Текст книги "The Future of the Humankind The Dictatorship of Conscience or the Tyranny of Bible Owners"
Автор книги: (IP of the USSR) Internal Predictor of the USSR
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 3 (всего у книги 4 страниц)
In the past when some society had a tendency to get free from the power of the biblical project bosses, they (bosses of the biblical project) could re-establish their power over it (or over its depopulated territory) almost for sure by organizing the war between neighbour countries and that society. The war, as a meaning of diverting people from reflections about high concepts and meaning of life, serve such needs of the biblical project bosses even nowadays. However, since the crisis of their ruling has a system-wide character, they need not just a little regional war but a massive war that includes many regions – tending to get free from their control as well as particularly free of them. But in 20th century transnational (better to say: transstate) corporations (TSC) were created. A great war, covering many regions and many states is a destruction of business for many of them, since their production is situated in many countries[50]. That’s why TSC are against starting a new world war, though some of them could be interested in starting local isolated wars for penetration into various regions closed for them before. They can accept a great war only as a forced absolute necessity. And governments of states from their side have to take into account interests of TSC, and so are less disposed to wage war one on another, if it is contrary to any interests of TSC.
In such conditions bosses of the biblical project of enslaving the mankind has the only possibility to wage a great war as a meaning of solving the system-wide problem of their power. That possibility is to intensify tension and hostility between followers of historically formed confessions. And the final aim is to extirpate Koran and Islam from the world culture, or at least discredit them for a historically long period.
It means that the plot is similar to one for organizing the 20th century’s World War II, with only difference:
That time Nazism in Germany had been grown up artificially, and later it let equate any liberation movement based on national consciousness to the Nazism;
And now the extremism under slogans of Islam is also being grown up artificially, to defile and discredit Koran as an alternative to the establishment of global tyranny based on Bible.
And one of means to prevent the “world backstage” from implementing their plots – is to find out what is wrong or wittingly false in every religion in good conscience and extremely kindly, thus releasing mind and will of people from yoke of historically formed churches. God – Alive – will help men in that, if they are sincere in their wish to come to the Rightness-Truth and establish the Kingdom of God at the Earth.
Of course, the Dictatorship of conscience is the future of the mankind. But we should reach it leaving aside a new world war attempting to establish a tyranny of bosses of the Bible. And everyone makes his or hers contribution on creating this or that variant of the future.
Inner Predictor of the USSR
September 20 – 26, 2006
[1] It took place on the September 12, 2006.
[2] “Izvestia” perverted Pope’s words by removing some text. That’s how it should be: “A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures”. ()
[3] Besides this: «The officials of the State Turkish Directory on religion affairs filed an official claim against Benedict XVI, the Pope of Rome. They want the Turkish law enforcement agencies detain the head of the Catholic Church during his forthcoming visit to Turkey in November. The document is intended for the Minister of Justice and contains the proposition to proclaim the Pope officially wanted because of his last speech concerning Islam.
The plaintiffs believe that Benedict XVI has violated the Turkish law regarding the freedom of conscience, offending the Prophet Mohammed. What is more, they want the Pope apologize before coming to Turkey.
This law document can become a real obstacle for the Pope’s visit, taking in consideration the fact, that if an appeal is not called away, the Turkish authorities will have to act against an accused.
The politicians of Turkey are at a loss: they have already stated that “unacceptable words of the Pope” won’t affect the visit, expecting, presumably, that it will somehow help Turkey to join the EU» (http://www.newsru.com/religy/21sep2006/turkey_print.html).
[4] The phrase of Benedict XVI reveals that backstage wheeler-dealers, out of all relation to Catholicism and Islam, have used the Pope as well as the leaders of Muslim countries and organizations in order to incite inter-religious hatred. But this object will never be implemented without journalism mediation – false and ignorant, “working” to create and sell sensations.
The Pope of Rome has definitely become a “victim” of political manipulation. It becomes clear looking at the text of his lecture at the University of Regensburg, especially at the passage where Benedict XVI gives the quotation of Manuel II Palaiologos :
“Recently I have read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Koran, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of experts, this is probably of the Suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature oа soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (“syn logo”) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm or weapons of any kind or any other means of threatening a person with death…”
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is notary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry”. (taken from the official text of “lecture of the Holy Father”, Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg, Tuesday, 12 September 2006 – “Faith, Reason and the University Memories and reflections”).
It’s a great riddle for us how Ibn Hazm manages to go so far as to say, “that God is not bound even by his own word”. It’s more than once said in Koran that: “There is no changing the words of God” (Sura 10:64); “And you shall not find any change in the course of God.” (Sura 33:62) (and 48:23 tell the same). And there are many other riddles, if only Ibn Hazm was translated and understood right…
In the whole text we take Koranic cites from here: . We use mainly Shakir’s text, and/or sometimes two other translations.
[5] On the September 11, 2001 several hijacked passenger airliners destroyed the two skyscrapers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Although there are lots of facts proving that the tragedy couldn’t happen without the participation of the US Secret Services, the general responsibility is shouldered on the “Islamic terrorists”.
[6] Evidently, the author hints on the fact that Ali Ahdzha who committed an attempt on the Pope’s John Paul II life in 1977 was a Turk, i.e. a Muslim in the Western perception.
[7] Manuel II Palaiologos or Palaeologus (Greek: Μανουήλ Β΄ Παλαιολόγος, Manouēl II Palaiologos) (June 27, 1350 – July 21, 1425) was Byzantine emperor from 1391 to 1425.
Manuel II Palaiologos was the second son of Emperor John V Palaiologos (1341–1376, 1379–1390, 1390–1391) and his wife Helena Kantakouzena. His maternal grandparents were Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–1354) and Eirene Asanina.
Created despotēs by his father, the future Manuel II traveled west to seek support for the Byzantine Empire in 1365 and in 1370, serving as governor in Thessalonica from 1369. The failed attempt at usurpation by his older brother Andronikos IV Palaiologos in 1373 led to Manuel being proclaimed heir and co-emperor of his father. In 1376–1379 and again in 1390 they were supplanted by Andronikos IV and then his son John VII, but Manuel personally defeated his nephew with help from the Republic of Venice in 1390. Although John V had been restored, Manuel was forced to go as an honorary hostage to the court of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I at Prousa (Bursa). During his stay, Manuel was forced to participate in the Ottoman campaign that reduced Philadelpheia, the last Byzantine enclave in Anatolia.
Hearing of his father's death in February 1391, Manuel II Palaiologos fled the Ottoman court and secured the capital against any potential claim by his nephew John VII. Although relations with John VII improved, the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I besieged Constantinople from 1394 to 1402. After some five years of siege, Manuel II entrusted the city to his nephew and embarked on a long trip abroad to seek assistance against the Ottoman Empire from the courts of western Europe, including those of Henry IV of England (making him the only Byzantine emperor ever to visit England – he was welcomed from December 1400 to January 1401 at Eltham Palace, and a joust was given in his honour), Charles VI of France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Aragon.
Meanwhile an anti-Ottoman crusade led by the Hungarian King Sigismund of Luxemburg failed at the Battle of Nicopolis on September 25, 1396, but the Ottomans were themselves crushingly defeated by Timur at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. As the sons of Bayezid I struggled with each other over the succession in the Ottoman Interregnum, John VII was able to secure the return of the European coast of the Sea of Marmara and of Thessalonica to the Byzantine Empire. When Manuel II returned home in 1403, his nephew duly surrendered control of Constantinople and was rewarded with the governorship of newly recovered Thessalonica.
Manuel II Palaiologos used this period of respite to bolster the defenses of the Despotate of Morea, where the Byzantine Empire was actually expanding at the expense of the remnants of the Latin Empire. Here Manuel supervised the building of the Hexamilion (six-mile) wall across the Isthmus of Corinth, intended to defend the Peloponnese from the Ottomans.
Manuel II stood on friendly terms with the victor in the Ottoman civil war, Mehmed I (1402–1421), but his attempts to meddle in the next contested succession led to a new assault on Constantinople by Murad II (1421–1451) in 1422. During the last years of his life, Manuel II relinquished most official duties to his son and heir John VIII Palaiologos, and in 1424 they were forced to sign a peace treaty with the Ottoman Turks, whereby the Byzantine Empire undertook to pay tribute to the sultan. Manuel II died on 21 July 1425.
Manuel II was the author of numerous works of varied character, including letters, poems, a Saint's Life, treatises on theology and rhetoric, and an epitaph for his brother Theodore I Palaiologos.
(Taken from Wikipedia: )
[8] The title of member of higher orders of clergy in Russian Orthodoxy
[9] If you, the hierarchs and theologians of Jesus’ churches, over the last 1300 years haven’t recognized Mohammed as a prophet of a true religion, why haven’t you shown the falseness and failure of the Koran doctrine then? This is a real hypocrisy towards Jesus.
[10] The term “sons of Allah”, if used only to Muslims, is inappropriate, and can be not used save metaphorically and moreover outside the Muslim culture. Koran, Sura 112 “Sincerity (of Belief)” tells:
1. Say: He is God, the One and Only. 2. God, the Eternal, Absolute; 3. He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 4. And there is none like unto Him!
Used Yusufali’s translation.
[11] And what about those who didn’t have money for ransom? Did the Church provide money for their liberation? Or did they stay slaves for the rest of their life?
[12] John, 14:6.
[13] 14. “And to the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'The words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God's creation. 15 ‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! 16. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. 17. For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked. 18. I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see” (Revelation, or Apocalypses, ch. 3).
[14] Using “English Standard Version” taken from
[15] We are sure that here is a real forgery. The matter was about the Kingdom of God, rather than of Heaven. One can find grounds for this in our works: “Towards God’s Kingdom…”, “«Master and Margaret»: a Hymn to Demonism? Or the Gospel of the Covenantless Faith” (One can find them in Russian at , ).
[16] That’s a sort of private agreement of “dividing the congregation”. Moreover, such words are being told for several last years, regardless of the fact that in the past a stupid following traditions hadn’t let to find and solve problems of social development. That was the very cause of the Russian Empire break-up and made possible an epoch of undisguised atheism spreading.
[17] We cite Koran mainly based on Shakir’s translation replacing the Arabic word “Allah” with the English word “God” and the word “shaitan” with “satan” (he shouldn’t be written form the capital letter). Sometimes we place our commentaries or compile different translations into one – the most adequate.
Taking in consideration the particularity of Arabic language and the sophisticated subtext of Koran itself, its translations into other languages are far from being perfect either concerning the style of Arabic, which is generally impossible to be translated, or concerning the meaning of the text, if a translator concentrates at the style. Interpreters tend to express their own understanding of Koran, diverging from original. That’s why all the Koran translations are somehow inadequate and the reader should trap out the point without dignifying this or that translation as a divine canon.
One should keep in mind that the culture of the society and Mohammed’s personality became the factors, restricting the possibilities of perceiving information, presenting from Above. Lots of vitally important things are described indirectly in Koran, because of the fact that its contemporaries couldn’t understand them within the frames of their culture with the lack of worldview. That’s why it is useless to look for direct answers for the questions of today life in the texts of Koran and its translations. And it’s much more stupid to hedge off from the life with Koran, and moreover with Shariat and commentaries on it.
Nevertheless, those who sincerely desire to get keys to the vitally important questions can find them in Koran. He or she just should have a wish: God answers to people’s appeals besides the formality of this or that religious ritual. He speaks with people with a language of life’s circumstances, confirming the Truth and revealing the falsehood and outrageous lie. And that’s the real ethical proof of His existence given by Him to everyone who is attentive and able to think and get free of prejudices. (Look for the book of IP USSR “Dialectics and Atheism: Two Incompatible Essences”)
[18] Mohammed informed his contemporaries in Byzantine about his mission in the written form, but they preferred to ignore the theological speeches with a “barbarian”, having created a background for the Byzantine collapse.
[19] This regards all those who pay to much attention to this subject in modern mass media.
[20] Marked out with bold by us when citing. To call other people to the guidance within God’s Providence considering circumstances of real life – that’s what traditional Islam representatives avoid, and Islamic radicals don’t know how to do and don’t what to study. The same is for Koranic recommendation “Take to forgiveness and enjoin good and turn aside from the ignorant!”
[21] Marked out with bold by us when citing. This is the direct evidence of the fact, that it is unacceptable to spread Islam by compulsion and intimidation. Those who don’t follow this, should read Koran, understand its point and correlate it to the life of his society and the life of the whole humankind.
[22] This regards contemporary Muslim extremists desiring to distribute their own version of historically set Islam. And the answer to them – is the following sentence of the same Sura.
[23] The word “Hanif” origins from the verb “hanifa” that means “to tend (to the right way)”.
[24] Practically, the new Testament – is not the statement of Jesus Christ’s creed by his learners, but four biographic references about the life of Jesus Christ among the people + the apostles writings about philosophic and theological issues. And all was censored by founding fathers of the Christian churches and their supervisors from “the world backstage” of that time.
[25] This is the Koran appeal to those, called the “world backstage”; and to those who overtop rabbinate and masonry.
[26] The word “kashrut” means in Hebrew “applicable/useful”. This word symbolizes the system of permissions and prohibitions of Judaism regarding different kinds of food. Later this notion distributed on all spheres of Jew’s life.
[27] “The planners” – this is how the nearest so-called fellow campaigners of Jesus Christ – his apostles – are presented in Koran. Koran was sent in the 7th century, by this time all the dodges – the distortions of Jesus’ teaching – had already formed the basis of traditions of historically set Christianity. The founders of Jesus Christ’s churches were sure that they would never be unmasked. But then emerged Koran and all their “dodges” were revealed. Actually, God is the best of all planners.
[28] In one of the footnotes before there was Benedict’s XVI opinion about that Koranic statement “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) is referred to the time when Muhammad had no power and was persecuted. From this one can think that when Muhammad had got the power and military-political weight in his region, he refused such principle and started spreading Islam using force.
Such view on Muhammad’s person and deeds means that Muhammad was unprincipled hypocrite. And if he was a hypocrite, he couldn’t be a messenger of the Almighty. Thus Koran is his own figment or delusion of possessed. So all non-Muslims can integrally reject Koran and Muhammad, even without going into details of what is said in Koran and the Muslim culture forming. However, such view is really unfounded, and as the history shows it isn’t supported from Above.
In essence, this hidden and groundless accusation of hypocrisy for Muhammad is really insulting for him. But Muslims, as events ware shown in mass-media, haven’t noticed this insult hidden in reticence. They were indignant with the citation from Manuel II Palaiologos . It seems like Benedict XVI hasn’t noticed it as well.
[29] “He (God) has ordained mercy on Himself” (Koran, 6:12).
[30] Well, but one should understand that becoming like God – is far from equating a man and God, it isn’t becoming God: a man is a man, one of God’s creations, when God is God, Creator and the Almighty. Nevertheless, some participation in His deeds is possible for a man. But man’s morality should be as close to God’s morality as possible for such participation.
[31] Muslim prayer.
[32] The Sunnah is the second source of Islamic jurisprudence, the first being the Koran (Koran). See .
[33] On September 25, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI received ambassadors of 22 Muslim countries in his summer residence Castel Gandolfo.
«The Pope hosted Moslem leaders in a conference today, giving a five-minute speech that sounded conciliatory, at least from the short excerpts published (I can't find a full transcript). Although he didn't offer an apology for his previous remarks, the topic was working together to overcome historic enmities between the two faiths.
The feeling tone was good, too. The Pope "greeted [the envoys] one-by-one, clasping their hands warmly."
Iraqi Albert Edward Ismail Yelda seemed happy: "The Holy Father stated his profound respect for Islam. This is what we were expecting...It is now time to put what happened behind and build bridges."
Al Jazeera televised the speech in its entirety. The Vatican, in an unusual move, offered an Arabic translation of the text in its press releases.
So, according to Mohamed Nour Dachan, an Syrian-Italian-Moslem "The dialogue goes on....The dialogue is a priority for both Muslims and Christians»
Read here: .
We have taken information in Russian from: .
So at the official diplomatic level one can consider the conflict on the Pope’s lecture (which was maliciously exaggerated and told to be an insult) to be settled. But consequences of that provocation will not disappear so fast as regards the unofficial relation of Muslims to the West…
[34] The symbiosis of Judaism, Christianity and imprudently atheistic Marxism and liberal individualism.
[35] For comparison let’s see Talmudic qualifying requirement: «Members of Sanhedrin (Sinedrion – the Highest Council, which analogues are the Conclave of Cardinals with Pope in its head and Sinods of Orthodox churches) should be experienced in the science of magic and heathen theology», – Talmud (Sanhedrin, Menahot). Under the “heathen theology” in Judaism any non-Judaic theology is understood, including the Koranic, Catholic, Orthodox etc.
Thus the Pope and patriarchs of Orthodox churches, if they pretend on enlightening peoples with the Truth, should thoroughly know other religious dogmas for see and expose their errors in Life with dignity and honour and without insulting the believers of other religions.
[36] There is no ready for use sociological doctrine at the level of global importance in Koran, but there is all needed for people to create it in harmony with God. However, it needs a creative work, but not a worship of the rug for prayers, which many Muslims content themselves to and what they think to be the true Islam.
[37] So-called “Sociological doctrine of Russian Orthodox Church” is a document estranged from life, and so religiously and scientifically ungrounded. And Shariat is not a doctrine, but the result of Muslim ruling “elite” timeserving to life under slogans of Koranic Islam.
[38] Matthew, 5:39. But Koran says: «Repel evil with that which is best» (Sura 23:96).
[39] This is the literal translation of the word “Evangelium” (the Gospel).
[40] Christ’s teaching collected from fragmentary parts existing in the New Testament appears in the next form (our commentaries are given in italic):
«The Law and the Prophets (“the Law and the Prophets” in the time of Christ are called now “the Old Testament”) were until John (the Baptiser, the Baptist); since then the good news of the Kingdom of God (in Arabian language the Kingdom of God is called Islam) is preached, and everyone forces his way into it (Luke, 16:16). But seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things (in the context: the welfare at the Earth) will be added to you (Matthew, 6:33). For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of God (in the canonical version it is said “Kingdom of Heaven”, but it surely must mean “Kingdom of God”) (Matthew, 5:20).
The Lord our God, the Lord is one (Mark, 12:29 – there is not a single hint on Trinity). You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets (i.e. that Christ didn’t mean that all prophecies of the Old Testament should realize – he meant “I say to you, not heaven and earth pass away, until everyone becomes a righteous man”). (Matthew, 22:37-40). Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the Kingdom of God (and here is ‘the Kingdom of Heaven’, but it should be ‘the Kingdom of God’ in the context), but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven (Matthew, 7:21). And I tell you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. (…) If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him! (Luke, 11:9, 10, 13). When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John, 16:13).
You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew, 20:25-28). (In Koran the same: «then strive together (as in a race) towards all that is good» – Sura 2:148)
Have faith in God. Truly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says will come to pass, it will be done for him. Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours (Mark, 11:22-24). Pray then like this: "Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name. Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil” (Matthew, 6:9-13).
The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, (…) the kingdom of God is in the midst of you (Luke, 17:20,21).
In the works by Internal Predictor of the USSR (Внутренний Предиктор СССР) “Towards God’s Kingdom…”, “«Master and Margaret»: a Hymn to Demonism? Or the Gospel of the Covenantless Faith”, “Dialectics and Atheism: Two Incompatible Essences” we explain that this is the true teaching of Christ and that it is in harmony with Koranic teaching.
[41] The Creed given in 1975 ecumenical version (from Wikipedia: ):
«We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.»
