The changing of scriptures has a pattern, a motive: to sanction brutal and oppressive acts that are profitable, and that satisfy addictions.  For those who profit from exploiting the environment of earth and oppressing and killing its creatures, the scriptures become a justification for such demonic behavior. We shall see that there are scriptures such as the Book of Enoch which condemn such exploitation and oppression.  It is acknowledged by numerous scholars that the teachings of Enoch were once a part of the Jewish scriptures but were declared apocryphal by the lineage of those profitting from the very acts that were condemned in the original scriptures of Judaism.
 

   We know from internal evidence, from the Jewish scriptures themselves, that the original Jews were vegetarian.  The rabbinical orthodoxy of Judaism admits this. It is hard not to. The vegetarian covenant with humans and all other creatures stares us in the face in the first book of Jewish scripture, Gen. 1: 29-30.  But then, one of the greatest absurdities ever claimed in history is asserted: an all-perfect Deity changed its all perfect mind in the 9th chapter of "Genesis" stating that now it is permissible to hunt and kill other creatures for food, and that other creatures shall now feel fear and dread of humans.  To those who understand the Enochian tradition that orthodox Judaism declared non-canonical, such notions by Jews were once regarded as demonic, not divine, for Enoch condemned all killing, whether of other creatures or of humans.

    All the arguments defending the exploitation and killing of other creatures are obvious rationalizations. The primary rationalization states that God changed His unalterable and perfect mind because humans were either too weak to be vegetarians, or that they had hardened their hearts so much that it was impossible for them to live as vegetarians.  Either excuse is unacceptable. The fact is that one of the very few commands in the first chapter of Genesis is for all creatures to be vegetarians; in other words, they were not to kill and eat other creatures.  And the fact is that according to the teachings of Enoch, it was precisely because humans and other creatures chose to do otherwise that the deluge came as retribution. This is one of the main reasons why the teachings of Enoch which pervade the Old Testament were suppressed as apocryphal.  One of the great ironies of the 9th chapter of Genesis is that the revisers of scripture use the Deluge, brought on precisely because people and other creatures resorted to violence towards other creatures, to present the image of a God who now justifies the very violence and corruption that the Deluge came to punish.
The ninth chapter of Genesis is evil genius to the max, a genius, or spirit who presents the Devil as God, and evil as good.
 

    If it can be made to appear that scriptures claim that the Creator said that to subdue earth's creatures and to have dominion over them was justified, as is stated in Genesis 1: 26-28, then an ideological battle is won for people who profit from exploiting animals through industries that excavate the earth and cut down forests, both of which are home to numerous creatures.  And if scriptures say that the unalterable perfect Creator had a change of its all-perfect will and mind, then you have a scriptural justification for the brutal acts of oppression, slavery and slaughter that are the basis of the meat industry, which is today, as it was in the past, one of the most profitable industries of the earth, as well as one of the very centers of demonic brutality and bloodshed on earth.  The teachings of Enoch condemned brutality and bloodshed in no uncertain terms and the Deity of Enoch metes out serious punishment to those fallen angels who taught humans to shed blood, as well as to the humans who accepted evil teachings sanctioning killing.
 

     Our concepts of which scriptures are valid, and which are not, come from those who exert power.  It wasn't until 90 A.D. that the Hebrew Canon was made official.  And though it may be impossible to know exactly when the Hebrew scriptures underwent their greatest revision, it was probably during or after the Babylonian captivity of the Jews, when the Persians conquered Babylonia.  The Persians worshiped Gath or God as a deity of fortune.  So it is logical to assume that it was under Persian influence that the ancient Hebrew names of Deikty, such as El, El Shaddai, El Kannon, Jah, Yahweh and Jehovah, were replaced by what has now become (for many of us in the world) the generic name of Deity, God.

   And it was not until 325 c.e. that the initial version of the New Testament was created, overseen by the Nicaean Council, a group of bishops who were sanctioned by Constantine.  The problem was that at that time there was already a split in the tradition that called itself Christian. The original followers of Jesus were egalitarian and vegetarian, comprised of those who are called Jewish Christians, Ebionites, Nazarenes, and Essenes.  The other group were comprised of those who believed Paul was a true disciple. Paul through his letters, i.e. epistles, deviated from the teachings of Jesus and his hand-picked disciples. For example, he claimed that the true follower of Jesus was loyal to the emperor and the Roman empire, which were the very center of trade and industry, Mammon, wealth, in the world, and Jesus had in no uncertain terms affirmed "you cannot serve both God and Mammon." Paul therefore was an elitist rather than an egalitarian not only in social terms, but also regarding diet.  Though he is an example par exellence of the fence straddler regarding the eating of flesh, his final message seems to be that we should eat whatever is in the marketplace.  The militant vegetarianism of Jesus, seen in his cleansing the temple of animals who were to be sacrificed and eaten, is simply ignored or marginalized by Paul and Pauline disciples.

     It is not difficult to understand that Constantine was repulsed by the vegetarianism and egalitarianism of the original followers of Jesus, for neither of these practices would be profitable to the Roman empire.  To the contrary the earliest followers of Jesus were not only vegetarian, but some of them militantly so, as Roman documents indicate. Moreover, because many Christians tried to implement the egalitarian teachings of Jesus within the boundaries of Rome, Christians became known as enemies of the state.  Like the zealots who actively fought against the hierarchy of Judaism and the Roman empire, the earliest followers of Jesus, unlike the followers of Paul, were enemies of Rome, not obedient citizens.

   For Constantine was Emperor of the Roman Empire that literally thrived on the institution of slavery.  The entire Roman empire was one in which the slaughter of cattle and the selling of their meat was a prime source of tax income for the treasury of Rome.  That vegetarianism was an economic threat to the Roman empire is bluntly demonstrated in Pliny the Younger's letter to Trajan the emperor in 112 c.e.  Pliny invaded Bithynia, where Jesus' disciple Peter had taught or preached, because the followers of Christ there refused to support the meat industry.  Pliny's invasion of Bithynia was successful, his letter states, because he tortured and killed the followers of Christ and this made other followers recant their allegiance to the teachings of Jesus as preached by Peter.  So too the Roman Empire's institution of slavery was a prime source of relatively free labor for the Empire, whose slave overseers were commanded to give the slaves only enough on which to survive as workers.

     And lo and behold, the bishops who remained in Nicaea, whom Constantine had not banished, and who had thus passed his screening process, produced the New Testament, which also sanctioned animal sacrifices, that is, the meat industry, as well as the enslavement of other humans.  In other words, to the surprise of no one who understands that greed for power and wealth is the basic motivation of all who rule the world's empires and governments, the Nicaean Council of bishops sanctioned by Constantine, Emperor of the Roman Empire, produced a work that, for the most part, in the vast majority of its scriptures, did not challenge the brutal institution of animal sacrifices, imperialism towards the animals, or the brutal institution of slavery.

    In short, the strong and pure egalitarianism of Jesus, who taught "Love your neighbor as yourself," and the golden rule to "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," is marginalized in the New Testament.  The words of Jesus who said that he came to free the captive, or slave, are contradicted by the far more frequently seen teachings of Paul, who condoned slavery and economic elitism, "slaves, obey your masters."  Paul also condoned the authority of the very center of Mammon and imperialism, the authority of the Roman empire ruled by the Roman emperor. In other words, what Jesus condemned, Paul sanctioned.

   Yet the Nicaean Council claimed that the New Testament was a body of work containing the official teachings of Jesus. The Council gathered under the auspices of Constantine, Emperor of Rome, the undisputed center of wealth and power in that hemisphere at that time. The Emperor of the Roman Empire controlled wealth, controlled what Jesus called Mammon throughout the Empire. Local industries and artisans were taxed by Rome to insure that money flowed into Rome and its different centers in the Empire.  The vision of Jesus and his earliest pre-Pauline followers was the vision of Enoch, a vision in which humans were not favored but seen as an equal part of the community of creation.  Jesus, like Enoch, believed that all bloodshed was evil. Had Jesus not been Enochian, he would not have referred to the Son of Man who is featured in the Book of Enoch.  This fact is totally ignored by the orthodox Christian community, most of whom are ignorant of the context of Jesus' and John of Patmos' references to the Son of Man.

  Most people are led to believe that a number of holy men, bishops, were gathered together to decide which of the many bodies of scriptures about Jesus were valid. However, the New Testament was gathered, and no doubt fabricated, under the auspices of Constantine, imperialist, trafficker of slaves, who had his own family members murdered. Constantine remained a loyal follower of the sun god throughout his life and converted to Christianity only on his death bed in his own attempt to "cover all bases."

        In the introduction to the Hadith, the book of teachings of Muhammad outside the Koran, the collector of the teachings, Imam Bukhari, “kept away from princes and rulers for fear that he might incline to say things to please them.” As the editors state: “He was born at a time when Hadith were being forged either to please rulers or Kings or to corrupt the religion of Islam.”  Well stated. And when we realize that Constantine exiled some bishops and welcomed others, we also realize that he was doing what was suitable for himself and the empire, not what was suitable for humans and other creatures. And therefore he welcomed the cooperation of the bishops who would justify his decisions as to what teachings should be in the New Testament.
 

    However, there are many people in the world whose beliefs are outside the boundaries of the orthodox, and I know that most people who are not orthodox "true believers" would not argue with the affirmation: "the victors write history; the victors write scriptures."  To illustrate a correlary of this recognition in the world as we know it, most observers agree with the rather cynical notion that--in the industrial world--Money (Mammon) talks.  If we look at the utopian movements of the past, even the most truly religious among us would have to agree that it has been military power, such as is represented by the nations of orthodox Jews, Christians, and Muslims of the past and present, that has prevailed.  The utopian movements have virtually all been squelched.  The powerful, not the meek of the earth, have prevailed in the industrial nations.  So far, anyway. But it doesn't have to be that way.  We can expose the lies of the orthodox, the elite, and thereby prepare for a day in which we are truly all equal and have all of our real needs met.

   Those who have even the slightest amount of moral discernment know that the rich manipulate the rest of humanity in order to profit from them.  This is a given. It is true in all the industrialized nations.  The rich industrialists, the governors, presidents, and those who control the land are all in the same circles.  These facts are understood by the majority of humanity.  But much of the time, in the realm of religion at least, many people among the orthodox wish the rest of us to believe that every single one of their scriptures are in fact an accurate rendition of God's word, and that none of them are the decrees of the humans who were in power during the time in which the official versions of these scriptures became "the official word of God."  This is the great lie: that every single verse of the orthodox scriptures are an accurate version of the original purity of these religions.

    The originators of the world's religions wished to liberate people and creatures from oppression and slavery.  They wished to do both! It was not just their intention to liberate humans alone, but to liberate other creatures too. Instead there are orthodox scriptures that say other creatures are here for humans to sudue and dominate (Gen 1: 26-28) and even scriptures that say other creatures are to feel fear and dread of humans (Gen. 9: 2-3).  In other words, imperialism and brutality towards other creatures are justified, sanctioned, by these scriptures.

   There is little or no need to ask why people would accept such (questionable) scriptures.  The answer is simple enough.  Indiscriminate, greedy people grasp at rationalizations for their violence, their bad habits, their diets, their industries, their slaughterhouses, their imperialism.  And many of scriptures of the rewritten Torah, New Testament and Quran satisfy those bad desires.
 
 

    It is understood by anyone acquainted with Biblical scholarship that virtually all of the books of the Tanakh or Old Testament have had critics claiming that there was more than one author to the book.  It is not at all hard to prove.  For example, in the "Psalms," we have, as in other books of the Old Testament, both denunciations of the animal sacrifices, and affirmations of them.  Obviously there are at least two different intentions involved in the Psalms, just as there are in most of the other books.  More often than not, however, the differences between the authors is left unemphasized, especially by orthodox writers, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, in order not to highlight the fact that at least one of the authors denounced the animal sacrifices, or was egalitarian rather than accepting the authority or hierarchy of the state.
 
 

   Two of the crucial questions that have been searched out throughout the history of religions are the following.  First, is Deity egalitarian or elitist, that is, does Deity desire all humans to live together as equals, or does Deity desire some humans to rule others?  The second is: does Deity want all creatures to live in harmony together, or does Deity desire humans to rule other creatures, to subdue them and have dominion over them?  To me, these questions are rhetorical only.  Only a fool, an addict, people involved in evil businesses, would assert that an all-compassionate Creator desires some humans to be subdued and dominated, as do those living in the condition of slavery, for example, yet we all know that the institution of slavery is justified in many of the scriptures in the Torah, the New Testament and Quran.

    And only those who make profit from trafficking in animal foods, or who are addicted to such foods, would assert that an all-loving God would want creatures to feel terror and dread, as the (obviously revised) scriptures of Genesis 9: 2-3 state.  For the objective reader understands that the brutality of animal slaughter, and the absolutely evil treatment of living creatures that exists in animal factories has nothing to do with following God's word, but with creating a situation that satisfies the capitalist's desire for capital, and the craving for flesh by those addicted to eating meat. The Meat and Animal Foods Industries are involved in a lose/lose situation as far as health is concerned. The animals lose their lives; the humans who ingest the animals lose their health.  The medical research supporting this fact is immense.  The only gain is in the profit of those who run the industry. Even a brief survey of works such as Diet for a New America,or Diet for a New World, by John Robbins, which are well documented studies using research derived from the Meat, Dairy, and Egg industries themselves, and statements by Physicians for Responsible Medicine, a group of medical doctors who want people to adopt the optimally healthy diet, which is vegan, would enlighten the objective reader.  Search for Peta, EarthSave, Veganism, Vegetarianism, on the web, and hundreds of sites filled with excellent information on how meat eating contributes to diseases will be found.

    But people who belong to an "orthodoxy" such as that of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, do not want to be enlightened; they want instead for their addictions to be confirmed as divinely justified by the scriptures which are supposedly the word of Yahweh, the Father, or Allah.   And so they are.  The rich can continue to be rich, assured by their scriptures that slavery itself is justified by God. The sexist can continue to subordinate, even batter women, assured by scriptures that men are superior to and therefore entitled to discipline women.  The bigot can be prejudiced against homosexuals, even to commit hate crimes against them, for the scriptures justify their exclusion from the spiritual community.  And the cattle ranchers and owners of the slaughterhouses can point to the many scriptures in the Torah, New Testament and Quran asserting that all foods are clean and that animals can be slaughtered and eaten, even though animal fat is universally understood to be toxic to humanity, and even though the animal sacrifices are brutal to the other creatures.
 
 

    Remaining focussed on humanity's treatment of other creatures, however, let us look at one of the most suppressed notions in these three religions, the fact that all three of the above orthodoxies deliberately ignore their own scriptures asserting that other creatures have consciousness and free will.  Two important facts in "Genesis," for example, that Yahweh commands all creatures to eat vegetation in Genesis 1: 30,  and that the Deluge in Genesis is said to come as retribution on "all flesh" for having become corrupt and violent, are totally ignored.

   Why?  Because God wouldn't give a command to those who did not have the consciousness to understand it, and the free will to accept or reject it.  Therefore, the other creatures are conscious and free, just as humans are--this is what the above scriptures assert.

    Therefore, the orthodoxies of these religions must ignore such scriptures, because if they didn't, then they would have to admit that they are killing sentient, conscious beings with free will, like themselves, and these orthodoxies want themselves to be thought of as civilized and righteous people, not not as narrow-minded people who refuse to admit they are doing evil when they kill other creatures.  They are practicing false religion.  In the language of the past, they are following "idols," not the Divine.  In fact, if one is to be accurate, if one is to follow the morality of the Book of Enoch, one must say that they are not practicing religion at all, but a form of demon worship.

   As a last resort, when those defending animal sacrifices and carnivorism have nowhere else to turn, after it has been shown that their scriptures are contradictory and therefore obviously revised, the orthodox flesh eater says "look at Nature: other animals eat each other. That's the way things are!"  Is it?  There are many reasons not to think so.  Scriptures and myths among Tibetans, Hindus, Hopi, as well the description of creation in "Genesis" present a creation that is at first comprised of creatures livingin harmony with one another.  It is only after the fall that the disharmony is seen. The fall itself is "disharmony," that is, the refusal to live in harmony with other creatures, whether by killing them or oppressing them through industry. The Book of Enoch, once a part of the Jewish scriptures, condemns all acts of oppression. According to Enoch, we are to live in harmony with each other.
 
 

   And only those profiting from slavery (whether the abject slavery of slaves having no rights whatsoever beyond the rights given by the slave-master, or the wage slavery of most people who work for the rich, such as those in most unions), would affirm that slavery is compatible with the Golden Rule or the teaching to love your neighbor as your self.  And those who do affirm the validity of slavery do not have logic on their side, but only the ulterior motive of profit.  Having workers do the brunt of the labor while those who hire them gather most of the profits suits the greedy businessman's intentions quite well.  Therefore, if scriptures which have been accepted as having come from Deity are changed, in order to sanction the institution of slavery, and if these scriptures are taught throughout the culture, then we have a perfect scenario for those whose motivation is not equality and justice, but greed.
 
 

   Most genuine scholars know that Tsabaism, or Shaivism, devotion to Shiva, was the universal religion of the world during the time in which Judaism originated.  The Saba in Tsabaism is just another name for Shiva. And the English Sabbath, as well as the ancient Hebrew Shabbath, as well as the word Sabaoth, meaning the Lord of Military Hosts in ancient Judaism, are all terms built upon the name of Saba, also known as Shiva.  This is relevant because Shiva was notably an enemy of the caste system.  Shiva associated with sudras, the lowest class, workers, who are comparable to the slave class, regarding them as equals.  Holgar Kersten's study, Jesus Lived in India, asserts that Jesus associated with egalitarian Shauvites while living in India.  Jesus' name itself is a form of Jesse or Isa.  And Isa or Issa is the name by which Tibetans, Hindus and Muslims refer to Jesus.  Isa is one of the names given by Hindus to Shiva and Vishnu. And Jesus' teachings: "I have come to free the captive," "Love your neighbor as your self," "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," and "You cannot serve both God and Mammon," all demonstrate an egalitarianism that is seen in "Acts" as well as in the communal egalitarian communities of the Essenes.

   Surprised?  That Shiva, a Deity of the Hindus, exists in the Torah? Most of you readers are, and the reason that you are, is that you have not at all been truly presented with the truth as it is--you have not received an objective education.  Instead you have been provided with information that is controlled by the orthodox power structures of your nation.  Jesus called them Mammon, those that control Money, Wealth.  And Jesus did not make friends with Mammon as did Paul.  Jesus said: "You cannot serve both God and Mammon," meaning that the two were diametrically opposed.

   Do Christian Televangelists teach this?  Not usually. Usually they refer to Paul instead, the great friend of Mammon who said that the empire and the emperor were to be respected as having authority that was instituted by God, even though the empire and the emperor were totally engrossed in Mammon, or Wealth, whereas the egalitarians, the Essenes, Nazarenes, Ebionites, Jesus, and his disciples, the zealots, the sicarii, wanted a paradise wherein all were equal. Most of these pure remnant Jews also wanted liberty and equality for all creatures, who are acknowledged as having sentience and free will in Gen. 1: 30.
 
 

   Those who revised the scriptures in order to sanction the profitable evils of the slaughterhouse or the institution of slavery were well aware that, as long as they were in power, what they wrote would be considered as a Divine Law, that is, the way things should be for humans and other creatures.  Constantine was well aware of the fact that the bishops he accepted at Nicaea would concoct a body of teachings that, though they did not entirely erase the egalitarianism and vegetarianism of Jesus, would literally obscure these teachings by presenting to the reader of the New Testament an abundance of scriptures condoning elitism and slavery towards humans, and carnivorism and the exploitation of creatures.
 
 

   The actual inspired writers of Scripture wrote with a sense of joy and awe of the Divine Source of creation. They lived the truth of compassion, of not harming other beings.  Their lives were filled with compassion. Creation was the only true house and temple of the Creator, and all the creatures were their sacred relations.  Those who choose such a life are truly blessed, for their actions brings blessings on themselves.

   Those who rewrote the scriptures, however, in contrast did so with quite definable ulterior motives.  By revising the scriptures and asserting that deity, or God, sanctioned what they desired, such as the economically profitable institution of slavery, they were sanctioning the validity of a work force that would work for mere survival, for basic food, shelter, and clothing.  Profits according to the institution of slavery did not need to be shared except to give slaves the minimum they needed for survival. Whatever else the slave attained was due to the "charity" of the master.

    Who in the world would state that slavery is just, except those wishing to profit from it?  Yet most (though not all) of the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and Quran, as we now have them, state that slavery is justified by Yahweh, God the Father,  Allah.
 
 

   So too a sanctioning of the animal sacrifices was written into the Tanakh, the New Testament, and the Quran, thereby bringing great profits to those who "owned the animals," a term which is immensely offensive and repugnant to all who have even a minimal sense of the sacredness of all creation.  It is precisely because they needed to remove the notion that other creatures were sacred, or at least that they were less sacred than humans, who were presented as God's favored creatures, that many scriptures were rewritten.  And those who rewrote scriptures, as well as those who adhere to them, are both guilty of the worst sort of pride and elitism, a pride and elitism which, once written into the established scriptures, becomes the established dementia. I use the word dementia advisedly, because our industrial societies, and the scriptures which justify them, literally create an insane society and world, a world which is literally, through industry, increasingly polluting the earth, water and air of our planet, all in the name of a progress that does not exist. Enoch said that the fallen angels or demons originated industry as we know it, and industry today, as if to demonstrate the notion of "by their fruits you shall know them," has polluted the majority of the water on earth so that it is not fit to drink without filtration, and has filled the earth, water, and air with toxins.  The longevity of humans has not increased since Moses in Psalm ninety said that most humans live to be 70 or 80 if they have strength.  75 is approximately the average longevity today, which means that all the so-called medical advances, all the so-called cures and treatement for polio, diptheria, the flu have not at all increased human longevity.
 
 

    Anyone who believes that this world--which is increasingly polluted each year by industries pouring their toxins into the air, water, and earth--is being run by sane governments and sane industrialists, must likewise be seen as living in illusion.  And the illusion is maintained through the efforts of presidents and premiers and leaders of government who say that more industry is needed, through schools and universities saying the same, and through priests, ministers, and rabbis who bless industries as fulfilling the sanction to subdue the earth and to have dominion over all living beings.

    The Industrial Revolution has failed.  It has created more diseases than it cures, and it has poisoned the Creator's creation as it has never been poisoned before.  The most reliable scripture that anyone can go to is not the Tanakh, the New Testament, or the Koran, but the Book of Enoch, and parts of the Eastern Scriptures of Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists which agree with its pristine purity. Parts of the Tanakh, the New Testament and Quran do agree with the Book of Enoch, which states, very simply, that we should accept creation, and creatures, as they are, and not try to alter creation, or, as is pridefully argued, "improve upon it."  The Book of Enoch, numerous Eastern Scriptures, as well as the true teachings of Quetzalcoatl, not as expressed through perverted Christian commentators, but as expressed through indigenous oral traditions, agree:  Creation is sacred, and any tampering with Creation is what constitutes Sin or Transgression.  All bloodshed, not just the shedding of human blood, is absolutely forbidden.
 
 

    So, though the teachings of Enoch who preceded Moses were known and accepted as true, and though parts of "Genesis" and the Book of Enoch are practically identical--both works affirming that other creatures have consciousness and free will--strongly suggesting that the original writer of "Genesis" was in agreement with the morality of the Book of Enoch--what has dominated the history of so-called civilized nations is not the pure teachings of Enoch, or the pure teachings of "Genesis" which have been buried under the revisions of that Book, but teachings which sanction the bloodshed and oppression upon which all industrial cultures thrive.

   I say "so-called" civilized nations because only the demented mind would say that the people of industrial cultures, which we call civilizations, are more civil than aboriginal cultures.  Industrial cultures routinely poison the very earth they live in.  As the saying goes: they shit in their own bed.

     Aboriginal cultures throughout history have walked on the earth far more lightly than industrial civilizations in which the rich enslave those classes below them, and in which the rich routinely exploit, oppress, and kill creatures and pollute the environment of the earth.  I am not saying that all aboriginal cultures have been free of oppression, but their level of oppression is minimal compared to that of industrial cultures.

   As is obvious to all but the fundamentalist or orthodox religious mind, it is easy to create whatever sanctions the rich and powerful desire by rewriting the scriptures.

    The historical process by which this was done is seen in the actions of the Roman Emperor Constantine, for example, who gathered together bishops favorable to him at the Council of Nicaea, and exiled those who disagreed, so that the official canon of Christianity was formed, the New Testament.  I have indented the following paragraph, because it is an accurate indictment of the orthodox Christian tradition, showing its falseness.  All students of history know that the Romans originally burned the teachings of Jesus whenever they found them.

     What virtually all orthodox writers fail to discuss is this: if the New Testament were a true record of what Christianity is, then there would have been absolutely no reason for the Romans ever to have searched out the Ebionite Gospel or other early writings about the real Jesus, for the mainstream teachings of the New Testament are a confirmation of Roman morality, or, more accurately, their lack of morality.  Slavery, economic elitism, sexism, bigotry towards homosexuals, and the disease-promoting diet of carnivorism are all sanctioned in most of its scriptures.  If Jesus had really taught all these evils, then there would have been no need for the Roman Army to seek out and burn those original Gospels for they would have been no threat to them.  Virtually everyone I know, Christians included, who is not a fundamentalist Christian, or a strictly orthodox Christian, acknowledges the fact that the scriptures of the New Testament have been rewritten, and that they are not a true record of Jesus' original teachings.  If anything, the logical person must deduce that the mainstream teachings of the New Testament, especially the letters of Paul, are an antithesis of Jesus' teachings.

    How was this done? How did this transformation occur, not only in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament as well, and in the Koran?  By inserting scriptures. By revising already existing scriptures. And by writing new scriptures.

    For example, the scriptures of Genesis 1: 26-28, referred to as authoritative by the orthodox Jew, the orthodox Christian, and the orthodox Muslim, state that humans may subdue the earth and have dominion over other creatures.  Except for the statement within these verses asserting that God created males and females to propagate, the scriptures stating that humans are to subdue the earth, and to have dominion over every living being that moves on the earth are absolutely offensive and are not at all in harmony with the recognition that other beings have consciousness and the free will to obey God's command to eat vegetation, as seen in Genesis 1: 30.  To anyone with any spiritual sense whatsoever, anyone with moral discernment, anyone who "tests the scriptures," such an exploitive attitude is seen for what it is, an insertion into the scriptures by the Jewish cattleman culture, implying that God justifies all their oppression, enslavement, and slaughter of other beings for the profit of humans.  Verses 26 through 28 are just that (at this point in "Genesis"), an implication.  Give the devils their due; they are shrewd.  Those who rewrote the scriptures inserted these verses to soften the clear command to be vegetarian that follows in Genesis 1: 29-30.

   Then God said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." Genesis 1: 26-28

     "And God said `Behold I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the air and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.'" Genesis l: 29-30.

    However, the assertion in verses 26-28 that humans are allowed to subdue and dominate other creatures does not at all fit in with God's paradise as described in Genesis through verse 30.  These scriptures are a classic example of revision.  They do not fit in. The tone of Genesis is changed, the eulogy is disrupted, the idyllic is shattered, and tragedy for other creatures is introduced, their enslavement, displacement, oppression, and slaughter, according to many of the orthodox, being therefore justified.  The fact that the vegetarian covenant succeeds these scriptures is the key to why these verses were inserted in this precise location: they were intended to detract from God's implicit command to be peaceful to all creatures, and to eat vegetation only.
 
 

      Such a process of revision is seen in virtually all the Books of the Old Testament. There are at least 2 (some say more) authors not only of "Genesis," but of all the Books of the Pentateuch, and of the books of Isaias, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, and so on.  In fact multiple authorship is now taken for granted, even by many orthodox scholars, who, however, in order to maintain their orthodoxy, state that the orthodox interpretation is not threatened by such multiple authorship, and who also state that multiple authorship shows that "human error" in transcribing or translating the scriptures may enter into the presentation of what was once originally divinely inspired, and distort it somewhat, without changing, the orthodox claim, the essential truth of the orthodox scriptures.
 
 

    But huge glaring contradictions face the objective reader of scriptures, after reading and rereading the Books of the Old and New Testament and Quran, for example, and this is true, though to a lesser extent, in the Laws of Manu, the Institutes of Vishnu, and other Eastern texts as well.  What is discernible is the fact that the distortions fit a pattern.  For example:

1.  There are scriptures in Genesis, Numbers, Ecclesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, the Psalms of David, Job, Isaias, Ezekiel and Zechariah that absolutely denounce the animal sacrifices in no uncertain terms.

2. But there are also scriptures in those same books which affirm that the animal sacrifices are legitimate.  One sees this pattern of deception repeated over and over again in the Old Testament, as well as in the New Testament and Quran.

In the New Testament:

1: Jesus' mission as stated in "Epistle to the Hebrews" is to abolish the animal sacrifices, and the incident described as the Cleansing of the Temple shows Jesus in a one-day demonstration against the animal sacrifices by chasing the animals who were to be sacrificed out of the temple. The event should be described more accurately as: "The Freeing of the Animals who were to be Sacrificed."  The Ebionite Gospel described by St. Epiphanius describes Jesus and his associates as vegetarians denouncing the Pentateuch's institution of animal sacrifices as false scriptures. And there is abundant historical testimony showing that those who followed Jesus' teachings through the authority of James his brother, Peter, Matthew, and John,  were vegetarian. There is a long line of vegetarian followers who trace themselves back to Jesus and James: Church fathers Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Lactantius, St. Peter Chrysologus all denounced the animal sacrifices which are necessary if one is to eat flesh.

2. But Jesus in other parts of the New Testament is presented as saying "all foods are clean."  And because of the "Antichrist" teachings in Paul's epistles and Constantine gathering select bishops friendly to his cause to put together the New Testament, this false Jesus was instituted as true.  And therefore the blood-stained history of Orthodox Christianity.  Numerous biblical scholars have stated that Paul's teachings constitute an epitome of Antichrist teachings.  And a man the Catholic Church has canonized, Saint Epiphanius, lets us know that James the brother of Jesus in a work no longer in existence titled "The Ascents of James" described Paul as an Apostate. Baigent, Leigh, Eisenman and other modern scholars state that Paul was very likely a conscious agent of Rome.  The fact that Paul is more than once rescued by the Romans, that he was seen carrying manuscripts, and that he even boasts of having money of his own to rent an apartment in Rome, a life-style totally contrary to that of the earliest Christians who owned things communally, supports their contention that Paul was a traitor to the "poor," the Ebionites, who were the earliest followers of Jesus, whom Jesus saw as inheriting the earth in his Beatitudes.
Paul is not just the epitome of the fence straddler when it comes to the question of vegetarianism.  Paul subordinates diet to devotion to his version of Jesus and the Jesus' atonement, whereas Jesus put his life on the line demonstrating against the animal sacrifices in the temple.  In other words, what was supremely important to Jesus, who knew he was putting his life on the line by challenging the animal sacrifices, was not at all important to Paul.

   Orthodox Christian scholars, fundamentalist preachers like Falwell, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and the Roman Catholic church under the auspices of the Popes, who are virtually always reactionary, consistently support Paul's scriptures, and in so doing, they condemn themselves as well, for Paul, like Hitler, a master of rhetoric, was also one of history's masters of deceit.  The battering of women, hate crimes against homosexuals, abject slavery and wage slavery, the diseases bred by the eating of flesh--all these have support in the epistles of Paul.  And all who support Paul support such immorality! That's the way it works. You can't simply take Paul's vision piecemeal.
Parts of Paul's letters are moral, and parts are absolutely immoral.

In the Quran:

1. Those who make mischief and shed blood are connected with the Fallen Angel Iblis (Satan), which is a rather direct reference to the fact that it was the fallen angels who introduced animal sacrifices according to the Book of Enoch as well "Jubilees." The Book of Enoch condemns all bloodshed, whether of other creatures, or humans, as demonically inspired.  Surah 6 verse 38 of the Quran presents all creation as a family that will be reconciled to Allah, and accepts the sacredness of all creatures, as do a number of the hadiths (teachings outside of the Koran) in Bukhari's immense collection.  The Quran several times praises the Sabeans, the vegetarian followers of Saba, also known as Seba, Sheba, or Shiva, who was known as Lord of Creatures, and Protector of Cattle.  And the reference to Hud as the true prophet may be seen as pointing specifically to Judas [(Hud)as] the brother of James, Judas Barsabas, or even Judas the Zealot (one must not see this Judas as having the qualities of Judas Iscariot in the New Testament) as coming to preach the vegetarian message to the people of Edessa.  Moreover, Hud or Hod is the root of Judah or Yehudah, both of which relate to the Hindu location from which Abraham came, Oude.  The word Hoduwe in ancient Hebrew refers to Hindustan, or India.  And Hud or Hod meant sons of God to many ancient Hebrews, a name taken by those who had transplanted Hinduism in the soils of Canaan, Palestine, and environs.

     It is not at all difficult to see Muhammad as aware of the full implications of Hud or Hod.  He was, like his predecessors, Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, a truly amazing man, whose awesome achievements came, as all spiritual achievements do, from a purity and a commitment to channel the ideal ways of Deity to other humans and to other creatures.  And he was, in spite of being illiterate, a man whose ability to absorb oral religious history was immense.

2. Yet, though Muhammad's preferred diet was vegetarian, and though there are some scriptures in the Quran forbidding bloodshed, and scriptures propounding that slaves, captives, be freed, we have a Quran that preaches the validity of animal sacrifices and slavery in the majority of its scriptures.
 
 

   Our industrial societies are, after all is said and done, based on immoral propositions to begin with, and are dysfunctional in their effect upon creatures, upon creation in general, as well upon people.  They do not function in providing a livelihood even for all of  its humans.  The earliest industrial cultures thrived on abject slavery, the colonies in North America for example importing African slaves to work in the cotton fields of the southern colonies.  The abject slavery of the past is different only in degree and not in kind from the wage slavery of  modern industrial cultures, in which wage slaves do the brunt of work for the rich, but only share minimally in the profits.  This is the condition of the  working classes today.  Unions in our day are also dysfunctional, having lost their universal concern for all workers, which had been the focus of, for example, the I.W.W., the International Workers of the World.  Now unions strive only for the welfare of the people in their individual trades, and ignore the plight of other workers.  Fed their crumbs of money, union workers ignore their brothers and sisters in need.

    Whereas in most tribal and indigenous cultures all humans have shelter, food and clothing, and there is minimal oppression of other creatures, in the cultures of orthodox Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, cultures which are industrial, there is widespread exploitation of humans and other creatures.  Industrial civilization certainly does not provide for the well-being of other creatures.  To the contrary, industrial civilization is based on the exploitation of other creatures, and the exploitation of the environment in which these creatures, and we humans, live.  And in such a world, the inter-relatedness of all creatures has never been more apparent.  If we continue to destroy and oppress other creatures and the environment, we are literally destroying the very creation which was meant to sustain us all, as numerous aboriginal teachers have told us.
 
 

   In the language of the prophets of old, the widespread killing of other creatures in itself justifies the cleansing of the world, that is, the destruction of the world as we know it.  Our world is a perfect scenario of the Final Days.  Industrialists in collusion with the so-called civilized governments of the world, are continuing to pollute the world with its toxins, and are continuing to commit genocide on other creatures.   Which governments am I referring to?  All the industrial cultures, all the "nations," such as the United States, Britain, Russia, all the countries of Europe, all the nations of the Persian Gulf and Asia, and all the nations of Central and South America which promote industrialism.
 
 

    Cultures that promote industrialism virtually always promote imperialism as well, for since the resources in one's own nation are limited, the resources in other nations, to the mentality of Mammon (all the governments of industrial nations are motivated by Mammon, or Money), may be obtained by conquering those nations if need be, or, as is being done now by the U.S. in Colombia, South America, for example, by cooperating with the corrupt government there to halt the flow of drug money to those opposed to the U.S., but to promote the flow of drugs and money to those in the U.S. government who can profit by it.

    Everyone in the world who is conscious of relatively recent historical events knows that since the U.S. government invaded Panama, that drug traffic has increased significantly, to the profit of those in the U.S. government.  While the U.S. oppresses Shamanism everywhere in the world, though the religion is more ancient than Judaism, the U.S. has created its own legal drug culture through the pharmaceutical industry and culture and through legal drug houses such as methadone clinics.  The Drug War, or the War Against the Shamanic Religion, is also a War Against Aboriginals, for it is mainly the aboriginal cultures who both know about and propagate knowledge about psychoactive plants.

     While there is no doubt that some abuse themselves by becoming addicted to using drugs, we are all aware that it is Alcohol and Tobacco Lobbies are among the greatest supporters of the War on Drugs, for though alcohol and tobacco kill far more people each year than die from overdoses of drugs, the alcohol and tobacco industries are an already established means of gaining huge profits by the rich.  Moreover, it is well known that aboriginal cultures having Shamanic people in them breed independent individuals who do not want to be controlled by industrial governments, and who simply wish to live in nature as they wish.  And shouldn't that be a basic right?

  People living in industrial cultures today take their loss of liberty to live as they wish in nature for granted.  They can't just pull out of industrial civilization and live where they wish in nature. The laws of their country either forbid it, or claim ownership to those lands which are most easily lived in.  In other words, industrial civilizations such as the United States, the European nations, and the industrialized nations of Africa, Asia, the Persian Gulf and South America, all forbid individuals to live as they desire in nature.  Thus the invasion of the rain forests of North and South America by U.S. industrialists, with the sanction of the rich elite in the governments of those continents.  And thus the invasion of territories of the Kurds and Shiites by the government of Iraq, and the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia and now the United States. The industrialists in all these industrial countries are attempting to insure future economic profits for the rich  in the lands they invade.  And all these invasions have the sanction of the rich elite who rule the governments.  Richard Cheney, for example, was known for not wanting to boycott the apartheid slavery government of South Africa, as well as for not wanting the release of freedom fighter Nelson Mandela from prison.  Yet this well known modern supporter of slavery is now the Vice President of the United States, whose media, controlled as usual by the rich, continues to tell the lie that the United States is the leader of the Free World.  The war in Afghanistan, every informed person in the world knows, is being waged so that the U.S. industrialists, headed by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, whose ties to the Unacal Oil cartel and Haliburton Industries are well known, can control the vast oil resources of Asia.

    When the younger President Bush gave his acceptance speech, he told the rest of the world that he would be immoral, for he stated: My country right or wrong. In other words, in the name of the United States, Bush would do whatever was necessary in his mind, no matter how immoral, for the word immoral is a synonym for wrong.  Most people let such tell-tale statements by their leaders in government pass by without commentary, because they are calloused, they are conditioned to the political fact that the powerful will use their might to achieve their ends, as the United States is now doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, to control the oil and drug trade there, in Panama, to control the Canal, and in Columbia, to control the drug trade.
 
 

     I have not at all departed from my thesis: the victors write history and scripture in order to justify their evils.  If God says it is okay to subdue other beings and have dominion over them, and if God says it is okay to kill animals and to make them feel fear and dread, then at least we have these "divine" rationalizations to use in attempting to soothe our conscience.  Noam Chomsky wrote a book called Manufacturing Consent, in which he showed how the U.S. Media consistently demonized its enemies in order to make U.S. foreign policy, and U.S. invasions of other sovereign territories, appear to be valid. Chomsky, like Howard Zinn is one of the few genuine students of history.  Most U.S. historians are paid propagandists, just as are most U.S. religious figures, such as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and Billy Graham, all of whom have far more allegiance to the teachings of Paul the apostate than they do to the teachings of the egalitarian and vegetarian Jesus.

     But the scriptural justifications for industrial civilization haven't worked.  Our society, our world, is a moral shambles. Medical research labs tell us about the health dangers of cholesterol while we are besieged with ads on TV that promote the eating of flesh.  Aboriginal cultures throughout the world clamor against the industrial nations invading them, yet the imperialistic cultures of Christianity and Islam continue to invade and kill the people of these cultures in order to exploit their natural resources, and Israel, while not large enough to invade any other large nations, still unjustly controls the people of Palestine.  Yet this imperialism is noticeably lacking in Hindu, Jain and Buddhist cultures.

     It is hard for people raised in carnivorous cultures to admit that they have been taught error.  It is hard for people to given up their addictions to eating flesh and animal foods.  It took me ten years of suppressing the fact that I supported the brutal oppression and slaughter of other creatures of flesh and blood when I ate meat. Yet, if we really do mean to improve ourselves spiritually and physically, if we really mean to do what's right, what real choice is there, when we know we will both alleviate the suffering of other creatures, as well as strengthen our own health?

   Though plenty of data is in, from cultures all over the world, regarding the unhealthy effects of eating flesh, a majority of people in the world continue to do so, and orthodox rabbis, though admitting that the vegetarian covenant was Deity's original covenant with humanity, still insist that the brutal, unhealthy and absurd covenant of fear and terror that God gave to Noah in Genesis, chapter 9, is nonetheless valid.

    Those who accept such absurdities must accept absurdities literally in the depths of their being, and live with the karmic physical suffering and the mental despair that such absurdities entail.

    This book is an attempt to go beyond the absurdities of orthodox religions.  In 6,000 years, Judaism has not created peace for itself, much less in the world.  In 2000 years Christianity has been a literal scourge on the earth, invading aboriginal people in every continent of the world, and routinely oppressing and killing billions of other creatures each ear. In 13 centuries orthodox Islam has fared no better, and even the prophet Muhammad said that in the Final days, Islam would be like the garbage of flood waters, in other words, scum, and not at all like original Islam.

    In the world there are wars and rumors of wars, and the majority of people feed the temples of their bodies with the brutally murdered bodies of other creatures.  We are, indeed, living in a scenario that fits that of the Final Days.

  According to the ancient prophets, such a world as our own is one which needs cleansing, and which deserves destruction.  When all flesh became corrupt and violent in "Genesis," the flood came to cleanse the earth of such violence and corruption.  "Revelations" describes fire, flood, and famine, and plagues that will decimate the human and animal populations of earth.  Isaias describes animal sacrifices--not homosexuality--as a practice making people like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah.

   Will we at least change our individual lives, if we feel we cannot change much else in the world?  Will we try to make more compassionate choices regarding our diet, the other creatures, the environment, the planet?  Moses said that virtue was linked with the length of one's days, and that we had the opportunity, everyday, to make the right choices.

     According to the well suppressed morality of the Book of Enoch, we need to return to a non-industrial society which lives harmoniously with nature, one in which no other creatures are exploited, and one in which none are to subdue or dominate others.

    In spite of the vast amount of research and time that was spent in the over 200 essays demonstrating that the orthodoxies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are a hoax, and it is not really difficult to prove that they most certainly are, the summary of this work affirms the following: We are consciously to live according to the simple principles of loving our neighbors as our selves, that is, as equals, applying the Golden Rule to not only humans but to the rest of creation as well.  It's really just that simple. Only those with ulterior motives will say it is not.

   In the next chapter we shall examine a remnant of what Abegg, Wise and Cook, editors of their edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, state once existed, an original Vegetarian Bible. While even rabbinical Judaism admits that the first dietary covenant was for all humans to be vegetarian, as is indisputable in Genesis 1: 29 quoted above, nonetheless orthodox Judaism, Christianity and Islam state that the covenant of carnivorism with Noah in Genesis 9: 2-3 is valid and has precedent over the previous covenant.  And the vast majority of scriptures seen in the Torah agree with the orthodox: they are affirmations of the animal sacrifices.

   We shall see, however, that a remnant of the original Vegetarian Bible exists even in the Torah, in "Numbers 11," in scriptures showing God reacting sarcastically to the Israelites following Moses who crave to eat flesh.  We shall see also that Asaph in Psalm 78 correctly sees that those craving flesh "forgot the law," that is, refused to follow it. Asaph himself, like David in the majority of the Psalms authored by him, accepts the teachings and morality of Enoch, and the original vegetarian covenant as the only valid dietary covenant.

Racism:  the condition in which the people of one race believe they are superior to people of other races, and that they may subdue and have dominion over them.  The most prevalent form of racism has been that of whites claiming to be superior to the darker races. This claim is usually based on the notion that whites have been responsible for progress in the world through their many industrial inventions.  Ironically, industry is the very mark of being demonic in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch.  It is the fallen angels who teach humans the "sorceries of fallen angels," such as mining, which is essentially to many industries, the making of weapons, animal sacrifices, writing, and the use of cosmetics.

     In the modern world, racism has been a problem mainly in the white dominated Euro-American Judaeo-Christian cultures.  The Christian U.S. and Jewish Israel were the two main supporters of apartheid in South Africa.  They did not leave South Africa because they had a change of heart, but only because their evils were exposed. Richard Cheney, the present vice president of the U.S. did not want to boycott South Africa because of its policies of apartheid slavery, and moreover did not want the freedom fighter Nelson Mandela to be released from prison!  His election as Vice President is a perfect example of how racism is entrenched among the rich elite of the United States.
 

Sexism: the condition in which one sex, in our history those of the male sex, believes they are superior to the other sex, and that the female is to be submissive to the will of the male. In other words, the will of the female is to be subdued and had dominion over by the male will. Women are still not receiving equal pay in the work place.  The battering of woman has its foundations in the scriptures of the Jews, Christians and Muslims, which subordinate the will of woman to the will of man, and which advocate disciplining the subordinate. Paul's scripture in Romans "Wives obey your husbands" is a perfect example of such sexism.  Paul's scriptures are considered an essential part of orthodox Christianity, even though they blatantly contradict the egalitarian teachings of Jesus, who regarded women as equals having a high status in his spiritual community.

      Gender bias in general is a form of sexism. The orthodoxies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have scriptures condemning homosexuals and relegating woman to a status inferior to man.

    Speciesism: the word was coined by Peter Singer in his Animal Liberation, a book which is credited with founding, or at least strongly catalyzing the animal rights movement in the twentieth century.  The word refers to the  condition in which members of the human species assert that the human species is superior to others, and that humans have the right to subdue other creatures and have dominion over them; that is, they have the right to invade nature and displace, abuse and kill other creatures.  Speciesism is human-centered, not creation-centered.
 

    Scriptures which support speciesism are Genesis 1: 26-28, and Genesis 9: 2-3.  They are obviously false scriptures. Genesis 1: 26-28 was strategically inserted before Genesis 1: 29-30, the original and only logical dietary covenant given by God.  Even orthodox Jewish rabbis admit that Vegetarianism was the original diet commanded by God. The revised dietary covenant exists in Genesis 9: 2-3, a passage in which the morbid language itself to the objective proves that the notion of an all-compassionate deity has been abandoned by the false scribes in order to present a deity who supports what the original Jews regarded as demonic, namely the sacrificing of animals.

     These scriptures are obviously insertions, for they contradict the original vegetarian covenant, as well as the teachings of the actual deities the original Jews worshipped, such as Shiva, whose name is seen in the Jewish holidays Shavu ot, and T'ub Shevat. Shiva was known as Saba by ancient Jews and Ethiopians, and this is the root of Sabaoth. The pillars erected to God in the Torah were called masseva which contains the Siva root as well.  The deity El Kana or El Chanan (the spellings are various) as well as the land of Canaan, all have their root in Kannan, the Tamil Hindu name of Krishna.

   Though the respective histories of Shiva aka Rudra, and Krishna aka Vishnu, are complex, there being deviant sects in their ancient history which sacrificed animals, both Shiva and Krishna are noted for teaching compassion towards all creatures and therefore for teaching vegetarianism.  Only the deviant Hindu sects taught that animal sacrifices were sometimes valid.  This point is unnecessary to make, however, since we know from Genesis 1: 29-30 that the original Jews were vegetarian.  Even orthodox Jewish rabbis admit this.  This being established as true even by orthodox Jews, then it is logically seen that the earliest Jews were followers of the mainstream vegetarian teachings rather than the deviant teachings sanctioning animal sacrifices.  To those such as Muhammad, who understood the unhealthy effects of meat on the human body, and to those who heed the results of medical researchers of every major faith in the world who collectively assert that ingesting cholesterol, or eating meat, leads to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and a weakening of the immune system which in turn spawns a legion of other diseases, there is no questioning the fact that the teachings sanctioning animal sacrifices in the Old and New Testament and Quran are false teachings inserted by those who wished to provide a divine sanction for their evil acts that gained them profits.  Muhammad well understood that some "invented scriptures for gain."

  According to orthodox Judaism and its offspring, orthodox Christianity and orthodox Islam, Genesis 1: 26-28, and Genesis 9: 2-3 give humans the right to oppress and kill other creatures. Since these scriptures contradict the vegetarian covenant and the eulogy to creation that begins Genesis, it is more than obvious that these scriptures were inventions of those who wished to fabricate a divine sanction for their profit making schemes.
 

     Authoritarianism: the idea that all other opinions, actions, policies are to be subordinated to the will of the authorities, whether of the state or of the church. A close study of history reveals the indisputable fact that the church, or religious authorities exist only by the grace of the authorities of the state, who allow them to exist as long as the religious authorities teach  fascist teachings such as "slaves obey your masters" and "respect all authority as divinely established, as did Paul.

    Imperialism, the notion that one's nation has the right to conquer other nations and to profit from their resources, is a form of authoritarianism on an international scale.  It has been shown conclusively in The Scientific Basis of Vegetarianism by William Harris that carnivorous cultures such as those of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are imperialistic when they have the power to be. In contrast, the vegetarian Hindu, Buddhist, and Shia cultures are not imperialistic.  In other words, Hindu, Buddhist, and Shia Muslim cultures are not noted for invading other cultures, taking over their resources, and employing the people of the conquered cultures as wage slaves.

     Authoritarianism is the tool of all governments or so-called civilized nations, demanding that their subjects follow the laws of the state and/or church.

     The subordination of the individual conscience to the state or church is the direct antithesis of Jesus' distinction between one's individual conscience, and Mammon, the authority of those who control wealth, that is, the powers of industry, state, and established religions.  Jesus' statement "you cannot serve both both and Mammon" is an affirmation that the voice of God within each of us is superior to the laws of the state.  Mammon simply means wealth, money, and those whose purpose in life is to accumulate it. Rome, home of the Roman Empire and the Roman emperor, was the center of Mammon or wealth in Jesus' time. This was a fact accepted by all people. Therefore Paul's sanctioning of the authority of the empire and the empire in "Romans" directly contradicts the notion of the zealots and Jesus that one is "to call no man Lord."
 

     Conscription, or the draft, is a perfect example of how governments own people as slaves.  Those who are drafted have no choice to refuse to be drafted. They are either drafted or sent to jail for refusing to be drafted. A few who claim to be conscientious objectors for religious reasons are allowed to be exempt, but those who refuse to serve because they complain that their nation is involved in unjust war(s), are not exempt. They must either allow themselves to be drafted or they are sent to prison. It is a clear example of slavery, which is a condition in which one's own conscience is subordinate to the will of another.

   The orthodoxies of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have laws stating that the conscience and will of the individual is inferior to the laws of the state.  They therefore contradict the basic notion that one is to be loyal to God above all other loyalties.
 

       All who are familiar with the scriptures of the Torah, the New Testament and the Quran know that all three of these contain scriptures that declare that Deity desired some humans to enslave others.  In actuality the founders of each of these religions asserted as Jesus did: "I have come to free the captive," and that one should "love your neighbor as your self," that is, not as an inferior, but an equal. Jesus' and James' command to love your neighbor as yourself, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you totally contradicts the notion that slaves should obey their masters as taught by St. Paul.

    As this and other web sites have so amply demonstrated, it is quite obvious that the original scriptures were changed.  In order for religion to be successful it must heal--carnivorism degenerates; it must inspire--to be of a lower class is to be denigrated and insulted; it must enlighten--the orthodoxies of Judaism, Christianity and Islam do not enlighten but condition their followers.
 
 

Egotism: the condition in which an individual asserts his or her will as superior to that of other humans, and that one's own rights and privileges ought to be greater than the rights and privileges of others.  Collective egotism is manifested in the fact that throughout western civilization the Elite Rich Classes control the classes under them.

     "Love your neighbor as your self" is an egalitarian teaching with economic ramifications. The Essenes owned nothing of themselves. All was owned communally. The earliest Christians in "Acts" were ordered to give all they had to the Christian community. Epiphanius in the Panarion states that the earliest Christians were called Essenes and Nazarenes. Both groups were vegetarian and egalitarian. The earliest Jews, before they clamored for a king, and the earliest Muslims apparently had the same or similar ideas of equality.  A concern for the needy was regarded as essential.

    All religious founders had a keen sense of how authoritarianism, and the class systems which emanate from it, breeds resentment between the rich and poor, the haves and have nots.

    When one is raised in a carnivorous culture, one is conditioned to become an imperialist, believing that one's human will is superior to the will of the animal one pays to be killed so that it can be eaten.  It has been wisely conjectured by some that the event of the Jews clamoring for a king was concomitant with the Jews becoming carnivores.
 

    A mere 75 years ago, most of the ground water in streams and rivers away from industrial centers could still be drunk.  They were not yet contaminated with the toxins of industry.  Now only some well and spring water sources survive as pure.  Only the demented mind would say that this is a sign of progress.  Industrialists, keenly aware that having water is a necessity for every human, are now trying to control the pure water sources of the world, so that drinking water will no longer be a natural resource (given by the Creator or Creative Forces of the Universe) deserved by all creatures, but now it will be a commodity, sold by industrialists, even though it is a necessity for all humans.

   Only the demented do not understand that it is demonic for some humans to deny others the basic rights to have the necessities to survive.