by Bill Etem
time, he would abuse them verbally, he would abuse them physically. One guy tried to escape, but, with his limited mental capacity, he ended up freezing to death in the arctic-like Iowa winter. Like one of those peasants in a Breughel winter scene, they found his frozen body in a ditch months after he first went missing. So you get the picture. Atallisa is something out of the Middle Ages, only it happened in the heartland just a few years ago. Etem sees in the tale of Atalissa a parable of sorts: he insists that because the cults under the sign of the cross lead souls to perdition: the people who live under the sign of the cross live enchained lives, so to speak and more or less, we live as if we’re effing retards! - big-ass huge effing tards! Etem claims he doesn’t use that sort of language, but, you know, if you read between the lines a little, he’s basically sayin’ we’re f#&king retards because we can’t see that these respectable sects under the sign of the cross are actually satanic cults which lead souls to perdition, the reasoning being a worthless church which leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition is a malevolent cult, and a malevolent cult is more or less the same thing as a satanic cult. In this Symposium, we will explore the rationality, or lack thereof in Etem’s contention that every church under the sign of the cross leads people away from heaven and straight to perdition? And perdition embraces everything from annihilation of the soul, to mildly unpleasant conditions for the soul, to extremely unpleasant conditions, e.g., the most nauseating squalor. Are we right to love the cross? Will those of us who love the cross go to heaven?’
Me - ‘No.’
Old Protestant Lady - ‘Shut up you f$#king assh&le.’
Moderator - ‘Old Protestant Lady calls them as she sees them. You can’t bitch at her for giving it to you straight….OK then, straight talk, with no sugar-coating of the Truth, is what we’re all about at this Symposium…Thanks to everyone for coming. And a special thanks to our out-of-town guests. Welcome to the Quad Cities!’
The panel of ‘experts’ at: The Rock Island Symposium consists of a Moderator, Catholic Man, Maurice, Jew Girl, Old Protestant Lady, Protestant Fundamentalist Mom, English Atheist Guy and myself. I was going to insist that there be no flaming by the panel of experts at the symposium - flaming is when you say stuff like: ‘you’re a f#&king retard if you think such and such’ - but the people who promote these shows on cable TV tell me you have to allow flaming, you have to let people express themselves sincerely, even if they are sincerely obnoxious, or else you’ll never get decent ratings on cable TV. That’s what the experts say. Let’s listen in some more on what’s being discussed at the symposium.
Protestant Fundamentalist Mom - ‘Try one more time to explain to me, Bill Etem, but in a coherent way, not in your usual rambling incoherent way, why it is I will be damned if I don’t renounce the sign of the cross.’
Me – Try to remember that you people are Christians. Try to remember what the concluding words in the Christian Bible say, assuming you ever read those words. They mention curses on those who add or detract from the book of Revelation. Try to remember various key scriptures such as John 14. 23-26 – those who love Christ keep His words – Galatians 1. 8-12 – even an angel from heaven is accursed if he corrupts the doctrines taught by St. Paul, doctrines which he received directly from Christ. It’s true I’m pushing the idea that the cross of Christ mentioned in Galatians 6. 14 and Philippians 3. 18 is something which is both sacred and spiritual. Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is sacred, but we have to determine if material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred. Material crosses and the sign of the cross either reflect no evil or else they reflect some evil. We have two cases here, you see, 1) no evil or 2) some evil. If a material cross reflects no evil, if material crosses and the sign of the cross are sacred to the Creator of the Universe, then it is a sacrilege to say as I do that the cross reflects some evil, and sacrilege is a sin which leads offending souls straight to perdition. Now, if in fact the sign of the cross / the cross / material crosses are sacred to God, then it is perfectly natural for Christians, for people who respect the Book of Revelation, to think that the cross might be this seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, this seal of God which protects one from the torments described in Revelation 9. We’re not being dogmatic here, we’re not adding anything to the Book of Revelation, being mindful of that Book’s concluding words, but we are allowed to speculate on the meaning of the Book of Revelation. So, if the cross is sacred to God then perhaps the cross is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9. So, to review, the cross either reflects no evil or else it reflects some evil. If the cross, the sign of the cross and material crosses, reflects some evil, then it is a sacrilege to say that it is sacred – if God says the sign of the cross reflects some evil, then it is a sacrilege to say it is sacred, and again sacrilege is a sin which leads offending souls straight to perdition; if God says the sign of the cross reflects some evil, then it is natural to wonder if the sign of the cross is the evil mark of the beast mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14. Recall Revelation 14. 11 - ‘and the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.’
So, if the True God, if the Creator of the Universe, loves the cross / sign of the cross / material crosses, then, of course, it is a monstrous lie, a monstrous evil satanic lie to say or imply that people will burn in hell forever and ever if they put the mark of a cross on their foreheads. But, on the other hand, if the cross / sign of the cross / material crosses reflects some evil, if the True God says the evils perpetrated by people under the sign of the cross for century after century are reflected in the sign of the cross, then it is an evil lie to say the True God says the sign of the cross is sacred. If in fact the cross is the mark of the beast, if in fact one will burn in hell forever if one puts the mark of a cross on one’s forehead, then it is a monstrous, vile, evil satanic lie to insist that the sign of the cross is sacred to God, or to say it is the seal of God mentioned in Revelation 9, the seal which protects one from torments when it is on one’s forehead. But then, on the other hand, if the sign of the cross is the seal of God, then it is an evil, monstrous, vile, satanic lie to say that one will burn in hell forever if one puts the mark of a cross on ones forehead…So, to review: monstrous vile evil satanic lie to say the sign of the cross protects one from torments if in fact it buys one eternity in hellfire forever if one….
You can understand that the Nazis perpetrated evil for a few years and we say the Nazis swastika reflects the evil that the Nazis perpetrated, right? The people under the sign of the cross perpetrated evil for century after century…So, this evil is either irrelevant when we judge the sign of the cross, because God says it is irrelevant, because God says the sign of the cross / material crosses are sacred, or else God says the evils perpetrated by the people under the sign of the cross over the centuries are relevant in judging the sign of the cross, because God says they are relevant when judging the sign of the cross / material crosses. We know the New Testament says the cross of Christ is sacred. Christ’s sacrifice on a cross is sacred, of course. But to then insist that every material cross is sacred, to then insist that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob says that every material cross, every representation of this pagan instrument of torture, which is what a cross is, is sacred, seems rather far-fetched…Let’s review the evidence which says the Roman Catholic crucifix and the Eastern Orthodox crucifix and the Anglican crucifix are evil symbols, and are therefore prime suspects for this ‘image of the beast’ mentioned in Revelation 13 and 14. The arguments for and against the Roman Catholic crucifix, and by analogy, all crucifixes, runs as follows: Suppose the True God / True Jesus is a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. Suppose the True God / True Jesus says Rome has not fallen away from the True Faith and is none other than the True Church, the Church which Christ founded on a rock. In this scenario, let’s call it Case 1, there is nothing wrong with the Roman Catholic Crucifix:
indeed it is a sacred image of the True God / True Jesus. If Rome leads people to heaven then you have to conclude that Rome is right when Rome says the Roman Catholic crucifix is a sacred symbol. Suppose the True God / True Jesus is not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church. Suppose the True God / True Jesus says the Roman Catholic Church leads people to perdition, because Rome has fallen away from the True Faith. Suppose the True God / True Jesus says Rome is not the True Church, not the Church which Christ founded on a rock, to recall Matthew 16. 13-19. Yes, suppose the True God / True Jesus say the Church of Rome leads people away from heaven and drags them down to perdition. In this scenario, call it Case 2, the Roman Catholic crucifix is an image of a false god, because, it is an image of a Pro-Roman Catholic god, it is an image of a version of Jesus who says Rome leads people to heaven, but this is a false god, a false version of Jesus, because we are now dealing with Case 2, and in Case 2 the True God / True Jesus says the