The Barbarian Bible

by Ianto Watt

  Protestantism in its distilled form can best be known as ‘radical individualism’, while Orthodoxy is ‘radical collectivism’. They appear to be opposite in form, yet both lead directly to the denial of ‘the Family’ which is the core building block of Holy Roman Christianity. Now ask yourself, ‘if I want to destroy Christianity, what is the best means of attack?’ Well, anything that tends to destroy the core unit of construction results in this desired destruction. But you can’t fight something with nothing, and thus we have these two radical efforts to re-define Christianity by changing the mode of its construction.

  In Protestantism, the core beliefs are ‘Sola Fidei’ (Faith Alone) and ‘Sola Scriptura’ (Scripture Alone). Notice how the word ‘alone’ is in both? It’s not a coincidence. Because, in the Protestant world, you are alone. It’s just you and your good buddy Jesus, and that’s all that matters. Everything (and everyone) else is irrelevant. You don’t need the Pope, you don’t need the priest, and in fact, you don’t need your wife (or kids) either. Don’t believe me? Just ask Luther and Henry VIII, both of whom denied that marriage was a sacrament. It was just a contract and as we all know, when a contract no longer fulfills the needs of both parties, it can be nullified by one party (or both). Vows? What vows? What are you talking about, dear? By the way, I won’t be home for dinner. Ever.

  So, grandson, let’s ask the ugly question. Is this what these two men had in mind when they broke from Holy Rome? Well, look at the name if you want to know the meaning of what happened. ‘Roman Catholic’ is another way of saying ‘universal universalism’, which sounds redundant, right? But because Rome has been known from its ancient pagan beginnings even till today as ‘the Eternal City’, it makes sense to see the name of Rome as a synonym for ‘universal’. And we’ve seen that the etymological roots of ‘catholic’ are that it’s Greek for ‘universal’. So why be redundant? Well, if you happen to think that the all-seeing Creator of the Big Casino just might have foreseen what would happen in history, then it makes all the sense in the world. Why? Because these two western groups who initially broke off from ‘the universal universal’ church just happened to re-constitute themselves as the ‘Anglish Catholic Church’ and the ‘German Catholic Church’. Which is to say, ‘The Anglish Universal Church’, or ‘The German Universal Church’. Pretty ridiculous, right? It gets better, just watch.

  OK, was the whole world ever Anglish (Anglican) in belief? Was it ever all German (Lutheran)? If it was either one, the other couldn’t be true. So mathematically, at least one of them is bogus. Yet they had the same theological base, which is ‘autonomy’, or loosely speaking, the right to self-determination. There’s that word, ‘self ’. Another way of saying ‘lone’, as in ‘alone’. As in being purely ‘individual’, with no one having any claim upon you. Not Pope, not priest, not wife, not child. Because those people are their own individual selves, and they can figure things out for themselves, right? (But please do note that each of these variants of the Holy Roman Operating System has a hidden element that links them to Orthodoxy, and that is their nationalistic nature, which we will cover more in depth as we go along.)

  Now Protestants say (by their actions and beliefs) that there is no need for meta-physical continuity in man’s life, as in having an obligation to keep the belief system of your parents. Forget ‘Honor thy father and mother’. Well then, logically speaking, there’s no need for physical continuity either, as in keeping your wife and children. Forget ‘till death do us part’ (and that other pesky saying about not coveting thy neighbor’s wife).

  And if you don’t want the beliefs of your parents, why would you desire to pass on your own new beliefs to your wife and children? Shouldn’t they get their own new beliefs, just like you did? In fact, why would you want to keep the same spouse and children you find yourself with when you ‘discover’ your ‘true’ religion? Now we all know that the most effective way of teaching is by example, and so the best way to teach your children your religion is for you to live it out in front of them, right? And if you believe divorce is OK, then the best way to teach this belief to your wife and kids is to leave them behind, right? And then they learn it’s OK for them to do the same in their own lives. Which is what we have today, all of it courtesy of Henry and Martin. Way to go, guys. Idiots.

  These two men both de-sacramentalized marriage and the result can be seen today with a divorce (and re-marriage) rate that rivals the number of the once-married. And no one needs reminding that this destruction of family integrity is one of the basic causes of societal degeneration. And to the extent that Holy Rome has embraced ‘ecumenical dialogue’ with these other Protestant groups (implicitly saying they are at least part-christian), these same societal problems have afflicted the Holy Roman population as well.

  So now we have the phenomena of fractional sub-sets of the original group all claiming to be truly ‘catholic’ (universal) in spite of their relatively puny size and nationalistic origins. And then comes the natural result of their actions, with subsequent groups splitting off from each of them, and each of these claiming to be just as ‘universal’ (if not more so) than their parent group. Anglicans beget Methodists who beget Congregationalists who beget Separatists who beget Baptists etc. etc. etc. On the German side, Lutherans beget Calvinists who beget Presbyterians who beget Unitarians who beget etc. Maybe not each of them directly, in a linear progression, but hey, when did stained glass ever break in a straight line? And once you set the example, why wouldn’t others follow it? They all read Henry and Luther’s meaning (‘I’m my own man!”) and they thought it looked good, at least from a material perspective. They each got what they wanted, right? Here and now, such a deal!

  So why is it so hard for mainline Protestant leaders to understand that what they have done institutionally wouldn’t also look just as appealing to all of their (former) members? Why is divorce from the Pope any different from divorce from your wife? Why is abandonment of allegiance to Holy Rome not the same as abandoning your parents or children? And why, as time progresses, wouldn’t the subjects of these same rulers rebel in turn against their princes and kings? Wasn’t that the lesson they were taught? Why are Protestants so surprised when their current group splits apart? Isn’t that exactly what their spiritual DNA leads them to do?

  Here’s an example of this kind of logic. Baptists say that child- baptism is wrong (and therefore Holy Rome is wrong). Why? Because each man must make the choice for himself, as an adult. Sounds reasonable, right? But what happens to the child who dies before reaching the age of reason? Keep in mind that Holy Rome had kept the essence of Jewish belief in the need for a parent to see that the child would go to heaven if something should befall the child before they reach the point where they can make their own choices.

  This duty was accomplished by Jewish parents when they obeyed the OT scriptural command to protect the child by means of an outward sign (circumcision) that placed the child within the fold of the believing community. This act of faith, by the parents, bought their God’s protection for their child until such time as the child could make this same choice for himself, upon reaching the age where he knew right from wrong. Thus, all Christian parents had the obligation to see that their child was baptized as soon as possible, to guard against this danger of death (before adulthood), because the parent was responsible for the soul of the child until the child reached the age of reason. After that, the adult child was responsible for his own behaviour. All of this rested on the Jewish (and Catholic) concept of Fallen Man, who carried the mark of Original Sin. But the Baptists reject this thinking, and turn a blind eye towards the reality that a lot of children die before reaching the ‘age of reason’. In effect, they have abandoned that child, theologically speaking.

  So, if you can abandon your child to the physical dangers of the world, why can’t you do the same thing from a spiritual and economic perspective? After all, if the kid is costing you an arm and a leg (braces, toys, school, new clothes, etc.), why not wal
k away? He’ll get over it, right? And if he does the same thing to his kids, more power to him, right? Actually, the child probably won’t even get married, he’ll just live with some gal he bamboozles, so the kids he begets won’t even legally be his. Logically speaking, is it any wonder that the ‘choice’ involved in the decision to have an abortion is legally invested in the mother alone? And why wouldn’t she make this decision, if she follows her mates’ theology (or lack of it)? Being a Barbarian, though, I’ll never understand that logic. Barbarians never abandon their own. But the lesson is clear, at least to those of us who do value our word, our life and our wife.

  So let’s summarize this thing, grandson. In the Protestant world, you exist all alone, because you are the sole (there’s that word again) judge of what the scripture means, and the sole judge of what faith means. Everyone is their own pope. Just look at the Protestant churches. There’s not a single one that has a hierarchical structure that gives the top man the authority and power to condemn and punish any action or any member. There’s no such thing as excommunication in the Protestant world, because there’s no such thing as communication (of a set of unchanging beliefs) from generation to generation. Every man is free (and even obliged) to interpret things as he will.

  And every Protestant church has morphed from its first form of beliefs (which more or less mimicked Holy Rome in some fashion) into an amorphous blob of people who congregate on Sundays. If they feel like it. There’s no pain of sin for anything short of a social faux pas. For that, you can be excommunicated from the country club. Now there’s a real punishment for a Protestant! And there’s no forgiveness for that. Try out ‘once saved, always saved’ on the social committee and see how far you get with that. Hahahahah! Idiots.

  So bottom line, the Protestant world is one in which everyone is left on their own to make some kind of personal connection with the Christian God of Jesus, whom they all say is their friend. ‘What a friend I have in Jesus’, they sing in Bible School. By the way, I always thought that was such a crime, to make kids go to Vacation Bible School during the summer vacation from school. Those poor kids had to trade one kind of torture (public school) for another (church school). They never got a break. But never mind that, let’s look at the logic expressed in Norman Greenbaum’s 1970’s hit ‘Spirit in the Sky’, where he sings ‘I got a friend in Jesus’. And never mind the fact that Greenbaum was a practicing Jew.

  Anyway, to test my theory out, ask any mainline Protestant if they believe in The Apostles Creed. They’ll say ‘of course’. Then ask them about the phrase ‘He (Jesus) rose from the dead, ascended into heaven where he is seated at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.’ Now tell me again, is he your judge, or your friend? The judge can’t simply bend the law to help his friends, right? After all, there’s the little matter of God’s Justice, right? And Jesus told us he didn’t come to abolish the Law (as in, wink at your ‘friends’ crimes) but rather to fulfill it. After all, I think Jesus might actually be better friends with his Father than you and me! And it’s his Dad’s Law that he came to uphold, right?

  Still don’t see it, grandson? OK, let’s look at the whole scene. You’re in court, and you’re the defendant. You’ve been nabbed (because you died, sucker), and now you’ve got to face the music. There’s the Judge, and it’s that Jesus fellow. It’s not Judge Judy. And the prosecuting attorney, Lucifer, he’s hot on your case. He knows all the dirt. Now who’s the witness? In the Holy Roman Operating System, that would be the Holy Ghost, who sees all, remember? And who’s the plaintiff? God the Father, whose laws you’ve broken. And now you’ve got to face the music. So, who’s your defense attorney? Jesus? Sorry, he’s the Judge. Dude, you need a plea bargain! But who can approach the judge? Who’s your character witness? Who have you got who’ll testify that you’re mentally incompetent (and therefore ‘not guilty’) when you’ve lived your whole Protestant life claiming you’re your own man? That you didn’t need anyone else? Who can you get that the judge will listen to? Good luck with that plea. Idiots.

  Holy Romans have an answer for that quandary, but we’ll get to that later. And for now, just think of purgatory as a Diversion Agreement with the court. Don’t know what a diversion agreement is? Maybe you’ve never needed a defense attorney? You’re obviously not a Barbarian. Maybe you’re a Pharisee who thinks he’s never sinned. Or maybe you think you have sinned, but that Jesus is your alibi and one little ‘sorry’ will cover everything, past and future. Once saved, always saved, right? Good luck. Purgatory ought to be looking better all the time. At least to me, because I’m not dumb enough to claim I never sinned. Or that I was ever perfectly sorry. I wish I was, but hey, I hate liars, so I can’t go there.

  Anyway, so much for the Protestant version of Christianity-Lite. Now let’s look at the real world of Bizarro Christianity, Orthodoxy, where things first went wrong. Huh? What about all those heresies in the early days of Christianity? The Arians, the Nestorians, the Monophysites, the Monothelites, the Pelagians, and all the rest, right? Well, that’s a whole other book, so let’s leave it at this; all these heresies began in the eastern part of the Empire. Where the Emperor was, coincidentally.

  Anyway, all these heresies grew into a huge food fight that has left smaller sects within Christianity that are, dogmatically speaking, heretical. The Copts of Egypt (monophysite), the Nestorian churches of Persia, etc. But this isn’t where the real action is, because, the real fight is within the Church, and these guys are outside. The schismatics, on the other hand, are at least partially within the church, and that’s where the real fighting goes on. And the Protestants, like I said earlier, are latecomers to this fight. The real and original schismatics were the Orthodox. The Protestant world was born from the Orthodox schism.

  So now let’s get back to my contention that ‘Orthodoxy’ represents the original face of Bizarro Christianity. Yes, they are the original Protestants. They predate Henry and Luther and Huss and Wycliffe and the Albigensians and all the rest by more than 500 years. It happened in the year 1054 AD to be exact, although that’s just the date of the formal break with Holy Rome. But it goes even farther back than that. It goes back to a fellow named Photius, the bogus Patriarch of Constantinople (the Second Rome, as they called it).

  Now this next part on ‘Orthodoxy’ is extremely important, so pay close attention, grandson. Much of the rest of the book is going to turn on this matter, OK? I’m just warning you, because there will be a test later. But here’s the heart of the matter: if it ain’t organized, it ain’t an ‘organization’. And the mark of an organization, any organization, is an overall leader. If there’s no overall leader, it’s not an organization, it’s a collection. A collection of whatever each independent component is comprised of. In this case, it will devolve into a collection of mini-popes and their nationalistic followers. The Orthodox can say whatever they want about how the Holy Spirit keeps the Church together, but history shows that either the Holy Spirit wanted lots of wars between these 4 Eastern patriarchal groups, or that he was away on vacation. For a long time.

  In any event, here’s how a Barbarian sees things, organizationally: No leader equals no army. No army equals no war. No war equals no victory. And that’s exactly the history of the East under the tutelage of the Orthodox, as they have had to make their truce with the Mohammedans (under ugly terms). By contrast, in the West, the Holy Roman Church absorbed and converted the vast majority of the Barbarians that came through on their shoplifting holidays. You can argue all you want about the reasons for the breakup (and we will look at those arguments soon) but I only look at the results to determine which side made the right move. And in this case, the result of ‘Orthodoxy’ was a fragmented Church that was nationalistic in nature, and each part fell under the sway of the Emperor.

  Once you remove the Empire, what do you have left? A bunch of unrelated parts that easily fell to the Mohammedans. Then it became (and still is today in t
he East) a bunch of isolated, squabbling, dwindling parts that have to lick the boots of their Mohammedan or Communist or Hindu conquerors. The Orthodox Church gets to do what their conquerors let them do. Which isn’t much. Look at Turkey today. Not a single church left. That’s what you get when each part claims to be the ‘rightful’ head, or at least, the ‘autocepha-lous’ (self-thinking or self-headed) head of its own region. And truth be told, Orthodoxy today is only found, in any real size, in regions outside these 4 cities that each claimed to be ‘the Second Rome’ (Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch & Alexandra). And where is the Holy Roman Church found? Everywhere else. Meanwhile ‘Orthodoxy’ has had to take refuge in its largest remnant, the Russian Orthodox Church. And Moscow claims to be the Third Rome. The importance of this move and this claim will become more evident as we proceed to the second half of this book. But for now, suffice it to say that Orthodoxy is nothing but a schismatic quarrel designed to preserve the local power of the local hierarchy, in the service of the local political power, to the detriment of overall Christian unity.

  And so, if there is to be no overall head of the Church (including all 5 of the important centers of Orthodoxy known as the Pentarchy), there is no real unified Church. Instead, there’s 5 separate Churches, and we know where that goes, after looking at Western Protestantism. Next thing you know, there’s 55 Churches. Then 555. Then 5,555. Then….well, you get the picture. Everybody’s their own pope. Either there’s one leader, or everyone’s a leader, with no Indians following them. At least, not for long.

  Want some good examples? Look at the Crusades. They had the manpower, the arms, the zeal, they had it all. Except a unified leadership under an absolute military leader. Yet they lost. Why? Because of the claims of too many contenders for the title of ‘chief ’. Here’s another: the American Civil War, on the Union side. Until Gen. U.S. Grant was chosen as the leader, there were no real victories. Another? The re-conquest of Spain by the Christians. Because of the fractured leadership, it took 770 years to drive the Moors out. More? Ask the American Indians. They can tell you about ‘too many chiefs’.