compares with the Arabia woman Hagar. In verse 28 he says, “But we brethrens, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.” Here he has already replaced the Jews with Christians.

Now, read verse 30. “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall never be an heir with the son of the freewoman.” Then, he finishes his allegory by declaring that, “we Christians are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.”

Paul, not only inaugurated Replacement Theology but also set the first fire of contension between Christians and Jews by urging with Christians to cast out the slave woman with her son altogether. To cast out the Jewish Covenant made in Sinai with the people altogether. This is Antisemitism.

Now, go ahead and ask the Moderator to ban me. But don’t forget to tell him that you have been accusing me of a liar almost in every post you write. But deep down you know yourself I am not a liar. That’s psychological of anyone who finds himself empty of what to say in defense of his faith, to apply to abusive terms as you have been doing all along.**

 

[sambos671]

**Okay, let me give you here a class on exegesis. Afterwards, you can write to the Moderator to ban me, because I can’t compromise the truth if you can’t see beyond the length of your nose. I am at the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology, which is Galatians 4:21-31.

First of all, keep in mind that this is an allegory on freedom. Paul was addressing his speech to the converts of the Nazarenes that he had succeeded to turn into Christians. The Nazarenes back in the headquarters in Jerusalem had sent some Judaizers to try to recover their synagogue, and indeed a few of those converts were returning to the Nazarenes. Paul was so upset that he would wonder how so soon they would want to leave the “grace of Chirst” and return to the “other gospel.” That’s how he perjoratively would call the gospel of the Apostles. Then, he declared that even if an angel came down from Heaven with a different gospel from his, he would curse that angel. You can read about these in Galatians 1:6-9.

Now, let’s return to the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology in Galatians 4:21-31. Abraham had two sons: One from the bondmaid woman and the other from the freewoman.
The one of Hagar was born after the flesh and the one of Sarah was born of the promise.

Now, focus on verse 24. These are two covenants: One is the Sinaitic covenant which is Hagar or Jerusalem which is in bondage with her children. The Sinaitic covenant was made with the Jews whose children were in Jerusalem, which Paul compares with the Arabia woman Hagar. In verse 28 he says, “But we brethrens, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.” Here he has already replaced the Jews with Christians.

Now, read verse 30. “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall never be an heir with the son of the freewoman.” Then, he finishes his allegory by declaring that, “we Christians are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.”

Paul, not only inaugurated Replacement Theology but also set the first fire of contension between Christians and Jews by urging with Christians to cast out the slave woman with her son altogether. To cast out the Jewish Covenant made in Sinai with the people altogether. This is Antisemitism.

Now, go ahead and ask the Moderator to ban me. But don’t forget to tell him that you have been accusing me of a liar almost in every post you write. But deep down you know yourself I am not a liar. That’s psychological of anyone who finds himself empty of what to say in defense of his faith, to apply to abusive terms as you have been doing all along.**

How is replacing Jews with Christians antisemitism? The defnition of Semite is

A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.

To be antisemetic is to be against one or all of these people. However, thats not what we see. He’s questioning the operation of the covenant theology as understood by traditional Jews. Not the people but the faith. So its a theological application not a racist one. Keep your terms straight.

 

[Ben_Masada]

We can say we also wonder if there were less…I feel as if you are never satisfied, with what one does for you. The pope didn’t have to do anything since it was a government issue, but he stuck his own neck out to save some 800,000 Jews. Even going so far as telling the bishops to forge the names and information on their birth certificates. He did what he could. Did any other “religion” do anything? Are there any heads of other religions who did anything? I don’t think so.

Oh, my dear friend, I have been with many of them too. They claim to have been the same kind of benefactors of the Jews during the Holocaust. Many who even lost their lives by trying to hide Jews. I wish I could believe all of you on the one hand. But on the other hand, six million of my People had to go.

 

[cthulhubryan]

**Okay, let me give you here a class on exegesis. Afterwards, you can write to the Moderator to ban me, because I can’t compromise the truth if you can’t see beyond the length of your nose. I am at the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology, which is Galatians 4:21-31.

First of all, keep in mind that this is an allegory on freedom. Paul was addressing his speech to the converts of the Nazarenes that he had succeeded to turn into Christians. The Nazarenes back in the headquarters in Jerusalem had sent some Judaizers to try to recover their synagogue, and indeed a few of those converts were returning to the Nazarenes. Paul was so upset that he would wonder how so soon they would want to leave the “grace of Chirst” and return to the “other gospel.” That’s how he perjoratively would call the gospel of the Apostles. Then, he declared that even if an angel came down from Heaven with a different gospel from his, he would curse that angel. You can read about these in Galatians 1:6-9.

Now, let’s return to the Magna Carta of Replacement Theology in Galatians 4:21-31. Abraham had two sons: One from the bondmaid woman and the other from the freewoman.
The one of Hagar was born after the flesh and the one of Sarah was born of the promise.

Now, focus on verse 24. These are two covenants: One is the Sinaitic covenant which is Hagar or Jerusalem which is in bondage with her children. The Sinaitic covenant was made with the Jews whose children were in Jerusalem, which Paul compares with the Arabia woman Hagar. In verse 28 he says, “But we brethrens, as Isaac was, are the children of the promise.” Here he has already replaced the Jews with Christians.

Now, read verse 30. “Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall never be an heir with the son of the freewoman.” Then, he finishes his allegory by declaring that, “we Christians are not children of the bondwoman but of the free.”

Paul, not only inaugurated Replacement Theology but also set the first fire of contension between Christians and Jews by urging with Christians to cast out the slave woman with her son altogether. To cast out the Jewish Covenant made in Sinai with the people altogether. This is Antisemitism.

Now, go ahead and ask the Moderator to ban me. But don’t forget to tell him that you have been accusing me of a liar almost in every post you write. But deep down you know yourself I am not a liar. That’s psychological of anyone who finds himself empty of what to say in defense of his faith, to apply to abusive terms as you have been doing all along.**

Ben, I do pity you. You accuse me of not being able to see beyond my nose yet you are the one who is willingly blind.

#1. Paul was not talking to these “Nazarenes” but to the Christians of Galatia.
#2. Paul is not replacing Jews with Christians but showing how we too are children of Isaac.
#3. Neither Jews nor Christians are children of Hagar. Thus casting out the slave has nothing to do with the Jews.
#4. You are the one who fails in proper exegesis. You are the one coming to the New Testament with an agenda instead of with an earnest willingness to learn. There is no Replacement Theology.

 

[Ben_Masada]

How is replacing Jews with Christians antisemitism? The defnition of Semite is To be antisemetic is to be against one or all of these people. However, thats not what we see. He’s questioning the operation of the covenant theology as understood by traditional Jews. Not the people but the faith. So its a theological application not a racist one. Keep your terms straight.

**Okay, maybe the problem is with me, that I don’t know how to write correct expressions in English. Let me try again.

Paul compares the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar and the Jews to her son. Am I right so far? Then, he declares that Christians are from Isaac the son of the freewoman. Then, at the end he urges to get rid of both the bondwoman who is the Covenant made with the Jews, and to get rid of her son altogether, who are the Jews. Am I right or wrong?

The Replacement Theology is the comparison of the Jews with the descendants of Hagar, and I see the Antisemitism in the urging to cast out Hagar’s son also whom he compared with the Jews. If you insist that I am wrong, I promise not to pick up another post on this subject. It means I rest my case.**

 

[sambos671]

**Okay, maybe the problem is with me, that I don’t know how to write correct expressions in English. Let me try again.

Paul compares the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar and the Jews to her son. Am I right so far? Then, he declares that Christians are from Isaac the son of the freewoman. Then, at the end he urges to get rid of both the bondwoman who is the Covenant made with the Jews, and to get rid of her son altogether, who are the Jews. Am I right or wrong?

The Replacement Theology is the comparison of the Jews with the descendants of Hagar, and I see the Antisemitism in the urging to cast out Hagar’s son also whom he compared with the Jews. If you insist that I am wrong, I promise not to pick up another post on this subject. It means I rest my case.**

Maybe I don’t understand what you are saying with regards to Paul in this point of Galatians. Antisemitism for me has to do with a race or races of people. Not an aspect of belief. Now lets look specifically as your “magna carta of replacement theology”. Now I will expand it just a bit because I like context. I’ll start in Galatians 3:23

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

This discourse is on the operation of the Law and Faith.

So he’s making this point. 1) the law (of Moses) was given first to lead us to Christ 2) it is by nature temporary and binding. The law in nature is restrictive. So we are bound to follow it or else! But then the 3rd point is the Faith has come in fulfillment of the Law. So the law leads us to Christ and Faith is now how people are justified rather than by being a “slave” to the law.

Note the discourse here:

26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

He’s moving away from racial notions and puts everyone on the same page. Christians are the promise God gave to Abraham no matter what their race is. So from there we look at your verses

21Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise.
24These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27For it is written:
“Be glad, O barren woman,
who bears no children;
break forth and cry aloud,
you who have no labor pains;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”**

28Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29At that time the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30But what does the Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”[c] 31Therefore, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.** The discourse from the first is specifically about adherance to the Law and he makes a figurative comparison using the two women you mention. But not to put away the people of the Jews but to put away the necessisary adherance to the Law to be justified. Because the Law is just a first step. The real place God wants to get us to is faith which is represented by the second woman and Jerusalem. In otherwords you don’t need to celebrate passover or follow the Haggadah perfectly, or Purim, or make sacrifices at the designated times. You don’t need to pray in such a way etc. You don’t need to be Jewish in the religious sence. Put away the law and live by faith which is better is the context of the passage. Abraham was justified by his faith not the sacrifices he made. Like wise the christians, because of faith, are considered Abrahams real heirs. This is what Paul is saying not telling christians to go and be antisemetic which has to do with race rather than faith.

 

[Nino]

The mark of the beast is just an symbpl…a teaching…since Jesus said ‘this is not my kingdom’ He meant that anyone popular above reason is part of that beast…and so we have the bending of the knee to this M.Jackson…a man who had a strange desire of sleeping with little boys and for years got away with it…even after being sued he ‘won’ in court but had to pay some $20million to the parents for his peculiar habit!!! On all of the channels we see adulation of this character above and beyond his ‘talent’…its all in our faces…and so the mark of the beast is quite evident. It was the same Jesus you mock that warned viz: child abuse…that a millstone be tied around the neck of such beasts and they be tossed into the nearest stream…hardly a talk by a pacifist or ‘lib’.the sound of the cash register will chime also as sales of these evil creatures songs etc will double and that sound is also a sign of ‘the mark of the beast’ The teevee shows swim in filth and debauchery and are on prime time…enjoy!!!

 

[Lapell]

**Okay, maybe the problem is with me, that I don’t know how to write correct expressions in English. Let me try again.

Paul compares the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar and the Jews to her son. Am I right so far? Then, he declares that Christians are from Isaac the son of the freewoman. Then, at the end he urges to get rid of both the bondwoman who is the Covenant made with the Jews, and to get rid of her son altogether, who are the Jews. Am I right or wrong?

The Replacement Theology is the comparison of the Jews with the descendants of Hagar, and I see the Antisemitism in the urging to cast out Hagar’s son also whom he compared with the Jews. If you insist that I am wrong, I promise not to pick up another post on this subject. It means I rest my case.**

A few mistakes there, Ben.
!- Paul compares the LETTER of the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar. So he who follows the letter of the Law without really loving God in doing so is then a son of Hagar spiritually. He who loves the Sinaitic Covenant even more than he loves God who gave the Torah fits the symbolic description here.
2-Paul was talking to Jews who decided to become Christians. He was asking them to live according to the Spirit of God. Some Jews said the Gentile Christians should be circumcised too, hence Paul’s letter here. This is what it was about!

 

[Lapell]

A few mistakes there, Ben.
!- Paul compares the LETTER of the Sinaitic Covenant to Hagar. So he who follows the letter of the Law without really loving God in doing so is then a son of Hagar spiritually. He who loves the Sinaitic Covenant even more than he loves God who gave the Torah fits the symbolic description here.
2-Paul was talking to Jews who decided to become Christians. He was asking them to live according to the Spirit of God. Some Jews said the Gentile Christians should be circumcised too, hence Paul’s letter here. This is what it was about!

Thus I say that your interpretation of that passage certainly IS wrong, and I insist: it IS wrong!

 

[Nino]

Jesus was born a Jew but died a Christian…thats why His followers were not allowed to preach in the synagoges or temples…and thats why when the chief Rabbi of Rome.Israel Zolli converted to Christianity in 1945 because of the magnificent work done by Pius X11 in saving hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from the left wing nazis…Eugenio,his new name…was condemned by his former Jewish friends and parishoners and was treated as dead and as a traitor…gotta luv that tolerance!

 

[jpaul1953]

**Questioning God again Sambos? Why don’t you demand of God to change the time prior to your birth? You are not worried about the transformation of energy. You are upset because somehow you have contemplated the possibility that indeed this life is all that we have.

If you were concerned about our energy that is supposed to transform and not end with death, worry no more, the atoms of our body will go to enrich the atoms of the dust. Somehow they will be transforming into something else and not just ending into nothing.

But that’s not what is bothering you. You are okay with God about where you were or came from, but since He made the mistake to allow you to live, now you think He is under the obligation to, so to speak, pay you for this, by rewarding you after death for not having becoming a criminal.

Hey, you guys are good at faith. So, exercise it in terms of trusting that God will give you whatever there is no give after death. Just don’t demand that God must reward you with anything in the afterlife because you might lose the whole thing altogueter.**

Ben Masada,

You’re a pain in the neck. We believe in this Jewish man, Joshua (the more familiar name being Jesus). Jesus told us through the writings of the NT that there is a place called Heaven. None of us have the ability to make Heaven, except for God (aka Jesus and The Holy Spirit). We just believe in Him as you believe in your beliefs.

What happened to Elijah and Enoch. I believe your Torah says they just went up to the Heavens. The NT is a compliment to the Torah. The NT quotes from the Torah often with absolute belief in what the Torah says.

I have spoken to many Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn, NY. They state that their Messiah recently died. They believe in reincarnation and that eventually through major growth they will die once and stay with God. Not all Jews believe the way you believe.

Instead of you just believing, I ask you to ask God for guidance. Maybe ask God without all of your predisposed beliefs, since all Jews don’t see it the same as you. Maybe allow God time to give you the truth. Maybe you can experience the love of God without reference to your 618 commandments.

May God guide you. Please open your heart.

jpaul1953

 

[Nino]

Ben is just an anti-catholic bigot with his comments but since we are the only true church its always open season on us! Lets see the ruling class and Bens friends as they glorify this pervert M.Jackson…he had only one dance number…he bleached his skin too much and caused a cancer the moron,he also liked to go to bed with little boys at his fantasy camp…that is ok by aclu standards…then he was ordered to take this that and the other pills ,like Elvis and lo and behold…the jerk ruined his heart and he died at age 50!!! Combat vets who gave their all for this nation are not remembered like this degenerate is. …and so ,like Bens little note,its all in our faces!..all of the networks under control by the powers that be have story after story on this po little boy who earned a moment of silence in congress,no surprise there…Obama sends a note ,no surprise there…maybe a national holiday or at least on a stamp…perverts unite…notice not one story on the many boys he molested or the boys family he sent some 22 million $ to keep silent…hollyweird is the mark of the beast…they glorify their own…located just below satans tail…quick now Ben and your followers ,run out and buy some of MJacksons moosic…its only fair…