Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy an effective treatment for massive blood loss

“In a famous experiment in 1960 published in the first edition of the Journal of

Cardiovascular Surgery Dr. Boerema of the Netherlands anesthetized pigs, removed nearly all of their blood, and replaced it with salt water while he compressed them to three atmospheres in a hyperbaric chamber. 

"At 3 ATA the pigs, with essentially no blood, were completely alive and well," he wrote. Dr. Boerema then removed the saline, replaced the blood, and brought the pigs to surface pressure where they remained alive and well. This phenomenon has been proven effective in other experiments and is the basis for clinical use in extreme blood loss anemia. 

"The best examples are Jehovah’s Witness patients who have lost massive amounts of blood and because of religious proscription are unable to receive blood transfusions," says Dr. Paul Harch. "These patients are kept alive over weeks with repetitive Hyperbaric Oxygen therapy until their blood system is able to naturally produce enough blood to sustain life.”

 

Hyperbaric therapy may not be the first thing that comes to mind if you've suffered significant blood loss. But it is a viable therapy that might keep you alive without a blood transfusion.

 

If your doctor is claiming that due to blood loss nothing but a blood transfusion will save your life, ask him/her if the facility has a hyperbaric chamber, or if they know where the nearest one is. Not every medical facility has one, but they've been around for decades. Divers use them after long dives to safely decompress their blood, so if you're near the ocean there is likely one nearby.

 

There is a U.S. list of hyperbaric facilities here. Or just Google "HBOT near me".

 

To read my other columns about blood medicine, start here: 

 

Check out my latest novel:

  

 

Bill K. Underwood is a columnist and author of several books. You can support this page by following this link to his books at Amazon.com. 

Quarry for stone jars discovered near Cana in Galilee

The account about Jesus attending a wedding in Cana includes this unusual detail: “There were six stone water jars set there for the Jewish custom of purification.” (John 2:6) What's unusual about that?

Archaeological excavations conducted in Galilee, under the direction of Dr. Yonatan Adler of Ariel University, have unearthed a 2,000 year-old cave which functioned as a quarry and industrial workshop for the production of stone vessels.

The large subterranean cavern, hewn into a chalkstone hillside, was discovered at a site named ‘Einot Amitai near Nazareth in northern Israel. The cave yielded numerous remains of stone vessels in various stages of production, attesting to a thriving industry.

In ancient times, most tableware, cooking pots and storage jars were made of pottery. In the first century of the Common Era, however, Jews throughout Judea and Galilee used tableware and storage vessels made of soft, local chalkstone. The reason for this curious choice of material seems to have been religious: according to ancient Jewish law, vessels made of stone can never become ritually impure, and as a result ancient Jews began to produce their everyday tableware from stone.

While fragments of stone vessels have been found in the past at numerous Early Roman period sites throughout Israel, and two workshops are known from the Jerusalem area, this is the first time that full-scale excavations have been conducted at a stone vessel production site in Galilee.

Aside from the small alabaster jar of expensive perfume that Mary broke open (Mark 14:3)  - which was likely carved in Alabastron, Egypt - the miracle at the wedding in Cana is the only mention of stone jars in the Bible. The account specifically mentions that the stone jars of water were there because of "the purification rules of the Jews," meaning that, according to the burdensome rules of the pharisees and other leaders in Judea, an ordinary pottery jar touched by a person who was 'unclean' had to be thrown away, but a stone jar could be washed and reused.

The cave where they found the evidence of stone-jar-making is just south of a place that is today called Kanna... the Cana of Bible times.

Isn't it interesting how even small details in Bible accounts are being proven correct?

 Feel free to leave a comment.

Check out my latest novel:

 

 Bill K. Underwood is the author of several novels and one non-fiction self-help book, all available at Amazon.com. You can help support this site by purchasing one of his books.

Should you be worried about pesticides?

The news loves to scream about any news that is going to generate fear. Zika Virus is the latest scare out of South America. If you've seen pictures, you know the scariest part is babies being born with unusually small heads, "microcephaly."

“Zika Virus has been around for decades. In fact, it was first observed in monkeys in 1947, when researchers from the Rockefeller Foundation were conducting a research for Yellow Fever in the Zika Forest of Uganda. Instances of Zika virus in humans arose every now and then, but cases were mostly in equatorial regions. The symptoms were also mild enough that it could be left alone until it clears within a week, just like any normal fever,” says an article in Tech Times.  

Florida now has confirmed cases of Zika. Miami is spraying a strong insecticide to kill mosquitoes. The main ingredient in that insecticide is a chemical called Naled.

“Naled is one of a class of insecticides referred to as organophosphates. These chemicals act by interfering with ...an enzyme that is essential for the proper working of the nervous systems of both humans and insects…Severe poisoning will affect the central nervous system, producing incoordination, slurred speech, loss of reflexes, weakness, fatigue… Naled is highly to moderately toxic to birds… Naled is toxic to most types of aquatic life… Naled is highly toxic to bees… Protective clothing must be worn when handling Naled. (Given that, what do you see wrong in the picture above?) …” 

The main pesticide being used in Brazil against mosquitos believed to be spreading Zika was not Naled, but Pyriproxyfen. Here’s what it does:

“Pyriproxyfen mimics a natural hormone in insects and disrupts their growth. It is a type of insect growth regulator that affects mostly young insects and eggs…In studies with rats, more than three quarters [of the pyriproxyfen] left the body within seven days. However, very small amounts of pyriproxyfen can be stored in fat and breast milk in the body… Two groups of laying hens were fed pyriproxyfen for eight days. A very small amount of the dose was found in the eggs, with most in the yolks…In one study, rats fed high doses of pyriproxyfen during pregnancy did not have any effects on their young. Similarly exposed rabbits had reduced birth rates only at the highest dose tested. In another study with rats, some young had unusual skeletal and digestive changes… Pyriproxyfen is practically nontoxic to birds, mammals, and adult honeybees. However, eggs and larval stages of honeybees and other insects are much more likely to be sensitive than adults…” 

So it's safe, right? Well, it's safe if you're an adult human or bee or hen, but it doesn't seem to healthy for fetuses. 

“Starting in 2014, Pyriproxifen was put into Brazilian water supplies to fight the proliferation of mosquito larvae… On February 3, 2016, the [possibility] that Pyriproxyfen, not the Zika virus, is the cause of the 2015-2016 microcephaly outbreak in Brazil was raised in a report of the Argentinean organization Physicians in Crop-Sprayed Villages…On February 13, the Brazilian state of Rio Grande do Sul suspended Pyriproxyfen's use… the city of Recife has the current highest reported amount of cases of microcephaly, yet Pyriproxyfen is not used in the region…" according to Wikipedia.

I'm no scientist, but it seems like if you replace a chemical that harms the nervous system with one that affects eggs, fetal skeletons, and birth rates, and you begin to see birth defects...

Now, here’s part of the story that wasn’t generally reported:

“After experts scrutinized 732 of the cases [in Brazil] they found that more than half either weren’t microcephaly, or weren’t related to Zika. Just 270 were confirmed as microcephaly that appears to be linked to Zika or other infectious diseases…The condition can also be caused by genetic factors or drug or alcohol abuse during pregnancy,” according to the Washington Post. 

Feel free to leave a polite comment. To read another of my columns about mankind ruining the earth, click here. 

Check out my latest novel:

 

 Bill K. Underwood is the author of several novels and one non-fiction self-help book, all available at Amazon.com. You can help support this site by purchasing a book.

The Church's role in World War One

 

 

In July, 1914, the shots were fired that began World War One. Gavrilo Princip, the nineteen-year-old Serbian who fired the fatal shots at Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, may have been the bullet but the Vatican was the gunpowder.

Prince, fame, and religious controversy

 

Why has nearly every news story about the untimely death of music icon Prince breathlessly pointed out that he was one of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Why should it matter to anyone what religion he was?

David Bowie, in an interview years ago described himself as “not quite an atheist.” After he was diagnosed with cancer last year he began ‘searching for God,’ in his words, but few of the news articles about his recent death mentioned his religion, if he had one. The obituary of Glenn Frey, who also passed away recently, talked a lot about money and drugs but said nothing about his religious affiliation.

 

Perhaps Prince’s religion is newsworthy because of its relative rarity. According to Pew surveys, Jehovah’s Witnesses make up roughly 1 percent of the U.S. population. Similarly, the religion of John Travolta and Tom Cruise would probably never be mentioned if they were Presbyterians or Methodists. But Scientology isn’t just rare, it’s also controversial. It was that same “oddball” quotient that made it a headline when George Harrison switched from Catholic to Hare Krishna.

 

A celebrity being a Mormon is apparently newsworthy as well. When Mitt Romney was running for president his Mormonism was a frequent talking point – people wondered whether his religious beliefs would color his political decisions. When Donny Osmond was an 18-year-old superstar making megabucks (10% of which went to the Mormon church, of course) his church’s doctrine stated very clearly: “The General Authorities expect all able young men to serve missions…” However, in Donny’s case, he says,

“The leaders of the Church suggested that I could possibly do more missionary work for the Church as a performer…”

Well, more $omething…

 

For being a minority, Jehovah’s Witnesses have had their share of celebrities before Prince. One of the earliest was Theresa Graves. Starting as a bikini-clad go-go dancer on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh-In, she went on to become the first black female lead in a TV drama, Get Christie Love, for which she was nominated for a Golden Globe. While it started as a ratings smash, it was cancelled after one year because Graves had begun studying the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses and developed conscientious objections to acting in scenes that depicted drug use, immorality, and excessive violence – the three mainstays of police dramas. Graves never looked back; she abandoned show business and spent the rest of her life focused on her ministry.

 

The list of celebrity Witnesses also includes musicians Larry Graham and George Benson, model Coco Rocha, and several professional athletes.

 

What many news stories of this type get wrong is including names of individuals who are no longer Jehovah’s Witnesses. Earlier I mentioned George Harrison’s conversion from Catholic to Krishna but in fact, I don’t know that he ever left the Catholic Church – they wouldn’t have cancelled his membership just because of his joining a mystical eastern religion. (Wouldn’t it be hypocritical, anyway, considering that many of their customs, such as the rosary, originate with mystical eastern religions?) According to the Church, in fact, a person never leaves; even if they write a letter asking to be removed from Church rolls.

 

But with Jehovah’s Witnesses, it’s a different story. Their name is a verb. No one is born into the religion. A person who qualifies to be baptized into that faith is expected to witness; that is, by their words and actions, to advance the message about the coming of God’s kingdom. Someone who stops witnessing may for a time still be considered a Witness though inactive; but a person who chooses a life course out of harmony with those Bible teachings that he agreed to when he got baptized is considered by other Witnesses to have stopped being one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. 

 

So lists of “Famous Jehovah’s Witnesses” that include celebrities who were perhaps only raised by Witness parents – Like President Eisenhower or rapper Ja Rule – are inaccurate. Likewise those lists should not include people who used to be Jehovah’s Witnesses but no longer are – a concept Catholics, among others, struggle with. (I had a Catholic tell me once, with a straight face, that a person could no more stop being Catholic than he could stop being Italian…)

 

Another reason Prince’s religion is mentioned in all those news stories is the dichotomy between the Witnesses strict moral standards and the aggressively sexual lyrics of songs he wrote before he became a Witness. 

 

But one huge message in the Bible is that people can change, and apparently Prince did so. He stopped performing his former raunchy material. He preached from door-to-door and qualified to identify himself as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses when he did so.

 

The Prince news stories have also been filled with a lot of incorrect information about the Jehovah’s Witness faith:

• Prince couldn’t have an operation he needed because of his faith. False. Jehovah’s Witnesses take the Bible’s proscription of blood seriously but in doing so, have actually pushed doctors to come up with better medicine, including bloodless hip replacement surgery. (See my earlier series called Advances in Blood Medicine)
• Prince believed he could heal himself by prayer rather than medicine. False, see above. There are religions that claim to practice “faith-healing” but Jehovah’s Witnesses do not. Jesus clearly said that sick people, “need a doctor.” (Matthew 9:12)
• Prince had to be cremated within 5 days because of his faith. False. There is no such teaching in the Bible, nor is it part of the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The only teaching of Jehovah’s Witnesses regarding funerals is that they should avoid spiritism, such as customs arising from the (false) belief that the dead are still conscious somewhere and need to be appeased. “The living know that they will die, but the dead don't know anything.” (Ecclesiastes 9:5)
• Prince was “prohibited by the church” from talking about his charitable contributions. False. The Bible says: "When you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do…” (Matthew 6:2) Prince apparently followed that advice, not because his church said so, but because the Bible says so. And it’s just common sense.
• Prince left all his millions to his church. Who knows? So far, no will has been found. Since tithing is not a Christian requirement, he didn’t owe them anything. Unlike the pastor who is suing a lottery winner in his flock who failed to share, Jehovah’s Witnesses will not be involved in any legal shenanigans to try to take any of Prince’s money.
• Prince’s religion didn’t allow him to eat meat. Wrong. That’s Seventh Day Adventists. In Genesis 9:3 God tells Noah, after the flood, “Every living and moving thing will be food for you; I give them all to you as before I gave you all green things.” If Prince was vegetarian, it was a personal decision, not a religious belief.

(For a full discussion of what Jehovah's Witnesses believe and don't believe, go to jw.org.)

 

As long as Prince stays in the news, his religion will as well, which could be either a good thing or a bad thing. One Facebook commenter this week perhaps explained it best: “For any who may have concluded that only the ignorant and naive would be a JW and go ‘preaching’: I dare anyone to call Prince ignorant and naive.” I have to agree.

Please feel free to leave a comment. 

 

Check out my latest novel:

 

 

Bill K. Underwood is a columnist and author of several books. You can support this website by purchasing one of his books at Amazon.com.

How did your Bible get to you?

 

“The Bible has been so changed and mistranslated over time that it can’t be trusted.” 

 

Someone posted this on Facebook the other day. I asked the gentleman if he had confirmed that for himself or if he was simply repeating what someone had told him. I got no reply.

Is Mankind "evolving" about homosexuality?

According to The Blaze, Christians are “evolving.” The story, based on the latest Pew religion poll, claims that, as a society, we are becoming more accepting of homosexuality, and The Blaze sees that as progress. 

 

Evolving from what? Evolving compared to when? Sodom had a homosexual society 4,000 years ago.

About Time, part 5: Carbon-14, the Ice Age, and the Bible

For many who call themselves Christians, 'Take it on faith' is a mantra they use when they can't explain something. However, the Bible says that faith should be built on evidence. (Hebrews 11:1)

 

Annie's claim that “The Sun'll come out Tomorrow,” was a good example of real faith. After all, tomorrow's sun hasn't come out yet. We believe it will come out, we have faith it will come out. It requires faith (albeit very little) to believe it, because it is an event that hasn't happened yet. 

 

But our belief in it is based on evidence: The sun came out today, it came out yesterday, etc.

Who decides what's right and wrong?

When someone is spotted standing on the edge of a roof, occasionally there are hecklers on the ground yelling “Jump!” But most reasonable people will try to talk the emotionally disturbed person out of harming themselves. Why? Because most of us agree it would be wrong.

But let an emotionally disturbed person decide that he wants to take a scalpel to his genitalia, get his Adam’s Apple shaved, get breast implants and estrogen injections, and he’s applauded for his 'courage', as if mutilating his body is right. No one says anything about his narcissism. It is considered politically incorrect to look askance at his decision, to suggest he needs emotional help.

About Time, Part Four: Language – Science versus the Bible

In previous columns in this series, we’ve looked at the creation account versus the Big Bang, the Exodus account and biblical skeptics, and the biblical record of Israelite history versus the historical records of those nations around them. No discussion about the claims of the Bible versus the claims of science and history would be complete without looking at human speech.

Why won't racism go away?

 

“Who’s Billy’s little colored friend?”

I turned expectantly to my mother, to whom the question was addressed. I couldn’t wait to find out which of my friends was colored. Had Paul fallen into a vat of purple paint? Had Steve suddenly broken out in green spots?

About Time, Part Three: The Bible and the Big Bang

 

Creationists have done honest Bible students a huge disservice. 

 

"Creationism" is not the alternative to the theory of evolution. It is the opposite of, basically, everything scientific - as if science itself is a dirty word. Creationists' absurd claim, that God created the Universe and everything in it all at once about 6,000 years ago, makes all who believe in the Bible look like idiots.

About Time, Part Two: Bible history versus secular history

A hundred years ago, the Bible was viewed by most scholars as authoritative history – even by those who were skeptical of its spiritual merits. Clearly, that view has changed. 

 

As we noted in the previous column, any archaeologist or other scholar who says anything positive about the Bible is immediately branded a religious nut.

Should that be the case? How does the historical record in the Bible stack up against other histories? What exactly are these other historical records that scholars rely on?

About Time: Chronology and Bible skeptics

 

We've been looking at the argument for re-dating a biblical event. Timothy Mahoney, the filmmaker behind Patterns of Evidence – Exodus, made a strong case that the main reason so many biblical scholars are skeptical about the Exodus is their understanding of the timing.

Should the Exodus be re-dated?

Last week I got to attend the premiere of a new film, “Patterns of Evidence – Exodus.” I can safely say it was the exact opposite of the last movie I reviewed, “Noah.”

Government, Parental Rights, and medical treatment

 

A few weeks ago in Brantford, Ontario, Canada, a judge made an amazing ruling in favor of a child of First Nation (also called aboriginal Canadian – what we used to call Indian) parents. 

 

“Amazing,” because Justice G.B. Edward decided that the family’s rights trumped the wishes of McMasters Children's Hospital.

Evils of religion Part 11: Brigham Young and the Mountain Meadows Massacre

 

 

The Mormon Church has - finally - officially acknowledged that Joseph Smith was a polygamist, having had as many as 40 wives. Though they stopped short of calling him a pederast (as I did in a previous column), they did admit that one of his wives was only 14 years old.

Evils of religion Part 10: The Missouri Mormon wars

 

In 1831 Joseph Smith claimed he had a revelation (Doctrines & Covenants 57:1-3) that Independence, Missouri, was where the New Jerusalem was to be built. Good Mormons should come, quickly, and bring their money. 

 

Smith reiterated the prophecy in 1832, swearing that “This Generation will not pass away until the Temple is built in Independence.” (D&C 84:2-5, 31) 

 

Non-Mormon Missourians already in Independence disagreed. In December, 1833, Smith assured Mormons who were being attacked that “there is no other place than Missouri appointed by God for the gathering of the Saints.” (D&C 101:17-20)

 

Yeah, well… The Mormons were driven out of Independence in 1839. Either God got it wrong all three times, or Smith was making stuff up…

Evils of religion Part 9: How a sexual predator became a spiritual leader

While it was recently acknowledged by the LDS church that Joseph Smith did, indeed, practice and teach polygamy, less well known is his sordid sexual history.

Like nearly all charismatic cult leaders from Muhammed to Jim Jones to David Koresh, Smith (and his successor, Brigham Young) claimed it was “God’s will” to take the pretty daughters and wives of his followers for himself.

Evils of religion Part 8: The scam that became Mormonism

 

There is no perfect church. While I believe in the Christianity Jesus started, even a religion that has hewed as closely as possible to Christ’s teachings will be populated by imperfect people. Every religion has embarrassments both in their past and their present. How can a reasonable person decide which of these embarrassments is forgivable, and which is a deal breaker?

Evils of religion Part 7: Protestantism's present-day scandals

Perhaps your heart goes out to Protestants for all the persecution they suffered through the centuries at the hands of the Catholic Church, or even other Protestants. 

 

Unfortunately, just being persecuted doesn't mean they were right.

Despite ‘protesting’ some of the Catholic Church’s false teachings, Protestants held onto: 

• Catholicism's trinity (which changes God from a single Almighty to a board of directors)
• Hellfire (which makes God more cruel than Hitler) 
• Immortality of the soul (which makes God a liar – after all, God told Adam and Eve they would “positively die” if they disobeyed Him. It was Satan who told Eve: “You positively will not die.”)

Protestantism added a confusing belief to what they received from Catholicism: Once Saved Always Saved. Confusing because, for centuries they tried – and some still try – to scare people into obedience with Hellfire. If you're saved, if you can be instantly saved by claiming you've accepted Jesus, why worry about hellfire?

With the coming of the free love generation in the Sixties many decided that God accepts everyone no matter what, contrary to what the Bible says in several places. (Matthew 24:13; John 3:36; John 15:13,14; Hebrews 3:14; 1 Corinthians 9:27; 1 Corinthians 10:12.) 

The serial killer known as the Son of Sam, David Berkowitz, was ‘saved’ four years before he shot 13 victims in 1976 and 1977. Every president since Kennedy has claimed to be 'saved'. A good friend of mine said she 'got the call' and went down front in church and was ‘saved’ three times before it finally occurred to her that what she was feeling was coming from her own emotions, not the holy spirit.

Protestants have also adorned their clergy with pompous titles and garb. They may call their pastors ‘Reverend’ rather than ‘Father,’ but they can’t show you any scriptural foundation for the term. Only once do Protestants find in their version of the Bible the word “reverend” and that's in reference to God: “Holy and reverend is his name. The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom.” (Psalms 111:9, 10, ASV) 

Furthermore, creating a paid clergy, and a clergy/laity distinction, engenders in the laity the belief that they can pay others to fulfill their obligation to defend their faith and spread the gospel. (1 Peter 3:15) Much more sinister, however, is that it creates in the clergy a belief that they are above the standards of conduct to which the rest of us are held.

Protestantism has a lot to answer for. 

Calvinism’s predestination teaching was responsible for “Manifest Destiny,” the doctrine used by Europeans to justify expanding across America, Africa, and Australia, wiping out native tribes. 'If we can take their land, it must be that God's wants us to.' Protestantism must accept the blame not only for America’s early history of slavery, but for the slaughter and torture of American natives, as well as similar practices throughout Africa and Asia, and the apartheid movement that plagued South Africa until just a couple decades ago. 

Perhaps most insidious is this: People with no Bible knowledge see a TV preacher waving a Bible and they assume that the racist, immoral actions of those oh-so-pious religionists must be based on that book. Catholicism at least admits their teachings are based more on tradition than on scripture.

Unlike Catholics, Protestants have been the first to jump on every unscriptural fad that has come along: The U.S. census reported that couples living together without marrying jumped 700 percent from 1960 to 1970. Subsequently the Anglican Church, instead of upholding the Bible’s standard, announced in 1980 that objections to people living together without benefit of marriage should be dropped. Other Protestant religions soon followed. Next, the Protestant churches started lining up to approve same-sex marriage and homosexual clergy. The 'United' Methodist Church recently became sorely disunited when it decided to approve of same-sex marriage, and large numbers of their churches broke from them.

Even the teflon reputation of the Pope of Protestantism, Billy Graham, has taken its share of hits.

• While he bragged in his revivals about tearing down racial barriers he endorsed racist Price Daniel in his run for Governor of Texas. Graham claimed to be close friends with Martin Luther King, but when King came out in opposition to Vietnam, Billy Graham castigated him for criticizing American foreign policy.
• On Good Morning America in 1991, when asked about abortion he replied, “There is a Christian position, I think, but I’m not prepared to say what it is.” Ahh, leadership!
• The IRS launched an investigation of Billy Graham’s $100,000,000 organization after they ran ads in 2012 urging voters to “consider candidates who make decisions based on biblical principles and support of the nation of Israel.” A couple years later, the organization changed its IRS status from "non-profit" to "church". A seemingly small change, but non-profits are subject to IRS investigation; churches are not.
  
• His son, Franklin Graham, reportedly receives a yearly salary of $1.2 million. Due to his recent sex scandals and loud support of Trump, a petition for his removal from the organization has received over 22,000 signatures, but he still holds his high-paying offices. 

While Protestantism may not have velvet-robed priests riding around in pope-mobiles, it has nevertheless produced and is still producing its share of anything-for-a-buck prostitutes:

• Jimmy Swaggart’s ‘ministry’ has bounced back nicely from his highly publicized adulterous prostitute/masturbation humiliation back in 1988. An insider claims Swaggart Ministries pulls in $2 million a month from duped donors. A ministry-funded printing facility takes on lucrative commercial printing jobs on the side, including posters for local night clubs and CD labels for foul-mouthed hip-hop artists. The ‘two-bedroom cottage’ he frequently mentions in his sermons is actually a gold-fauceted, 9,337 square foot mansion on 20 landscaped acres – the most expensive residence in Baton rouge. He was the inspiration of the Ray Stevens song, “Would Jesus wear a Rolex?”
• Pat Robertson’s net worth is estimated to be somewhere between two hundred million and a billion dollars. His involvement in politics – including running for President – is well-known. Less well known was his support of Zaire dictator Mobutu and Liberian dictator Charles Taylor, both guilty of war crimes and gross human rights violations. In 2007 he pronounced that God had told him that millions of Americans would die in a terrorist attack before the year was out. Apparently the voice he hears wasn't God's, but Robertson still has millions of worshipers.
• Benny Hinn’s ‘healing’ ministry collects more than $200 million a year. He has a private jet and a $10 million mansion. If he really can heal people, as he claims, why doesn’t he simply start clearing out hospitals?
• Kenneth Copeland also flies around the country in a $20 million private jet. He owns the airport where it lands and lives in a mansion the size of a hotel. When asked by congress to cooperate in an investigation of his financials his reply was, “Go get a subpoena.”
• Jesse Jackson turned his former gig as part of Martin Luther King's inner circle into a net worth of $10,000,000. He was booed at a protest in Ferguson, Missouri, when he turned up not to offer comfort to the mourners but to beg for money.
• Al Sharpton, another media whore, has a net worth of $5 million. Like Jesse Jackson, while he claims to be a Baptist preacher of the gospel, virtually all his time in the spotlight is devoted to race, not the Kingdom.
• Most of the ‘flock’ of Charles Blake’s Pentecostal Church lives in poverty in South Central Los Angeles. But it’s a big flock, and his annual salary is $900,000. He lives in Beverly Hills, not South Central.

I spoke to a lady who attends a sizable protestant church near my house in Arizona. She told me a typical Sunday attendance is about 1,000. They pass a collection basket “once, sometimes twice if there’s a special need,” she told me. “How much does each person put in the basket?” I asked. “Oh, ten or twenty dollars,” was the reply.

 

I said, “Let’s assume it’s ten. Can you tell me what that church can possibly be doing with $10,000 tax-free per week – every week? The mortgage must be paid off by now. They are exempt from property taxes. The light bill can’t be more than a few hundred a week.”

 

“Well, there’s a staff…” she said. But most of the “staff” are Sunday volunteers. Have you looked at a church during the week? Most of them are locked up. The big ones might have a secretary or two working a 40-hour week. So where is the bulk of that half-million bucks a year going?

Does that sound remotely like anything Jesus did, or said we should do?

 

She got very thoughtful. Maybe you should, too. Do the math about your own church, see what you come up with.

 

Since I started this series I've been accused of being anti-religious, agnostic, atheist, Jewish, and Muslim. I suppose equal time requires me to take a look at religions that are not calling themselves either Catholic or Protestant. We'll do that next. 

 

Please leave a comment. 

 

Check out my latest novel:

  

Bill K. Underwood is a columnist and author of several books. You can help support this site by following the link here to Amazon.com. 

Evils of religion Part 6: The brutality of the early Protestants

 

After my last column someone wrote: “Love your articles about the awful Catholic Church, but isn’t it a bit like shooting fish in a barrel?’

He’s right. With the exception of most (but not all) practicing Catholics, people love to hate The Church. It’s not just the mind-boggling atrocities of the Crusades and the Inquisition; not simply the pedophile priests; not even the excesses of adulterous and murderous popes. 

 

It’s also that The Church has proclaimed herself THE one holy representative of God, then dressed her priests up in a wardrobe that would embarrass Lady Gaga. Furthermore, they have amassed more money than God doing these awful things. Then they hypocritically told their adherents: ‘Do as I say not as I do.’

Evils of religion part 5: Catholicism's worst atrocities

 

Pope Francis admitted that 1 of every 50 priests is a pedophile. Let that sink in for a minute... Likely, the true number is far higher. 

 

Of course, the truly hideous thing is not simply the existence of pedophiles in an organization that claims to be God’s guiding light to humanity; nor the hypocrisy of the supposedly holy men engaging is such disgusting practices. 

 

The most disgusting aspect of the story is the Church’s self-serving game of hide-the-pederast, moving priests who were about to become an embarrassment to another part of the world. It has been suggested that Pope Benedict, before he became pope, was one of the organizers of that game, and that exposure of it was partly what led him to resign.

Evils of religion, part 4: The lie about the unbroken chain of popes

 

The Catholic Church claims their current pope is a direct descendant, in an unbroken chain, of popes that began with the apostle Peter. 

 

As we pointed out in the previous article, the Bible makes no mention of Peter being the first pope, or a pope of any kind, at all. 

 

The Church claims that Linus was Pope #2. While the Bible mentions Linus in passing, there is no mention of his being the second pope, or any kind of overseer for that matter. 

Evils of religion, part 3: Catholicism's lies about Peter and early popes

 

After my previous articles, several readers – presumably Catholics – have written me demanding to know how I can allege that Peter was never in Rome. I could just as easily ask, What proof do you have that he was?

Only wishful thinking puts Peter in Rome. Catholics base that tradition on non-biblical sources from, at the earliest, a century after Peter, Paul and the other apostles had died. Is that delay significant?

Evils of religion, part 2: Was Peter 'the rock', the first pope?

 

If you keep saying the same thing over and over, does it make it true? I can’t tell you how many people have screamed at me since my previous column was published, ‘Catholicism is the ONE TRUE FAITH! How dare you attack the ONE TRUE FAITH!’ Boy, if they felt that was an attack, they are really going to hate what comes next.