Month: September 2016

One thing that all languages have in common is that any word, term, phrase, etc. can mean more than one thing and it is not ultimately etymology that determines the meaning of a word, term, phrase, etc. but it is context.
I have written much dealing with the specific theological (or, satanological) claims of serpent seed of Satan theorist: see here for the relevant section.

Mystery is that which fuels the serpent seed of Satan theory and serpent seed of Satan theorists promulgate that which they consider to be a secret that has been hidden in plain sight since the beginning: that Satan had sex with Eve, that Cain is literally their son and that his blood-line / seed-line carries Satanic genetics.
As one such theorist put it to me (see, Discussion with a serpent seed of Satan theorist):

As referenced in 1 Corinth 13:1 [actually, verse 2] one of the ministries of the Holy Spirit is to lead one into “all prophecy, mysteries and knowledge”. The serpent seed doctrine is couched in the scriptures (the 66 book canon) as a “mystery” but when people learn how to be taught and led of the Spirit it really becomes quite evident.

Such claims are not uncommon within serpent seed of Satan theorizing: they merely make reference to mystery and take it upon themselves to fill the term with, to defined the term with, the serpent seed of Satan theory.

Let us consider the texts of the Bible that specifically refer to mystery and see if we are given any hints as to what the mystery is or mysteries are.

Mark 4 provides a general claim about mysteries told in parables and revealed to those who can discern them:

And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

This is reiterated in Matthew 13:11, “He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given” and also in Luke 8:10, “And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.”
Clearly, the parables are about Jesus’ message, salvation which is the gospel.

Romans 11 is addressed to the Gentiles who become spiritual sons of Abraham by coming to Jesus:

For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

A specific mystery is referred to as “this mystery” and that is that Gentiles were to be graffed into the family of which Jesus pertained by birth; the olive tree with natural branches. Thus, the context of this mystery is also the gospel.

Romans 16 is self-explanatory:

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

The key is the clear reference to the “gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ” which is followed up by referring to “the revelation of the mystery” thus, the gospel.

1 Corinthians 2 has Paul referring to, guess what, his preaching and he was preaching what? The gospel:

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

1 Corinthians 4:1 makes a more generalized statement, “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.” 1 Corinthians 13:1 likewise contains a general statement, “And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”
And since it is more generalized, such instances are when we take the greater context into consideration. We know that the greater context is the gospel in general and as Paul in the apostle to the Gentiles it is a reference to them being saved via being brought into Jesus’s covenant people.

1 Corinthians 14 refers to speaking in an unknown tongue and notes that those who do so (without an interpreter) “speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.” Thus, nothing about what such as person is saying is told to us in particular as that is the very point: this is a particular gift which is a langue, as it were, whereby one communicates to God. That being the case, it simply cannot be claimed that this pertains to the revelation of the serpent seed of Satan theory.

1 Corinthians 15 has Paul actually telling us exactly of what mystery he is speaking:

…flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

Thus, nothing about the serpent seed of Satan theory but about an issue related to the gospel proper which is taking on a glorified resurrection body.

Ephesians 1 also defines the term mystery for us:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Herein, “the mystery of his will” pertained to His will regarding salvation: the gospel.

Ephesians 3 actually tells us of two mysteries and then reveals those to us:

If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power…to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God.

As aforementioned, the revelation is of the gospel being offered to the Gentiles.

Ephesians 5 has Paul making the very clear statement, “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

Ephesians 6 has Paul likewise very clearly stating that his mission is “to make known the mystery of the gospel.”

Colossians 1 is just as clear:

If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of gospel the, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister…Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints: To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach…

Thus, again: the gospel and the Gentiles.

Colossians 2 refers to “the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ” and goes on to note that it is they “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” and references “the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.”

Colossians 4 has Paul asking for prayer for him and his fellow ministers “that God would open unto us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in bonds.” He was not in bonds for speaking about the serpent seed of Satan theory but as Acts and Luke make clear, he was in bonds for preaching the gospel.

2 Thessalonians 2 has Paul referring to “the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him” and specifying that “that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed…after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders…” Thus, this reference is to the manner whereby Satan will seek to, finally, deceive the world and Jesus’ solution.

1 Timothy 3 refers to deacons and how they are to hold to “the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience” and not the mystery of the serpent seed of Satan theory. The same text also defines the term for us by noting that “without controversy great is the mystery of godliness ” which is that “God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”

Revelation 1 simply seeks to define its own symbolism by referring to “The mystery of the seven stars…and the seven golden candlesticks” and that they are “the angels of the seven churches: and…the seven churches” themselves.

Revelation 10 has John stating that “in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.” This is a reference to ultimate finality with God’s complete plan of redemption.

Revelation 17 notes that “upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH” and follows up with that “the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.” Thus, this is a different mystery altogether and one that is revealed and defined on the spot: the symbolic woman is Babylon.

As we have seen there is not a shred of evidence nor a hint whatsoever that by referring to mystery the Bible is referring to the serpent seed of Satan theory, to blood-lines / seed-lines, to genetics or anything of the sort. Most commonly, the term mystery is being employed with regards to the gospel and specifically to the mystery that it was being offered to the Gentiles.

The Bible defines its own terminology and its own symbolism. Moreover, as I have demonstrated time and again within my series of articles on the serpent seed of Satan theory, the issue is not genetics but actions.

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

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, #Cain, #Seedlines
Facebook: #SerpentSeed, #Cain, #Seedlines

In part 1, we considered the text of Ezekiel chapter 4 wherein it was stated:

“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. You shall eat it as a barley cake, having baked it in their sight over human dung. Then the Lord said, ‘Thus will the sons of Israel eat their bread unclean among the nations where I will banish them.’ 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.’”

We explained the long history of YHVH’s prophets performing hyperbolic, symbolic, allegoric, actions which are meant to illustrate a point and also elucidated the issues relating to the text and its specific instructions.

That which follows may not make sense if you do not read part 1.

Many issues arise from this text and Atheists have been on the top of the list of those who besmirch YHVH and the Bible because of it. It is their comments that we will consider below; some are attempts at humor, some are condemnatory and all are missing the point and offer great examples of how to embarrass oneself on the world wide web by proudly demonstrating one’s very own ignorance (which is hopefully what it is; a literal lack of knowledge).

Of course, as with any Atheist condemnation of anything at all, the primary answer is not an answer but a question which is, “Upon what premise do you condemn?” They may claim that it is unsanitary but a culture which suffers losses of human lives due to sanitary ignorance simply did not survive as the fittest and we are better off without their genes in the gene pool. They may say that it is wrong, bad, evil, etc. but those are just conclusions and not premises. In any case, they must answer the question and their answers, ultimately, lead to a bottomless pit of personal preference based assertions.

This is tantamount to the statement from a certain Dave from the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society who wrote the following:

“So, why is Adolf Hitler wrong? Because he murdered millions, and his only justification, even if it were valid, was based on things which he should have known were factually wrong. Why is it wrong to do that? Because I said so.” (emphasis added for emphasis)
At least he is honest; he realized that he has absolutely nothing upon which to base his condemnation but his own emotive umbrage. The issue is that when the bio-organism Dave goes mano-a-mano with a bio-organism of the Nazi variety; only the strongest will survive.

In any regard, Positive Atheism is a website that I have discredited time and time again as they are masters of misapplying, misunderstanding and misinterpreting the Bible’s contents, contexts and concepts.

See here for my articles contra-Positive Atheism.

They have a webpage titled “Positive Atheism’s Big Scary List of Holy Bible Quotations – Spiritual Guide to Gracious Living by the late Glenn Carver a Portland, Oregon atheistic activist distributed but not copyrighted by American Atheists” By the way; see here for my articles contra-American Atheists as they are just as unscholarly.

Therein they offer the following quote without elucidation and without even immediate context. Thus, it is meant to be emotive and leaves aside the sort of explanation that we offered in part 1:

“The Lord commanded: “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.” — Ezekiel 4:12.”

The About website contains the writings of many people on many topics. Austin Cline writes about Atheism (which, of course, means that he does not write about Atheism but again Christianity as Atheism is, primarily, an anti-Christian support group) see here for my articles contra-Austin Cline.

To the article, “Myth: Atheists Cannot ‘Lack Belief in God’ After Learning About God” a commentator named Jeanne wrote:

“Nobody questions where Cain’s wife came from or why god would tell the children if Israel to make cakes with human excrement (Ezekiel 4:12-13.. “

Nobody questions where Cain’s wife came from? People have been asking that for a long, long time. Although, one wonders why as the Bible all but gives you her parent’s names; see the following article: Where did Cain get his wife?

As for the bread, the text does not state that “the children if Israel” were to make the bread but only Ezekiel. Then we get into the semantics behind her term, “cakes with human excrement.” What does with mean? If she means that it was an ingredient, then that is simply not the case, as we noted in part 1; it was to be fuel for the fire with which to bake it and YHVH ended up letting Ezekiel use cow dung instead.

The Patheos website has many authors who are supposed to, “Explore the world’s faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality!” An author who uses it to besmirch religion under the guise of writing about Atheism is Terry Firma who wrote an article titled, “Buddhists Take Pills Made of Poop (Different Religion, Same Old Crap).” Of course, an article about Buddhists turns into a besmirching of Christianity and a commentator named GodVlogger wrote:

“The Holy Bible has a recipe for poop bread:

“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.” (Ezekiel 4:12-13)”

Well, “poop bread” is misleading, at best although, at least, they quoted the verse which makes the symbolic nature of the act clear.

Barry Duke wrote an article titled, “Holy crap – Amish-style!” for the Freethinker.co.uk website. After much worthless banter in the comments section (and 99% of comment sections are 99% worthless banter) a commentator named Talitha wrote:

“They are clearly getting their Dung mixed up.

Ezekiel 4:15 clearly states:

Then He said to me, “See, I am giving you cow dung instead of human waste, and you shall prepare your bread over it.”

Of course, what they [the Amish] should be doing is baking Dung Bread which is covered earlier in that Chapter:

Ezekiel 4:12

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

I hope that helped y’all.”

Again “Dung bread” is misleading, at best.

The website Debate had a segment which pitted Atheism vs. Christianity with one of the debaters writing:

“You are trying to say that the bible is not true, how do you know this? Do you think that anyone could just think of humans excreting cow dung (Ezekiel 4:12-15)…”

Well, the term sarcasm comes to mind and also the fact that while they cite the text they do not quote it and misread it, at best as it nowhere states that humans excrete cow dung. Rather, human dung is replaced with cow’s dung.

Oleg Dei is the head of an anti-Christian support group which masquerades as a science education group; see here for my articles contra-Oleg Dei and his Science Club of Long Island.

The website Atheism is Dead was a predecessor to True Freethinker and Oleg Dei decided to troll-spam many of the comment sections to many articles in order to paste in the very same comment which included this statement:

“Eat Human Feces!

“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.” (Ezekiel 4:12-13).”

Thus, he has discredited himself by claiming that the text commands that we Eat Human Feces! which it does not and also by offering a partial quotation which is self-servingly cropped.

On a truly sad note, the Religion is Manmade website posted an article titled, “Seth Andrews: Deconverted (atheist podcast).” The article is really just a just an embedded video with the little bit of text which follows:

“Seth Andrews shares parts of his own story, and he also shares the stories and perspectives of others who have traveled the path from religion to reason.

Eat Human Feces! “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.” Ezekiel 4:12-13”

Well, there is either some plagiarism afoot or…well, whatever. It is just shockingly sad that part the reason why someone converted to Atheism is due to an utter misunderstanding of a text.

Why Won’t God Heal Amputees? (initially named Why Does God Hate Amputees?) is another Atheist embarrassment of a website; see :

Fundamentalist Theologian Asks: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

Atheists Fulfill Scripture: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” / “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

Why won’t God heal amputees?

Within a forum in that website with the topic, “Ezekiel, you will bake your food with human poop, got that?” a funnyman named Jim wrote:

“Anything can make sense after spending long hot days under the desert sun.  No wonder he heard God, with his brain baking.

God: “Eat poop”

Desert prophet du jour: “Sounds like a plan!””

This is called missing the point entirely and replacing reasoned discourse with childish emotive taunting.

The only saving grace is that another commentator named Graybeard wrote:

“To be serious for a moment, baking with cowsh*t is very common all over the third world. I’ve eaten stuff cooked that way and TBH it didn’t bother me at all – if the stuff’s burning, there will be no bacteria, etc. Not everyone has electricity and piped gas.”

On his own website, Robert Cargil wrote an article titled, “Still one of the oddest biblical commands: COVER YOUR POO! (Because God might step in it!).” The “God might step in it” part is a reference to a biblical text which describes that the Israelite’s camp, whilst they were nomadic, was to be clean as YHVH is with them and walks about their camp. Robert Cargil seems to miss the correlative point between physical cleanliness and holiness and just makes a crack about it—how sad, to miss an opportunity to actually learn something.

Again, a saving grace came by the way of a commentator named Steve who wrote:

“The use of animal dung in fires in fairly common. Human dung is less common and, as the following verse, Ezekiel 4:13, makes it clear that such food is unclean and being directed as a punishment. So it is not a regular method of cooking food. Many of the Israelite practices made sense given their circumstances. Consider the use of matriarchal decent in patriarchal society–very practical. It is interesting how the reading of something is so influenced by our experiences and backgrounds.”

Actually, the use of matriarchal decent in patriarchal society is not biblical but is an invention of Rabbinic Judaism.

The Killer Movies website, for some odd reason, published an article titled, “I am an atheist, thank God!” by Anthony Stark who wrote the following after quoting Ezekiel 4:12-15:

“Surely the supreme being would have better things to talk to his flock about. Their are [sic] as many stars in the sky as grains of sand on Earth, quite frankly no God of an organised religion is big enough for my Universe- and the above discussion in fact most discussions prophets have with God sound like the ramblings of schizophrenics. All that hearing voices etc. Could it be those who see God are mentally ill?”

And behold, another Atheist discredits themselves by missing the point which is that the action has symbolic significance and not just good ol’ grandpa giving you his recipe for bread. Note also that “no God of an organised religion is big enough for my Universe” but why is dis, or un organized religion (such as Atheism; see video here and article here) any better?

Moreover, note that this Atheist is actually simply stating that he will not, he refuses to, worship YHVH. The universe which he created in his own image is no match for YHVH as, obviously, YHVH would overarch and rule that universe. The Atheist cannot have that so he invents the consoling delusion of absolute autonomy, lack of ultimate accountability and sets himself as the god of his own universe. Thus, by the way, proving that believes in god and proves that god exists; even if it is just a human auto-deified one.

Also, note that just because many people claim to head the voice of “God” does not mean that they all do but, of course, it does not mean that no one ever has. Anthony Stark’s is a gross oversimplified generalization which leads him to wonder whether if all who have experiences with “God” are schizophrenic and mentally ill.

The Think Atheist website needs to actually do some of that so called think-ing as they posted an article with a title that we will censor as, “Religion, The Rapture and the recipe for Holy **** Cakes” by “Kevin (Idolizing Reason).” It is interesting that Kevin writes his name as such as he may idolize reason but, as an Atheist, he cannot account for reason. Reasoning to reason is unreasonable circular reasoning. In any regard, he writes:

“The god in the bible seemed to have a real sense of humor. He had his own special recipe for pancakes for the children of Israel…

“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.” (Ezekiel 4:12-13)

Holy ****cakes? Bread made with dung?! One wonders what nutritional or moral value it would serve the people to eat human feces with their bread, as God had ordered. God here has also ordered the voyeuristic operation without explanation. Although in verses 14-15 the poor Israelites complain about eating abominable flesh, God (in his “wonderful” grace) changes his mind and allows them to substitute human feces with cow feces. Gee, thanks a lot God! (as if eating cow excrement makes much of a difference!)

Naw, I’m not into ****cakes and this notion of god gets crazier and crazier the more you read the bible. I really don’t intend to offend anyone, it’s just my take on the whole thing. Instead, if I’m going to choose a religion, let it at least be something believable… like “Jedi!” ;-)”

How can someone compound so many errors into such a short statement? The bread is baked with dung as a fire fuel and not as an ingredient. No idea to what the voyeuristic operation refers. It is also untrue that “the poor Israelites complain” as it was only Ezekiel. He does not even have to eat cow excrement but use it as fuel. And after all of this, and more, the besmirching condemner take a note from the politically correct commandments and tells us that, “I really don’t intend to offend anyone” oh good, because in that case, I would hate to see what he writes when he does intend to offend. Lastly, note the pop-culture mentality as he jokes about preferring the Jedi which is a reference to the Star Wars movies/books mythos about which I wrote within the article Everything I know about the occult, I learned from Star Wars.

The No Beliefs website was named after a truly faulty Atheist-group-think-talking-point-de jour which is that Atheists have No Beliefs. Well, regardless of to which Atheist demonizations/sects they adhere (about which you can learn here) they, generally, either believe that that God does not exist or they believe that there is not enough evidence for God.

In any case, the article by Jim Walker is titled, “Ezekiel Bread: Made with Human Dung” which is a reference to an actual bread available in health food stores by from a company named Food For Life. Jim Walker wrote:

“…Nor did Food For Life complete the recipe. They forgot the last ingredient! Either they did not read the third verse past 4:9 or they were embarrassed by the scatological implications because the last ingredient is human feces!

But what really shocked me is when I found out that Food For Life did realize its shortcomings. They are now introducing a new bread called Ezekiel 4:12!

Ezekiel 4:12 refers to bread baked with human dung! Yes that’s right: Human ****. Apparently they realized that to fulfill the actual Biblical recipe, they had to introduce this new bread line (probably forced on them by fundamentalists). I suspect they will probably drop the 4:9 bread in favor of this Biblically correct bread. Here’s the actual Biblical passage:

“And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.” (Ezekiel 4:12-13)

Note that some Christian apologists have tried to change the meaning of the passage by saying that the dung was used as a fuel, but this can’t possibly be true because you can’t use human feces as a burning fuel for cooking, not to mention that it would stink to high “heaven” if you did. Moreover, verse 13 explicitly states that it is defiled bread and verse 14 describes it as “abominable flesh.” There’s no way around it: Biblical bread is made with ****. In verse 14-15 the Israelites complained about eating human **** so God changes his mind (God changes his mind?) and allows them to substitute it with cow feces (as if that makes much of a difference). **** is still **** no matter which mammal species produces it.”

Obviously, the statement about the new Ezekiel 4:12 bread is a joke. This is much like the statements by Kevin (Idolizing Reason) and just as faulty.

Feces are not an “ingredient” and Christian apologists have not changed anything; as I explained in part 1. Also, why think that “you can’t use human feces as a burning fuel”? Once it is dry is it just another bit of bio-matter.

But what of the question, “God changes his mind?” It is a rhetorical question without any reason as to why we should think it odd. One can change one’s mind when they realize that they are wrong but can also have a change of mind if they had options A or B in mind, proposed option A and then allowed for option B. Note that Bible states:

“…if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it” (Jeremiah 18:10)

The Atheists’ theology may claim that YHVH cannot “change His mind” but biblical theology does not; in keeping with accurately discerned grammatical context.

The Eat The Bible website published an article titled, “Ezekiel 4: Eat Poop” which states:

“…in 5:1-5, Ezekiel must shave off all his hair and then 1) burn some, 2) cut some with a sword, and 3) scatter some–to show that different Israelites will have different fates when divine calamity strikes. At another point, God has him lay on one side for 390 days to indicate the number of years–also 390–that the Israelites will suffer God’s wrath (Ezekiel 4:4-5). And then there’s the time when God makes Ezekiel tie himself up and lock himself in his house, to show that the people won’t listen to prophets any more (3: 25-26).

But as absurd as some of these lessons are…”

Pause here in order to consider that which the Atheist considers absurd; lessons about how YHVH uses many ways to reach out to His people in order to call them away from folly and towards Him. Of course, the Atheist is avoiding just that; turning towards YHVH. Atheists cannot find YHVH for the same reason that a thief cannot find a police officer.

In any regard, the article continues:

“…God saves his most disgusting for Ezekiel 4:12.

This passage takes place during the 390 days (that’s over a year, people!) when Ezekiel is lying on his side. (I hope that the prophet isn’t a back-sleeper.) During that time, the Lord suggests–well, demands–that the prophet observe certain dietary restrictions:

“And you, take wheat and barley, beans and lentils, millet and spelt; put them into one vessel, and make bread for yourself” (4:9) Not so bad, right? Whole grains are good for heart health! Well, wait … God continues, “You shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung” (4:9-12). Yup, that’s right … on human dung. For over a year, Ezekiel must eat food that has been prepared over burning feces.

All of which makes the absolutely real Ezekiel 4:9 organic bread pictured above sound a little yucky, right? And hilarious! Biblical literacy is important, food movement!

But why does God make Zeke expose himself to airborne e. coli like that? Well, the Lord continues, “Thus shall the people of Israel eat their bread, unclean, among the nations to which I will drive them” (4:13). In other words, when God throws his people out of the holy land (as He shortly will), they will have to eat unclean food among unclean foreigners. (At some point during this time, God–perhaps seeing the cruelty of his ways–allows Ezekiel to cook his food over cow dung. Thank heaven for small mercies, right?)

But couldn’t he let Ezekiel just say as much? Deliver a sermon on the temple steps where he cries, “If you continue in your ways, God will throw you out of Israel, and you’ll have to eat poop!” Wouldn’t that be sufficiently startling? And isn’t this months-long piece of performance art exquisite torture for poor Ezekiel, whose only mistake seems to be accepting God’s call to prophecy?”

Over all, this Atheists gets the point but rejects it when compared to his view that he knows better. Of course, he is dead wrong on regarding that they would have to “eat poop!” and, at least, got it right when noting that Ezekiel was to be “baking it…on human dung” as fuel.

This Atheists also restricts YHVH by thinking that Ezekiel could have just “Deliver a sermon” and that it would be “sufficiently startling.” Well, YHVH is not a cookie cutter and had His prophets do various thing in order to reach out to the people; from sermons to symbolic actions. Lastly, note the mindset of the Atheist; if YHVH asked them to perform this “months-long” actions, they would consider it too much of a hassle to, per chance, get his very own people to repent—sorry YHVH, too much of a bother, I got my own life to live. And then they are surprised when after an extended period of rebellion, YHVH turns them over to the world and leaves them to it.

Well, overall, a pretty sorry display on the part of the Atheists. They did teach us some great lessons in the folly of reading the Bible solely to pick fragments of texts and looking for trouble. They ended up discrediting themselves whilst leaving the Bible unscathed.

We will consider Augustine of Hippo’s (354-430 AD) City of God beginning with chap 5 which is titled, “That It is Not Credible that the Gods Should Have Punished the Adultery of Paris, Seeing They Showed No Indignation at the Adultery of the Mother of Romulus.”

Therein, Augustine is engaged in a consideration as to “whether Venus could bear Æneas to a human father Anchises, or Mars beget Romulus of the daughter of Numitor” and notes that “our own Scriptures” the Bible of course, “suggest the very similar question, whether the fallen angels had sexual intercourse with the daughters of men, by which the earth was at that time filled with giants, that is, with enormously large and strong men.” He rhetorically asks “how can the gods be displeased with men for adulteries which, when committed by themselves, excite no displeasure?”

Thus far, he states that the interpretation of the Genesis 6 affair as pertaining to fallen angels and daughters of men is suggested by the Bible. In fact, the original, ancient and therefore common knowledge interpretation of Jews and Christians was the Angelic view.

In chap 20 Augustine fielding a question posed by Bishop Germanus of Auxerre (circa 429 AD) which runs thusly:

Since a passage of Genesis was a little while ago by the providence of God brought forward in our midst, and happily reminded us that we can now conveniently ask about a point which we have always longed to learn, we want to know what view we ought to take about those fallen angels who are said to have had intercourse with the daughters of men, and whether such a thing can literally take place with a spiritual nature.
And also with regard to this passage of the gospel which you quoted of the devil a little while back, “for he is a liar and his father,” we should like in the same way to hear who is to be understood by “his father.”

My reading of Germanus’ question is he is not asking about whether the Genesis 6 sons of God were Angels. Rather, he rightly presupposes as much and asks only “what view we ought to take” on this fact, that it does pertain to “fallen angels” but how could it be so considering their “spiritual nature.” We will come to this issue below.
On the second point, a footnote informs us that his reference is to John 8:44 and that “We find from Augustin (Tract. xxiv. in Johan.) that the Manichees” of which Augustine used to be one, “interpreted this text as implying that the devil had a father, translating it ‘For he is a liar, and so is his father.’ Augustine himself explains it as Abbot Serenus does below in c. xxv.; viz., that the devil is not only a liar himself but the parent of lies” which is quite right.

Chap 22 is titled, “Of the Fall of the Sons of God Who Were Captivated by the Daughters of Men, Whereby All, with the Exception of Eight Persons, Deservedly Perished in the Deluge.” Note that his reference to cities is indicative of his books metaphor about the godly City of God versus the worldly City of Man:

When the human race, in the exercise of this freedom of will, increased and advanced, there arose a mixture and confusion of the two cities by their participation in a common iniquity. And this calamity, as well as the first, was occasioned by woman, though not in the same way; for these women were not themselves betrayed, neither did they persuade the men to sin, but having belonged to the earthly city and society of the earthly, they had been of corrupt manners from the first, and were loved for their bodily beauty by the sons of God, or the citizens of the other city which sojourns in this world…the good was abandoned by the sons of God, they fell to a paltry good which is not peculiar to the good, but common to the good and the evil; and when they were captivated by the daughters of men, they adopted the manners of the earthly to win them as their brides, and forsook the godly ways they had followed in their own holy society…It was the order of this [godly] love, then, this charity or attachment, which the sons of God disturbed when they forsook God, and were enamored of the daughters of men.
And by these two names (sons of God and daughters of men) the two cities are sufficiently distinguished. For though the former were by nature children of men, they had come into possession of another name by grace. For in the same Scripture in which the sons of God are said to have loved the daughters of men, they are also called angels of God; whence many suppose that they were not men but angels.

He is weaving his concept of a godly city (system) and a worldly city (system) into Genesis in applying sons of God and daughters of men to one and the other cities. In stating that within “the same Scripture” the “sons of God…are also called angels of God” he is referring to the text of the LXX aka Septuagint Greek translation as he later writes, “The Septuagint indeed calls them both angels of God and sons of God, though all the copies do not show this.”
At this point, he has stated that the text suggests the Angelic view and now that “many suppose” it.

Chap 23 is titled, “Whether We are to Believe that Angels, Who are of a Spiritual Substance, Fell in Love with the Beauty of Women, and Sought Them in Marriage, and that from This Connection Giants Were Born” and states:

But some are moved by the fact that we have read that the fruit of the connection between those who are called angels of God and the women they loved were not men like our own breed, but giants; just as if there were not born even in our own time (as I have mentioned above) men of much greater size than the ordinary stature.

He then relates a Roman report of a Goth woman whose “gigantic size over-topped all others” but that “neither of her parents were quite up to the tallest ordinary stature.” Thus, he applies this tale to the issue at hand and notes that “Giants therefore might well be born, even before the sons of God, who are also called angels of God, formed a connection with the daughters of men, or of those living according to men, that is to say, before the sons of Seth formed a connection with the daughters of Cain.”
Two thing of note are that he asserts that giants “might” have been born before the Genesis 6 affair but that is un-evidenced guess work. Also, we see that he now makes his view clear which is that sons of God and daughters of men refers to the sons of Seth and daughters of Cain (but why only one gender from each lineage?).

Augustine continues by quoting Genesis 6 the key verse of which, at this point in the discussion, is, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men…” Augustine comments thusly, “These words of the divine book sufficiently indicate that already there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons of God took wives of the children of men, when they loved them because they were good, that is, fair.”

The English may be a little confusing as the verse states, “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men…”

Augustine states, “there were giants in the earth in those days, in which the sons of God took wives of the children of men…”
These are slightly different manners whereby to sate the same thing and yet, the text seems to be merely stating that “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when” as in due to “the sons of God” coming “in unto the daughters of men…” with no implication that there were giants before this. Augustine’s conclusion is that “there were giants both before, ‘in those days,’ and ‘also after that.’” Yet, or so it seems to me, the text states that it was at that time and thereafter and not before that and thereafter or before, during and after.

Augustine claims that since the daughters of men “bare children to them” it shows that before the human “sons of God fell…they begat children to God, not to themselves.” He categorizes bearing children for oneself, as it were, as being the result of “lust of sexual intercourse” and of doing so for God as seeking to produce “citizens to people the city of God” such people, he tells us, “as God’s angels would bear the message, that they should place their hope in God…”

In this way, he can have his Angel’s food cake and eat it too in that he can affirm that they were angels in the literal meaning of the word which is messenger “But that those angels were not angels in the sense of not being men, as some” I will add more than some but in fact, all of the ancients “suppose.”

He goes on to claim that his view is that which “Scripture itself decides, which unambiguously declares that they were men. For when it had first been stated that ‘the angels of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose,’ it was immediately added, ‘And the Lord God said, My Spirit shall not always strive with these men, for that they also are flesh.’”

Let us take a moment to note that Genesis 6 begins by referencing a time when “men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” with men here not referring to a gender but to humanity as the Hebrew ‘adam (Strong’s H120) and not zakar (H2145) as in Genesis 1:27.
The text then states that “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose” with the daughters of men being “men” in the human sense.
Then comes the verse noted above, “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” This follows with “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, 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” with the giants being referred to as “mighty men” which is a compound manner whereby to translate gibbowr (H1368) more commonly known as the Gibborim (when referring to “mighty men” with im being masculine plural) and ‘enowsh (H582 when referring to “men of renown” which is very telling since this term refer to a man “but only in poetic language” as per Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon which make sense since the context is that from those ancient times they became renown and would become the stuff of myth and legend).

Augustine notes:

For by the Spirit of God they had been made angels of God, and sons of God; but declining towards lower things, they are called men, a name of nature, not of grace; and they are called flesh, as deserters of the Spirit, and by their desertion deserted [by Him].

So the Angels are called men so that the men are Angels and what does this say of Augustine’s view on this text?

It is at this point that Augustine references the aforementioned LXX:

The Septuagint indeed calls them both angels of God and sons of God, though all the copies do not show this, some having only the name sons of God. And Aquila, whom the Jews prefer to the other interpreters, has translated neither angels of God nor sons of God, but sons of gods.

A footnote informs us:

Aquila lived in the time of Hadrian, to whom he is said to have been related. He was excommunicated from the Church for the practice of astrology; and is best known by his translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, which he executed with great care and accuracy, though he has been charged with falsifying passages to support the Jews in their opposition to Christianity.

Now, as to the terms angels of God and sons of God Augustine states that “both are correct” and because:

…they were both sons of God, and thus brothers of their own fathers, who were children of the same God; and they were sons of gods, because begotten by gods, together with whom they themselves also were gods, according to that expression of the Psalm: “I have said, Ye are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High.”
For the Septuagint translators are justly believed to have received the Spirit of prophecy; so that, if they made any alterations under His authority, and did not adhere to a strict translation, we could not doubt that this was divinely dictated. However, the Hebrew word may be said to be ambiguous, and to be susceptible of either translation, “sons of God,” or “sons of gods.”

Another footnotes informs us “Lactantius (Inst. ii. 15), Sulpicius Severus (Hist. i. 2), and others suppose from this passage that angels had commerce with the daughters of men.” The note also references Benedictus Pererius’s (1535-1610 AD) commentary but I cannot seem to be able to find it.

Overall, where Augustine goes wrong is he begins with a misconception, a very common one and one shared by most proponents of the Sethite and Cainite view, which is to wrongly suppose that Angels are spirits and only appear human when interacting with us so that they do not have true bodies which could, for example, possess the required anatomy whereby to produce offspring.
The Bible tells us no such thing rather, Angels appear to be as physical as humans but possessing unfallen and thus that which we would term glorified or resurrection bodies. They can but do not have to interact with our universe’ dimensions.

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

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: #Augustine , #Nephilim, #Bible
Facebook: #Augustine , #Nephilim, #Bible

J. A. MacCulloch wrote The Religion of the Ancient Celts (1911 AD) wherein he touches upon variously noted within my series about the Nephilim.

This is that as per the post Tower of Babel dispersal of humanity throughout the Earth common history was carried about to the ends of the Earth.
With time, this history came to be called myth and legend as the cultures changed a details here and there whilst still preserving the basics: creation, a garden, a flood, survival upon a boat, etc.

Chap 9 is titled, “God and Men” and notes:

The divinities often united with mortals. Goddesses sought the love of heroes who were then sometimes numbered among the gods, and gods had amours with the daughters of men.

Frequently the heroes of the sagas are children of a god or goddess and a mortal, and this divine parentage was firmly believed in by the Celts, since personal names formed of a divine name and –genos or –gnatos, “born of,” “son of,” are found in inscriptions over the whole Celtic area, or in Celtic documents—Boduogenos, Camulognata, etc.

Those who first bore these names were believed to be of divine descent on one side. Spirits of nature or the elements of nature personified might also be parents of mortals, as a name like Morgen, from Morigenos, “Son of the Sea,” and many others suggest.

For this and for other reasons the gods frequently interfere in human affairs, assisting their children or their favourites. Or, again, they seek the aid of mortals or of the heroes of the sagas in their conflicts or in time of distress, as when Morrigan besought healing from Cúchulainn.

Jesus’ and Muhammad’s Revelation and Mission
Here we will consider the vast differences between the manner in which Muhammad and Jesus understood their place in God’s plan and their missions.

When Muhammad received his initial revelation he was alone in a cave. Subsequent revelations were received by Muhammad experiencing epileptic-like seizure-like fits with no one able to hear or see anything.

Three examples of the manner in which Jesus’ revelations came will suffice to demonstrate quite a difference. These were objective experience that occurred before eyewitnesses and earwitnesses who heard the Father speak from heaven in order to testify regarding Jesus.

“When all the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus also was baptized; and while He prayed, the heaven was opened. And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, ‘You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased’ (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:10-11; Luke 3:21-22).

“While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them; and suddenly a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!’ And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their faces and were greatly afraid. But Jesus came and touched them and said, ‘Arise, and do not be afraid’ (Matthew 17:5-7; Mark 9:7).

Jesus said, “‘Father, glorify Your name.’ Then a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘I have both glorified it and will glorify it again.’ Therefore the people who stood by and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, ‘An angel has spoken to Him.’ Jesus answered and said, ‘This voice did not come because of Me, but for your sake‘” (John 12:28-30).

Muslim biographer Muhammad Husayn Haykal wrote,

“Stricken with panic, Muhammad arose and asked himself, ‘What did I see? Did possession of the devil which I feared all along come to pass?’ Muhammad looked to his right and his left but saw nothing. For a while he stood there trembling with fear and stricken with awe. He feared the cave might be haunted and that he might run away still unable to explain what he saw…as she did on earlier occasions when Muhammad feared possession by the devil, so now stood firm by her husband.”1

We also learn that when Muhammad received his revelations he went into epileptic like convulsions. Sahih al-Bukhari’s hadith states in Vol. 6, Book 61, #508,

“Ya’la used to say, ‘I wish I could see Allah’s Apostle at the time he is being inspired Divinely’…Ya’la came and pushed his head (underneath the screen which was covering the Prophet) and behold! The Prophet’s face was red and he kept on breathing heavily for a while and then he was relieved.”

After his initial experience (the one just described by Haykal) Muhammad was plagued by doubts and went into such deep depressions that he attempted suicide. We also learn that Muhammad believed that satan influenced some of his revelations and so Allah then had to correct (change) them. Sahih al-Bukhari retells similar experiences.

Vol. 4, Book 53, #400, “Once the Prophet was bewitched so that he began to imagine that he had done a thing which in fact he had not done.”

Vol. 4, Book 54, #490, “Magic was worked on the Prophet so that he began to fancy that he was doing a thing which he was not actually doing.”

On the other hand, no such thing is ever even hinted at regarding Jesus. Quite the opposite is true, for example, when He was twelve years old He was found at the Temple knowing full well that He was to be doing that for which He was born.

“So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, ‘Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.’ And He said to them, ‘Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?'” (Luke 2:48-49).

Also, as we saw above, in Luke 3:21-22 we find Jesus being baptized and find Him in a clear, assured, and calm mindset along with the presence of the Holy Spirit and the Father affirming His mission.

Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius (240-320 AD) wrote the following in Divinarum Institutionum / The Divine Institutes.

Chap XV, “Of the Corruption of Angels, and the Two Kinds of Demons”:

When, therefore, the number of men had begun to increase, God in His forethought, lest the devil, to whom from the beginning He had given power over the earth, should by his subtilty either corrupt or destroy men, as he had done at first, sent angels for the protection and improvement of the human race; and inasmuch as He had given these a free will, He enjoined them above all things not to defile themselves with contamination from the earth, and thus lose the dignity of their heavenly nature.

He plainly prohibited them from doing that which He knew that they would do, that they might entertain no hope of pardon. Therefore, while they abode among men, that most deceitful ruler of the earth, by his very association, gradually enticed them to vices, and polluted them by intercourse with women. Then, not being admitted into heaven on account of the sins into which they had plunged themselves, they fell to the earth.

Thus from angels the devil makes them to become his satellites and attendants. But they who were born from these, because they were neither angels nor men, but bearing a kind of mixed nature, were not admitted into hell, as their fathers were not into heaven.

Lactantius then delves into various speculation to the effect, for example, that due to the above:

…there came to be two kinds of demons; one of heaven, the other of the earth. The latter are the wicked spirits, the authors of all the evils which are done, and the same devil is their prince. Whence Trismegistus calls him the ruler of the demons. But grammarians say that they are called demons, as though demoenes, that is, skilled and acquainted with matters: for they think that these are gods. They are acquainted, indeed, with many future events, but not all, since it is not permitted them entirely to know the counsel of God; and therefore they are accustomed to accommodate their answers to ambiguous results. The poets both know them to be demons, and so describe them.

Hesiod thus speaks:
“These are the demons according to the will of Zeus, Good, living on the earth, the guardians of mortal men.”

And this is said for this purpose, because God had sent them as guardians to the human race; but they themselves also, though they are the destroyers of men, yet wish themselves to appear as their guardians, that they themselves may be worshipped, and God may not be worshipped.

The philosophers also discuss the subject of these beings. For Plato attempted even to explain their natures in his “Banquet;” and Socrates said that there was a demon continually about him, who had become attached to him when a boy, by whose will and direction his life was guided.
The art also and power of the Magi altogether consists in the influences of these; invoked by whom they deceive the sight of men with deceptive illusions, so that they do not see those things which exist, and think that they see those things which do not exist. These contaminated and abandoned spirits, as I say, wander over the whole earth, and contrive a solace for their own perdition by the destruction of men. Therefore they fill every place with snares, deceits, frauds, and errors; for they cling to individuals, and occupy whole houses from door to door, and assume to themselves the name of genii; for by this word they translate demons in the Latin language.

They consecrate these in their houses, to these they daily pour out libations of wine, and worship the wise demons as gods of the earth, and as averters of those evils which they themselves cause and impose. And these, since spirits are without substance and not to be grasped, insinuate themselves into the bodies of men; and secretly working in their inward parts, they corrupt the health, hasten diseases, terrify their souls with dreams, harass their minds with phrenzies, that by these evils they may compel men to have recourse to their aid.

To the statement, “called demons, as though demoenes” there is a footnote which states:

δαήμονες. Other derivations have been proposed; but the word probably comes from δαίω, “to distribute destinies.” Plato approves of the etymology given by Lactantius; for he says that good men, distinguished by great honours, after their death became demons, in accordance with this title of prudence and wisdom. [See the whole subject in Lewis’ Plato, etc., p. 347]

In chap XVI, “That Demons Have No Power Over Those Who are Established in the Faith,” Lactantius continues thusly with regards to demons, “Trismegistus calls them wicked angels; so far was he from being ignorant that from heavenly beings they were corrupted, and began to be earthly.”

At “spirits are without substance” there is a fascinating double footnote as it were as the translator wrote:

Thin, unsubstantial, as opposed to corporeal. The ancients inclined to the opinion that angels had a body, not like that of man, but of a slight and more subtle nature. Probably Lactantius refers to this idea in using the word tenuis. How opposed this view is to Scripture is manifest.

Now, I stated double footnote because within Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII the following is bracketed at the end of the footnote just quoted:

[Not so manifest as our translator supposes. I do not assert what Lactantius says to be scripturally correct: but it certainly is not opposed to many facts as Scripture states them; whether figuratively or otherwise, I do not venture a suggestion.]

Indeed, the translator took it upon himself to, without citation or quotation that it is manifestly opposed to the Bible to claim that “angels had a body” of whatever sort. Yet, the Ante-Nicene Fathers note gets closer to the biblical fact to the effect that it is “Not so manifest” since “it certainly is not opposed to many facts as Scripture states.”
Well, I too “do not assert what Lactantius says to be scripturally correct” in totto but on the point of Angels being corporeal I would go even further than to claim that they are slight and more subtle nature but are as physical as you and I and yet, inhabit glorified (aka resurrected) bodies whereby they can, but do not have to, interact with our four known dimensions (3 spatial plus time).

Atheists will sometimes argue that we are all born atheists and only end up believing in God because someone taught us to do so. This is a clever quip, yet it is faulty for various reasons.

Firstly, let us consider the implications. The claim is that atheism is our natural state of being from birth and it is only by some sort of indoctrination, or “child abuse” as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others term it, that some people end up believing in God. Even this concept must be defined since there are various sects of atheism. The sect that is in view in this quip is the kind that is certain that God does not exist.

Employing a tongue-in-cheek mode of discourse we may consider that the quip seems to admit that atheism is a mindset that is based upon an infant’s empty mind. Atheists will certainly state that this is not what is meant by the quip. However, we may further infer that atheism is not based on logic, intellect, rationale or lack of evidence but upon a thoughtless infantile mindset.

If the quip was based upon another of atheism’s sects the quip would actually function against atheism. Another of atheism’s sects does not know whether or not God exists but may believe if they encounter convincing evidence. If the quip was based on this sect the outcome would be very different. It would then imply that we are all born without a concept of God, and also without a concept of God’s non-existence. Then as we grow up we acquire certain knowledge and end up applying our cognitive faculties to the issue.

Thus, is may be better stated that we are all natural born agnostics. Although, even this may be a stretch since infants have not considered the issue to the extent of taking a position in favor or God’s existence, against God existence nor anywhere in between.

Another inference to be drawn from the quip is that atheists are born as unbelievers and simply continue through their lives believing in infantile notions. Surely, atheists would discount this line of reasoning. They will certainly state that rather, they grew up and developed their cognitive skills. They became capable of logic, intellect, rationale and realized that there was no viable evidence for God’s existence (see my essay Proving God’s Existence). Of course, the theist can grant the quip and state that while they were born atheists they grew up and developed their cognitive skills as well. They became capable of logic, intellect, rationale and realized that there indeed was viable evidence.

Moreover, consider just how many things are we born not knowing and must have someone tell us. In fact, we are all naturally born not knowing anything at all. We may also wonder how, if we are all natural born atheist, the concept of God ever occurred to us. Be aware that at this point atheists will commit the ad hominem logical fallacy and claim that God cannot exist because human beings invented the idea of God’s existence. Or else they may make assertions without evidence about belief in God being part of our evolution.

There are theists who believe in God for various reasons. Likewise, there are also atheists who hold to their beliefs for various reasons and based on various life experiences.

I recall listening to a Christian radio program that received a call from an atheist. The atheist was asked if she would like some literature sent to her and if so, whether she would like it to be based on logic. Fair enough, however, the reasons she gave for having become an atheist were far from logical. She claimed to have rejected religious beliefs due to one particular religion’s mistreatment of her family. We must empathize with the distress that some people who claim to be followers of God can bring about. In this case, her family was actually dealing with a religion known for its cultish characteristics at that. It is interesting to note that for her rejecting God only required subjective emotional reaction but belief in God would require objective logical demonstrations. Why the double standard? Perhaps some level of psychological trauma rather than logic.

Here are some other insights into the mind of certain atheists:
Helmut Ditsch retells part of his upbringing:

“Until my twenties, I was an atheist. Although I felt the spiritual world, I used atheism as a reaction to a very difficult childhood. My mother died when I was 8 years old. Although my father was concerned with giving us a comfortable childhood, it was…sad.”1

Ira Glass offers further insights:

“‘I find that I don’t seem to have a choice over whether or not I believe in God,’ Glass said. ‘I simply find that I do not.’ ‘Either you have faith or you don’t. Either you believe or you don’t.’ ‘I was once talking with a Chinese friend. She asked whether I believed in God. I told her I did. I returned the question. She said ‘no,’ and I asked her why not. Her father, she explained, had told her there was no God when she was a child. She hadn’t really thought about it much since then.'”2

Note carefully the words of Thomas Nagel; (B.Phil., Oxford; Ph.D., Harvard), Professor of Philosophy and Law, University Professor, and Fiorello La Guardia Professor of Law. He specializes in Political Philosophy, Ethics, Epistemology, and Philosophy of Mind. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Fellow of the British Academy, and has held fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the National Science Foundation, and the National Endowment for the Humanities:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.3

Consider the following words of Isaac Asimov, one of the most prolific scientific writers of the last century:

“I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.”4

Gary Wolf includes himself in the following description, “we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth” He wrote:

“At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. ‘Who here is an atheist?’ I ask. Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, ‘I am!’ But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: ‘You would be.’ ‘Why?’ ‘Because you enjoy pissing people off.’ ‘Well, that’s true.’

This type of conversation takes place not in central Ohio, where I was born, or in Utah, where I was a teenager, but on the West Coast, among technical and scientific people, possibly the social group that is least likely among all Americans to be religious.”5

We find atheism as a reaction to a very difficult childhood and not premised upon logic. We find a simple faith based lack of belief. We find thoughtless adherence to a father’s lack of belief. We find that some simply do not want God to exist. We find atheism based on hope and emotions.

Atheists may rightly claim that the same could be said about theists yet, the same can be said about atheists. Merely claiming that the same can be said about theists does not alleviate atheism from admitting its own adherent’s belief by upbringing, by lack of concern for the issue, by mere thoughtlessness, based on emotional reactions, due to bias, due to prejudice, due to ad hominems, etc., etc. My Pastor’s wife’s parents are atheists, her father would tell her that there is no God while tucking her in to bed at night when she was a child.

Sigmund Freud claimed that belief in God was merely humanity’s search for a father figure, although he admitted:

“Let us be quite clear on the point that the views expressed in my book [The Future of an Illusion] form no part of analytic theory. They are my personal views, which coincide with those of many non-analysts and pre-analysts, but there are certainly many excellent analysts who do not share them.”6

Most of the people who are most influential to atheism rejected God on the basis of highly emotional childhood experiences and then sought ways to discredit the very idea of God in order to reinforce their psychological trauma. Paul Vitz has made a fascinating study of the lives of some of the people who have been most influential to atheism. In his lecture The Psychology of Atheism he has concluded that these persons rejected God because they rejected their own fathers. This was due to their poor relationships with their fathers, or due to their father’s absence, or due to their rebellion against their fathers.

Some atheists claim that belief in God is a social convention. This is a view that they base upon materialistic speculations about the origins of theism. For example, they argue that if American Christians had been born in India they would be Hindus. This argument clearly assume that Christians in America are Christian because it is the majority religion and it is mere statistical probability that an American is raised Christian.
Yet, arguing according to this premise we should ask American atheists why they are not Christian and tell them that if they had been born in India they would be Hindus. Certainly, many American atheists were “raised Christian” (whatever that means) but would say that they grew out of that childish and ignorant superstition. Christians may likewise argue that were they to have been born in India and raised as Hindus they would have grown out of that particular theology and accepted Christianity.

I may not be able to say for sure but having witnessed the birth of my three children I am fairly confident that infants are not born atheists: they do not believe that God does not exist or that God does exist. They do not appear to believe anything at all. They hold no theological of materialistic world views.

Herein we will consider Nurho de Manhar’s Zohar: Bereshith to Lekh Lekha (1900-14 AD) wherein chap 39 includes the following:

Said Rabbi Jose:
“The nephalim here mentioned were the angels Aza and Azael, whom the Holy One hurled from heaven onto the earth. If the question he asked, how could they exist on earth in a state so different to that they enjoyed in heaven?”

Said Rabbi Hiya: “They were of that class of angels of whom scripture says ‘and fowl that fly above the earth’ (Gen i., 20), and who manifest themselves to mankind, in human form. When descending upon earth they are able to assume various shapes that become materialized and thus visible to mortal eyes.

These rebel angels Aza and Azael hurled upon the earth became embodied in material bodies of which they could not after rid themselves. Charmed and overcome with the beauty of the daughters of men, they continue living unto this day, teaching men and initiating them into magical art and science.

They begat children who were termed anakim (giants), Giborim (mighty ones). Such were the fallen angels who formerly were called sons of God.”

Of course, the Rabbis’ statements are mixtures of the Bible and folkloric traditions whatever source they may have relied upon such as the Book of Enoch.

Chap 8 is titled “Previous Worlds and Races” and states, in part:

After the deluge the souls of the antediluvians incarnated in five different races or nations, viz., the Nephilim (fallen or degraded), Giborim (mighty ones), Anakim (tall ones), Rephaim (the giants), and Amalekim (Amalekites). It was through the last of these that He fell from on high. Balaam and Balak were descendants of Amalek. Take Ain and Mim (a and m) from the former, L and K from the latter, and the remaining letters form the word Babel, and the subtracted letters the name Amalek.

It is of them that Scripture refers, “therefore is the name of it called Babel because the Lord did there confound (babel) the language of the earth” (Gen. xl. 9). And they were they who survived the catastrophe of the deluge of whom it is said: “He destroyed every living thing on the face of the earth” (Gen. vii. 23).

These five races survived till the time of the fourth captivity of Israel, whose chief enemies they were, and therefore called instruments of iniquity. They are denoted in Scripture by the words, “And the earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. vi. 11). Of these, the first race was the Amalekites. Of the Nephilim it is recorded, “And the sons of God beheld the daughters of men that they were fair” (Gen. vi. 2). They were also the second in rank of the angel hosts that were cast out of heaven and became incarnated.

This gives us a window into the common influences between Jewish occult mysticism and, for example, Helena Blavatsky’s Theosophy’s occult mysticism as she was quite taken with the concept of “root races.”

At a glance: The Bible teaches that there is only one intercessor. Or does it? Can we not intercede for each other and cannot our dead relatives and dead saints intercede for us? We living people, intercede for each other in the name of Jesus, which makes Him the intercessor. We are not to communicate with the dead and so if they are interceding for us we appreciate it (although the Bible does not tell us) but we are not to pray to the dead, but to God only.

^{Any text that is appealed to by Roman Catholicism in order to back up their belief in Mary’s role as intercessor have one thing in common: they have absolutely nothing to do with the dispensation of grace}. After all, “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness nor shadow of turning” (James 1:17).

What Saith the Bible?:
After seeing what the Bible states on this matter we will explore some of the reasons that the Bible is disregarded on this issue.

“Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and He will branch out from His place and build the temple of the LORD. It is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And He will be a priest on his throne” (Zechariah 6:12-13).

“the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. 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…Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died—more than that, who was raised to life—is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us” (Romans 8:26-27, 34).

“For through Him [Jesus] we both have access to the Father by one Spirit…according to His eternal purpose which He accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord. In Him and through faith in Him we may approach God with freedom and confidence…Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Ephesians 2:18, 3:12, 5:19-21).

“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17).

“Jesus lives forever, he has a permanent priesthood. Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them…But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises…He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance…For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence…Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant” (Hebrews 7:24-25; 8:6; 9:15, 24; 12:24).

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1st Timothy 2:5).

“My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense-Jesus Christ, the Righteous One” (1st John 2:1).

What Saith Roman Catholicism?:
^{The Catholic Catechism #966, quoting Byzantine Liturgy, Troparion, Feast of the Dormition, August 15th, addressed to Mary, “by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.’”}

The Catholic Catechism #969 states, “Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us gifts of eternal salvation…Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix [LG 62].”

Venerable Mary of Agreda wrote, “Words of the Queen [Mary]…men know me to be their Mother, Advocate and Protectress in heaven, ready to guide and assist them to eternal life…I may justly complain of men, that they load themselves with eternal damnation and refuse me the glory of saving their souls.”1

Anthony Wilhelm wrote, “Her faith and obedience to God’s will was total. In heaven now, she continues to totally desire God’s will, asking for whatever he wills to give to men. It is in this light that we must understand such terms as ‘spiritual mother,’ ‘mediatrix,’ ‘co-redemptrix,’ and ‘Queen.’”2

St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote, “all graces are dispensed by Mary, and all who are saved are saved only by the means of this divine Mother; it is upon preaching Mary, and exciting all to confidence in her intercession.”3

St. Bernard wrote, “Jesus Christ is the only mediator of justice between men and God…but because men acknowledge and fear the divine Majesty, which is in him as God, for this reason it was necessary to assign us another advocate, to whom we might have recourse with less fear and more confidence, and this advocate is Mary.”4

^{St. Montfort wrote, “Such has been the Will of God, who has willed that we should have everything through Mary.”}5

Alan Schreck; Associate Professor of theology, “The Second Vatican Council emphasized that Jesus remains the one mediator between God and man (I Tm 2:5). Mary’s intercession in no way obscures or diminishes the unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. For all the saving influences of the Blessed Virgin on men originate, not from some inner necessity, but from the divine pleasure…
When Mary is given such titles as ‘Mediatrix’ or ‘Coredemptress,’ extreme care must be taken to explain that Mary has only been given a share in the mediation and redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Nothing she has done or could do in herself merits or gives salvation.”6
As we have seen over and over in this series of articles, the above quote attempts a sober apologetic. Yet, the actual practice and belief in this dogma is vastly different.

Catholic Apologist Karl Keating writes, “Her status as Mediatrix of all graces exists in a double sense. First, she gave the world its Redeemer, the source of all graces and in this sense she is the channel of all graces…Second, Mary is the Mediatrix of all graces because of her intercession for us in heaven. What this means is that no grace accrues to us without her intercession. We are not to suppose that we are obligated to ask for all graces through her or that her intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of graces. Instead, through God’s will, grace is not conferred on anyone without Mary’s cooperation.
True, scriptural proofs for this are lacking. Theologians refer to a mystical interpretation of John 19:26 (‘Woman behold thy son, son behold thy mother’), an interpretation that sees John as the representative of the human race, Mary thus becoming the spiritual mother. They note the doctrine is reasonable because it is fitting…[the dogma] is accepted, ultimately, on the authority of the Church rather than on the authority of clear scriptural references.”7
^{It is puzzling how someone could write as one single thought, “no grace accrues to us without her intercession. We are not to suppose that…her intercession is intrinsically necessary…grace is not conferred on anyone without Mary’s cooperation.” Well, is it or is it not?} It is interesting that when Mary is said to be the mother of all humanity and therefore, our intercessor, as proved by John 19:26-27 the only part quoted is just as above “Woman behold thy son, son behold thy mother” when just a little more context would shed a different light on the matter.

The text says, “When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Dear woman, here is your son,’ and to the disciple, ‘Here is your mother.’ From that time on, this disciple took her into his home” (John 19:26-27). The text is written in the singular about John and not in the plural about humanity. The text says, “the disciple…behold your son…the disciple…behold your mother…into his home.”

Take careful notice of the fact that in order to answer to the verse in 1st Timothy 2:5 that so clearly teaches that there is one mediator which is Jesus Christ, some Roman Catholic apologists have claimed that the word used for one does not mean one and only but rather, one but primary one without excluding another.
Yet, the text states, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” the word for one, which is the Greek heis, is used both for referring to the one God and the one mediator. Therefore, if we are to make one mediator mean primary one without excluding another then we would, by necessity, believe that the text teaches that there is one God but that this is not the one and only God but merely the primary one without excluding other gods. Moreover, Biblically there is one true God and many false gods and so we could take this a step further and say that there is one true mediator and many false mediators. Thus, a good example of a faulty apologetic.

Why not Pray to Mary and Saints?:
Alan Schreck, “The passage that calls Jesus the ‘one mediator’ (1 Tm 2:1-6), also urges all Christians to bring ‘requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving’ to God (1Tm 2:10)…[Mary] is now with the Lord, continuing to intercede for the needs of God’s people. ^{As the Second Vatican Council stated: By her maternal love, Mary cares for the brethren of her son who still journey on earth….Therefore, the Blessed Virgin is invoked by the church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix}.”8

Pope Paul VI, “in communion with Jesus Christ, ‘who continues forever and is therefore able at all times to intercede for them,’ [Heb. 7, 25.] she makes herself their Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix.’”9 It is simply a contradiction to state that “Jesus Christ…continues forever…to intercede for them” But that Mary “makes herself their Advocate” etc. If Jesus forever intercedes for us, what need is there for yet another intercessor, unless Jesus’ intercession is not sufficient in which case no mere human however blessed could stand a chance at helping us, which is the very reason Jesus came to Earth in the first place.

Elliot Miller points out:

In trying not to detract from Christ, its theologians have so defined the role of Mary as to make it entirely dispensable: everything we need we get from Christ. If that’s the case, what is the point or importance of Mary’s mediation? On the other hand, the oft-heard affirmation that Mary can influence her Son otherwise would be less disposed to do so.
In fact, the very concept of a mediator presupposes that there are differences that need to be reconciled between two parties. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that, apart from Mary’s mediation, Christ Himself would not be perfectly reconciled to us. All this seriously compromises the integrity of His high priesthood.10

John L. Stoddard writes:

Scripture certainly teaches that souls in Heaven retain their love for us, and that they are, to some extent at least, aware of what transpires here. Jesus Himself assures us that ‘joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentence.’ He also tells us:—‘There is joy in the presence of the Angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.’… in the Book of Revelation (viii. 3) we read of an Angel, whose duty it is to ‘offer the prayers of all saints upon the altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God.’ Moreover, in the same book (v. 8), we read of ‘golden vials full of perfume, which are the prayers of saints’…

Now the prayers of the Saints and Angels can hardly be for themselves, but must rather be for those who need their prayers,—that is, for the poor sinners in this world…Just how the Saints and Angels are made aware of our petitions need not concern us.11

^{Now we will see that there is a barrier of sorts that Catholic dogma has not breached except to say that it is a mystery (seeming to forget that Biblically mystery means something hidden that is now revealed, not just something unknown or unknowable).} Yes, we are told to intercede for each other and we are taught to pray in the name of Jesus, which makes Jesus the intercessor and not us. It is also true that there is indication that the dead either have some knowledge of what is going on Earth, or are aware enough of heaven to know that all is not yet as it should be. John wrote, “I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, ‘How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?’” (Revelation 6:9-10).

However, it is extremely important to note that only living people are told to intercede and pray for each other (for other living people). There is absolutely no indication that we are to pray for the dead or ask them to intercede for us (see our article Purgatory). Catholic dogma teaches that it is acceptable and beneficial to pray to (communicate with) the dead, this is done in a prayerful state, a meditative state. God tells us that those who communicate with the dead, necromancers and spirits consulters, are an abomination to Him:

…thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee (Deuteronomy 18:9-12).

The skeptic might say that this was according to the Old Testament. According to the Old Testament the penalty for breaking the Sabbath was capital punishment so are we to kill those who do not keep the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday)? The New Testament specifically deals with this subject by stating “do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17).
Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant, the ceremonial laws such as the strict observance of the Sabbath has been fulfilled. However, we find no indication that it is now acceptable to communicate with the dead, to ask them or to thank them for things.

^{Catholic apologist Tim Staples said, “In the book of Job, for example, God will not accepted the prayers of the men who are criticizing Job. He [God] asks them, ‘You pray to Job or I’m not going to hear your prayers.’} It was through the intercession of Job that these fellows had their sins forgiven.”12
Again, this proves that living people may intercede for each other, but there is not even a hint that it is appropriate to take this concept into the realm of the afterlife. In fact, we know that while King David’s son was sick he prayed for the child, but he instantly stopped once that child died (see 2nd Samuel 12:15-22).

Jesus Taught us How to Pray and Whom to Thank:
If we are Christians i.e., followers of Christ, we are to do as He did and do as He taught. Having worked at a Catholic Church for four and a half years I have seen over and over again Mass intentions offered in thanksgiving to saint and angels, these are offered for prayers answered. Out of hundreds and hundreds I can only recall two or three offered in thanksgiving to God. We are to follow Jesus and He prayed only to the Father, He thanked the Father, into the Father’s hands He committed his spirit.

“But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him” (Matthew 6:6-8).

“one of his disciples said to him, ‘Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.’ He said to them, ‘When you pray, say:’ ‘Father, [or Our Father in heaven] hallowed be your name…’” (Matthew 6:9 & Luke 11:1).

“how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:11).

“Thanks be to God-through Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 7:25).

“Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 5:19-20).

“And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17).

Human Opinion Teaches us Otherwise:
Rev. Ralph W. Beiting wrote, “We may, and should pray to the Saints after we have made this consecration [our ourselves to Mary]. ^{Remember that Mary is Queen of all Saints, and that they all serve her as their loving Mistress. When we ask the Saints for a favor, we are, in reality, asking them to intercede for us with our Lady}. ‘In vain,’ says Saint Bernard, ‘would a person ask other Saints for a favor, if Mary did not interpose to obtain it.’ The Saints receive all their virtues and graces by the intercession of Mary; so, when we ask them to obtain a special favor for us, we are using them as our advocates with Mary, our Queen.”13 Do we now have another step in the hierarchy? We intercede for others or ourselves by going to the saints. The saints intercede for us by going to Mary. Mary intercedes for the saints and us by going to Jesus. Jesus intercedes for Mary, the saints and us by going to the Father. Can there be a greater offense to Jesus than to refuse to come to Him, He who invited us to come to Him? The Bible encourages us to “approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:16).

It is also very important to consider that while Jesus is omnipresent, He rightly stated “surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age” (Matthew 28:20) and “For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Matthew 18:20). We have absolutely no indication that either we, Catholic canonized saint nor Mary, become omnipresent after death and so if two people are praying to the same saint or Mary from two opposite parts of the world, to whom does the saint or Mary turn their attention?

Again, Rev. Beiting, “Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for me a sinner, now and at the hour of my death. Amen.”14
At the hour of His death, Jesus called out to the Father, as should all Christians.

Pope Paul VI, “as each one of us can repeat with St. Paul: ‘The Son of God loved me and gave Himself up for me,’ [Galatians 2, 20; cf. Eph. 5, 2] so in all trust he can believe that the divine Savior has left to him also, in spiritual heritage, His Mother, with all the treasures of grace and virtues with which He had endowed her, that she may pour them over us through the influence of her powerful intercession and our willing imitation.”15

Most Rev. E. K. Lynch stated, “Spiritual writers tell us that it was the intercession of Mary that brought about the conversion of the good thief. Up to his last moments he lived in crime and sin, and even on the cross he filled up the measure of his iniquity by reproaching Jesus. What about his conversion? The prayer of Our Lady standing at the foot of the Cross won for him not only forgiveness but a place in heaven that very day.”16 Here we see another deviation from the truth and from complete devotion to Jesus. Note that, “The thief saw the vile manner in which Jesus was being treated and yet he heard Jesus say, ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing’” (Luke 23:34). He saw Jesus suffering as much and more than the most wretched criminal and so while on the cross next to Jesus, one thief said to the other, “‘We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.’ Then he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ Jesus answered him, ‘I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise’” (Luke 23:41-43).

^{The thief was a witness to the love of Jesus since while Jesus was dying He took the time to comfort the repentant thief next to Him. These are the things that caused his salvation, his repentance and reliance upon Jesus. The thief did not say to Mary, “I thank thee for thine intercession,” the thief knew where his salvation came from. The text does not even imply that Mary had anything to do with it.}

Sisters of St. Basil published the following Novena (a repetitive prayer), “For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain me the pardon of them…not even from Jesus, my judge.”17 The Scripture states, “The LORD is my shepherd…I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me” (Psalm 23:1-4). Jesus said, “Do not be afraid…For I am with you” (Acts 18:9-10).

“For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Hebrews 4:15-16).

I try be to careful about what debates/discussions I get myself into and actually, it is not so much about “what” but how many. Conducting research, writing, posting regularly and of course, working full time, caring for my family, etc., etc., etc. leaves precious little time to get involved in online dialogues most of which are never ending—at least until one person stops replying for whatever reason.
For example, I went out of state for about a week and a half and when I saw the number of comments awaiting me upon my return on Google+, on Facebook, on YouTube not to mention emails well, it was overwhelming and so most of it went unread and un-replied to.

With that in mind, I just wanted to offer replies that I made to two Atheists. The first one did not reply, the second had a little back and forth.

The issue was this segment of my lecture Atheism Explained and Exposed.

Here is the first comment:

I viewed the video and I have come to the conclusion that you sir, are intellectually dishonest, and perhaps just a little too much in love with the sound of your own voice.
You conflate the lack of a belief in God and dictatorships as if they were one and the same. Atheism did not kill millions of Jews under Hitler, or millions of Soviets under Stalin, or millions of North Koreans under Kim Jung Il, their lust for power and hegemony did.

I am a good father, husband, son, who volunteers locally to help the poor, and works tirelessly on behalf of women’s causes and the less fortunate. I also happen to believe God is a man-made concept, invented for the sole purpose of holding power over the less fortunate. How dare you attempt to paint me as evil. It’s self-righteous people such as yourself that are just as much the problem as those you would disparage.

I suggest that you focus your blame somewhere else, and perhaps put down your bible and take a good, long look in the mirror for once.

Here was my reply:

Friend, when I read your comment the first thing I thought was that I did not state the things to which you are replying. Since I presented that lecture twice I actually watched my own video just to ensure what I did and did not state and indeed, I am unaware of what you speak. Thus, I note that you provided no reply whatsoever to any of my points but mere assert that I am “intellectually dishonest” without evidence. Also, if you knew how introverted I am you would know that the last thing with which I am in love is the sound of my own voice. Then I thought that yours was a canned generic response and you actually did not watch the video and here is why: I said nothing which conflated the lack of a belief in God and dictatorships. I also said nothing that would lead one to believe that I was painting Atheists as evil. Now, you seem to condemn being intellectually dishonest, conflating the lack of a belief in God and dictatorships, lust for power and hegemony, holding power over the less fortunate, painting you as evil, self-righteousness, etc. yet, upon what premise do you do so?

Conversely, you seem to praise being a good father, husband, son, volunteering, working on behalf of women’s causes and the less fortunate, etc. yet, upon what premise do you do so?

Here is the other comment:

This has to be the second to worst attempt to get around the problem of evil. At least he didn’t do the usual “you’re an atheist, so you don’t believe in evil.” Also atheism says nothing about what is good and evil. The least a person who is supposedly explaining and exposing atheism could do is actually look at what the vast majority of atheists do believe as opposed to assuming or taking the most extreme examples to generalise all atheists by. Very disingenuous. So let’s say that God allows suffering for our benefit. What is that benefit? You don’t just get to make up excuses for God with no substance or verification.

Non-answers are not answers.

Here was my reply:

Friend, merely asserting that which is bad or worse in accordance to your undisclosed subjective standards is no refutation. You merely assert that I “attempt[ed] to get around the problem of evil” even whilst I was putting it into perspective. Also, as an FYI: I have taken in a tremendous amount of information about that which Atheists subjectively claim on the matter although you appear to be referencing some uncited survey which resulted in that which you claim is that view of the “vast majority of atheists.”

Now, if I may ask a question about the entire issue including why you thought comment: my first question is “Who cares?” as in “Why do you care to even comment on the issues. Secondly, upon what premised do you condemn “evil.” Lastly, do you condemn me for allowing my newborn baby to experience pain and suffering?

The Atheist replied thusly:

These are bad arguments because that are full of logical fallacies and have been heavily debunked, over and over. It is actually embarrassing that people still try to use them. You are clearly trying to get around the problem of evil. But you fail to do so, because you make assertions yet neglect to support them, even with Christian doctrine. You can claim to have done all the research in the world when it comes to atheism, however what you’re saying, doesn’t support or demonstrate that. When you make claims that atheism teaches a type of Darwinian morality – survival of the fittest, this is categorically false. Atheism is only an answer on a single question (the negative response to “do you believe in a god?”), it’s not a system of beliefs. I don’t need to conduct or source any survey, for the simple fact that the most prominent philosophy associated with atheism, Humanism, explicitly rejects such an ethical stance. Atheist tend to lean more towards socialism too. Atheists are also unrepresented in prisons and they generally don’t conduct themselves in a manner to destroy any competition in a Darwinian fashion. Obviously, you’ll always be able to find the few atheists that take a very Darwinian stance on what they consider good and evil, but anecdotal examples do not present a representation. Ironically though, you haven’t provided any survey or given any compelling argument yourself for your assertion. I have an academic interest in theology. Why would you ask? It almost seems that you think I shouldn’t, but that may be me just reading way too much into what you’re saying. Would you prefer a circle jerk type echo chamber, where your ideas aren’t challenged? If you have any interest in improving your arguments, where necessary, you should actually be thanking people like me for critiquing your arguments. I view morality in relation to what is harmful to individuals and society in general. How I personally view morality though, is irrelevant to the problem of evil, as it is an internal evaluation of different concepts of theism. Do I condemn you for allowing your newborn to experience pain? No, because the pain was necessary for checking if there were any potential health problems. Claiming God does allows pain for our benefit though, is a very empty statement due to the concept of salvation and an afterlife. If the saved will be conformed to the image of Christ in the next age, then any trails they experience in this age are irrelevant. Also beneficial suffering only addresses the saved, why would an all powerful, all knowing, loving god create people that he knows will not be saved?

If you’re a Calvinist, then you could refer to Romans 9, but that makes God a monster. Instead it would seem that God is incompetent, but then that defies what God is. And thus the problem of evil, continues.

Here was my reply:

Friend, now I see what you mean; you have misunderstood me. 1) Just because you subjectively assert that I employ logical fallacies that have been heavily debunked does not make it so. 2) If you are not aware that a tremendous number of Atheists claim that morality “evolved” then I can only urge you to keep up with Atheists’ statements on this matter. A type of “Darwinian morality – survival of the fittest” is one of the logical conclusion; one away from which many Atheists run and yet one that is perfectly in keeping with mere animals engaging activities which some have subjectively decided to call moral and others immoral—this is exactly why Dawkins (both an Atheist and Darwinist) states that when it comes to morality, he is an anti-Darwinist, he understands and admits this. 3) I am unsure whence you get the authority to speak for all Atheists by defining that which Atheism is as, for example, the Atheist activist Michael Newdow claims that Atheism is a religion. Also, of course, your negative response to “do you believe in a god?” is a statement of beliefs—I would assume that if you did not believe your negative response then you would not state rely as you do. 4) Indeed, Atheists tend to lean more towards socialism and many leaned towards social Darwinism. 5) Rather than guessing at why I ask why you care you may want to ask. If we are merely animals that are the result of a long series of blind unguided accidents than what do you care about how I interpret biochemical reactions within my gray matter vs. how you interpret yours (I am referring to our thoughts, beliefs, etc.). 6) You assert that you “view morality in relation to what is harmful to individuals and society in general” but why? 7) How you personally view morality is most certainly relevant to the problem of evil because you appear to condemn “evil” but why do you do so? 8) Since you do not condemn me for allowing my newborn to experience pain even though he had no idea why it occurred and that I allowed it because I knew better then you cannot, by the very same standards, condemn God for the very same scenario. You presented a non-sequitur regarding the afterlife wherein the saved will be conformed to the image of Christ for two reasons: 1) the here and now is still the here and now and those experiences shape and mold us and 2) conformed to the image of Christ does not mean that, that which made us who we are is done away with and we become Christ clones.

9) If you want to discuss soteriology you will have to wait or go elsewhere as our focus is the problem of evil.

Thus, these have been some ideas on how to handle such objections and how to keep the focus upon the objector’s point of view and not being constantly on the defense yourself.