Clinton, Bush, Obama, Hitler....Good enough Papists to deserve a commemorative coin or Vatican hung

reply to post by EricD

Your threads and posts are always entertaining and sourced, which I appreciate. Unfortunately, your sources are often suspect (IMHO).
...
Neither Reformation.org or Historicist.com are reasonable, objective commentators. Both have a specific anti-Catholic bias (whether or not they come by it honestly) and there are provable factual errors in both.

Eric, what we have is a clear case from the mere evidence of the coin and the painting that the Vatican was glorifying an event where they killed heaps of Christians. I might not be the strongest in knowing what other historians have to say about those few days in France's history, perhaps you would like to correct any basic errors for me. To me this is how the story goes.

An alternative theology is being taught by a breakaway Christian group...It grows in size to the point where the papacy is starting to get nervous about its power and seeks some way to rid themselves of the issue...a set-up marriage celebration between two prominent people representing the two religious sects is arranged so that the reformed Christian group will gather altogether, think the Church is trying to turn over a new leaf of peace so that the reformed Christians will be defenceless...A Jesuit is the ring leader is trumpeting up and urging the plan to the French royal house which in the end they agree to it...at a certain time in the middle of the night a bell is sounded coming from the church to be the signal for the slaughter of the reformed Christian's to begin...Those who are on the Catholic side mark their clothing with a white cross to identify themselves form their enemy...Whether it is coordinated or merely being overjoyed at their early success, the killing develops on into other French towns, sieges are even made and the resulting death count to the reformed Christians ends up being something like 100,000...the Pope is overjoyed at the news and has a big celebration.

What are the clear evidenced errors there?

My biggest problems with your threads and posts (and this is my problem, not yours) is that they are HUGE information dumps. That requires any reasoned response to take a tremendous amount of time unless the reader is already familiar with the material or sources.

Well I like to present important conspiracies (in this instance the focus is on the Vatican ties to German and modern American regimes), which are multi-dimensional in nature with plenty of resources and avenues for people to further their own knowledge too. It might take a tremendous amount of time for people to respond but unfortunately that is too bad for them. It takes me a tremendous amount of time and energy to research and present this and know these topics very well so I have confidence in what I am presenting has a tremendous amount of worth to it. Have you considered that perhaps the argument can't be rebutted in any sense of entirety because as a whole there is a tremendous amount of truth to it? I don't make posts/threads with the objective to create a discourse of argument, I make posts to inform others. People can take it of leave it if they wish, I merely try to connect up the dots for them.

If you have ever had a glance at my other serious thread, on the beast's mark, you will know what kind of serious posting and connections I can get into. I think the OP on that topic was maybe twice as long as this one and I had comments back about it that it was the most thorough and concise and clearly laid out argument people had seen when they had been researching the topic for decades.

Of the 7 authors you referenced

No doubt my favorite authors are Edmund Paris and Baron Avro Manhattan but I think it would be a mistake to take away any value in the worth of Manhattan's work by calling him unfairly prejudiced. You have to remember that he was amongst many secret society circles and obviously learnt things about the movers and shakers in the Vatican at this time that convinced him of his course. We can't all write like a dispassionate academic then we are dealing with so important an issue as religion, war, liberty, evil and eternity...right?

I would be interested why you think Chiniquy is a joke as his experience in the Church, his supporters in the Church and his support from a US Army Brigadier General and a US President suggests to me that he would be a good source (and the only reason he isn't is because the Church have sort to tarnish his name so that his accusations mean nothing).

Do you have a link where all your Alberto Rivera statements are referenced just so I know where they are all sourced (brain a tad fried atm to track them down myself I'm afraid!).

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by adjensen

 

The devil is an alien, and you think you have proof? Okay, you've gone round the bend on that one.

No, the fallen angels under Satan's command often now impersonate being an alien to perpetuate a false theology to the world that promotes evolutionary origins and that Jesus is not our Creator.

That isn't what you said:

You said a UFO and the devil is not the same thing. I provided proof and sources that say they are the same thing

You said that "a UFO and the devil is the same thing", not that there are fallen angels or whatever. But, to your point, proving that aliens are really fallen angels is the task before you.

Your first problem is proving that there are UFOs.

Then proving that your "400 examples" are legitimate, not the result of lies, delusions and misunderstandings.

Then proving that the tens of thousands of other examples that do not demonstrate your theory are invalid (since you "validated" them in proving that there are UFOs.)

Good luck with that.

reply to post by adjensen

Good luck with that.

I am all too happy having you believe your ridiculous rhetoric like banning more guns is the obvious answer and will lower the murder rate, it gives me a good laugh

I wouldn't want you to actually wise up to something, heaven forbid

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


So you base the lack of need to actually provide evidence for an utterly ridiculous claim about UFOs on the approach that I took to the Second Amendment in a debate that has nothing to do with you? (And which I pointed out in a separate thread in that forum doesn't necessarily reflect my opinion on the matter.)

That's pretty clueless, even for you.

reply to post by adjensen


adjensen, a fallen angel and the devil are the same thing
a devil impersonating an alien or a devil impersonating a genuine UFO is the same thing

Fallen angels can shape-shift into whatever kind of object or appearance they desire.

All you are ever interested in doing is arguing for the sake of arguing...you are not interested in learning something to pass on to help others with...as shown by having to prove 400 testimonies and prove 10,000s of thousands of other examples yadda yadda yadda

I have given you the two best books I have read on the topic Garry Bates and Nick Redferns, I have given you a website of testimonials that also contains a very good FAQ page you should check out as well.

The increased appearance of genuine UFO activity is traced to occult magic rituals performed by Jack Parsons. This ritual is called the Babalon Working.

People who called on the name of Jesus had the CE4 experiences stop, it hasn't been documented to my knowledge of people shouting at genuine UFO to leave in the name of Jesus and what the impact of that is so your supposed tens of thousands of examples that counteract that to me are non-existent (unless of course you wish to provide perhaps 10 genuine examples of UFO/ET activity and where people called on the name of Jesus for them to leave and nothing happened).

Until then, I am sticking to the "utterly ridiculous" theory that perfectly explains genuine crop circles, is perfectly explains the agenda behind UFO and faux alien appearances, is confirmed by 100s of independent testimonies and is official policy of many intelligence agencies around the world. I will stick with the theory that is supported and explains the world fully and in a consistent manner. You can stick to your "sensible" theory that can't explain genuine crop circles, dismisses the abilities and activities of the fallen angels here on Earth and is not supported by the recorded history of occult ritual magikca and intensive intel agency investigations.

As always with you adjensen, the things you think are sensible, actually turn out to be false, and the things you decry crazy, nutting ect turn out to be true. When you have this track record to your name plus a demonstrated propensity to argue on topics you have no prior background knowledge in and even argue on the side of topics you don't believe in (gun control) then it is a waste of my time teaching you anything so you can use it to help others (which is why I am here on the forums) when your interest is arguing for the sake of it.

I am here to build people's trust in the Word of God, to expose corruption, to fight for liberty, to make sure that during the Tribulation period people have the best information to make a strong decision to follow God and not be deceived by the false Christ. Trying to teach you anything so you can use the information to be useful for God and others is a fools errand and something that God doesn't want me to waste my time on when I can help other people with ears to hear. Your argumentative style is something you are going to have to face up to God one day and discuss, why was it that you were given this and that important information and glossed over it completely just for the sake of saving face in arguments.

I am not going to lower myself to the level that you want to hold discussion at...

Happy Sabbath

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by adjensen

 

adjensen, a fallen angel and the devil are the same thing
a devil impersonating an alien or a devil impersonating a genuine UFO is the same thing

As I said earlier, you've yet to produce any evidence that UFOs are real, much less them being the devil. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not no evidence.

Anecdotal evidence of people who may or may not be telling the truth, may or may not be fictitious, and may or may not be sane is not extraordinary evidence.

As always with you adjensen, the things you think are sensible, actually turn out to be false, and the things you decry crazy, nutting ect turn out to be true.

You've yet to show that any of your crazy claims are true, so no.

Again, prove that UFOs are real, then prove that they are actually manned by demons, and then you might have something to say.

When you have this track record to your name plus a demonstrated propensity to argue on topics you have no prior background knowledge in and even argue on the side of topics you don't believe in (gun control)

Ad hominem attacks on me and my debating techniques are of no consequence to this discussion.

To date, all we've seen you make are statements that are absolutely false, and easily refutable with facts that a three year old can look up. And before you whine about it, that's an attack on the statements that you've made in this forum, not on you personally. I have no idea why you, as a person, would believe the foolish things that you do, but you're entitled to your opinion -- just not entitled to present it to ATS as fact.

reply to post by adjensen

To date, all we've seen you make are statements that are absolutely false, and easily refutable with facts that a three year old can look up.

Let's look at some assertions that I have made in this thread, then you can put your money where you mouth is and show that they are false
- The Pope commissioned artist Vasari to paint a mural depicting the event of St. Bartholomew massacre
- This painting still hangs in the Vatican today
- The Pope had a medal struck to commemorate the event as well
- A royal court spiritual adviser, who was a Jesuit priest, urged the French King to kill the protestants
- When news of the successful slaughter reached Rome a celebration was had
- the cardinal of Lorraine who delivered the message to Rome received 1000 crowns
- Croatian Catholic press praised the bloody work of Ante Pavelić and his regime
- On the 22nd of July 1941, the pope received one hundred members of the Croatian Security Police..these men were the chief executioners and torturers in he concentration camps
- Mile Budak, minister for Worship, exclaimed in August 1941, at Karlovac: "The Oustachi movement is based on religion. All our world rests on our loyalty to religion and the Catholic Church."


- A diplomatic agreement between the Vatican and the Nazi Reich in July 1933 was made
- In 1941, Adolf Hitler put the Ustasha into power, in compliance with the Vatican-Third Reich Concordat, of July 1933
- Dr. Ante Pavelic, the dictator of Croatia—with the aid of the Archbishop of Zagreb Cardinal Alojzije Stepinac—instructed the Ustasha to implement a program of forced “conversion” of the Croatia population to Catholicism: hundreds of thousands were murdered when they refused to become Roman Catholics
- Sister Pascalina, a nun who was the personal aid of the Papal Nuncio in Munich witnessed Eugenio Pacelli give Hitler a consider sum of money at the Archbishop's residence
- Father Draganovic, was key Vatican organizer of the Ratlines who helped Nazis escape justice on war crimes
- Draganovic confessed to delivering Ustashi gold worth millions to the Vatican in 1945
- Intelligence documents have the British admit they gave stolen gold to the Vatican and that this was used for terrorist activities

- The Jesuit group was raised up to counter the reformation
- Portuguese king, Joseph I, banished the Jesuits from his realm in 1759 after attempting to assassinate him
- Catholic France banished the Jesuits in 1762
- King Charles III of Spain banished the Jesuits
- Ingolstadt University was one of the last Jesuit strongholds for them left in Europe
- Adam Weishaupt was a Professor of [Catholic] canon law at Ingostadt University a position held previously exclusively by Jesuits
- The Illuminati rose out of Braviaria Germany with Adam Weishaupt was their front man
- History shows there are instances where Catholics who displayed some sympathy towards those reformed Christians being killed for their beliefs were killed along with them.
- The Vatican never ex-communicated Hitler but did ex-communicate Josphe Goebbels for marrying a protestant
- Encyclical Ubi Primum says that there is no salvation for people outside the Church [referring to herself, the Catholic church] and no one can come to Father God except through the Catholic church

- Bill Clinton studied at Georgetown University
- Georgetown Uni is a major hub for Jesuit led education in America
- Bill Clinton has mentioned he was greatly influenced by a lecturer at Georgetown, Carroll Quigley
- Carroll Quigley has written books detailing how his insider group have planned and implemented major crises around the world
- As a general rule in the Inquisition a prisoner was not allowed to see his accuser or the witness against him
- The Omnibus Counter Terrorism Act of 1995 took away the right for a person to confront ones accuser

- There was ample opportunity for authorities to arrest David Koresh without fuss as he would very regularly run outside the ranch and go into town
- The four BATF agents were the only federal agents to die in the siege at Waco. Linda Thompson’s videotape entitled Waco, the Big Lie, shows that those BATF agents were not killed or shot at by Branch Davidians. Those four BATF agents, who were bodyguards of Bill Clinton, were killed by their own people
- CS gas is banned under the Paris Convention on chemical warfare but was used against the Branch Davidians. Hundreds of men, woman and children were set up by the US government to be killed cruelly and unnecessarily. Many Branch Davidians were former Adventists.

- Bill Clinton’s replacement of the Glass-Steagall Act (aka Banking Act 1933) with the The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB) was a significant move which greatly enabled the current economic turmoil in America to occur.
----------------
- George Bush is from a family line known to practise generational Satanism and was a member of Skull and Bones, a Satanic secret society
- There are definite signs of Government and mainstream media complicity in allowing the Spt 11th attacks to happen
- These attacks allowed a war to happen that corresponds in close detail to the building of a third world war as described by William Guy Carr in Pawns in the Game
- There are strong links to foreign intelligence agency involvement in the Sept 11th attacks as well
- The Sept 11th attacks enabled US government to pass pre-written legislation , the Patriot Act, to spy on and detain US citizens in the name of fighting terrorism
- Aspects of the Patriot Act and further legislation are similar in power to the ability shown in the Inquisition past to pursue individual with death at the slightest indication of heresy
- Bush passed legislation that greatly fuelled the housing bubbled
- FEMA clergy response teams seek to get religious leaders to influence their flocks to submit to the government in times of crisis.
- The origin of Pre-Trib rapture theology comes from the Jesuits
- The origin of Preterism and Futurism comes from the Jesuits
- Pre-Trib rapture theology is Biblically false and has the ability to lull Christians into a sense that they don’t need to be on guard against tyranny
- Preterism and Futurism doctrines remove the papacy from being the beast of the sea/ little horn power
- Biblical characteristics described in the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation shown that Preterism and Futurism are in contradiction to scripture and are therefore false
- The papacy is pointed out to be the sea beast/little horn (of Daniel 7) through historicism and fulfils prophetic descriptions without contradiction thus it is the correct approach and it is the Papacy
----------------
- Obama’s real father is Frank Marshall Davis a known communist
- Obama’s parents have strong links to being involved with American intelligence agencies
- Jesuits first perfected communism with their reductions in Paraguay in in the 17th and 18th centuries
- The CIA was a creation of the Roman Catholic Bill Donovan
- The first civilian director of the CIA Allen Dulles has strong family ties to a Jesuit priest
- The Muslim Brotherhood is a terrorist organisation, a creation of western intelligence agencies whom western Government’s are supporting to overthrow middle-eastern countries. The Brotherhood came from the Nazi arab faction of Hitler’s control
- Obama's Chicago mentor, Gregory Galluzzo, was a Jesuit priest
- Obama’s VP Biden has received 2 hononoury degrees from Jesuits, was educated by Jesuits, his son has volunteered for the Jesuits and has lobbied on behalf of the Jesuits to Government
- Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, and Assistant to the President: John Brennan, was educated by Jesuits
- Obama’s chief speech –writer, Jon Favreau, was educated by Jesuits at College
- Obama's Senior Military and Foreign Policy Advisor: Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, has educated by Jesuits during his masters degree
- There are 6 Catholic US Supreme Court Justices and no Protestants
‘-Obama's NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)that allows him to kill or torture anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, with no judicial oversight required and no need for the person accused to be given a defence.
- This legislation is similar in power to what the Inquisitors had where mere suspicion was sufficient to cause condemnation and a defence was of little use
- The Syllabus of Errors which accompanied the Encyclical of Pope Pius issued in 1864 made it clear that it was an error for people to think that people were entitled to free expression of opinion, free choice of religion, or that Kings should not be subject to the Pope

Please show all these statements are false, and that you aren’t below a 3 year old

I wait with eager anticipation to repent...show me the error of my ways from this list (gathered from this thread) o wise one

Silence from you on any of them I will take to mean that I am correct

reply to post by JesuitGarlic


What does any of that have to do with UFOs and the devil?

As I commented earlier, claims that you make against the Vatican may well have some validity, but because of the incredibly stupid and unfounded claims that you make elsewhere (such as saying that the Catholics killed 200 million people in the Inquisitions, or that UFOs are manned by the devil,) it is difficult to take anything you say seriously.

reply to post by adjensen


When did I ever say that UFOs are manned by the devil...I made is particularly clear that fallen angels can shape shift into any kind of shape or appearance that they desire...the whole UFO is a fallen angel

When they buzz around the skies going from low speed to maximum speed in the blink of an eye, pull instant 90 degree turns at thousands of miles per hour and disappear and reappear into and out of thin air ....they show that the whole UFO is not a real object, but an illusion to the eye....just as the talking serpent in the Garden of Eden wasn't actually a talking serpent but Satan himself
------------------------------------------
So basically adjensen you come on to this thread, do all that you to turn people against the content of the thread, call me nutty, call my sources crap, say that you can show all my assertions are false easily and yet when I challenge you to do so you don't challenge a single one of my assertions from the OP (so they are now all true) and all you can cite in your defense is a number I must have given somewhere on the number of deaths in the Inquisitions, a figure you do not agree with but really can't be sure of because of Rome's track record of revisionist history. Is that a fair assessment adjensen. Who killed the people in the inquisition adjensen, did the Catholic's? Pretty much never! The Catholic's would accuse others of heresy or whatever and turn them over to the civil authorities to kill them on their behalf.

FlyersFan comes on this thread, gives her opinion backed up buy no facts, does not pay any courtesy to read the thread and bad mouths me.

Have you seen the number of people who appreciated her comments here...and what happened to them? The comments she holds as facts (backed up by nothing) were dismantled one at a time with evidence, thoroughly. Then she runs off with the tail between her legs, admits nothing, continues to dishonestly represent herself as expressing straight facts/history (when she is just giving opinion).

It is unbelievable the dishonest representations I have to deal with by you two, and I don't appreciate it.

The foundation of this OP is built upon basic facts and understanding of the bible (for prophecy interpretation aspect). The holes in the basics of the OP are minuscule if not not existent. You may not like the conclusions I come to in the OP but the conclusions are drawn from looking at the facts and the patterns of the facts. If you want to question the validity of the OP then do so by saying things like....''I don't think you have established this point well enough to drawn that conclusion, can you back it up better."

You basically say that you agree with the assertions I make in the OP (because you don't argue that they aren't true or can prove they are false) then, but how do you represent your agreement...

You say, "I think it is safe to say that most of what you have posted here is dubious at best"

Well mate, that is a hell of a lot different to what you are telling me now...research the basics of what you don't know before posting things which seek to turn people away from conclusions that affect many people and are important for time to know in understanding their world and their faith.

There is going to be much more detail that comes out about the Vatican adjensen before the time ends as part of the second angels message of Revelation 14 to call people out of Babylon and bring it down. At least when I do it, I trivialize it somewhat in the framing the data is presented in. Others won't be so kind.

You should spend more time pulling up FF on her posts that are destroying believers and unbelievers confidence in the Word of God than from things I say

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by adjensen

 

When did I ever say that UFOs are manned by the devil...I made is particularly clear that fallen angels can shape shift into any kind of shape or appearance that they desire...the whole UFO is a fallen angel

What is your evidence for such an extraordinary claim?

I wanted to find some instance from your previously posted "100 testimonies" link that referred to UFOs and their inhabitants as separate entities (because your claim that a metal craft is a demon makes little sense if there are beings inside of it) but my random sampling didn't turn up any instances of UFOs on that page, they were all stuff like this:

In 2005 I woke up one night and found myself paralyzed. There were 5 sets of small red lights, like eyes, over to the left side of my bed. They seemed to be swaying back and forth. I knew what I had to do. I began the thoughts in my head “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus”. But, in my case, my mind was also paralyzed and all I could do was moan inside my brain. I turned my eyes over to the right and was trying to say “Jesus help me” over and over again but my mind was numb and all I could do was moan inside of it. BUT…..this was enough!! I was protected and when I turned my eyes back to the left, the red lights started to dissipate and my feelings returned. It was like when your TV loses its signal and the picture starts to look broken up. That is what happened.

That doesn't really sound like a UFO or aliens had anything to do with it. If you want to claim that the name of Jesus fends off demonic possession, that's all well and good, and those reports that I read would certainly by in line with it.

But saying that a UFO is a fallen angel? I see nothing whatsoever to support that claim.

It is unbelievable the dishonest representations I have to deal with by you two, and I don't appreciate it.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, I haven't even addressed the claims in your OP, which may well have some merit, because you have no credibility due to other claims that you make, such as the one cited above.

You should spend more time pulling up FF on her posts that are destroying believers and unbelievers confidence in the Word of God than from things I say

To the contrary, I think that anyone who points out your prejudices, errors and intentional gullibility is doing the world a favour. There is no "Word of God" in claiming that the Jesuits run the world, or that they killed 200 million people in the Inquisition.

As I've said before, in terms of whatever crusade you see yourself as being on, you are your own worst enemy.

reply to post by adjensen

There is no "Word of God" in claiming that the Jesuits run the world,

JG challenged you to prove this assertion false

The papacy is pointed out to be the sea beast/little horn (of Daniel 7) through historicism and fulfils prophetic descriptions without contradiction thus it is the correct approach and it is the Papacy

post

Your argument is a clear variation on this assertion but you did not prove it false, yet you are using the argument again! Please show the contradiction(s) prophetically in the "word of God" to prove your point valid

Originally posted by iESOTERICuEXOTERIC
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is no "Word of God" in claiming that the Jesuits run the world,

JG challenged you to prove this assertion false

How does one prove a negative?

The papacy is pointed out to be the sea beast/little horn (of Daniel 7) through historicism and fulfils prophetic descriptions without contradiction thus it is the correct approach and it is the Papacy

post

Your argument is a clear variation on this assertion but you did not prove it false, yet you are using the argument again! Please show the contradiction(s) prophetically in the "word of God" to prove your point valid

Huh? I have no idea what you're asking here (though if you're, again, asking me to prove a negative, that's an invalid request.)

Here, though: www.abovetopsecret.com... would be an example of an idiotic claim about the Jesuits being debunked. I can do that all day long, but expecting someone to prove a negative is irrational.

reply to post by adjensen

Huh? I have no idea what you're asking here (though if you're, again, asking me to prove a negative, that's an invalid request

Easy, there are heaps of prophetic descriptions about the power that will rule the world in the Bible. These are littered throughout the prophetic books of Revelation and Daniel and to a lesser extent, Thessalonians.

All you have to do is show a valid description of the anti-christ power that is said to rule the Earth and prove that the Papacy or Vatican does not match that description. If you are right I am sure it can't be too hard for you. Could you please provide 2 or 3 examples of these contradictions

Show that the word of God does not point out the Vatican

reply to post by iESOTERICuEXOTERIC


How is this:

The papacy is pointed out to be the sea beast/little horn (of Daniel 7) through historicism and fulfils prophetic descriptions without contradiction thus it is the correct approach and it is the Papacy

evidence of anything? Who has pointed this out? What historicism? How are prophetic descriptions fulfilled without contradiction?

As for general terms, here's a non-Catholic who wrote a series of articles detailing numerous facts regarding the Pope not being the anti-Christ: The Pope is NOT the Antichrist - Summary of 'Is 666 the Pope?' There is plenty in there to address your demand for one instance of prophecy that isn't fulfilled by the Roman Catholic Church.

I doubt that you'll agree with anything she says, but it's her gig, not mine, so you're welcome to go argue with her.

reply to post by adjensen

There is plenty in there to address your demand for one instance of prophecy that isn't fulfilled by the Roman Catholic Church.

So is this your studied opinion you agree with or not?

I doubt that you'll agree with anything she says, but it's her gig, not mine, so you're welcome to go argue with her.

You bring up the argument the the word of God does not point out the papacy and the level of confidence you have in this is to wash your hands of any errors in the presented information. I would like to see the answer you affirm and don't wash your hands from. If you can't present information you are confident in or wish to be responsible for then don't post it.

If prophecy isn't your gig then don't make argument you can not back up.

What is the point in seeking to answer the linked content if you will just say you didn't write it so take it out on her

Originally posted by iESOTERICuEXOTERIC
reply to post by adjensen

 

There is plenty in there to address your demand for one instance of prophecy that isn't fulfilled by the Roman Catholic Church.

So is this your studied opinion you agree with or not?

As much as I've looked at it, yes.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that most prophecy in the Bible, outside of the words of Christ, is either post-facto, or is allegorical. There is enough in Revelation that is contemporary to the author to reasonably assume that it was a message for the church in his time, as opposed to a forecast of the distant future. That's not to say that it can't be, just that attempting to shoehorn a future institution into the descriptions in that book (as JesuitGarlic is wont to do) is not likely a valid interpretation.

What is the point in seeking to answer the linked content if you will just say you didn't write it so take it out on her

Because you asked for a response to your claim, and there is one that's well written and thought out -- I see no need to reinvent the wheel for your benefit, when someone else has already done it. Because I didn't write it, I obviously can't speak to anything about her methodology or intent, apart from what's there, so if you have a complaint with that text, talk to her about it.