Part 2: Archaeology says Mecca was no major mercantile center of 7th Century

The Year 536 C.E. changed Planet Earth & humanity. 

 

It would not be business as usual for the following 124 years.  

It became easy to infringe upon existing empires and start new ones.

The first impediment to the credibility of the "major trading hub" narration about 6th Century Mecca ... or even 7th Century Mecca ... is that a major environmental disaster occurred on a Global Scale, in the 6th Century.  

The year was 536 C.E.  It resulted in the Late Antique Little Ice Age which lasted until 660 C.E.  It involved three major volcanic outbursts which provided a massive amount of atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide.  Sulfur Dioxide molecules, per se, serve the function of many mirrors reflecting sunlight back into outer space, not enabling enough sunlight to reach the surface of the Earth.

The environmental disaster of the 6th Century also included the Justinian Plague which started in 541 C.E.  It then recurred throughout a 225 year time span.  In fact, exactly one hundred years later, Alexandria Egypt would fall at the hands of Arabian swordsmen imposing a new religion with their swords.  

In addition, it was exactly one year after the Late Antique Little Ice Age ended, when the first Muslim empire began.  It was called the Amayyad Caliphate.  It lasted until 750 C.E., and it ended up being the fifth largest empire in human history, in having covered 4.29 million square miles of land.  

In the Sixth and Seventh Centuries, humanity weakened.  Civilization was wanting, and thusly, civilization was wanning.  The time was ripe for nomads to literally come out of the desert and start thrashing at existing empires.  

As a result, the Sasanian Empire of Persia was toppled in the 630s.  In fact, the Byzantine Empire lost Syria also ... to a desert horde which originally called its members "believers."  By the Year 641 C.E.,  Alexandria was no longer a Christian city.  Yet, a significant remnant of the Byzantine Empire would remain until 1453 C.E.

All in all, the establishment of any new religion during this era would have been the result of Environmental & Economic Opportunism more than the providence of an Eternal God.  Mankind was hurting.  Civilization was wanning.  Conquest during this time span was basically "easy pickings."  The 6th and 7th Centuries was a time span when the literal survival of humanity was in jeopardy.

The archeologically proven or disproven existence of Mecca as a major trading hub is the Tale of the Tape 

If there had been no major trading center in Mecca during the 6th and 7th Centuries ... and if there are no archaeological signs of any civilization ... then mass geographic regions of humanity were told one big lie, for 1,400 years.

Such a thing is not fair to those people, be they in Indonesia or Afghanistan or Persia or Iraq or Pakistan or Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan or Azerbaijan or Türkiye or Syria or Egypt or Jordan or Arabia or Yemen or even the city of Minneapolis Minnesota, otherwise known as New Somalia.  

Furthermore, such a thing is certainly not fair to the Jews who have had a target painted on them, by the Mullahs and other religious fanatics who have proven themselves to have no conscience or compassion.  Mass populations of mankind deserve better than the tyranny of the mullahs. 

Directly above:  United States' NASA satellite technology  showing Mecca
as a dry, parched, desert land not capable of hosting a large society
or a major trading center during an era of 1] primitive technology,
2] an era of a mini ice age, and 3] an era of a massive plague.

Concerning the Hatred of the Jews, this Arabian man who was alleged to have existed in the 7th Century was alleged to have had a JEWISH WIFE, named Safiyya bint Huyayy.  She was said to have been his tenth wife, and thusly, a "Mother of Believers."   Yet, the mullahs claim that you have to kill all Jews in the name of the man who had a Jewish wife.

Mohammad was said to have had 11 wives, in all.  One was said to have been nine years old, upon marriage.  And yes, this is one of the reasons why Americans use the phrase, "You've got to be kidding," as well as  the phrase, "Okay.  Joke's over."

Quick Mecca Geography Note

Now, there is a cemetery near the famous Muslim mosque of Mecca.  It's called, the Jannat al-Mu'alla Cemetery.  In fact, it's alleged inhabitants include Kadijah bint Khuwaylid, a woman said to have been the first wife of Mohammad.  In fact, she is regarded as the first convert to Islam and a "Mother of Believers."

A grandfather and an uncle of Mohammad are said to be there also, assuming that Mohammad actually did exist, at least as a warlord whose story was later embellished for political influence and cultural gain.  In fact, Mohammad's first son and a companion of Mohammad are both alleged to be there.

The huge problem with these claims is that there are no artifacts or any other kind of archaeological evidence to prove who is and who is not there.  Any remaining pieces of evidence were removed from the Jannat cemetery in 1925.  From that point onward, humanity was unable to prove or disprove the hearsay assertions of that cemetery.

No Major 6th or 7th Century Trading Center in Mecca

The much larger problem is that of proving Mecca (or Makkah or Bekkah or Macoraba) to have been a massively frequented & influential trading center of the 6th & 7th Centuries.  The physical evidence for this assertion does NOT exist.

Macoraba is another name for Mecca. 

 Its mention is absent from records of 6th & 7th Centuries.

Another name for Mecca was Bakkah.  No recorded mention of it either.

Medina

Medina is also a part of the Muslim narrative, concerning the claim that a man born and raised in Mecca was given numerous revelations from the Archangel Gabriel, starting at the age of 40 and ending in the year of his alleged death, at the age of 62.  

This same man was said to have eventually moved to Medina, where he eventually made a move on Medina, itself.  It was said to have resulted in the Medina Constitution of 622 or 624 C.E.  

That constitution allowed Jews to live alongside Muslims, and to even have a defense pact with the Medina Muslims, in the event of a foreign invasion.

Then came 628 C.E., when it was alleged that a Battle in Kaybar ...,  located 109 north of Medina ... occurred.  This was a political and religious shape shifter, in that the enemies of the man named Mohammad, in this alleged battle, were Jews.  The Year 628 C.E. was the year of the start of severe Muslim hatred of the Jews, allegedly.

HOWEVER, Moorish Muslims mostly tolerated Jews and Christians in Spain for centuries, during the centuries when Spain was called Al-Andalusa ... or Andalusia.   Seething anti-Jewish hatred was NOT there.

Of course, Jews and Christians were classified as dhimmis, aka second class citizens.  There were pockets of time when degrees of prejudice and even persecution transpired against the very human dhimmis, by the Moors.  But, the entire annihilation of the Jews was not sought by the Moorish Muslims.

Kaybar

Concerning the claim of there having been a battle in Kaybar Arabia in 628 C.E., there is no physical, archaeological, and/or artifact-related evidence for any such battle ... and there is no archaeological evidence that Jews settled there.

                             ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛

Now, the place was an oasis and there were fortlike structures near and around the area.   Thus, one such structure is referred to as the "abandoned" Jewish Fortress of QAMOS, allegedly manned by the Banu Nadir Jews.  But, no Jewish artifacts from the area are known to be in any museum or university warehouse.  

And remember, concerning any written account about any subject, such a thing can possibly be a script of lies ... hoaxes ... falsehoods ... misinterpretations, propaganda, honest mistakes, and even dishonest writings motivated by Conflict of Interest.

The prejudicial factor to this Kaybar story is that it was alleged that Mohammad ... the military leader who attacked the Jews ... was claimed to have been poisoned shortly after the battle, by a Jewish lady, via dinner.   Such a story is a great way to create hatred toward the Jews.

HOWEVER, it was alleged throughout 1,400 years that this Mohammad didn't die until three and a half years after having eaten one and only one poisoned dinner, prepared by a Jewish woman.

Now, who would be foolish enough to eat anything provided by a subdued enemy member, shortly after any victorious battle over that enemy?  Hello?  

The Iranian Mullahs are the Adolph Hitlers of Today

None the less, those particular Muslim sects which claim that you have to kill all the Jews for Allah are nothing more than a bunch of Adolph Hitlers walking around in bishts and tunics.  And you know how Adolph's story ended.

The asininity in the claim that "Allah" commands Muslims to unite and Kill all the Jews in Israel or elsewhere consists in the common observation that the Eternal God doesn't need men to kill any nation God has cursed.  

If God wanted Israel to be annihilated, then all that this "Allah" needs to do is 1} send a massive flood,  2} trigger numerous earthquakes,  3} send from outer space a destructive meteor upon Israel,  4} send forth a deadly toxin upon Israel, including a plague,  5} trigger a tsunami from the Mediterranean Sea,  6} trigger drought, crop failure, and famine, etc.  

You don't need to manipulate the followers of a religious to spend 1,400 years of insane obsession over the idea of killing every Jew on the face of the Earth.

The Attila Similarity

In 453 C.E., it was suspected that Attila the Hun was poisoned to death by his fifth wife, Ildico.  This is because he died a graphic death on his & his fifth wife's wedding night.  

The Attila Similarity

In 453 C.E., it was suspected that the brutal Attila the Hun was poisoned to death by his fifth wife, Ildico.  This is because he died a graphic death on his & his fifth wife's wedding night.  

Well, Attila the Hun's newest wife happened to have been a member of a conquered community.  Thus, Attila should have expected the existence of something known as hostility, along with resentment, as well as vengeance.

Attila was a fool for taking that woman as his wife.  On his wedding night, Attila underwent hemorrhaging.  He literally had a non-stoppable nose bleed.  He died that night.  Thus, it was a super suspicious death.  

If a Mohammad really did exist ... or if there existed at least a common warlord whose life was later embellished ... and if there were a Battle of Kaybar in 628 ... then it was beyond idiotic for this Mohammad to have eaten anything prepared by a recently conquered enemy, whether she were Jewish or not.  

Not knowing that he would be poisoned by such a person would show that this military leader of 628 C.E. was no prophet.  If he were a prophet, he would have known that a Jewish lady was putting poison into his food.

In comparison, there was St. Benedict of Nursia

In contrast, Roman Catholic monk & validly ordained priest, Saint Benedict, was handed a chalice filled with a poisoned drink.  This occurred in the presence of a number of fellow monks who became instant witnesses to what would instantly follow.  St. Benedict allegedly made the sign of the Cross in front of the chalice, and the chalice allegedly shattered, saving Benedict from being poisoned to death.  

Oh, Saint Benedict did have nay-saying enemies, not alike the Donald Trump who was physically grazed by an attempted assassin's bullet. 

Medina in the 7th Century

Now, Medina certainly did exist.  HOWEVER, Medina is actually 211 straight-line miles from Mecca, and it takes 273 road miles to go from Mecca to Medina.  Therefore, simply because Medina existed in the 7th Century, it doesn't guarantee that Mecca existed as a major trading hub.

For comparison purposes, the distance between Mecca and Medina is similar to the distance between Pittsburgh and Detroit, as well as Pittsburgh and Baltimore.  In fact, 211 miles is close to the distance between Newark, New Jersey and Washington D.C.  In the days without motor cars and airplanes, 211 miles was a significant distance, consuming 5 to 10 days of travel time.

Now, the year when the Muslim religion really took flight was in 633 C.E., beginning with Persia, as well as Iraq's Kufa, and the other Middle Eastern strongholds of the Byzantine Empire.  This included the Damascus Syria which was going to become the first Muslim empire capital in world history, come 661 C.E.

Numerous MUSLIM invasions of numerous non-muslim lands ensued throughout the centuries, in the name of Allah, where the conquered People were to submit or to die.  Sometimes the attacked people fought back and won.

In as much, below is a sample of battles won by Catholic forces ... or Orthodox forces ... over Muslims forces, after the Muslims attacked first.  None of the battles posted below were "Crusade Battles."  

Even at that, the Crusades did NOT consist in the Christians forces going to the Middle East, to shove Christianity down Muslim throats.  It consisted in Christian forces going to what they believed was the Holy Land, to liberate Christians from the oppression that the Muslims were causing them.  Very simply, the Christians wanted their land back.  The Christians didn't want to be regarded as second class citizens in Jerusalem, if they were allowed to live in Jerusalem, at all.

The crusades were also meant to save Constantinople from being captured by Muslim forces, being that Constantinople was the capital of a Christian Empire which existed long before the start of the Muslim religion.

The battles where Christians successfully defended themselves from marauding Muslims included the 732 Battle of Tours, when the Muslim forces were attempting to conquer all of Continental Europe.

In fact, there were battles where the Spanish Catholics wanted their land back.  This included the 801 Siege of Barcelona Spain,  the 1063 Battle of Graus Spain,  the 1085 Siege of Toledo Spain,  the 1094 Capture of Valencia Spain.

There additionally were sieges where the Ottoman Muslims attacked, hoping to conquer various Catholic or Orthodox lands ... and islands ... but were pushed back by Catholic or Orthodox forces.  This included the 1456 Siege of Belgrade, the 1529 First Siege of Vienna,  and the 1565 Great Siege of Malta, as well as the 1683 Second Siege of Vienna.  

Then there was the 1686 Siege of Buda, where Catholics wanted their land back, from unfriendly Ottoman forces.  

There were a number of attempts to conquer all of Christendom.  Direct attacks by the Muslims resulted in Catholics ... and the Russian Orthodox people in the outskirts of Moscow ...  successfully repulsing the attacks.  This included the 1571 Battle of Lepanto, the 1621 Battle of Khotyn, and the 1572 Battle of Molodi.  

There's more to the history of the Muslim/Catholic wars, as well as Muslim/Orthodox battles.  The aforementioned is a sample, in order to familiarize yourself with the fact that Catholics and Orthodox Christians did not intend to sit back and let the Muslims ride into every town, rape the women there, and stay in power until the end of the world.

Now, when it comes to detailing 1,400 years of Muslim History, there is a lot of writing and illustrating to be done.  But, you at least have a starting gate text here and an introductory text there, along with some politely-done  YouTube videos, etc, etc, etc.

Such videos and texts are not meant to mock or condemn.  They are meant to guide ... to enlighten ... to warn ... and to inform those who have been deprived of needed news and needed history books throughout their oppressed lives.

Your Ultimate Reality Check,  America.

Concerning the up-to-date findings on the subject-at-hand, be polite.  Don't be obnoxious about it, and don't go burning a Quran.  You need a Quran for evidence purposes and for mature debate.  Instead of being feisty, enjoy feeling liberated at learning the actual truth on the matter at hand, and then share that sense of liberation, along with the information that made you experience a sense of freedom.  

Simply do NOT be anyone's fool, and don't let political operatives bully you or anyone else into submission, on any subject, including religion.  

You need to first be allowed to make an assessment of a religion, of a political party, of a philosophy, of a job, of a movie script, of a way of life, of a motor vehicle to be purchased, etc, etc, etc.  You need to be allowed to shop-around, to browse, to evaluate.

You need to be first allowed to think things out ... to be given time to read on the matter ... to look at photos ... to hear of the accounts of the forerunners of a religion or a political party or a form of art or form of thought involved.   You need to read proverbial "customer reviews."

You also need to understand the purpose of this religion here and that religion there ... this philosophy here and that philosophy there ... etc, etc, etc.  This is the opposite of having a religion shoved down your throat at the barrel of a rifle, in the name of Allah.

Even your preference of music is your choice alone, no matter what the so-called-cool-guys tell you is the music you must purchase.  Those guys have to prove themselves to you.  You do not have to prove yourself to them.  After all, they are basically power-hungry narcissists.  

Consider yourself in the Narcissist-free zone.  So, look, comprehend, and perceive ... and be excellent to others.  Always be excellent to others:

https://medium.com/@spotlightonislam2/the-missing-city-why-the-mecca-of-islamic-tradition-did-not-exist-in-the-7th-century-b94471692ce3

⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛  ⛛

https://medium.com/@7thcenturyislamdebunked/mecca-in-the-7th-century-e2f886771c14

Note for the text below:  Dhows were sail boats with triangular sails.

The link to Part 1 can be found through the link below

https://www.theheartofmary.com/2026/03/no-major-mercantile-hub.html

🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 🌙 

Salvation through Faith Alone? Paul wrote, "Without love, I have nothing."

St Paul, First Corinthians, Chapter 13, written around 1,972 years ago.

Think:  A tree is known by its fruits.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.  Let's have our memory banks adjourn to the "Bible Belt."  Here are the fruits of the Bible Belt:

1} Lynch mobs, 2}chattel slavery, 3} inbreeding & isolationism, 4} lead infested moonshine, 5} the lowest wages in the U.S., 6} the Tobacco Industry and its unconscionable practices, 7} segregation & the Klan,  8} the lowest of academic test scores, 9} the good ole boy network, and 10} Pellagra, as in ...

The list of Southern achievements included:

11} the outrageously slow, lethargic, sloth-ridden pace, 12} the unconscionable Coca-Cola Corporation and --its $137 million channel-stuffing lawsuit, --its $192 million racial discrimination lawsuit, --its having 36 times the European level of pesticide content in its products sold to India, --its $68 million unfair trade practice fine in Mexico, etc.,  13} the Beast of Bentonville Arkansas and its foreign sweatshop labor profiteering .... in order words, Walmart. 14} its very long-term anti-Catholicism, where the oldest domination in Christianity was called the Whore of Babylon.  

For the record, the Herod Dynasty was the Whore of Babylon, and Rome was the beast who tore the whore apart.

1} http://www.localmemphis.com/news/local-news/local-group-works-to-mark-lynching-sites

2}http://www.salon.com/2014/03/12/8_disturbing_trends_that_reveal_the_souths_battered_psyche_partner/

3} http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111383731090709590

4} http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/criticism_of_coca-cola

 

There is a type of isolationist who violates all of the laws of charity, while self-proclaiming himself "saved."  This person calls himself/herself a Christian, even though his/her religion has nothing to do with original Christianity.  This person is perceived by modern society as the representative of the very Christianity that he/she dishonors, thereby causing those in society to utterly hate Christianity.

But, they're not hating Christianity.  They're hating backwoods Protestantism.
Protestantism is not original Christianity in any capacity.  The Orthodox churches
do have a link to the original apostles and each of the 22 rites in the Catholic
Church are directly linked to the apostles, as well.  In fact, the Orthodox churches
are linked to Catholicism, historical.

The rural, backwoods "Born-Again" Protestant.  He/she has done more damage
to the image and presence of Christ than all Satanic high priests combined.  The
religion to which he/she is attached had one of its "preachers" claim that Mother
Theresa was on the way to Hell, because she didn't perform that backwoods ritual
of going to a church railing,  and proclaiming that Jesus Christ is that person's Lord
and "personal" savior, in the anti-social mindset of the isolationist South.

In stating the word, "personal," such a person exclaims his/her hatred for others,
as if Christ will cater to that one person only, and damn all others, as if Christ is
the ornery anti-social type that the "personal savior" type is.  Such a person is
NOT a Christian.  Such a person's religion is hatred and sloth.

Concerning Catholicism and the religion of the backwoods ana-baptist Protestant
who changed his/her name to dispensationalist to born-again Christian to Funda-
mentalist to Christian, thereby stealing a title from its true owners, you can only
have one or the other, because they contradict each other.  In fact, the doctrines
of backwoods Protestantism:

1} is contrary to those of original Christianity,

2} was condemned with "anathema"after "anathema" at the Council of Trent,

3} and which is only as old as the Anabaptist sects of the Anglo-Saxon world which
later morphed into sects of believers in a 19th Century invention composed by John
Nelson Darby, called the Great Rapture.  No one is Christian history believed in
that until 1,800 years after the first Apostles went about preaching, curing the ill,
and exorcising demons, as well as undergoing death at the hands of tyrants.

This means that the "Born-Again" doctrine does NOT trace back to the original
apostles and was not taught for the first 1,500 years of Christianity.  This means
that the doctrine is a total fraud ... an impostor to true Christianity.

Ironically, during this age of ecumenism, I remember being told that the Born-
Again, Tent Rival, TV Evangelist form of Protestantism had NO dialogue with
the Catholic Church.   Born-again Protestantism a religion which teaches that you can live an evil life
and still go to Heaven, claiming that the sins of your future are already forgiven ... of and only if you do one of those silly rituals at a church kneeling rail and mention the phrase,
"personal savior,"  thereby rejecting the notion of community and the command
to "love one another" as Christ has loved you, as well as loving your neighbor as
yourself, ultimately thrusting yourself into a selfish realm of illusion, where your
fellow man is seen as the "unsaved" enemy.

The Born-againers profess that Jesus came so that you can keep on sinning.  That's called blasphemy.

If you accept the Born-Again / "I'm saved / "See-you-at-the-next-cross-burning" /
"Praise the Lord" / form of Protestantism, then you're saying that Christ is a liar
who didn't send the  Holy Spirit to guide and teach the Church until the start of the
16th Century, when a chronically constipated German named Luther emerged and
wrote that the German governments should evict Jews from their homes and take
away all of the money they had in their possession.

Needless to say, an entire generation of the German people ended up following
Martin Luther's advice, via the Nazi Party, thereby killing approximately 6 mil-
lion Jews, numerous gypsies, and those re- garded as the less-than-desirable, in-
cluding the disabled.

A Catholic never needs to apologize for his 2,000 year old faith to any fanatical
in-your-face Protestant whose doctrine came 1,500 years after the original Pente-
cost and which was declared anathema in dozens of infallible statements issued
at the Council of Trent.  We were here first.  We are the original Christianity.
We are the vast majority of 1.2 billion people who, at the least, were baptized
into the Catholic Church.  This outnumbers any individual Protestant sect that
ever was or which will ever come to  be.  Put them on the defensive for a change.

We are dealing with the Scripture-only people who deny blatant scriptural passages
such as, "A man who puts away his wife and takes on another commits adultery."
This means that they only regard scriptural passages that can be twisted enough
to rationalize a mindset which is overridden by sloth and sheer cowardice.  The
sloth is manifest in the hatred of the idea of needing to do good works, in order
for one's faith to be alive and in order for one to have life everlasting.  The co-
wardice comes from the fear of doing penance, making sacrifice, and suffering
for one's faith.  So, in its total hypocrisy, Protestantism openly welcomes the
divorce-and-remarriage that Christ specifically called the mortal sin of adultery.
And of course, they would rather were a necklace of nuclear waste around their
necks than repeat the scriptural sentence, "Faith without good works is dead
faith."

There are numerous instances of Protestants violating Biblical precepts.  More im-
portantly, single sentences in a scriptural text here and there have been extracted,
while the surrounding sentences were ignored, resulting a new doctrine which
was never mentioned anywhere in the Bible.   Examples appear below.

Did you ever hear someone say, "I used to be Catholic, but now I'm saved."  Well,
you need to come to terms with the fact that they are on the road to Hell, because
their motive is laziness and sheer gutless cowardice in refusing to join Christ on
the Cross in any one of a number of way in which you can do so.  Ironically, those
who hate the idea of joining Christ on the Cross are the ones who crucify others,
over and over again.

Quick note on history:  "They" originally called themselves "anabaptist," being that
they rejected the notion of infant baptism and believed you could only be baptized
after the age of reason.  Next came Baptist, as well as Dispensationalist.  After a
century or so, they identified themselves as Born-Again Christians, while the out-
side world called them Fundamentalists.  Now, they call themselves Christians,
claiming that they are the true form of Christianity, even though their form did
NOT emerge until the 16th Century.  In fact, their staunch belief in an upcoming
Great Rapture only appeared in the 1830s and only due to one man named Darby.

That particular religion does not trace itself back to the original apostles, as does Catholicism and the Orthodox religions.  It rejects the doctrines of original Christianity by the dozen, and it is founded on three Biblical passages taken entirely out of context.  1}  "Ye must be born again."  However, they failed to add the phrase, "by water," meaning that it was referring to being baptized.  2} "You are saved by Faith and not by Works," 

 

However, this was only referring to the teaching that the Faith of Abraham was what merited from God the promise that the Messiah would be sent ... to be born as a descendant of Abraham ... and that no good work of any ancient man resulted in God being so moved that he promised to send his son. 

3} "I no longer live by the Law," and this referred to St. Paul no longer following the ritualistic Law of Moses, as opposed natural moral law.

A blatant answer in the Bible, concerning a Protestant doctrinal assertion on the degrees of sinfulness.

Now, there is venial and mortal sin.  There are sins greater than others, unlike what the rural, backward, Southern isolationist Protestant world claims.  That world claims that God sees all sin equally and is equally offended by something as petty as stealing a nickle from a billionaire to proliferating the Nazi concentration camp executions.  Proof that differing degrees of sin is a part of true Christian doctrine and is expressly in the Bible that the Protestants worship as if it were God in itself goes as follows:

When Jesus was in front of Pontius Pilate, he said, "Those who handed me over to you are guilty of the greater sin."  Thus, Jesus said that there are  greater sins than other ones.  Case closed.  

 

In as much, it's a sin equivalent to murder for one to steal a loaf of bread from a starving man, but a venial sin to steal a fleet of bread trucks from a billionaire.

The reason why you don't go around stealing large sums from the wildly rich is because you still have to make restitution for your theft, and how many people can raise $100,000 to repay the billionaire?  The moral rule of superabundance turning into common property is a different story, but you have to be in the state of extreme necessity for the rule to apply.

The Bible states that NOT everything is in the Bible

For  the record,  the Bible expressly states, in the Gospel of John, that NOT everything is in the Bible.  And remember, Protestantism is not the worship of God, but rather, it's the worship of the Bible.  They depend on the Bible and NOT God.  God is merely a formula locked into their interpretation of the Bible.

Let us continue:

It's not that Protestants interpret the Bible differently than original Christianity. It's that they distort the actual Biblical passages themselves.  As an example:

The Protestants quote Paul saying, "I no longer follow the Law."  They then say that the phrase means that you don't have to follow any moral law, and yet you will still be something they call "saved."  

 

Well, Paul was referring to the ritualistic law of Moses, in speaking of the Law.  The same St. Paul said that neither murderers nor fornicators nor sorcerers nor the effeminate (males) etc will enter the Kingdom of God.  Thus, he affirmed the need of morality as a requirement for salvation.

By the way, when the word, salvation, appears in the Bible, it's referring to the idea of salving one of the woundedness of sin.   The Born-Againers make it sound like being on base during it-taggers.  Christ came to save humans from their sins.  Thus, if you're still mortally sinning, then you're not saved.  Period.

"You are saved by Faith" was twisted by the rural American Protestants, too

The premier motto of the rural American Born-Agains, next to the phrase in the third chapter of the Gospel of John, is "You are saved by Faith  and not by works."  That was taken entirely out of context and presented in a false light, because one sentence was isolated from the other ones in the same Biblical passage which gave it an entirely different meaning than when it is read in the context with an entire paragraph of Scriptures.  Observe:

Paul was explaining what motivated God the Father into sending God the Son to become man and dwell among us.  He stated that there was no great work done by any ancient man that inspired God the Father into sending his Son to mankind.

Rather, it was the Faith of Abraham that touched God so much that God the Father resolved that the Messiah to come would come through Abraham's lineage.   That is all that the one Biblical phrase mean, aside of one more truth.

In that scriptural passage, Paul was alluding to the fact that you can never do a good work without the grace of God, in the first place.  He was implying that the grace of God comes first and then the good works.  The Protestants took that passage out of context, because they were too lazy to do good works and penance.  It's the religion of the lazy.

I was in the Bible Belt for years.  I saw the hypocrisy up close and personally.  There is nothing saved about those people, and there is nothing Christian about them, either.  Their history proves this to be true.    

 

Think:  Chattel slavery, Cross burning, incest, starting a war that cost massive human life and property, moonshining, segregation, gerrymandering, the good ole boy network, etc.  In fact, the sexual revolution which was the debauchery of entire generations was started in the Bible Belt South, in the person of a man Southerner practically regarded as divine and who died a disgraceful death after living a life of drug abuse.

Keep in mind that, at Fatima, Jacinta
said that "mortifications" please Our
Lord very much.  This is because,
penance clears the mind and one's
perception, while conquering the
person's cravings.

People who hate the Fatima message are
simply too  lazy and cowardly to do any
penance as was asked of us at Fatima.

 

 

Anti-Fatima people are lazy and gutless cowards who won't even try to  do what Our Lady requested.  It's that simple.

You can offer modern workouts as mortification in supplication for a prayer petition or in penance for your sins ... or for the conversion of sinners living in the state of mortal sin.  Some of those gym workouts &; weight lifting routines tax you and tear into you.  And as David Letterman often jokingly said, "But, it's a good tired."

Working out is a humbling experience, after every workout, when you start.  So, "offer it up."  Try it.  

 

Of course, don't hurt your body.  Start easily.  The greatest trick that the very invisible demons play on us to get us to think that God requires you to do insurmountable things.  Just remember what the Little Flower said about fluttering her little wings.  She was declared the greatest saint of modern times, as well as a doctor of the church.  You don't have to be Superman when you do a mortification.

All in all, start doing mortification, and you'll stop being a gutless coward.  You're the only voice, hands, and feet that God has here on Earth, in order for him to have his Will be done.  So, strengthen these hands, feet, and voices, becoming a man of valor.