From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist, Part 11 of 13

“The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing
his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel”

-Adolf Hitler1

The Topics Covered in This Essay Are As Follows:
Atheist and Darwinist Communists

Subsections Are As Follows:

Of Vladimir LeninOf Joseph Stalin

Of Frederick Engles, Mao Zedong, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, et al

Atheist and Darwinist Communists
We have seen that Richard Dawkins argues that when individual atheists commit atrocious acts they are not doing so in the name of atheism. We will now see that this is not the case. Of course, the simple retort is that even if they did claim that they were doing it in the name of atheism they still were not committing those acts motivated by atheism because atheism is merely non-theism. However, the fact is that there are atheists who disagree, as we shall see, and do claim to do that which they do in the name of, and motivated by, atheism. This is because what atheism is turns out to be up for interpretation. There are various sects of atheism and there are even some that claim that the others are wrong. In reality, there are as many versions of atheism as there are individual atheists. Each, in turn, decides what atheism is for themselves and fills the void left by God with something of their choosing. Atheism is not merely a lack of belief, it is a blank canvas upon which individuals pain worldviews of their choosing.

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, “Men Have Forgotten God” – The Templeton Address

“It was Dostoevsky, once again, who drew from the French Revolution and its seeming hatred of the Church the lesson that “revolution must necessarily begin with atheism.” That is absolutely true. But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot…

But there is something they did not expect: that in a land where churches have been leveled, where a triumphant atheism has rampaged uncontrolled for two-thirds of a century, where the clergy is utterly humiliated and deprived of all independence, where what remains of the Church as an institution is tolerated only for the sake of propaganda directed at the West, where even today people are sent to the labor camps for their faith, and where, within the camps themselves, those who gather to pray at Easter are clapped in punishment cells–they could not suppose that beneath this Communist steamroller the Christian tradition would survive in Russia. It is true that millions of our countrymen have been corrupted and spiritually devastated by an officially imposed atheism, yet there remain many millions of believers: it is only external pressures that keep them from speaking out, but, as is always the case in times of persecution and suffering, the awareness of God in my country has attained great acuteness and profundity…

The concepts of good and evil have been ridiculed for several centuries; banished from common use, they have been replaced by political or class considerations of short lived value. It has become embarrassing to state that evil makes its home in the individual human heart before it enters a political system…
Western societies are losing more and more of their religious essence as they thoughtlessly yield up their younger generation to atheism…

Atheist teachers in the West are bringing up a younger generation in a spirit of hatred of their own society…

All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today’s world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain.”

Of Vladimir Lenin
Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), the first leader of the USSR who modified Marxist doctrine as a Communist theoretician:

“Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism…a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-DD&#bc;hring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist DD&#bc;hring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, “exalted” religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people-this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion…At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts of people who desired…to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion…[Engels considered] vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out…Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion as was the materialism…This is beyond doubt…it applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion-that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way…A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion…By declaring…that religion is the opium of the people, our Duma group acted quite correctly, and thus created a precedent which should serve as a basis for all utterances by Russian Social-Democrats on the question of religion.”2 [italics in original]

“Darwin put an end to the belief that the animal and vegetable species bear no relation to one another, except by chance, and that they were created by God, and hence immutable.”3

“Atheism is a material and inseparable part of Marxism, of the theory and practice of scientific Socialism. In accordance with their fundamental philosophical outlook, Marx and Engels always called themselves materialists.”4

“when people charge us with harshness we wonder how they can forget the rudiments of Marxism.” 5

In this regard, it may be interesting to note the words of Mao Zedong:”You’d better have less conscience. Some of our comrades have too much mercy, not enough brutality, which means that they are not so Marxist. On this matter, we indeed have no conscience! Marxism is that brutal….We are prepared to sacrifice 300 million Chinese for the victory of the world revolution”6 and “Look at World War II, at Hitler’s cruelty. The more cruelty, the more enthusiasm for revolution.”7

Lenin further stated:

“Whatever helps the world Communist revolution is good; whatever hinders it is bad. Religion, through its insistence upon individual responsibility to the Creator of all things, interferes with the advance of world collectivism. It is, therefore, irredeemably evil.”8

“We deny all morality taken from superhuman or non-class conceptions. We say that this is a deception, a swindle, a befogging of the minds…In what sense do we deny ethics, morals? In the sense in which they are preached by the bourgeoisie, which deduces these morals from god’s commandments. Of course, we say that we do not believe in god.”9

“When people talk to us about morality we say: For the Communists, morality consists entirely of compact united discipline and conscious mass struggle against the exploiters. We do not believe in eternal morality, and we expose all fables about morality.”10

“A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could.'”

Lenin wrote the following in, The Attitude of the Workers’ Party to Religion11:

“It is the absolute duty of Social-Democrats to make a public statement of their attitude towards religion. Social-Democracy bases its whole world-outlook on scientific socialism, i. e., Marxism. The philosophical basis of Marxism, as Marx and Engels repeatedly declared, is dialectical materialism…a materialism which is absolutely atheistic and positively hostile to all religion. Let us recall that the whole of Engels’s Anti-DD&#bc;hring, which Marx read in manuscript, is an indictment of the materialist and atheist DD&#bc;hring for not being a consistent materialist and for leaving loopholes for religion and religious philosophy. Let us recall that in his essay on Ludwig Feuerbach, Engels reproaches Feuerbach for combating religion not in order to destroy it, but in order to renovate it, to invent a new, ‘exalted’ religion, and so forth. Religion is the opium of the people-this dictum by Marx is the corner-stone of the whole Marxist outlook on religion12

At the same time Engels frequently condemned the efforts…to introduce into the programme of the workers’ party an explicit proclamation of atheism, in the sense of declaring war on religion…Engels called…vociferous proclamation of war on religion a piece of stupidity, and stated that such a declaration of war was the best way to revive interest in religion and to prevent it from really dying out…

Engels insisted that the workers’ party should have the ability to work patiently at the task of organising and educating the proletariat, which would lead to the dying out of religion, and not throw itself into the gamble of a political war on religion.13 This view has become part of the very essence of German Social-Democracy, which, for example, advocated freedom for the Jesuits, their admission into Germany, and the complete abandonment of police methods of combating any particular religion. ‘Religion is a private matter’: this celebrated point in the Erfurt Programme (1891) summed up these political tactics of Social-Democracy…

Social-Democrats regard religion as a private matter in relation to the state, but not in relation to themselves, not in relation to Marxism, and not in relation to the workers’ party14

Marxism is materialism. As such, it is as relentlessly hostile to religion…This is beyond doubt. But the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels…applies the materialist philosophy to the domain of history, to the domain of the social sciences. We must combat religion-that is the ABC of all materialism, and consequently of Marxism. But Marxism is not a materialism which has stopped at the ABC. Marxism goes further. It says: We must know how to combat religion, and in order to do so we must explain the source of faith and religion among the masses in a materialist way. The combating of religion cannot be confined to abstract ideological preaching…It must be linked up with the concrete practice of the class movement, which aims at eliminating the social roots of religion…

No educational book can eradicate religion from the minds of masses who are crushed by capitalist hard labour, and who are at the mercy of the blind destructive forces of capitalism, until those masses themselves learn to fight this root of religion, fight the rule of capital in all its forms, in a united, organised, planned and conscious way. Does this mean that educational books against religion are harmful or unnecessary? No, nothing of the kind. It means that Social-Democracy’s atheist propaganda must be subordinated to its basic task-the development of the class struggle of the exploited masses against the exploiters…

Atheist propaganda in such circumstances [a labor strike in which the workers are divided into atheists and Christians] may be both unnecessary and harmful…class struggle, which in the conditions of modern capitalist society will convert Christian workers to Social-Democracy and to atheism a hundred times better than bald atheist propaganda…

A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist…

[dealing with the question “whether a priest can be a member of the Social-Democratic Party or not”] We must not only admit workers who preserve their belief in God into the Social-Democratic Party, but must deliberately set out to recruit them; we are absolutely opposed to giving the slightest offence to their religious convictions, but we recruit them in order to educate them in the spirit of our programme

In Russia conditions are quite different [than in Social-Democrats in the West]…while Engels was comparatively mild in correcting the opportunism of the German Social-Democrats who were substituting, for the demand of the workers’ party that the state should declare religion a private matter, the declaration that religion is a private matter for the Social-Democrats themselves, and for the Social-Democratic Party, it is clear that the importation of this German distortion by the Russian opportunists would have merited a rebuke a hundred times more severe by Engels…

By declaring from the Duma [representative assemblies] rostrum that religion is the opium of the people, our Duma group acted quite correctly, and thus created a precedent which should serve as a basis for all utterances by Russian Social-Democrats on the question of religion.”

Of Joseph Stalin
I have already quoted professor of philosophy Daniel Dennett (during his debate with Dinesh D’Souza, “Is God (and Religion) a man-made invention?”) in this regard in part 4 yet, I thought to reproduce it here where it seemed again to be relevant as we consider Stalin in particular:

“…it occurred to me – let’s think about Stalin for a moment. Was he an atheist? You might say well of course he was an atheist. No, on the contrary. In a certain sense, he wasn’t an atheist at all. He believed in god. Not only that, he believe in a god whose will determined what right and wrong was. And he was sure of the existence of this god, and the god’s name was Stalin.”

Emilian Yaroslavsky (President and Founder of the Union of the Militant Godless) wrote of Stalin:

“At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin’s, relates: I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment’s silence, said: ‘You know, they are fooling us, there is no God….’
I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.’How can you say such things, Soso?’ I exclaimed.’I’ll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,’ Joseph said.’What book is that?’ I enquired.’Darwin. You must read it,’ Joseph impressed on me.”15

Stalin also stated,”Of course, we are far from being enthusiastic about the fascist regime in Germany”16 and “I know how much the German nation loves its Fuhrer; I should therefore like to drink to his health.”17Karl Radek, Bolshevik Communist propagandist,

“There are magnificent lads in the SA and SS. You’ll see, the day will come when they’ll be throwing hand grenades for us.”18

Stalin further stated,

“The Party cannot be neutral towards religion, and it conducts anti-religious propaganda against all religious prejudices because it stands for science, whereas religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is the antithesis of science.”19

In 17 Feb. 1936 Time Magazine reported (“Godless Jubilee”) that there was a:

“celebration by massed Communist delegations from all over Russia of the tenth anniversary of the founding in Moscow of the Union of the Militant Godless…

active profession of atheism is the badge of a Communist, Joseph Stalin has uttered officially such lukewarm words as these: ‘The Party cannot be neutral toward Religion because Religion is something opposite to Science’…

[Archbishop Nicholas John Kedroff, Dean of the Cathedral of St. Nicholas in Manhattan a US affiliate of the Soviet Russia’s Greek Orthodox Church wrote,] ‘In some ways the Church has more freedom in Russia now than it had under the Tsars…The clergy in Russia today are not so poor as you might think. Not long ago I received a letter from a priest who wanted some new parts for his Buick.’ The prosperity in Russia of even one priest able to require new parts for his Buick drives the League of the Militant Godless into tantrums [they see the ‘New Menace’ as being priests who were preaching a blend of Communism and Christianity]…

[despite the church’s “more freedom”] by an alteration of the law made in 1929, any public propaganda of religion apart from services and sermons in church is made a penal offense…

In stirring up the police to inflict upon unchurched preachers of religion the full penalty of Soviet law, the Godless are especially active. Last week they boasted at their Jubilee of fresh success in a Western Siberian village. They have at last got its ‘chief evangelist,’ P. M. Golofast, sentenced to ten years in jail along with two minor evangelists, jailed respectively for two and five years…

Roman Catholic missionaries in Russia today are under the direct and exceedingly discreet patronage of His Holiness Pope Pius XI. At the Society for the Propagation of the Faith in Manhattan, a prelate declared last week: ‘No one except Rome knows just who is doing what and where in Russia. If it were known, the Soviets would chop their heads off. As for such churches as are open in Russia, they are only to make it appear to tourists that there is no persecution’…Pius XI is considered by the Godless their personal and potent foe in the great battle for Russian souls…

Russia’s militant Godless campaign against all gods and all faiths. Excruciating is their stage skit Buddha-on-the-Telephone…tolerated by Communism in Leningrad for visiting religionists, are a beauteous Moslem mosque and an elaborately carved Buddhist temple…

Until the recent Soviet innovation of sending out bits of ‘human interest’ material about Bolshevik leaders, Comrade Yaroslavsky was not known to have any other interests than stern Party duty, pouncing on priests and Godlessness…

Yaroslavsky aphorisms: ‘We make no distinction between our struggle against Capitalism and our struggle against Religion!…Decent conduct has nothing to do with Hell or Heaven….Religion is adopting-the disguise of Communism! We even hear it said that Christ was the first Socialist, or the first Communist!…

While Prof. Daniel Dennett’s statements regarding the atheist Stalin’s theism are clearly fallacious. They appear all the more wayward now that we have considered Stalin and his system of Communism in greater detail.

Of Frederick Engles, Mao Zedong, Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, et al
Robert M. Young, Darwin scholar and Marxist, Darwinian Evolution and Human History

Young writes, “Marx and Engels were very interested indeed in Darwinian evolution, and that there is no unequivocal answer to the question of its meaning to them.” The issue is the various ways in which Marx and Engels described their utilization of Darwinism namely: as a “basis,” or a “conjuror’s trick,” or an “analogy” (between the history of life and human history).

Young continues thusly:

“At the moment it is all too apparent that right wing and liberal points of view are seeking in biological science legitimacy for their beliefs about the limits of human nature and the limits of equality…[biology is used] as support by racists and other elitists…It is worth pointing out that there is also a long tradition of claiming that the laws of evolution make socialism inevitable…20

Darwin was crucially influenced by T. R. Malthus, whose gloomy population theory gave Darwin the key idea of population pressure in competing for scarce resources [see interesting considerations here]. In his later work on the Descent of Man, it is also true that Darwin’s views on human tribes were decidedly racist…

in the Soviet Union, where the enforced social engineering of Stalinism led to repression and to the Gulag Archipelago…in China where the Maoist slogan ‘Throw off nature’s insolent yoke’ led finally to a powerful reaction and the present policies which are decidedly technocratic. In Eastern Europe we have had demands for more traditional human rewards – goods and rights – mitigating the harshness of socialist discipline, notably in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland. And, of course, the most appalling recent example of failure to gear social change to second nature and its refractoriness was the systematic murder of millions of Kampucheans who did not become instant socialists on the Pol Pot model…

Now I want to come back to Darwinian evolution. The connection is this: science and appeals to scientific socialism have been rooted in Darwinism by those who claimed that it provided a basis for Marxism. For example, the work of the Russian philosopher George Plekhanov was considered by Lenin to be ‘the best there is in the whole international literature of Marxism’, and Plekhanov regarded Marxism as ‘Darwinism in its application to social science’. This sort of appeal to science in the realm of social policy is scientism21…It provides the legitimacy for arguing for a ‘correct line’ – the scientific management of society. Some of the most appalling things have occurred in the name of socialism and have been justified by the ‘correct line’. When their wrongness has been acknowledged, it is said that a ‘mistake’ has been made…

Here I come to the crux of the problem of Darwinism for Marxists. Aspects of evolutionism are consistent with Marxism. The explanation of the origins of humankind and of mind by purely natural forces was and remains as welcome to Marxists as to any other secularists…”

Frederick Engles’ preface to The Communist Manifesto,

“The proposition which in my opinion is destined to do for history what Darwin’s theory has done for biology.”22

Engels also wrote:

“The whole Darwinist teaching of the struggle for existence is simply a transference from society to living nature of Hobbes’s doctrine of bellum omnium contra omnes [a war of all against all] and of the bourgeois economic doctrine of competition together with Malthus’ theory of population. When this conjuror’s trick has been performed. . . the same theories are transferred again from organic nature into history and it is now claimed that their validity as eternal laws of human society has been proved.”23

Emilian Yaroslavsky,

“The program of the Communist International also clearly states that Communists fight against religion…Remember that the struggle against religion is a struggle for socialism.”24

Mao Zedong,
“Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.”25

Karl Marx,
“Darwin’s book of Natural Selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view…Darwin’s book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history.”26

Leon Trotsky, The ABC of Materialist Dialectics (1939):
“We call our dialectic, materialist, since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our ‘free will’, but in objective reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out of nebulae…Darwinism…was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter.”

Daniel J. Flynn quoting “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression” (published by Harvard University Press, written by eleven scholars).
“The roots of Marxist-Leninism are perhaps not to be found in Marx at all, but in a deviant version of Darwinism…applied to social questions with the same catastrophic results that occur when such ideas are applied to racial issues.”

Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, “Men Have Forgotten God” – The Templeton Address

“In its past, Russia did know a time when the social ideal was not fame, or riches, or material success, but a pious way of life. Russia was then steeped in an Orthodox Christianity which remained true to the Church of the first centuries. The Orthodoxy of that time knew how to safeguard its people under the yoke of a foreign occupation that lasted more than two centuries, while at the same time fending off iniquitous blows from the swords of Western crusaders. During those centuries the Orthodox faith in our country became part of the very pattern of thought and the personality of our people, the forms of daily life, the work calendar, the priorities in every undertaking, the organization of the week and of the year. Faith was the shaping and unifying force of the nation. But in the 17th century Russian Orthodoxy was gravely weakened by an internal schism. In the 18th, the country was shaken by Peter’s forcibly imposed transformations, which favored the economy, the state, and the military at the expense of the religious spirit and national life. And along with this lopsided Petrine enlightenment, Russia felt the first whiff of secularism; its subtle poisons permeated the educated classes in the course of the 19th century and opened the path to Marxism. By the time of the Revolution, faith had virtually disappeared in Russian educated circles; and amongst the uneducated, its health was threatened…

The 1920’s in the USSR witnessed an uninterrupted procession of victims and martyrs amongst the Orthodox clergy…Scores of archbishops and bishops perished. Tens of thousands of priests, monks, and nuns, pressured by the Chekists to renounce the Word of God, were tortured, shot in cellars, sent to camps, exiled to the desolate tundra of the far North, or turned out into the streets in their old age without food or shelter. All these Christian martyrs went unswervingly to their deaths for the faith; instances of apostasy were few and far between. For tens of millions of laymen access to the Church was blocked, and they were forbidden to bring up their children in the Faith: religious parents were wrenched from their children and thrown into prison, while the children were turned from the faith by threats and lies.

For a short period of time, when he needed to gather strength for the struggle against Hitler, Stalin cynically adopted a friendly posture toward the Church. This deceptive game, continued in later years by Brezhnev with the help of showcase publications and other window dressing, has unfortunately tended to be taken at its face value in the West. Yet the tenacity with which hatred of religion is rooted in Communism may be judged by the example of their most liberal leader, Krushchev: for though he undertook a number of significant steps to extend freedom, Krushchev simultaneously rekindled the frenzied Leninist obsession with destroying religion…

The social theories that promised so much have demonstrated their bankruptcy, leaving us at a dead end.”

Daniel J. Flynn again referencing “The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression“:

“The more representatives from the reactionary clergy and the recalcitrant bourgeoisie we shoot,” Lenin wrote in March of 1922, “the better it will be for us. We must teach these people a lesson as quickly as possible, so that the thought of protesting again doesn’t occur to them for decades to come”…

In 1922 alone, more than 8,000 priests, monks, and nuns were executed in the Soviet Union…

In 1967, Albania declared itself the world’s first officially atheist nation and reduced more than 2,000 churches and mosques to rubble or expropriated them for state use…

Almost fifty percent of all Catholics were killed in Cambodia…

Moslems saw more than 40% of their co-religionists killed. Mosques and The Koran were burned and Pol Pot’s henchmen sadistically forced followers of Islam to eat pork…

The Romanian Secret Police encouraged prisoners to devise “reeducation” programs. The leader of one such program named “Eugen Turcanu devised especially diabolical measures to force seminarians to renounce their faith,” co-author Karel Bartosek reports. “Some had their heads repeatedly plunged into a bucket of urine and fecal matter while the guards intoned a parody of the baptismal rite”…

Moreover, from 1917 to 1969, the Communists destroyed 41,000 of Russia’s 48,000 churches.

From Religion in the Soviet Union Part One and Part Two, by Trotskyite, Denzil Dean Harber aka Paul Dixon (first published in The Workers International News, October 1945):

Marx said, ‘Religion is the opium of the people’ – and this postulate is the corner stone of the whole philosophy of Marxism with regard to religion. Marxism always regarded all modern religions and churches, and every kind of religious organisation as instruments of that bourgeois reaction whose aim is to defend exploitation, stupefying the working class. (The Attitude of the Workers’ Party towards religion, May, 1909)…

[CPSU’s (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) 1919 Programme]:
‘to secure the complete breakup of the union between the exploiting classes and the organisations for religious propaganda, thus co-operating in the actual deliverance of the working masses from religious prejudices, and organising the most extensive propaganda of scientific enlightenment and anti-religious conceptions. While doing this, we must carefully avoid anything that can wound the feelings of believers, for such a method can only lead to the strengthening of religious fanaticism’…

The clergy…were entirely cut off from Soviet life. Priests had no right to vote in Soviet elections or to be elected to Soviet organisations. For the class-conscious Soviet worker the Church was a relic of the past which was destined gradually to wither away under the influence of the rising material and cultural standards of the masses…

A.B.C of Communism – the text book issued by the CPSU in the days of Lenin and Trotsky –
‘the transition from the Society which makes an end of capitalism to the society which is completely freed from all traces of class division and class struggle, will bring about the natural death of all religion and all superstition’…

[Stalinist policy made] an attempt was made to liquidate the Church and its influence by government decree. Starting in 1929 churches were forcibly closed and priests arrested and exiled all over the Soviet Union. The celebrated Shrine of the Iberian Virgin in Moscow – esteemed by believers to be the ‘holiest’ in all Russia was demolished – Stalin and his Government were not afraid of strengthening religious fanaticism by wounding the feelings of believers as Lenin and Trotsky had been! Religion, they believed, could be liquidated, like the kulak, by a stroke of the pen. The Society of Militant Atheists, under Stalin’s orders, issued on May 15th 1932, the “Five Year Plan of Atheism” – by May 1st 1937, such as the ‘Plan’, ‘not a single house of prayer shall remain in the territory of the USSR, and the very concept of God must be banished from the Soviet Union as a survival of the Middle Ages and an instrument for the oppression of the working masses’…

In the New Constitution of the U.S.S.R. of 1936 priests were given the right to vote and to be elected in Soviet elections. Nevertheless the alliance between Stalin and the Orthodox Church was not yet finally cemented. In the period of mass purges of 1937 the attack upon the Church was for a short time resumed. Once again priests were arrested and banished and in January 1938 the “Society of Militant Atheists” accused the Clergy of being in the service of the military staffs of Fascist States, of disorganising the Army, of trying to wreck railways, etc., etc…

Inevitably, under the conditions of the rule of the Bureaucracy, the Church must command the support of broad sections of the population; Stalin cannot destroy this support by administrative means-he has tried and failed. He must therefore secure an agreement with this Church which he cannot crush in order to secure the hold of the Bureaucracy over the Soviet masses, for the nature of his regime does not permit the existence of an independent and potentially hostile force within the Soviet State…

Stalin who in his interview with the First American Trade Union Delegation (September 1927) once stated ‘The Party cannot be neutral with regard to religion, and it conducts anti-religious propaganda against any and all religious prejudices because it stands for science, while religious prejudices go against science, since every religion is something contrary to science.'”

Harber/Dixon also made reference to, “the materialist basis upon which Marxism stands.” He pointed out that there were “anti-religious tests for the Army and Civil Service” that were later abolished due to a tentative policy which he described as “The Left zig-zag of the bureaucracy was inevitably followed by a turn to the right.” He also mentions that the CPSU established the “Society of Militant Atheists” who published a journal: The Atheist.

.Jewish Virtual Library – Encyclopedia Judaica on the Nephilim

The Jewish Virtual Library provides a quotation from the Encyclopedia Judaica on the Nephilim which states:

NEPHILIM (Heb. נְפִילִים), a race of giants…Genesis 6:1-2 relates that the “sons of gods,” i.e., divine or angelic beings, took mortal wives…[this] follows an ancient tradition in equating the Nephilim and the gibborim as offspring of the union of angels and mortals…The angels were then depicted as rebels against God: lured by the charms of women, they “fell” (Heb, nfl. נפל)…and introduced all manner of sinfulness to earth.
Their giant offspring were wicked and violent; the Flood was occasioned by their sinfulness. (None of these ideas is in the biblical text.)

Note the reference to the Angelic view and that equating the Nephilim and Gibborim as being the “ancient tradition” which indeed it is: ancient Jewish and early Christian.

However, the assertion that 1) this ancient tradition and 2) that the Angels were rebellious and 3) introduced manners of sinfulness and 4) that the giants were wicked and violent and that 5) the Flood was occasioned by their sinfulness, etc. are not in the biblical text is overreaching.

Let us elucidate: 1) The ancient tradition is within the biblical text’s New Testament, which the Encyclopedia Judaica may bypass on this point. 2) This is not stated by Genesis 6 but may be implied.

3) This is also not stated in Genesis 6; it is elucidated in later apocryphal texts such as the Book of Enoch.

4) This may be too specific a claim, what the Bible does state about them is that they “became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” This claim is related to the next one.

5) Genesis 6 follows a narrative from the Sons of God and daughters of men affair, to the Nephilim/Gibborim, to their renown with the very next verse, after declaring their renown, being, “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” which leads directly to the account of the flood.

encyclopedia20judaica-1072727

The Jewish Virtual Library / Encyclopedia Judaica continues by delving into the apocryphal traditions about
God decreeing that the Nephilim massacre each other. They also note that “evil spirits” aka demons “originally issued from the bodies of the slain giants.”

We get a taste of changing the “ancient traditions” when it is noted that “The ‘sons of God’ are explained in the Targum to Genesis 6:4 and the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:5) as young aristocrats who married the daughters of commoners. The Targum renders both gibborim and Nephilim by gibbaraya; the Midrash (Gen. R. 26:7) lists seven names applied to giants.”

An interesting statement is made that in “post-talmudic literature (cf. Rashi, Yoma 67b) the long-suppressed myth came to the surface again” (emphasis added for emphasis); suppressed by whom is not elucidated and may be a mere reference to losing and then regaining interpretive favor.

Being the paraphrase that it is, the Palestinian Targum replaces the term Nephilim in Genesis 6:4 as “Shamhazzai and Uzziel fell from heaven and were on earth in those days.” As an FYI: Midrash Genesis Rabbah has Shamchazai and Azael (or, Azazel) in place of Uzziel (and/or, Uzza and with Shamhazzai simply being one of many transliteration of that name). See Louis Ginzberg’s The Legends of the Jews on the Nephilim and Islam’s magickian fallen angels Harut and Marut for how these Angels are relevant.

The point is that the Nephilim are being identified with Angels which is also that which is done by Midrash Aggadat Bereshith, naming them Uzza and Uzziel, but this Midrash dates to the 10th century AD and is thus, hardly relevant to the issue of ancient traditions. This late Midrash also plays identifies the Nephilim as being humans of Cain’s lineage.

Malleus Maleficarum on the Nephilim

Malleus Maleficarum / Hammer of the Witches is a text designed to discern issues pertaining to witchcraft and how to go about prosecution of them. It was penned in 1486 AD by Heinrich Kramer.

Part 1, Question III is titled, “Whether Children can be Generated by Incubi and Succubi.” Incubi and Succubi are terms which referred to presumably male and presumably female entities that tormented and sought to possess humans often via sensual and sexual means.

malleus20maleficarum-4894995

The chapter notes:

…Augustine, On the Trinity, III, says that devils do indeed collect human semen, by means of which they are able to produce bodily effects; but this cannot be done without some local movement, therefore demons can transfer semen which they have collected and inject it into the bodies of others.

But, as Walafrid Strabo says in his commentary upon Exodus vii, II: And Pharao called the wise men and the magicians: Devils go about the earth collecting every sort of seed, and can by working upon them broadcast various species. See also the gloss on those words (Pharao called).

And again in Genesis vi the gloss makes two comments on the words: And the sons of God saw the daughters of men. First, that by the sons of God are meant the sons of Seth, and by the daughters of men, the daughters of Cain. Second, that Giants were created not by some incredibly act of men, but by certain devils, which are shameless towards women.
For the Bible says, Giants were upon the earth. Moreover, even after the Flood the bodies not only of men, but also of women, were pre-eminently and incredibly beautiful…

…question arises in the Scriptures, where it is asked whether evil angels lay with the daughters of men, and thereby the earth was then filled with giants, that is to say, preternaturally big and strong men. But he [Augustine] settles the question in in [De Ciuitate Dei / The City of God] Book 5, chapter 23, in these words:

It is a very general belief, the truth of which is vouched for by many from their own experience, or at least from heresay as having been experienced by men of undoubted trustworthiness, that Satyrs and Fauns (which are commonly called Incubi) have appeared to wanton women and have sought and obtained coition with them. And that certain devils (which the Gauls call Dusii) assiduously attempt and achieve this filthiness is vouched for by so many credible witness that it would seem impudent to deny it.

Later in the same book he settles the second contention, namely, that the passage in Genesis about the sons of God (that is Seth) and the daughters of men (that is Cain) does not speak only of Incubi, since the existence of such is not credible.

In this connexion there is the gloss which we have touched upon before. He says that it is not outside belief that the Giants of whom the Scripture speaks were begotten not by men, but by Angels or certain devils who lust after women.

For reasons elucidate in Heinrich Kramer went wrong on this point by relying on Augustine as Augustine disregarded the original and therefore ancient Jewish and early church interpretation of the Genesis 6 affair and did so via mistaken notions about Angels.

The Bible knows nothing about devils collecting or transferring semen. Heinrich Kramer favorably cites Augustine’s view that the sons of God are sons of Seth and daughters of men are daughters of Cain. One question to ask of this misinterpretation is why only one gender from each lineage? Also, how would two human lineages produce a race of giants? Well, Kramer and/or Augustine claim, without much elucidation, that giants did not result, at least not directly, “by some incredibly act of men, but by certain devils” well, yes, “devils” who are the sons of God who are fallen Angels.

Note that Kramer and Augustine are aware of the, original, ancient and thus commonly known view that “evil angels lay with the daughters of men” but take the Sethite and Cainite view even though it is noted that Augustine “says that it is not outside belief that the Giants of whom the Scripture speaks were begotten not by men, but by Angels or certain devils who lust after women.”

For details on Augustine’s views, see the aforementioned Augustine of Hippo on the Nephilim.

Roman Catholicism : On Saints

Acts 9:32, “As Peter traveled about the country, he went to visit the saints in Lydda” (also see Acts 9:13, 26:10).

Romans 8:26-27, “And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God’s will” (also see Romans 1:7, 15: 25-26, 31, 16:2, 15).

1st Corinthians 16:15, “You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints” (also see 1st Corinthians 6:1-2, 14:33).

2nd Corinthians 1:1, “To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia” (also see 2nd Corinthians 8:4, 9:1, 13:13).

Ephesians 1:1, “To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus” (also see Ephesians 1:15, 18, 3:18, 6:18).

Philippians 1:1, “To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons” (also see Philippians 4:21-22).

Colossians 1:4, “we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints” (also see Colossians 1:12, 26).

1st Timothy 5:9-10, “No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she…is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.”

Philemon 5, 7, “Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the saints.”

Jude 3, “contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.”

Revelation 5:8, “Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.”

Also see Revelation 8:3-4, 11:18, 13:7, 10, 14:12, 16:6, 17:6, 18:20, 24, 19:8.

It is very plain to see that the Bible refers to believers in general as “saints.” Or else we would be force to conclude that there were very many saints in Lydda, Achaia, Ephesus, Philippi, etc. We know that the Bible does not say “saints” in referring only to select holy individuals and who lived exemplary lives because it is clear that there was a lot of disagreement, struggles and divisions with these saints in the early churches in these cities.

Therefore we can see that saints are not just super believers, not just one or two people every few decades who set a holy example, not people whose lives must be scrutinized and approved by the hierarchy of a church organization and certainly not people who become omnipresent when they die as to hear the prayers that are offered to them the world over.

One should wonder why even within Romanism we do not have Saint Abraham, the father of all Jews and Christians. Or Saint Moses, the very man who received the law. Or Saint Daniel who was told exactly when the Messiah Jesus would come. Or Saint Isaiah, who prophesied the virgin birth. Etc., etc., etc.

Origin of Watchers –apkallu’s punishment

We conclude considering a paper written by Estonia’s University of Tartu’s Amar Annus, “On the Origin of Watchers: A Comparative Study of the Antediluvian Wisdom in Mesopotamian and Jewish Traditions,” Journal for the study of the Pseudepigrapha, Vol 19.4 (2010 AD): 277-320 (find my series here).

Amar Annus notes:

[The] tradition of the deluge from Mesopotamia survives in the version of the Erra Epic, where Marduk sent the sages down into the Apsu [the Ocean of Wisdom] as a consequence of the flood, and ordered them not to come up again (I 147)…demonic creatures were also often thought to have their origin in the depths of the divine River…like the Watchers, the Mesopotamian apkallus were punished by a flood according to the Erra Epic. In 1 Enoch, the flood was considered final judgment for the fallen angels.

apkallus-6242476

Job 26:5 states, “Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof” with dead being rapha’ (Strong’s H7496) which is indeed, translated as the dead the eight times it appears in the Bible.
Now, there is another rapha’ (Strong’s H7497) which makes 25 appearances in contextual reference to a tribe of giants. Of interest may be Deuteronomy 2:10-11 “The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; which also were accounted giants, [H7497] as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims” and verse 20 stating, “giants H7497 dwelt therein in old time; and the Ammonites call them Zamzummims.”
Both rapha’ words, for dead and giants, derive from yet another rapha’ word (Strong’s H7495) which occurs 62 times as a primitive root with reference to “to mend (by stitching), i.e. (figuratively) to cure:—cure, (cause to) heal, physician, repair, thoroughly, make whole.” In turn, this rapha’ derives from the primitive root raphah (Strong’s H7503), “to slacken (in many applications, literal or figurative):—abate, cease, consume, draw (toward evening), fail, (be) faint, be (wax) feeble, forsake, idle, leave, let alone (go, down), (be) slack, stay, be still, be slothful, (be) weak(-en).”

The Bible ties the Genesis 6 affair directly to the flood as 6:4 refers to “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown” and verse 5 follows directly with “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” with verse 7 noting, “And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.”

Annus notes that “Watchers and apkallus were able to survive the flood by assuming a different form” and that “The witches and demons in Mesopotamian mythology were not fully destructible because of their partly divine nature.” The Book of Enoch 15:8-9 elucidates how the Watchers “survive the flood by assuming a different form”:

But now the giants who were begotten by the spirits and flesh—they will call them evil spirits of the earth, for their dwelling will be on the earth. The spirits that have gone forth from the body of their flesh are evil spirits, for from humans they came into being, and from the holy watchers was the origin of their creation. Evil spirits they will be on the earth, and evil spirits they will be called.

Also, the text Bit Meseri, “enumerates all names of the apkallus, both antediluvian and postdiluvian” which some may equate with Genesis 6’s reference to there being “giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” and yet, the questions are when are “those days” and “after” what? Some simply stated that it is a reference to pre and post flood but it may be a reference to specifically “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men” and after that and yet, the after that still being pre-flood.

Amar Annus also notes “The prison, where the spirits of the fallen angels are kept, is a chasm…an abyss…the netherworld in Mesopotamian texts.”
2 Peter 2:4 states that “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to…” and a word that most translations have as hell and yet, the term is Tartarus, technically, tartaroo (Strong’s G5020) which only appears in the Bible once.

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

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. 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 and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #AmarAnnus, #Watchers, #Nephilim
Facebook: #AmarAnnus, #Watchers, #Nephilim

Succinct statement on King James only (KJV)

The bottom line question posed by King James Version (KJV) only proponents is: where is the Bible/God’s word?

Their answer, of course, is that it is within the pages of the KJV.

Now, they would not be able to make that claim if they were to give a talk on this topic in any non-English speaking country. So, KJV only proponents will then qualify their statements by noting that the KJV is God’s word for the English speaking world.

But that only leads to every single person who speaks other languages around the world-there are circa 6,500 languages-asking the very same question: where is the Bible/God’s word? Well, in 6,499 cases the answer cannot be the KJV so apparently, KJV only is somewhat like the Islamic concept that Allah’s words are only truly contained in the original Arabic. So, apparently, the claim is that God’s word is only truly contained in the
English KJV.

So, peoples of the 6,499 languages must ask KJV only proponents: where is the Bible/God’s word for us, in our language?

God’s word is alive and active, not restricted to one particular language and available to people of all and any language groups.

Roman Catholic Maryology: Mary in Roman Catholicism, part 14 – Queen of Heaven?

At a glance:
Working under the assumption that Mary’s assumption actually took place; the next step in her exaltation is to crown her as Queen of heaven. This comes from a misidentification and misapplication of the woman in Revelation 12. In the Vatican approved Bible, The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (translated from the Latin Vulgate, A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version) we find the following footnote: “this is not the Blessed Virgin, for the details of the prophecy do not fit her…By accommodation the Church applies this verse to the Blessed Virgin.” In the Bible the “Queen of Heaven” is an idol, an abomination to God.

The Catholic Catechism #966 states, “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”1

“The title ‘Queen’ was first used in association with Mary by Pope Martin in the seventh century. Boniface IX (1389-1404) called her ‘Perfect Queen, royal Virgin, Queen of the heavens.’ Sixtus IV in the following century acknowledged her as ‘Queen of Heaven.’”2

Mark Brumley reasons, “as Christ, the new Adam, must be called a King not merely because He is Son of God, but also because He is our Redeemer, so, analogously, the Most Blessed Virgin is queen not only because she is Mother of God, but also because, as the new Eve, she was associated with the new Adam (Ad Caeli Reginam, no. 38).”3

Saint John Chrysostom wrote:

May we all receive the benefit of having recourse to the holy Virgin and Mother of God. Those of you who are now virgins should be devoted to the Mother of the Lord, because it is she who procures for you this fair and incorruptible possession…Who is holier than she? She is unsurpassed by our ancestors, by the prophets, apostles, or martyrs, by these patriarchs or the Fathers, by the angels, thrones, dominions, seraphim, or cherubim, or by any other created thing visible or invisible…If your beliefs correspond to your own ideas, perceive your danger.
But if you believe the word that is preached, it is no longer you who must render an account but the bishop. Believe what we say about the Virgin…Do you desire to know how far the Virgin surpasses the powers of heaven? Give me your attention then. They veil their faces as they hover in fear and trembling, but she offers the human race to God, and through her we receive the forgiveness of our sins…the boast and foundation of our Church. Plead earnestly for us that through you we may obtain mercy on the Day of Judgment.4

The Bible Makes Very Clear Who is Ruler Over All Things:
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’” (Matthew 28:18).

“And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy” (Colossians 1:18).

“He will rule them with an iron scepter; he will dash them to pieces like pottery’—just as I have received authority from my Father” (Revelation 2:27, Jesus quoting Psalm 2:8-9).

“in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms, far above all rule and authority, power and dominion, and every title that can be given, not only in the present age but also in the one to come. And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” (Ephesians 1:20-23).

God “has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe” (Hebrews 1:2).

“‘you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet.’ In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him” (Hebrews 2:7-8).

Note that these statements are all made in the singular He, Him, Jesus, is given everything, not they nor them and there is no sharing of power.

The Real Queen of Heaven:
Now we present some rather lengthy quotations from Jeremiah in order to show what the Bible has to say about the Queen of Heaven.
New American Bible; Jeremiah 7:12-13, 17-20, 24-28, 30:

You may go to Shiloh, which I made the dwelling for my name in the beginning. See what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel. And now because you have committed all these misdeeds, says the LORD, because you did not listen, though I spoke to you untiringly; because you did not answer… Do you not see what you are doing in the cities of Judah, in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes for the queen of heaven, while libations are poured to strange gods in order to hurt. Is it I whom they hurt, says the LORD; is it not rather themselves, to their own confusion? See now, says the LORD God, my anger and my wrath will pour out upon this place… But they obeyed not, nor did they pay heed. They walked in the hardness of their evil hearts and turned their backs, not their faces, to me. From the day that your fathers left the land of Egypt even to this day, I have sent untiringly all my servants the prophets. Yet they have not obeyed me nor paid heed; they have stiffened their necks and done worst than their fathers.

When you speak all these words to them, they will not listen to you either; when you call to them, they will not answer you. Say to them: This is the nation which does not listen to the voice of the LORD, its God, or take correction. Faithfulness has disappeared; the word itself has vanished from their lips…The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, says the LORD. They have defiled the house which bears my Name by setting up their abominable idols.’

Jeremiah 44:15-28:

Then all the men who knew that their wives were burning incense to other gods, along with all the women who were present—a large assembly—and all the people living in Lower and Upper Egypt, said to Jeremiah, ‘We will not listen to the message you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD! We will certainly do everything we said we would: We will burn incense to the Queen of Heaven and will pour out drink offerings to her just as we and our fathers, our kings and our officials did in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. At that time we had plenty of food and were well off and suffered no harm. But ever since we stopped burning incense to the Queen of Heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have had nothing and have been perishing by sword and famine.’ The women added, ‘When we burned incense to the Queen of Heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did not our husbands know that we were making cakes like her image and pouring out drink offerings to her?’ Then Jeremiah said to all the people, both men and women, who were answering him, ‘Did not the LORD remember and think about the incense burned in the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem by you and your fathers, your kings and your officials and the people of the land? When the LORD could no longer endure your wicked actions and the detestable things you did, your land became an object of cursing and a desolate waste without inhabitants, as it is today. Because you have burned incense and have sinned against the LORD and have not obeyed him or followed his law or his decrees or his stipulations, this disaster has come upon you, as you now see.’ Then Jeremiah said to all the people, including the women, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, all you people of Judah in Egypt. This is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: You and your wives have shown by your actions what you promised when you said,

‘We will certainly carry out the vows we made to burn incense and pour out drink offerings to the Queen of Heaven.’ ‘Go ahead then, do what you promised! Keep your vows! But hear the word of the LORD, all Jews living in Egypt: ‘I swear by my great name,’ says the LORD, ‘that no one from Judah living anywhere in Egypt will ever again invoke my name or swear, ‘As surely as the Sovereign LORD lives.’ For I am watching over them for harm, not for good; the Jews in Egypt will perish by sword and famine until they are all destroyed. Those who escape the sword and return to the land of Judah from Egypt will be very few. Then the whole remnant of Judah who came to live in Egypt will know whose word will stand—mine or theirs.’

Clearly the Queen of Heaven was a false goddess, an idol, an abomination to God. To refer to Mary as the Queen of Heaven is to incriminate her and those who hold to that tradition, it is offensive to the real blessed Mary. Equaly clear is that, as we have seen in the essays Immaculately Conceived?, Sinless?, Coronation in Heaven? and here in Queen of Heaven?, a choice must be made concerning Marian dogma.
Either Mary is the woman in Revelation 12 and she was crowned in heaven as Queen of Heaven, but she was not immaculately conceived. Or else, Mary was immaculately conceived but is not the woman in Revelation 12 and therefore, was not assumed into heaven and was not crowned as Queen of Heaven.

This is because the woman in Rev. 12 is suffering from the pain of child birth, which means that she is suffering from the stain of original sin and therefore, not immaculate (see Genesis 3:16). Also note that the answer given to Jeremiah is much like the answer given today, when people place candles, flowers, rosaries, scapulars, etc., before the statues of Mary the response is that “Things are well and so we’ll keep doing it.” Pragmatism is not kosher.

Mark Brumley and The Catholic Faith Magazine:
I have decided to a dedicate a section of this article to respond to an article written by Mark Brumley, managing editor of The Catholic Faith5 magazine (hereinafter TCF). While responding to the whole article would take up more room then we can offer here, we will comment on certain attempts to defend Mary as being Queen of Heaven.
Mark Brumley as well as Catholic apologist Tim Staples make a fairly common argument, TCF states:

In 1 Kings 2:19, Bathsheba, the queen mother of Solomon, is honored by her son, who stands to greet her and pays her homage when she comes to him on a matter of state. The Bible declares, ‘Then he sat down upon his throne, and a throne was provided for the king’s mother, who sat at his right.’

Firstly, note that in Ad Diem Illum-10, Pius X wrote, “Mary as Queen stands at His right hand.” Note that in order to force 1st Kings 2:19 to speak of Mary, apologists make her sit at the king’s side but when the Pope himself spoke out on this issue, he says that she stands. Do not consider this as a petty issue because the apologists who claim to be part of the one true holy mother church are contradicting the Pope who is supposed to be their infallible leader.
Secondly, we point out that while according to Israeli monarchical filial piety the king may have his mother sit by his side, God tells us “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD” (Isaiah 55:8).

Moreover, we must wonder if 1st Kings 2:19 is a good example to use of Mary’s relationship to Jesus, particularly of her role as co-mediatrix? Verses 19-20 are very useful indeed:

Bathsheba therefore went to King Solomon, to speak to him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her and bowed down to her, and sat down on his throne and had a throne set for the king’s mother; so she sat at his right hand. Then she said, ‘I desire one small petition of you; do not refuse me.’ And the king said to her, ‘Ask it, my mother, for I will not refuse you.’

But we must ask whatever came of this request? Verses 23-25 state:

Then King Solomon swore by the LORD, saying, ‘May God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah has not spoken this word against his own life! Now therefore, as the LORD lives, who has confirmed me and set me on the throne of David my father, and who has established a house for me, as He promised, Adonijah shall be put to death today!’ So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck him down, and he died.

Following this we find out that Joab and Shimei are also executed (v. 34 and 46). Certainly, this is not the sort of text we ought to exploit in an eisegetical (or, isogetical) manner in order to claim that the Scripture is stating that which it is not.

Pope Paul VI wrote:

To the Catholic bishops of the world. Venerable brothers, health and apostolic blessings. THE GREAT SIGN which the Apostle John saw in heaven, ‘a woman clothed with the sun,’ is interpreted by the sacred Liturgy6, not without foundation, as referring to the most blessed Mary, the mother of all men by the grace of Christ the Redeemer.7

TCF:

But who is the Woman? Some commentators have argued that she is the Church, not Mary. Others see the Woman as the Old Testament People of God personified, e.g., the Daughter of Zion. Both of these interpretations have merit, for both express aspects of the Woman. Yet neither of these interpretations is sufficient by itself. Mary must also be included in the passage, though the case for a Marian interpretation of the text is not as obvious as it may seem at first glance…
For one thing, the Woman gives birth ‘in travail,’ seemingly contrary to the tradition that Mary was exempt from the pangs of birth…Revelation 12 seems to be such a messianic and prophetic interpretation of Genesis 3:15, so it seems likely that the Woman is Mary. That said, elements of the other two interpretations can be brought together in a Marian interpretation (cf. Redemptoris Mater 24, 47).

What Mark Brumley does in order to force Revelation 12 to speak of Mary is to take three interpretations of the text, the views that interpret the woman as Israel, as the church and as Mary. He then rejects some of the framework of each interpretation, glues together what is left over and he ends up with an interpretation which he thinks fits Mary and proves that she is the Queen of Heaven. One of the odd things that he is forced to do is explain away the woman’s stain of original sin, TCF, “If the childbirth in travail does refer to the crucifixion, then the Woman of Rev 12 could just as well be Mary at the foot of the Cross.” He makes this very odd statement because he points out that Jesus likened the sorrow of His crucifixion to childbirth in saying to his Apostles, “you will weep and mourn while the world rejoices. You will grieve, but your grief will turn to joy. A woman giving birth to a child has pain because her time has come; but when her baby is born she forgets the anguish because of her joy that a child is born into the world” (John 16:20-21).

Of course the difference is that while to the Apostles Jesus spoke of birth pangs metaphorically, in Rev. 12 the woman is literally giving birth. Also, note that while the Apostles knew that Jesus was going to be killed, Mary did not know it at the time of His birth (which is what Revelation 12 is supposed to be about) rather, Mary found out later on that something terrible would befall Jesus (see Luke 2:33-35).

Indeed, the woman in Revelation 12 is Mary only in as much as it accords with Roman Catholic theology. Consider that in 12:17 it states, “the dragon went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who kept God’s commandments and give witness to Jesus” (Roman Catholic New American Bible). See the point? If Mary was perpetually a virgin then who are the rest of her offspring? The Roman Catholic Douay Version translated from the Latin Vulgate reads “the rest of her seed.”
TCF:

According to the Book of Revelation, Jesus has made His followers ‘a kingdom and priests’ that ‘will reign on earth’ (Rev 5:10; cf. Rev 1:6)…2 Timothy 2:11-12: ‘If we have died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him.’ In Revelation 2:26, the Lord Himself declares, ‘He who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, I will give him power over the nations, and he shall rule them with an iron rod, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father’ (RSV)…
the aforementioned texts refer to faithful Christians in general. Yet if they apply to all faithful Christians, then surely they also apply to Mary specifically, especially given her deep union with her Son. If all faithful Christians are to reign with Christ as ‘kings’ and ‘queens,’ it makes no sense to object to calling Mary ‘Queen,’ for she, too, is a faithful follower of Jesus.

If we grant this argument, then by its logical conclusion the Catholic Church should be just as adamant in referring to King Peter, King Paul, Queen Priscilla, Queen Magdalene and so on, given their deep union with Jesus, but we find no such thing. In other words the title Queen of Heaven is protected and justified by the above argument, but the above argument is never followed through and applied to “His followers ‘a kingdom and priests’ that ‘will reign on earth’…faithful Christians in general.”
This reasoning does not escape Mark Brumley who further states in TCF:

Calling Mary ‘Queen’ unduly singles her out; all the saints in glory are kings and queens in Christ…The fact that all the saints in glory have a royal dignity does not mean Mary should not be given the title ‘Queen,’…Mary alone is the Queen Mother of the Messiah in the literal sense. Finally, Scripture itself declares that ‘all ages shall call’ the Virgin blessed (Lk 1:48)…And if Scripture itself singles out Mary in a special way as the one especially blessed by God to be the Mother of the King of Kings, then how can it be objectionable for Christians to acknowledge this?

Simply stated, since the Bible refers to Mary as blessed then we may acknowledge her as blessed and since it does not refer to her as Queen of Heaven then we are under absolutely no obligation to acknowledge her as such. Note also that while it is undeniable that Mary was blessed, so were all believers, here are some examples:

Blessed are the poor in spirit…Blessed are those who mourn…Blessed are the meek…Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness…Blessed are the merciful…Blessed are the pure in heart…Blessed are the peacemakers…Blessed are the eyes that see what you see…Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on” (Matthew 5:3-9; Luke 10:23; Revelation 14:13).

In responding to those who state that Mary is given the title Queen of Heaven (which is an idol, a goddess and an abomination to God), the argument is made in TCF that “The fact that the Devil (or the wicked King of Babylon, depending on your interpretation) is called ‘the morning star’ in Isaiah 14:12 does not mean we cannot use the same title to refer to Jesus, as in 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16.” We point out that technically it is Lucifer and not the devil who is referred to as the morning star. What we mean is that Lucifer only became the devil or satan (the adversary) after his rebellion. Lucifer means light bearer, shining one, luminescent, and so when Isaiah refers to Lucifer as the morning star he is referring to Lucifer the anointed cherub, the faithful servant of God, the high ranking angel, not the adversary, the father of lies whom he later became.

Thus, referring to Jesus as the morning star, is to refer to Him as a faithful servant of His Father, the anointed, a light, as is made obvious by Peter’s reference to “a lamp shining in a dark place” (2nd Peter 1:19) and John’s recording of the words of Jesus stating that He is “the bright and Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16). In contrast the Queen of Heaven was nothing more than an idol, a goddess and an abomination to God.

Did God command the eating of a poop sandwich?, part 1 of 2

Oh, the issues into one delves when involved in Judeo-Christian apologetics…we might as well jump right into it.

Prophets of YHVH have a long history performing hyperbolic, symbolic, allegoric, actions which are meant to illustrate a point.

For example, Jeremiah 51 relates and Jeremiah wrote about Babylon’s fall on a scroll and was to eventually “tie a stone to it and throw it into the middle of the Euphrates, and say, ‘Just so shall Babylon sink down and not rise again because of the calamity that I am going to bring upon her; and they will become exhausted.’” So the sinking of the scroll was illustrative of the fall of Babylon.

Ezekiel was also to perform various illustrative actions and that brings us to out point as chapter 4 notes that YHVH tells Ezekiel:

“As for you, lie down on your left side and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel on it; you shall bear their iniquity for the number of days that you lie on it….When you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side and bear the iniquity of the house of Judah.”

Then comes the key section in view within this article:

“But as for you, take wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt, put them in one vessel and make them into bread for yourself; you shall eat it according to the number of the days that you lie on your side.”

Yum, actually sounds like a really good and healthy recipe (back when wheat was not GMO).

But wait, there’s more! And here it is in various translations:

KJV “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.”

NKJV “And you shall eat it as barley cakes; and bake it using fuel of human waste in their sight.”

NLT “Prepare and eat this food as you would barley cakes. While all the people are watching, bake it over a fire using dried human dung as fuel and then eat the bread.”

NIV “Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel.”

ESV “And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.”

NASB  “You shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung.”

RSV “And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung.”

ASV “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.”

YLT “A barley-cake thou dost eat it, and it with dung — the filth of man — thou dost bake before their eyes.”

DBY “And thou shalt eat it as barley-cake, and thou shalt bake it in their sight with dung that cometh out of man.”

WEB “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with human excrement in their sight.”

HNV “You shall eat it as barley cakes, and you shall bake it in their sight with dung that comes out of man.”

As it turns out this was meant to be symbolic:

“Then the Lord said, ‘Thus will the sons of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I will banish them.’”

The unclean bread was meant to symbolize the unclean, un-kosher food (un-kosher animals and otherwise kosher ones sacrificed to idols, etc.) that the Israelites would have to eat when banished.

However, Ezekiel was a bit taken a back, shall we say?:

“But I said, ‘Ah, Lord God! Behold, I have never been defiled; for from my youth until now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any unclean meat ever entered my mouth.’ Then He said to me, ‘See, I will give you cow’s dung in place of human dung over which you will prepare your bread.’”

In part 2 we will consider Atheist umbrage about this text. For now, keep in mind the illustrative nature of the actions to be taken.

Part of the issue is the question of whether Ezekiel was to actually mix fecal excreta, human or bovine, into the bread so that he actually has to eat it.

Due to a simple reading of the immediate context we note that the recipe for the bread it solely, “wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet and spelt” and these are the ingredients which Ezekiel was to “put…in one vessel and make them into bread” period.

Then he is told to make it in the form/shape or otherwise prepare it as a “barley cake” and only then is he told how to bake it, “over human dung” and then “cow’s dung.”

The recipe of ingredients is one thing and the manner whereby to bake it is another. The dung was to be used as fuel. In fact, even today, people all over the world use bovine and other similar forms of dung as fuel for fires.

But Ezekiel stated that he did not want to eat any such thing so the bread must have had dung mixed into it. Firstly, the point above stands; the ingredients do not call for dung but the manner whereby to bake it, the fuel source, does.

Also, note his objection, his haggling, “I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has any unclean meat ever entered my mouth.” He is referring to various things which would make a food unclean. It is not just that an animal kind could be un-kosher but the manner in which it dies and, in this case, the manner in which the bread was to be prepared.