Month: July 2016

Just consider the phenomenon of celebrity atheists and the question has been answered. This phenomenon has, at least, three aspects:

1) Spiritual warfare coupled with a dose of rebellion loves company.

2) Secular mis-education or, re-education.

3) Our propensity towards glorifying those whom we admire.

1) Spiritual warfare coupled with a dose of rebellion loves company.

One reason that atheists are so active on college campus is that, in essence, they act like a styled version of temple prostitutes. Temple prostitutes, who are alive and well within certain witchcraft / magik groups, entice unbelievers by sexual enticements, their worship systems include sexual practices. The youth are naturally rebellious, saturated with raging hormones, have just been freed of mommy’s apron strings and thrown into co-ed circumstances.

Along come the atheist and encourage the confusion between rebelling against religion with rebelling against God. They then deny any such thing as traditional ethics / morals and the rest is pop-cultural history (enter STDs, single teen moms, emotional damage from being treated as a sexual object de jour, children living out of a suitcase as they are shuffled between feuding un-married parents, etc., etc., etc.).

Why do you think that atheist make besmirching Christian values a large portion of their atheistic worldviews (even whilst borrowing from Christian values in a plagiaristic manner)? Keep in mind that two of atheism’s consoling delusions are absolute autonomy and that which follows from it, lack of ultimate accountability.

2) Secular mis-education or, re-education.

It is claimed that atheists, by any other name, are more educated than their religionist counterparts. Beyond asking just what “educated” may mean, this is not surprising (if it is true). By the time that they graduate college they have been indoctrinated via the atheist catechism. Each and every subject they study is not only taught with specific lack of references to God but they are taught (at least in the USA) within an environment wherein God is censored, it is illegal to reference God.

Thus, for example, atheist rally behind Richard Dawkins when he claims that theism is a science stopper. They ubiquitously promulgate this well-within-the-box-atheist-group think-talking point-de jour throughout the World Wide Web. They accept and regurgitate this, even though it is utterly inaccurate, because their cult hero thus saith. They also do this because within their tax payer funded schools, they are not taught that the very premise upon which science is based in the first place is that the universe and life were created by a rational God and that thus, God’s creation could be rationally discerned.

For more info on this see:

Question for atheists: is “God did it” a science stopper?

Is atheism to be correlated with science? And, on “Material Creationism”

Paul Davies on cosmology: modern science vs. the Bible

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 1

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 2 – On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Massimo Pigliucci

Atheism and Science – Is There a Relation?, part 3 – On the Difference Between Science and Philosophy: Richard Dawkins

Consider that William Provine, stated, “Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented,” that PZ Myers claims that atheism and science as “inseparable” and on it goes.

Atheistic arguments and worldviews are actually and specifically inserted into what are supposed to be science textbooks—see Protecting the Science Classroom. This mirrors that which was noted by an editorial in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (Can Med Assoc J., 1961 May 27; 84(21): 1205–1206):

Dr. Wulf Grobin…has lately drawn to our attention a particularly intriguing article published in a recent issue of Socetskoe Zdravookhranenie, a Soviet journal of public health, under the rather startling title, “Scientific Atheistic Propaganda in Medical Schools”.

Two years ago, according to T. Ya. Tkachev, the author of this report (Sovet. Zdravookhr., 1: 46, 1961), the Ministry of Higher Education of the U .S.S.R. recommended that a course on the basis of scientific atheism be instituted in Soviet medical schools. It was proposed that this course should consist of a total of 24 hours instruction covering the following subjects: Marxist Atheism as the Highest Form of Atheism…The Form and Methods of Scientific-Atheistic Education…the Soviet intelligentsia is exhorted to work toward the “atheistic education” of the laboring masses, as one of its “highest duties”. The author describes at length the methods employed in his medical school to indoctrinate students with the concepts of atheism. Every medical discipline from anatomy to psychiatry…

3) Our propensity towards glorifying those whom we admire.

Consider that when there is no higher being there are only higher humans. Why do you think that in, for example, atheist Communist regimes the regime is all: the regime giveth and the regime taketh away? When there are no unalienable rights endowed upon us by “nature’s God” our “Creator” (as per the Declaration of Independence) all you have is a group of powerful humans.

For more on the issue of our propensity towards glorifying those whom we admire and how some consider this as an evolutionary bi-product, please see the attached video of Roger Scruton turning the tables on Richard Dawkins and the other celebrity New Atheists by extension.

Headlines make is clear that the New Atheists are up to new tricks_

An Associate Press story printed in the New York Times affirms,

In Russia Speed Up Campaign; Moscow Churches Are Filled As Disbelievers Plan New Propaganda Drive

Also, that the atheists,

Ridicule Capitalism And Pope In Manifestoes

And that they rejoice that the

Ban On Teaching Children Religion Seen As Spelling Church’s Doom If Continued In Effect. Doom Of Russian Faith Feared.

This is the work of Russia’s Society Of Militant Atheists Of Russia aka The Union of Belligerent Atheists aka The League Of The Godless.

This headline dates from March 17, 1930 AD.

“New” Atheists? Nothing new about them.

In related news, the following is hot off the press:

_in nine cases out of ten agnosticism is but old atheism “writ large.”

And it has come to be writ large because it is gaining ground in respectable society, where the older and simpler designation carries with it-if we may borrow a convenient term from the logic manuals-an offensive connotation, very much on the principle that vice is said by losing its grossness to lose half its evil.

The new nomenclature may or may not be an advantage; those who like to call a spade a spade will be disposed to regret it.

Indeed, they are gaining ground, the rise of atheism in America is being celebrated as of late.

The above was published in July 9, 1880 AD (“Atheists, Deists, and Agnostics – The Popular Odium Which Attaches to Certain Names,” The New York Times).

This really seems to be a non-issue since Richard Dawkins is a weak or negative atheist.
Now, yes, he is weak and negative but these terms, within this context, do not refer to his prowess as an atheist pseudo-evangelist but to which Atheist denomination he adheres which is called “weak atheism” or “negative atheism” and means that he is, essentially, an agnostic since he does not positively affirm God’s non-existence (except one perhaps one occasion).

The headlines from the UK’s Telegraph proceeded forth hot off the press and declared Richard Dawkins: I can’t be sure God does not exist.
Well, this is, at least as of just over a half a decade, not news. The story focused on the fact that Richard Dawkins does not believe that God exists but takes the weak Atheist position in that he does not positively affirm God’s non-existence. This means that he does not believe that God exists but does not claim to know with 100% certainty that God does not, in fact, exist.
He made remarks to this affect in his book The God Delusion (which Dawkins has referred to as a funny book and an amusing book) and this also played a big role in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed wherein the famous discussion took place between Dawkins and Ben Stein. That discussion had Dawkins grudgingly assert 97% certainty that God did not exist only to be asked how he knew, having him admit that he did not know. He was then asked if the percentage could be, say, 47% to which he said no, only to be asked how he know to which he again responded that he did not know and on it went.

Thus, the story is a non-story, at least for the initiate. Another essential non-story within the non-story is nevertheless interesting to revisit. This is that Richard Dawkins stated un-scientific and un-evidenced assertion that “life started from nothing.” This is clearly absolutely nothing but a “faith” based statement which he makes based on utterly nothing but his chosen Atheistic/materialistic/mechanistic/naturalistic worldview. He has further elucidated, again based on nothing but his propensity towards quaint Victorian Era Darwinian story telling that while “life started from nothing” it was started by…are you ready for this?…keep in mind that this is a scientist speaking…but not merely a scientist in general but a biologist in specific…he believes that “life started from nothing” but that it was started by “luck”:

It is as though, in our theory of how we came to exist, we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. [The Blind Watchmaker, 1986 AD ed., p. 145]

 
to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises…makes heavier demands on luck. [The God Delusion, 2006 AD ed., p. 121] Yet, furthermore, what Richard Dawkins claimed is:

life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?

Clearly, this is an argument from aesthetics. Should we really believe in an un-scientific and un-evidenced origin of life “from nothing” just because Richard Dawkins chooses to consider this metaphysical assertion to be staggering, elegant and beautiful? If that is the case then all you have to do is cancel it out by stating that you do not find it staggering, elegant nor beautiful. From there it is a case of my aesthetics can beat up yours and may the fittest aesthetic win. Well, as surprising as it may be aesthetics does, indeed, play a big role in the realm of theory. What may also be either surprising or another non-story is that for Richard Dawkins his personal feelings about a theory is just about all he has going for him, consider his admission to holding to Darwinism/evolution/natural selection by “faith” and why he does so:

…there’s got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can’t think of one then that’s your problem, not natural selection’s problem. Natural selection, um, well, I suppose that is a sort of matter of faith on my, on my part since the theory is so coherent and so powerful… [The Atheism Tapes, Part 4: “Richard Dawkins and Jonathan Miller,” emphasis added]

An interesting side note is that Jonathan Miller asked Dawkins, “So when, at the age of 16, you became acquainted with Darwin, was it because you were taught about Darwin, or you began reading The Origin of Species?” and Dawkins responded, “No, it was because I was taught” (perhaps this is a window into why Dawkins could not recall the full title/subtitle of his pseudo-Bible, Charles Darwin’s magnum opus).

Lastly, some interesting, though perhaps not detailed, data did proceed forth from the UK Telegraphs’ article. It contained a poll asking readers:
Does God “clutter up” explanations of how the universe began?
Yes, there is no place for religion in science
No, a theory of creation is compatible with the Big Bang
Now, who would read an article about Dawkins? Likely Atheists and Christians with a minority of miscellaneous. Perhaps more Atheists than Christians as they are quite taken with cult of personality hero worship. Perhaps more Atheists because it was, after all the UK’s Telegraph. Yet, it is on the world wide web so, who knows? The poll is not scientific as it does not ask your views but only reports results. Thus, let us consider the data as proceeding forth from the “for whatever it’s worth” files. The results are as follows (as of February 24, 2012 AD):

Yes, there is no place for religion in science 33.28% (8,068 votes)  

No, a theory of creation is compatible with the Big Bang 66.72% (16,176 votes)  

Total Votes: 24,244

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.

Twitter: #RichardDawkins, #Atheism, #anostic
Facebook: #RichardDawkins, #Atheism, #anostic

While this parsed essay specifically comments on the writings of a proponent of the Hare Krishna or Krishna Consciousness Movement, it has wider reaching apologetic value in that, in general, the issues dealt with here relate to a wide variety of subjects.1 Hereinafter, “Parker/Prabhupada” refers to the author of the article upon which I will comment.

This segment will serve as the What’s In A Name???

This essay will be parsed into the following segments:

Part 1: What’s In A Name??? Part 2: What is Prayer??? Part 3: Teach Us How to Chant??? Part 4: Is There a Magic Word??? Part 5: Let My People Conform??? Part 6: Thou Shalt Not “Kill” or Not “Murder”??? Part 7: Is it All Our Fault??? Part 8: What Do You Mean “Suffer”??? Part 9: Christ the Temporary???

Part 10: Does the Bible Say???

The following are some of the claims that Parker/Prabhupada makes about Jesus:

“…any bona fide preacher of God consciousness must have the qualities of titiksa (tolerance) and karuna (compassion). In the character of Lord Jesus Christ we find both these qualities.”

“Lord Jesus Christ agreed to be crucified to free others from their suffering.”

“Jesus Christ was such a great personality-the son of God, the representative of God.”

“He wanted to deliver God consciousness.”

“He is our guru. He is a preacher of God consciousness, so he is our spiritual master.”

“Actually, anyone who is preaching God’s glories must be accepted as a guru. Jesus Christ is one such great personality. We should not think of him as an ordinary human being.”

We should not be impressed by such complimentary language or because it mirrors Christian admiration and devotion to Jesus Christ. Parker/Prabhupada’s worldview allows him to pay identical respects to any number of spiritual masters, teachers, gurus or swamis.

Jesus said,

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not put into practice what I teach you?” (Luke 6:46).

Likewise, He may say,

“Why do you call me ‘God’s representative, preacher of God consciousness or great personality’ and not put into practice what I teach you?”

Jesus said,

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). Likewise, He may say, “Not everyone who calls me, ‘God’s representative, preacher of God consciousness or great personality,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven…”

Lastly, Jesus specifically asked His disciples,

“‘Who do men say that I am?’ So they answered, ‘John the Baptist, but some say Elijah and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered and said to Him, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven'” (See Matthew 16:13-17 & Mark 8:27-29).

To say that we believe in God or Jesus is also of no merit. To call Jesus good is not to call Him God. To believe in is not the same as to obey or have a relationship with.
The apostle James wrote,

“You believe that there is one God, you do well. Even demons believe and tremble” (James 2:19).

We see that to merle say that we believe is to hold the same theological view as demons and they, at least, have the good sense to tremble before God.

The point is that we may refer to Jesus as whatever we wish. Yet, He is who and what He is, the Messiah the Son of the living God, indeed He is God Himself. We gain not a thing by paying Him respects or complements of any sort. We must stop subjectively searching for the God according to ourselves. Rather, we must objectively search for God in the way in which He has revealed Himself.

C. S. Lewis wrote:

“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him; ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say.A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg-or else he would be the Devil of Hell.You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God.

But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”2

Parker/Prabhupada further wrote,

“We should not think of him (Jesus) as an ordinary human being. The scriptures say that anyone who considers the spiritual master to be an ordinary man has a hellish mentality.”

This is another case in which Parker/Prabhupada gave no citation, therefore, I have searched the scriptures and have found a couple of verses to which reference appear to have been made:

“And every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist…” (1st John 4:3).

“For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2nd John 7).

These verses are not speaking of generic or numerous spiritual masters but specifically of Jesus Christ only. Moreover, “hellish mentality” is a generic misinterpretation of the specificity of references to the “spirit of the Antichrist” and “a deceiver and an antichrist.” Of course, to refer to Jesus as Christ is already proving that He is not merle a man, He is the Messiah. To deny that He is the Messiah, the Son of God, and God in the flesh, that is having a hellish mentality.

Hinduism / Hare Krishna / Krishna Consciousness, part 10 of 10 ›

This segment will serve as the The Hook

According to the Melchizedek Method, we are learning how to heal not just flesh and blood but emotionally, mentally, ethericlly and spiritually as well as achieving age-reversal. The Method claims to teach how to “holographically removing any part of the body, outer bodies and thought programming into the higher dimensions to be cleansed and healed, and then returned into the physical completely perfect.”

We are also learning how to encode the five sacred key languages of Egyptian, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Tibetan and Chinese through the pineal gland, the “third eye.” This implies an instant knowledge, because “during the workshop, Thoth introduces the Holographic Body Computer_”

We are gaining the capability of “re-directing the Elements to conform to and enhance your reality able to manipulate matter.”

Also, we can have a part in the evolution of creation because practices such as the Method “enables one to perceive and create the incoming Fifth Dimension reality.”

It is interesting that besides the reported results of practicing the Method the following comments were made by Barbara Sun, a certified Melchizedek Method facilitator. She states that workshops can be an experience so powerful as to allow her to “Know that all is as it should be” and to “accept everyone and everything for who and what they are-without judgment.”1

Empathetically, I think I can understand her intentions. However, maybe I do not know how things should be, but as I look at the world things certainly do not seem to be the way they should be.

I can also appreciate her intention of being accepting, but to be without judgment is a dangerous way to live. I agree that we must be loving yet, we live in a world in which one must make judgment about people and situations, and about methods such the Melchizedek one, which is why Jesus Christ teaches us to judge a righteous judgment (John 7:24).

Does the Bible Say???:
When words to the effect of, “as taught in the bible” are used it changes the scenario from dealing with a subjective personal opinion to dealing with an objective searchable theory or teaching which may be scrutinized and proved or disproved. In this case the author wrote, “This is not some philosophy that I have fabricated.” Now we can see if this is so or not.

Did you know that the Bible says, “There is no God”? Yes, the Bible actually teaches that there is no God. Actually it says, “The fool has said in his heart ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good” (Psalms 14:1).

The fool may say in his heart and out loud whatever she wants. Yet, the wise have the responsibility to check out what the fool says. Mind you, the fool is not always wearing a jester’s hat. Some of the most intelligent people in the world are fools, they wear suits and ties, they write books and teach at universities.

“Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded (or noble) than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so” (Acts 17:10-11).

When Paul would preach to Jews he would reason with them out of the scriptures (Acts 17:2). The Old Testament was the only scripture at the time. This great intellect, presenting what was surely a very impressive sermon on the Gospel, using the Old Testament and the fact that he himself was a Jew was not enough for the Jewish Bereans. If Paul’s great teaching was found to contradict what scripture already stated the Bereans would not have received his message with all readiness. In fact they probably would have stoned him with all readiness.

The same responsibility is place upon us today (the checking out part, not the stoning part). When we are told, “The Bible says…” we are to see if those things are so. This is not just to say that we look up the verse and say, “Yep, That’s what it says alright.” A passage can be taken out of context as a pretext to a prooftext and made to mean anything, for instance, “There is no God.”

One noticeable thing about the article being commented on was the lack of citations. The author claims to quote the Bible however, this is done without letting us know which book, chapter and verse is being quoted. The citation would make it easier to find the verse right away and check the context. However, the author also makes statements and tells us not only that the Bible says, but that the Bible demands.
If we were face to face with the author we could say “You said the Bible says ‘so and so,’ now show me where it says that.” What we must now do is search the scripture to see if these things are so.

In this case we find that those things are not so. Not only are things in the article pulled out of their context but we find that certain things the author says are in the Bible actually are not there whatsoever.

If we did not see what the Bible actually stated, we would come to the following conclusions from the author’s writings:1) That Jesus, God the Father and Krsna are one in the same.2) That we are to chant Hindu mantras.3) That we are not to kill animals.4) As well as many other false teachings.

5) Moreover, we might teach others that the Bible said so.

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty inGod for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments andevery high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God,bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ”

—2nd Corinthians 10:4-5

From Paul Twitchell’s The Spiritual Notebook:

Ch. 1

Eckankar “is the mainstream for all religions, philosophies and doctrines.”

“The famous line of prophets in the Israelite tribes were trained in the work of Eckankar.”

“Practically every man who has contributed to civilization has been a chila or student of the hidden teachings of Eckankar. This is true of the sciences, literature, art, economy, religions, philosophies, the military, medicine and psychology.”

“The great prophets, those powerful figures whom we call Rama, Krishna, Hermes, Moses, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plat and Jesus are known to have been chilas in the various mystery schools, such as the Eseenes, which are all offsprings of the ancient order of Eckankar Masters known most commonly as The Order of the Viragi Avatars.”

“The art of holy writing, which was the recording of spiritual ideas by means of certain strange hieroglyphic signs on animal skins, stone or tree bark. It was at this point that Eckankar split off from more general teachings. Instead of becoming a written dogma it continued to be transmitted through oral instruction alone….all of these sacred writings, which were the ancestors of modern religions and philosophies, sprang from the oral fountainhead known as Eckankar. Eckankar is the all embracing force, the spiritual source of everything that comprises life…It is the mainstream and closest to the pure teachings derived from the oceans of love and mercy, or God, poetically speaking…Eckankar is the only current of life. It alone carries the full conception of truth.”

“The major religions of the world have sprung out of Eckankar.”

“None of these religions, which are supposed to give us comfort and succor, are successful with everybody. This is why the divine Sugmad is divided into twelve spokes [each representing a religion]. Mainly due to our individual training in this world we have to go the route to heaven in our own manner alone the path that is best suited to us. But in the end it’s always the path of Eck.”

Of Eckankar, “it of itself, is the all embracing and universal path to God. All others are contained within its fold.”

Ch. 2

“A strange phenomenon exists however during the first two stages of the neophyte. He must pay for everything he receives, either in the form of money or some other kind of exchange.”

The Apostle Paul was a “great Ek master.”

“if I should say that, my kingdom is not of this world, I would mean that I live in that state of consciousness where everything is beauty, light, and sound.”

Ch. 3

“The Christian religion has established its heaven on the fourth, or mental plane, where most of its followers dwelt on a place called paradise after they leave this world. None of them, not even the great saints, have scarcely traveled beyond this particular abode. On closer examination the fourth place appears to be the heaven for all religions. The followers of Judaism, Islamism, Buddhism, Taoism, Baha′ism, Jainism, Shintoism, Sikhism, and Mythraism, to name but a few adopt this plane of existence after quitting their physical bodies.”

“When we go beyond the spirituo-material planes we enter into the true spiritual worlds that comprise the heart of God. Only by the use of Ek can we take the straight road to this absolute kingdom. All other practices leave us in the lower worlds.”

“Kal, the personification of negative.”

Jesus is not “able to take us into out true home with the supreme deity.”

Ch. 4

“The human race must take on its own responsibility for its [karmic] debt and work it out. This will be possible in approximately 13,000,000 years at which time the earth will come to an end in this universe.”

Ch. 5

“Jesus Christ, Buddha, Mahavira, Zoroaster and Muhammad, who are the reference points millions of people today use for spiritual guidance in their lives. But these leaders have gone out of the body now and their guiding spirits have passed into the higher places.”

Ch. 6

“The Lord’s prayer is supposedly the model of all prayers, designed for those with no other means of raising their vibrations. It is judged that Christ, however, had no intention of giving prayers of this nature to any who followed him. But the gospel writers in the centuries following his death made more out of his words than were actually ascribed to him during his ministry on earth.”

Ch. 7

“Every chila will come to a cross roads in his life…this is when the chila must either break with his traditional religious past and accept Ek as the only force of divine nature or stay at a standstill in his spiritual growth until he comes to the decision himself…man’s great problem is that he has not turned to the Ek master to receive spiritual redemption.”

Ch. 9

“All will eventually leave this world anyway because of the terrible disaster that is coming during the middle part of the twenty-first century. The earth’s structure, weakened by atomic testing, will break up into earthquakes that will sink most of this continent, much of Japan, the coast of Asia and Africa and some of Europe also.”

Ch. 10

“Christ made an unnecessary sacrifice for his people.”

“Unless a religion has a living master, one who is in the flesh and able to perform in a spiritual body also, that faith is dead…this is true of Zoroaster, Buddha, Christ and other spiritual giants. But it is not true of the living Ek masters. The living Ek master is timeless in the Atam Sarup he is the alpha and omega.”

Christianity “was created by Saint Paul, who sold the teachings of Jesus Christ to the world according to his conception of what Christianity might be…the words of the original leader [Jesus] have not been given to the world in their true light.”

Ch. 11

“Kal is, according to Christian terminology, satan or the devil. While Ek is the true essence of the Lord of all Lords. It is not the actual Godhead bur a manifestation of God. It is the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the divine spirit which flows from the throne of the Sugmad.”

“The Kal has cunningly arranged a system leading the Yogi to believe that he has found the way while being held a prisoner by Kal. This is true not only of the Yogi but of most of the great religious and metaphysical systems that try to prove they have the ultimate way. The paths that these two lower systems offer are better than no path but Ek is the only way.”

“Sheeve Sana, a Hindu, who was a prominent leader of the Ek faith. He inspired Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt. He was also responsible for such marvelous miracles as the opening of the Red Sea.”

Ch. 12

Zadok “saw the man name Jesus, talked with him on several occasions and knew his purpose in this world. He also knew their missions did not cross. Neither of them had any physical contact with each other after Jesus left the Ek group with whom he studied for some time under the great Zadok. The Ek master gave Jesus the basic fundamentals of Eckankar who used them in his own teachings. Out of his knowledge of Ek came what we know today as Christianity.”

“There is no other path than Ek. It is the original source from which all things spring and anyone who tries another path is trying to start on a lower rung.”

Ek is “the original and only path to God…He who leaves the path of Ek or, refuses to follow it, shall dwell in the astral hells until the master takes mercy upon him and brings him upon the path again.”

“The order of the Viragi is the only pure line of spiritual masters in the world,” and is 6,000,000 years old.

Professor Dawkins appears to be so enamored with the document hypothesis that he commits a fallacy: the argument from personal incredulity. In other words if I find something hard to believe then it must not have happened. In this case, Prof. Richard Dawkins appears to find it hard to believe that two similar events could have occurred in the history of the world, or in the history of a nation, or in an individual’s life.

Having made reference to Genesis 19 Prof. Richard Dawkins makes that following comment in referring to Judges 19:

“This story is so similar to that of Lot, one can’t help wondering whether a fragment of manuscript became accidentally misplaced in some long-forgotten scriptorium: an illustration of the erratic provenance of sacred texts.”1

Likewise, having referenced Genesis 12 he makes that following comment in referring to Genesis 20:

“Is the similarity another indicator of textual unreliability?”2

He has furthermore written,

“a distinguished Cambridge geologist_who justified his own Christian belief by invoking what he called the historicity of the New Testament. It was precisely in the nineteenth century that theologians, especially in Germany, called into grave doubt that alleged historicity, using the evidence-based methods of history to do so.”3

Prof. Richard Dawkins is making reference to the document hypothesis (concocted in 1880), which claims that Moses did not write the first five books of the Old Testament but rather that various editors, with various motivations, through the centuries pieced together various fragments of stories. This view places more faith in an ethereal hypothesis than on the actual existing evidence. Adherents of this “scholarly” school should be asked to identify where in the world the evidence is for their hypothesis, where are the manuscripts that bare the out the hypothesis. The response will be that no evidence exists, none at all. The New Testament equivalent is another document that does not exist known as “Quelle” or succinctly “Q” (Eta Linnemann’s well rounded discussion of the “Q” issues is found as Adobe or html). Again, we find that more faith, yet by necessity blind faith, is placed on a document for which no tangible evidence exists that on the circa 25,000 manuscripts that we do have of the New Testament.

But what is the hypothesis based on? There are at least two answers to this question:One is that it is based on assumptions that are illogical inferences from the text of the Old Testament.

Two is that the originators of the hypothesis, the so called “higher critics” based their hypothesis on an a priori anti-supernatural bias and an outdated understanding of the history of ancient customs and writing. For a study of other biases please see Stan Meyer’s article, Hitler’s Theologians: The Genesis of Genocide.

On the first point: succinctly stated, the hypothesis holds that we can discern the various fragments that were later compiled into the Old Testament. They note, for example, where the text refer to God as “Jehovah” (or “YHWH”) or “Elohim” or whether the authors contrived the book of Deuteronomy (ergo “D”) or betrayed their motivations as favoring the “Priestly” class (ergo “P”). Therefore the hypothesis makes reference to the “J,E,D,P” authors/redactors.If I take credit for writing the sentence “The LORD, God Almighty is my Savior” the higher critics would concoct the “L,G,A,S theory”. They would reason that it is obvious that one author referred to the deity as “LORD” another as “God” another as “Almighty” and one final one as “Savior.” Then at some point in history I merely edited various manuscripts, concocted a sentence and passed it off as having been authored by only by myself.

On the second point: the higher critics themselves admit their biases the bottom line being that since miracles do not happen then any recounting of a miracle is obviously false.

One of the originators of the Graf-Wellhausen theory, Julius Wellhausen commented as follows regarding Moses receiving the tablets from God on Mt. Sinai, “Who can seriously believe all that?”4 Is this to be the criteria by which to study documents? This is a materialistically spiked argument from personal incredulity.

Note the biases of Langdon B. Gilkey of the University of Chicago as he considers the episodes of the Exodus:

“the acts (which the) Hebrews believed God might have done and the words he might have said, had he done and said them – but of course we recognize he did not_We deny the miraculous character of the event and say its cause was merely an East wind, and then we point to the unusual response of Hebrew faith.”5

A. Kuenen of the University of Leyden,

“So long as we attribute a part of Israel’s religious life directly to God and allow supernatural or immediate revelation (prophecy) to intervene even in one instance, just so long does our view of the whole remain inexact, and we see ourselves obliged to do violence here or there to the well-assured content of the historical accounts. It is only the assumption of a natural development that takes account of all the phenomena.”6

A. Kuenen,

“The familiar intercourse of the divinity with the patriarchs constitutes for me one of the determining considerations.”7

Note that he is not merely surveying the text but is forcing it to adhere to absolute materialism. His worldview is “one of the determining considerations” and is the reason that he must consider “the assumption of a natural development that takes account of all the phenomena.”

The anti-supernatural bias produces various side effects. For instance, the books of the Old Testament were, by necessity, re-dated not due to historical/archeological insights but because prophecy is impossible. Since prophecy is impossible then the Bible does not prophesy anything. And Since the Bible does not prophesy anything any book that included prophecy had to be re-dated to after the events that it claims to prophesy. Moreover, functioning off of an evolutionary view of the progress of religion caused further assumptions to be placed upon the text. For instance, Wellhausen comment regarding the Biblical statements about one God who created the universe, “in a youthful people such a theological abstraction is unheard of.”8 Besides the biases also keep in mind that Wellhausen lived 1844-1918 and concocted his theory in 1880. Thus, he missed many of the historical/archeological finds of the past eighty nine years including the Dead Sea Scrolls that demonstrate the accurate transition of the Old Testament for 2,000 years. For a good example of historical research rather than Darwinian assumptions on this topic see Don Richardson’s book “Eternity in Their Hearts.”

G. E. Wright,

“The Graf-Wellhausen reconstruction of the history of Israel’s religion was, in effect, an assertion that within the pages of the Old Testament we have a perfect example of the evolution of religion from animism in patriarchal times_to monotheism. The last was first achieved in pure form during the sixth and fifth centuries BC. The patriarchs (Abraham and his sons in 1800 BC) worshiped the spirits in trees, stones, springs, mountains, etc. The God of pre-prophetic Israel (1000 BC) was a tribal deity, limited in his power to the land of Palestine_It was the prophets who were the true innovators (inventors of monotheism).”9

Cyrus Gordon serves as an example of a scholar who abandoned the documentary hypothesis after studying ancient history and archaeology,

“The cuneiform contracts from Nuzu have demonstrated that the social institutions of the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.) are genuine and pre-Mosaic. They cannot have been invented by any post-Mosaic J,E,D, or P.”10

Henri Blocher,

“The critics, when they judge the internal phenomena (of the Bible) project into it their customs as modem western readers, and neglect all that we know today of the writing customs used in Biblical times. The taste for repetition, the structure of a global statement-repeated with development, the replacement of a word by its synonyms, especially the change of a divine name in a text (i.e., the names of Osiris on the stele of Ikhernofret), are well attested characteristics of ancient Middle Eastern texts_The Biblical text, as it is, agrees with the literary canons of its time.”11

K.A. Kitchen,

“The conventional forms of literary criticism (‘J, E, P,D,’ etc., oral tradition) were evolved in a vacuum and their criteria can be proven to be non-significant and just plain wrong when compared with the ways in which people really wrote in the Biblical world. The evolutionary scheme of concepts_is wholly illusory when measured against the entire Biblical world of the Near East_When the Old Testament writings and the theoretical reevaluations of them are finally measured against the visible, tangible_Old Testament world-then it is the extant documents (of the Old Testament) that match with their Near Eastern context, and not the reconstructions based on false premises and false criteria.”12

Umberto Cassuto’s (aka Moshe David Cassuto) conclusions about the “pillars” upon which the documents hypothesis is built,

“I did not prove that the pillars were weak or that each one failed to give decisive support, but I established that they were not pillars at all, that they did not exist, that they were purely imaginary.”13

Clearly, the hypothesis was built upon fallacious assumptions. But if anyone insists on holding to this view just ask them where the documents are? Where are the manuscripts from which the Torah was redacted? Surely, they have withered away into nothingness which is why the “evidence” is a hypothesis. On the other hand prior to the early 20th century we could prove 1,000 years of accurate transmission of the Old Testament text and since then 2,000 years (see some of our comments on these issues here and here).

As I have noted numerous times within various articles, when someone engaged in discussion stops replying or outright tells me that they will no longer engage me in the discussion I never thump my chest in victory. I empathize that there are many reasons for no longer replying or simply wanting the discussion to end.

Well, this happened with Zen Garcia as he wrote the following to me:

I won’t waste any more time discussing this with you, there’s no point. You see it your way, I see it mine. Those that choose to open themselves to this study will have to decide for themselves. People should disbelieve everything that anybody says until testing all things themselves. As far as the Targums you would think that you would at least do little research on them before sharing your professional opinion. If you’re wrong on this, why should anybody trust you on anything. Wiki:

The targumim (singular: “targum”, Hebrew: תרגום‎‎) were spoken paraphrases, explanations and expansions of the Jewish scriptures (also called the Tanakh) that a Rabbi would give in the common language of the listeners, which was then often Aramaic. That had become necessary near the end of the 1st century BCE, as the common language was in transition and Hebrew was used for little more than schooling and worship. Writing down the targum was prohibited; nevertheless, some targumatic writings appeared as early as the middle of the first century CE. They were then not recognized as authoritative by the religious leaders, however. Some subsequent Jewish traditions (beginning with the Babylonian Jews) accepted the written targumim as authoritative, and eventually, it became a matter of debate. Jewish Encyclopedia: As an intepretation of the Hebrew text of the Bible the Targum had its place both in the synagogal liturgy and in Biblical instruction, while the reading of the Bible text combined with the Targum in the presence of the congregation assembled for public worship was an ancient institution which dated from the time of the Second Temple, and was traced back to Ezra by Rab when he interpreted the word “meforash” (Neh. viii. 8) as referring to the Targum (Meg. 3a; Ned. 37b; comp. Yer. Meg. 74d, line 48, Gen. R. xxxvi., end). The rules for reading the Targum are formulated in the Halakah (see Meg. iii. and the Talmud ad loc.; Tosef., Meg. iv.). The Targum was to be read after every verse of the parashiyyot of the Pentateuch, and after every third verse of the lesson from the Prophets.

Here was my reply:

Well friend, I can see why you no longer want to sharpen iron with me anymore as your claims are clearly in error and I have proved that time and time again, based on the Bible. What bothers me is how you are spreading misinformation and sadly, many people do not seem to “open themselves to this study” but take your word for many things.

For example, I have had to clean up after you every time you mislead people in claiming that the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is the original text. This is simply false. Your quotation from an unnamed “Wiki” does not help you as it makes generic statements about the Targumim in general and their original purpose.

The fact is that the Targum that you decided, without evidence, is the original is, in fact, a very, very, very late dated one: it dates to more than half a millennia after Jesus’s time. Please quote to these good people information specifically about the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and they will instantly see that there is simply no way whatsoever that it is anywhere even remotely near being the original text.

This Targum came along almost a full millennia after the original Targumim which date to “near the end of the 1st century BCE [BC]”: the Targum you quote has no relation to the unsourced “Wiki” you quoted and even if it did, it is in error because the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have on the Old Testament which predate it make it clear that Eve was praising the LORD for Cain’s birth.

And that is the end of it……..or, is it?

For my whole Serpent Seed of Satan series including my discussions with Zen Garcia, see see here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia
Facebook: #serpentseed, #satan, #zengarcia

How to introduce YouTube user Enterthe5t4rz? Well, I am as flummoxed by that which he claims as I am about how many people watch his videos and agree with him. I first became aware of him when, within a video title “Throne of GOD & Jesus Revealed Within the BRAIN: VIRAL” he claimed just that, that God’s throne is our brain if, that is, we turn our brain upside down and cut off the brainstem, of course.
You do not know how much I would prefers that I am exaggerating but here is the YouTube screenshot: see, God’s throne looks just like a gamer’s bean bag.

But I need not say more as his manner of dealing with issues will become apparent and it only gets worse as he goes as this is not an ad hominem but a detailed consideration.

Here is a comment I wrote to him:

Part of the confusion with this topic is that there are two lines but they are those who conduct godly action and those who conduct satanic actions. It is not about genetics but about actions. Eve’s curse is directly correlated to the little we are told about her which is that she was to be the mother of all living and has nothing to do with sex with Satan (likewise, Adam’s cure is correlated to that which we are told about him): since she was to be the mother of all living, she would now have pain (or, increased pain) in childbirth.

Lastly, the Israelites are never said to battle Nephilim. That term only appears once post-flood and it is when the spies are offering a bad report on the land, Caleb chimes in to encourage the people to take the land and the other spies kick it up one notch so as to puff up their point which was to scare the people regarding the land so that they only then claim that they saw Nephilim (see Numbers 13). You can verify this by reading Joshua 14:12 where Caleb relates this event himself and affirms the presence of the Anakim but does not mention Nephilim nor that the Anakim are descendants of the Nephilim.

Indeed, there are two “lines,” as it were, in the Bible but they are not based on genetics but based on actions. Thus, it is not the line of Seth versus the line of Cain or line of the woman versus the line of Satan which is claimed to have come about when Eve had sex with Satan. Rather, it is about those who commit ungodly action versus those who commit godly actions.
I have demonstrated this biblically in various articles on the issue yet most succinctly in Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics Journal.

A YouTube video by Enterthe5t4rz is entitled “TWINS From Different FATHERS??? Can You Say SUPERFECUNDATION???” states the following in its info section, “The real story of Cain and Abel…The punishment fits the crime” (ellipses in original). This pertains to the idea that Cain and Abel were twins. Now, even if you hold that they were, this particular idea is related to the serpent seed of Satan theory and thus claims that Eve bore twins but Cain was fathered by Satan and Abel by Adam.

For details on the issue of superfecundation see Zen Garcia on Eve’s desire for the Angel of the LORD.

Someone asked Enterthe5t4rz, “Did you come up with this idea by yourself?” and Enterthe5t4rz replied simply with “The Holy Spirit.” Well, someone else beat me to it, in a manner of speaking as you will see below, and noted:

my dad told me this back in the 80s when I was a kid. I guess the old man was right again. Great vid!!

Well yes, it is an old claim but no sorry, the old man was very wrong.

Here is my reply:

FYI: it was not the Holy Spirit. May serpent seed theorists have jumped on the superfecundation bandwagon and have done so for some years now. FYI: it was not the Holy Spirit. May serpent seed theorists have jumped on the superfecundation bandwagon and have done so for some years now. In turn, they got the idea that Cain and Abel were twins from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which is an Aramaic paraphrase (not simply a translation) of the Hebrew. It includes much interpretation based on Rabbinic folklore and dates to the 600 AD: yes, AD and not BC so it was invented over half a millennia after the time of Jesus.

Someone else noted the following as a reply to someone else:

[name withheld], this was revealed to myself, Zen Garcia, Joye Jeffries Pugh, and Jonathan Kleck, and I’ve seen, or know that each of them have been individually attacked for this very revelation…expect others to come against you [name withheld], even in your own camp as I’ve watched it happen to them…sad….really sad…Alot of what they have revealed and are continuing to reveal doesn’t seem sit well with others…it just seems to stir up a hornets nest with those who haven’t been given the same revelation. It’s bad enough what with spiritual warfare escalating as we near the end, aswell as having paid trolls and shills buffeting Gods chosen vessels, but when a brethren attacks another brethren? Now that’s really SAD! God bless. [ellipses in original]

See here for info on Joy Jeffries Pugh.
My reply was:

Friend, perhaps some have “attacked” you and I pray grace on them and you. However, I certainly have issues with it and have the freedom in Christ to express those issues “with meekness and respect” as Peter would have us do.
This was not “revealed” to various personages such as yourself. May serpent seed theorists have jumped on the superfecundation bandwagon and have done so for some years now. The idea that Cain and Abel were twins from the Palestinian Targum Pseudo-Jonathan which is an Aramaic paraphrase (not simply a translation) of the Hebrew. It includes much interpretation based on Rabbinic folklore and dates to the 600 AD: yes, AD and not BC so it was invented over half a millennia after the time of Jesus.

Many love an underdog and many take on victimhood mentalities. Thus, “this was revealed” by whom but God Himself but they have been “attacked for this very revelation” yet, this does not necessarily follow. A lot of what they have asserted and are continuing to assert doesn’t seem sit well with others because it is so obviously erroneous: it ranges from being non-biblical, un-biblical or extra-biblical to actually being anti-biblical.

In the next segment, we will consider Cain’s serpent seedine’s satanic genetics with Enterthe5t4rz.

For my entire serpent seed of Satan section see here.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #Enterthe5t4rz, #Serpentseedine, #Bible
Facebook: #Enterthe5t4rz, #Serpentseedine, #Bible