March 2017 – Page 4 – TrueFreeThinker

The Jones Town mass suicide of the late 1970s AD amounted to 900 deaths including 276 children. These were members of Jim Jones’ People’s Temple.

During a conversation with John Maher in 1976 AD, Jim Jones referred to himself, both, as an Agnostic and an Atheist (transcript of recovered FBI tape Q 622).

Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo, “On the transformation of Jim Jones – From God’s minister to the Angel of Death”, Jones Town – San Diego State University:

“After reviewing much material on Jim Jones, I have found that one thing becomes increasingly clear. It is important to view Jim Jones’ transformation not in a linear fashion – from point A to point B over a number of years – but rather through the lens of his many personae.

By the time of the mass suicide in Jonestown in 1978, Jim Jones had been a reverend, a healer, a leader, a revolutionary, a politician, a tyrant, a God, a Communist, an atheist, a drug addict, and a father, to name a few. But he did not move from one to another to another as time passed, but rather from fewer at once to more at once.

His repertoire of personae grew and grew as he perfected styles from which he found benefits. After perfecting a few, he tackled new ones that he could apply to more effectively control his followers and the destiny of his growing church. His ability to get what he desired by manipulating the authority he gained within these personae began to overshadow the message he originally intended to preach through them.

Eventually, Jones found himself in a predicament. He could not revert to a younger, more idealistic, less manipulative self. He had to continue to abuse the authority he had won himself in order to maintain control over his life’s work. If he failed to do so, those who followed him so loyally might come to see him as a liar and a criminal, rather than an infallible deity, and the church around him would crumble.”

But what sort of Agnostic Atheist sees himself as “an infallible deity”? Well, basically all of them, in a manner of speaking. When it comes down to it; Atheism (beyond being an anti-Christian support group) is 1) deicidal, 2) seeks auto-deification / self-deification, 3) seeks absolute autonomy, 4) seeks lack of ultimate, transcendent, accountability, to name a few relevant aspects.

J. Max Wilson, “Don’t Drink the Kool-aid: Jonestown was an Atheist Marxist Socialist Cult,” Sixteen Small Stones, January 17, 2013 AD

“‘Reverend’ Jim Jones…was the founder of a movement known as The People’s Temple. Many people who use the reference simply assume that Jones and his group were some kind of right-wing fundamentalist Christian cult (after all he is referred to as ‘Reverend Jim Jones’). We have been conditioned by our news and entertainment media to think of cults only in terms of conservative, conspiracy-theory-prone, fundamentalist Christians.

Cults are supposed to be ‘irrational’ and so Hollywood assumes they must be right-wing Christian religionists, which they wrongly assume are irrational, and most people just accept that assumption uncritically. In the movies a left-wing, atheist, Marxist cult is more elusive than Big Foot.

But reality is far more interesting: Contrary to suppositions, The People’s Temple was in fact a deadly left-wing, atheist, Marxist cult and Jonestown was a Socialist commune.

Jim Jones was a dedicated communist from the outset. While he initially founded his group as a liberal offshoot of the Methodist denomination, in his own biographical record he admitted that he did not really believe in religion, he saw it as a tool to disingenuously use to further his Marxist goals. By 1976 he was open about his atheism while still styling himself as a ‘reverend’ and his organization as a ‘church’. In 1977 his wife explained to the New York Times that ‘Jim used religion to try to get some people out of the opiate of religion.’

The fact is that, until the group ran away to Guyana, The People’s Temple was, in many regards, a model for how Liberals think rational religion ought to be. In the 1950s’, Jones broke with Methodists…Jones assigned the highest leadership roles in the organization to young, college-educated women who self identified as socialists, communists, and pacifists.

He regularly cast doubt upon the Bible…He characterized Jesus as a communist revolutionary…By the mid 70s’ the ‘church’ was overtly political and openly atheist and socialist…”

10 People Who Give Atheism a Bad Name, List Verse:

“Jim Jones drew people into atheism through the People’s Temple, largely based in California. He said that he ‘took the church and used the church to bring people to atheism’. In 1978, 909 people at the restricted communist ‘sanctuary’ he presided over in Jonestown, Guyana, committed ‘revolutionary suicide’ at his command…Men, women and children took a vial of cyanide and died within five minutes. Only a few people escaped…the majority of people considered Jones to be the leader of a type of Christian cult, but, as the quote above illustrates, it was really a ruse to attract people who would otherwise have steered well clear of him.”

Lincoln Swain, The Why People: Aphrodite Child’s 666, Jim Jones and the Doom of the 1960’s, Jones Town – San Diego State University:

“Jones scuttled his ministry because he himself got lost. I was struck by how, despite all his revival tent razzle dazzle, Jones was spiritually ground down into a churlish atheist by the grim realities of human suffering, prejudice and stupidity he encountered in Indiana and Brazil. Perhaps already well-unhinged, he escaped into drugs, Cold War paranoia and pansexual trolling, rendering him both dangerously messianic and manifestly ill-suited for leadership of a very vulnerable yet productive flock.”

David Conn, “The Unseen Meaning of Jonestown”, Jones Town – San Diego State University:

“It was obvious that here was a man who had gone most of his life under the illusion that there were no ultimate consequences. He had bought the Marxist drivel of his professors at the University of California, Berkeley. And of course none of them had the insight to tell him that this same atheism is what allowed Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao Tse Tung to perform severely outrageous atrocities against their people. They, too, believed that nothing is necessarily and absolutely wrong, and that there are no ultimate consequences.

In researching what allowed Jonestown, I realized that liberal religious groups, like the Disciples of Christ hierarchy who first welcomed Jim Jones to the West Coast, are nothing but another form of atheism. If you manufacture a god, as they did, then you obviously have denied the One True God of the historical faith. It is therefore not surprising that they welcomed Jim Jones and that he saw in them exactly what he needed in order to continue his cultic tyranny. Thus: he continued. Thus: they protected him, right up to the end. It was a symbiosis of evil.”

Anssi Viljanen, “Defined by the Father: A discourse analytical case study of the last speech of Jim Jones”, Jones Town – San Diego State University:

“In the argument of inevitability there is a yet another facet that Jones makes part of the world he creates in his speech. At the end of his argument with Christine Miller, Jones states that there was also a divine will behind the ‘revolutionary suicide’: ‘Some months I’ve tried to keep this thing from happening. But I now see it’s the will– it’s the will of Sovereign Being that this happen to us. That we lay down our lives to protest against what’s being done. The criminality of people. The cruelty of people’ (Q042: 111).

While denying his own responsibility in the course of events and claiming the role of a victim, Jones goes further in claiming it divine responsibility for them to continue on with the plan of suicide. This is interesting in the sense that Jones himself claimed to be an atheist (Q622). Yet he knew that many of his followers came from a religious background. This kind of comment seems to serve the authority of Jones’ message.”

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

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

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

On Minister Fortson’s Rapha: Post Flood Giants In The Old Testament

Under consideration is Minister Fortson’s article Rapha: Post Flood Giants In The Old Testament, February 3, 2017 AD. I consider it a good manner whereby to deal with such issues as it get into topics in some of the same manners in which I deal with them: dealing with terms and definitions.

He poses the question, “Why did entire tribes of giants suddenly spring up after the flood?” and you know me: my first reply is not an answer but a question, “What do you mean by ‘giants’?” Likewise, with his statement, “Archaeology is rife with evidence that points to the reality of giants” a claim made all the more suspect by re-research or first time research of mere claims. You see many alleged human giant skeletons turned out to be the bones of dinosaurs and particularly mammoths which personages of earlier found and attempted to articulate to the best of their limited knowledge—see Grading the giant human skeleton chart.

Well, Fortson will get to the issue of definitions beginning with dealing with the question of “Who Were The Rapha?” He provides this info, “Rapha (#[H]7497) – Singular Giant. Rephaim (#[H]7497) – Multiple Giants. Adding the “im” at the end signifies a plural word in Hebrew”—actually, that is for masculine words as plural for feminine is “ot.” He then tells us that “Rapha are repeatedly referred to in the Bible as literal giants.” Yet, if “giant” is a generic term that, by itself, tells us nothing about height except that it means: taller than the average—Hebrew males of those days averaged 5.5 ft. So, if and since, giants means taller than the average then literal giants are literally taller than the average and we have come full circle having learned nothing. In fact, various Hebrew terms are translated by some as “giant” which simply adds to the confusion.

Yet, Fortson will get to the issue of specific heights and I was just making general, yet very important, points. Strong’s H7497 comes “from H7495 in the sense of invigorating.” Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon adds that they were “famous on account of their gigantic stature” which is still a generic statement.

Fortson has a subsection titled, “Literal vs. Figurative Giants” in which he quotes, “‘Dead things are formed from under the waters, and the inhabitants thereof.’ – Job 26:5.” He rightly notes that this is a different term “Dead Things: (Strong’s #[H]7496) Rapha” yet, Fortson has the definition as “Spirits, dead, shades, ghosts, giant” and I know not to what he is referring as the etymological info is that the term appears 8x which the KJV translates as dead (7x), deceased (1x). The outline of Biblical usage has it as “I. ghosts of the dead, shades, spirits” so that there is no reference to “giant” at all.

Moreover, Strong’s tells us that H7496 is from the primitive root rapha’ H7495 in the sense of another primitive root raphah H7503. So, it is from a term that appears 67x in the Bible which, as an example, the KJV translates as: heal (57x), physician (5x), cure (1x), repaired (1x), miscellaneous (3x) in the sense of a term found 46x which the KJV has as: feeble (6x), fail (4x), weaken (4x), go (4x), alone (4x), idle (3x), stay (3x), slack (3x), faint (2x), forsake (2x), abated (1x), cease (1x), miscellaneous (9x). This seems to be related to the related term Rapha’ H7498 which Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon defines as, “flaccid, feeble, weak” and also “i.e., manes” (which Strong’s states is probably the same as H7497). As per Roman mythology manes is a reference to essentially deified souls of dead ancestors. Thus, the lexicon correlates manes with “shades living in Hades.”

You can see how complicated it can get to chase etymological definitions. Thus, it is of the utmost importance to note that the ultimate definition of a word does not, I repeat not, from etymology but from context.

Minister Fortson writes, “it is interesting that Job mentions that the Rapha/spirits/ghosts were brought forth/formed under the waters/flood. Is this more evidence as to the origin of demons?” and also refers to “the link between the Rapha, the nephilim, the demons, and the flood” statements which he elucidates thusly—I will follow his statement by my observations:

“The pre-flood nephilim died in the flood (Genesis 7:23)”: agreed although “pre-flood nephilim” implies that there were post-flood Nephilim with which I disagree.

“According to Enoch, their spirits became demons (Enoch 15:8-12)”: indeed, that is what a Enoch text states (see here for info on this text).

“According to Jesus the demons are an unnatural mixture (Matthew 12:43)”: I am unsure what he is getting at since the text states, “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none.” He may think that an “unclean spirit” having been in “a person” amounts to demons being an unnatural mixture yet, the text is not speaking of demons in an ontological manner and the point is that the demon does not belong in a person which is why Jesus exorcised them.

“The Rapha were a tribe of giants that appeared after the flood (Genesis 14:5)”: again, “giants” is generic and also, the text simply states, “In the fourteenth year Chedorlaomer and the kings who were with him came and defeated the Rephaim in Ashteroth-karnaim, the Zuzim in Ham, the Emim in Shaveh-kiriathaim.”

“Job links the Rapha/spirits to the flood (Job 26:5)”: since meaning/definition is gotten from context and not etymology we cannot simply assert that Job links the “giant” tribes to the flood since Job seems to be linking the aforementioned “ghosts of the dead, shades, spirits” to the flood. Of course this could stating that the “ghosts of the dead, shades, spirits” of dead Nephilim are that which we call demons (I have my own view on this but will save that for my upcoming book). Yet, even this would not correlated to any such as thing as post-flood Nephilim nor tribes such as the Rephaim.

“Isaiah says that the Rapha will not be resurrected (Isaiah 26:14)”: the text states, “They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased [rapha’], they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.” In fact, the text is not referring to “giants” nor even specifically to any of the Rephaim tribes but more generally states that “the LORD…bringeth down them that dwell on high; the lofty city, he layeth it low; he layeth it low, even to the ground; he bringeth it even to the dust…LORD, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see: but they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy at the people; yea, the fire of thine enemies shall devour them.” It is these whom the LORD puts down who will not rise as they were destroyed and their memory made to perish.

Minister Fortson then mentions the “The Sons of Anak” within Numbers 13 which is the only usage of the term Nephilim outside of Genesis 6. Fortson tells us that within the Numbers text “the spies gave an ‘evil’ (bad), but not necessarily false report. The reason we know that their report was not false is because it is consistent with what we will see during the Israelite invasion of the Promised Land”—but is that the case?

Fortson notes “The biggest element to their report is that they looked like grasshoppers compared to the sons of Anak.” But does this mean that we can or are supposed to reckon the height of the Anakim as per a one-to-one ration between humans and grasshoppers and so Anakim and humans? Well, if that is the case then we can also figure out how tall God is since Isaiah 40 refers to God as “he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers.” Thus, either the Anakim are the same height as God or the Bible is defining its own terminology—much as we might look down from a building and say, “Those people look like ants.”

Minister Fortson writes, “If you hold the belief that this account was false, then you also have to question the following accounts of Moses, David, and God” at which point I will direct the interested reader to my article Did Caleb and the spies see Nephilim giants in the land. But what of having to “question” other accounts? Well, let us see what they state.

“Og: King of Bashan” is referenced about whom the Bible tells us nothing about his height but, as Fortson quotes it, “In Deuteronomy 3:11 we find the exact measurements of Og’s bed, which gives us his approximate size. A standard cubit is 18 inches. 9 cubits long x 4 cubits wide 13.5 feet long x 6 feet wide.” One can easily assume that he was just a little shorter than his bed and yet, it is just that: an assumption. Generally everything that king do and have is larger than life.

He then quotes, “‘Yet destroyed I the Amorite before them, whose height was like the height of the cedars, and he was strong as the oaks; yet I destroyed his fruit from above, and his roots from beneath.’ – Amos 2:9” about which he asks, “Is God over exaggerating about their height? Is God referring to literal giants? Those that take the position that the Israelites saw certain taller people as giants, does not hold true when we read God’s account of their height. It becomes clear that these were giants of greater stature.”

Well, we are back to the issue of “literal giants” and the fact that “giants” are, by definition, “of greater stature” than the average and nothing more. However, was God over exaggerating? Well, apparently we are being lead to conclude that since the Amorite’s height was like the height of the cedars then if we find out how tall the average cedar is then we have a one-to-one ratio via which to know how tall they were. As an example, Atlas cedars grow to circa 40-60 ft. tall so there you have it. However, the Amorites are not only as tall as cedars but also “strong as the oaks.” Now, if height was supposed to be as per a one-to-one ratio then the same must be true of their strength. And yet, how do we correlate the strength of a wooden tree to a human body? Is God over exaggerating about their strength?

Simply stated, they were tall or very tall and strong or very strong.

Lastly, we come to Goliath who is “the only giant that is associated with an exact height given to us in scripture. A standard cubit is 18 inches. A span is 9 inches (half a cubit). 6 cubits + 1 span 9 feet + 9 inches”

However, the fact is that Goliath is taller in Greek than he is in Hebrew. You see, there is a disparity between Hebrew and Greek manuscripts so that the height range is from 6.7 to that which Fortson concludes. Keep in mind that in his adulthood, as Fortson tells us “David later retrieves the sword of Goliath to use as his own”: he, a regular sized guy, was able to wield it.

Lastly, I will add the besides Goliath’s height(s) the only other specific height offered by the Bible (besides the general statement that king Saul was a head taller than the average 1 Samuel 9) is a reference to “an Egyptian, a man of great stature” who was 7.5 ft. and FYI: Andre The Giant was 7.4 ft.

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

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

On the giant footprints at the Ain Dara Temple – Aleppo, Syria

Under consideration is the February 13, 2017 AD article Smells Like Nephilim: Giant Footprints Discovered at Ancient Temple in Syria by UFOholic.

It notes, “Evidence that giants once roamed the land can be found all over the world” which is of interest for various reasons including that when I read it I had just finished writing On Minister Fortson’s Rapha: Post Flood Giants In The Old Testament wherein I quote Fortson thusly, “Archaeology is rife with evidence that points to the reality of giants.” Yet, many alleged human giant skeletons turned out to be the bones of dinosaurs and particularly mammoths which personages of earlier found and attempted to articulate to the best of their limited knowledge—see Grading the giant human skeleton chart.

Also, and this is more of a generic statement, if someone is a UFOholic then sometimes they may make much ado about nothing since nothing is just about all they have to report—as I noted in Ancient giant skeleton found in Iran regarding giants: so there are UFOholic and Giant-holics.

The giant footprints were found at the Ain Dara Temple in a Syrian village northwest of Aleppo.

The Temple is thought to have been built circa 1,300 BC

So as to cut to the chase—pun intended, as we shall see—I think that UFOholic gets it right, even if unconsciously, by writing that there are “a pair of large, bare footprints etched into the stone floors of the temple’s entrance” and “A third footprint can be found beyond the first two, carved on the threshold” (emphasis added for emphasis).

The 3 feet are 3 ft. long and the article states that “these footprints would have belonged to a humanoid standing over 60 feet tall!”

Without quotation or citation, the article asserts that “archaeologists have long speculated the footprints belonged to one of the gods worshipped at Ain Dara” but that “The footprints, one could infer, might belong to someone else entirely.” Now, even if archaeologists speculate that the footprints belonged to one of the gods there is a difference between “belonged to” as in that a physical being imprinted them therein and “belonged to” as in a carving supposed to represent a god.

The article leaves this open as it concludes by asking, “So, what do you think these out of place carvings are – merely artistic representations where the creator messed with proportions or imprints with intent left by ancient giants?”

Well, these are indeed carvings, etchings and are worse than the worst Big Foot footprints ever faked.
There are two side by side such as one would make when standing still and one other one: there is no track of footprints as if a being was walking along. The single footprint does seem to have some cracking mostly at the heel area which would be the case of a print made by walking since we generally step heel first. Of course, this is what someone would do also if they were wearing wooden fake Big Foot-like stamps on one’s feet which one would be wise to do when having to model such a foot: the artisan would make the imprint upon soft clay and then add detail (however, this might be in stone). So, perhaps a giant being landed on the spot, took one step and flew off: yet, there are no cracks on the ground around the footprints which surely would be left by a gigantic being landing thereon.

If I had to guess, and I do, I would say that they mark the way into whatever was the main area of worship at the time. Perhaps it was even marking the spot where one was to stop so as to make some sort of obeisance with a follow up one showing the way to proceed.

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

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Satanic sex workers

Caryn Dolley reported Sex workers ‘groomed for satanic rituals’, IOL – South Africa News, March 20, 2016 AD

Reportedly a Satanic network of sex workers has been uncovered in the Cape peninsula which is headed by “the dark lord of Cape Town’s’s underworld goes by the alias The Priest.”

Apparently, the sex is a literal front as when the “clients” show up for fornication they are not aware that behind closed doors, Satanic rituals are performed “which include drinking blood, usually that of animals.”

Community Safety MEC Dan Plato told Weekend Argus the connection between gangsterism and satanism was a massive problem in Cape Town.

“The gangster and drug trade on the Cape Flats is closely linked to satanism. Youngsters we interview, that’s what they tell us. They’re groomed to kill, to see blood.”

Another case mentioned in the report is that of Aljar Swartz who “was found guilty in the Western Cape High Court of beheading Lee Adams, 15, in Ravensmead three years ago. Swartz claimed he’d been under the control of Satan at the time.”

satanic20crime-6034782
Image from Dolley’s article

Informants “confirmed The Priest recruited sex workers…‘The prostitutes are recruited and go through satanic rituals,’ one said…The Priest went into various clubs recruited attractive women and took them to more upmarket clubs and lavished them with gifts.”

Reportedly, this is a growing trend as “Occult practices started filtering into criminal gangs” and there is are even police “occult-related” crime units. These note that “elements of witchcraft in Lesotho evolved, spread and became part of gang culture” such as the setting up of “‘evil churches,’ headed by so-called kings and queens.”

One gang is called “666” and are involved in “‘spiritually motivated crimes’ which included blood sacrifices and murders…many gang members in the Western Cape who followed devil-worshipping rituals…killings, viewed as murders, were actually ‘blood sacrifices’ they carried out.”

iTheism

What is the problem with the self made man? That he worships his creator (man here meaning non-gender specific personage).

I have often noted that atheism, or many atheists, do not seek to be rid of God but merely replace a supernatural God with a natural one.

Indeed, two of atheism’s consoling delusions are the delusion of absolute autonomy and lack of ultimate accountability.

God states, “You shall have no other gods before me.”

The atheist states, “I shall have no other gods before me” or “I shall have no other gods besides me.”

Let us consider the concept of iTheism, then the history of iTheism and then specific examples of iTheists.

atheism2c20itheism2c20true20freethinker-5545918

Atheism is thus premised upon the original of original sins: iTheism. This denotes placing oneself on the ultimate pedestal; there may be people who are more knowledgeable than we or more capable in this or that way but ultimately we, the iTheists, are the supreme authority. The iTheist determines what is right/good/moral and wrong/evil/immoral, what is true and false, the iTheist sees god reflected in their mirror.

The original, original sin was committed by lucifer, who was not an atheist, and became satan when he became an iTheist. As it is elucidated in Isaiah ch. 14:

How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, you who weakened the nations! For you have said in your heart: “I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,

I will be like the Most High.”

From this premise, known as the five I wills, satan has not had one single new idea and why bother as this one has worked wonders as he waters the seed of rebellion within the heart of humanity.
In Genesis 3:1-5 it states that satan, referred to in the text as “the serpent,” (also see Revelation 12:9, 20:2) told Eve:

“Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Note the steps 1) question God’s statements, 2) contradict God’s statements and 3) urge rebellion in seeking equality with God.

In atheism of the iTheism sort this works out thusly: 1) question that there is a God to make a statement in the first place and therefore fulfill questioning God’s statements, 2) even though there is no God to make a statement, contradict those statements claimed to have been spoken by God (′cause you, in your unfathomably finite wisdom, know better) and 3) become equal with God, meaning to make yourself God and thus, replace God with you the iTheist and urging others to do likewise—especially the naturally rebellious and overactive libidoed youth.

This pattern repeats throughout history until the very end when,

the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God (2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4).

Now, consider a statement made by Dan Barker of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (which was established in the USA, a country premised upon the concept of freedom of religious expression) :

The United States of America, for example, is a proudly rebellious nation. We fought a Revolutionary War kicking out the king, dictator, lord. There is value in not bowing to traditions that imply subservience to a Master–we are not slaves. Yet most religious language suggests the opposite: we must worship that which is above us and adore or obey the Father/Mother/Creator who guides our lives. [emphasis in original]

What was the straw that broke the iTheistic camel’s back: the concept of god as God as the king, dictator, lord and Master because we are not slaves and must kicking God out. Since most religious language suggests the opposite he rejects it because, being an iTheist, he cannot conceive of, or allow anyone/thing, above him which he must/should/would want to worship, adore and obey.
Of course, as I noted in my essay The Totalitarian, Dictatorial, Tyrannical Worldview iTheists actually do not escape anything when they reject God but merely jump from the freeing pan and into the fire.

atheism2c20itheism2c20true20freethinker-1911020

Larry Taunton interviewed Richard Dawkins: The Atheist Evangelist and wrote the following:

“You’re not telling me that as a civilized 21st-century man that you get your morality from the Ten Commandments?” He was incredulous. To him, it was as if I were saying, “The Easter Bunny gave us these laws, and they fall into three categories … .”

“What aspects of the Ten Commandments do you find objectionable?” I asked.

After an animated exchange and a brief search for a Bible, Dawkins went straight to the opening line of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” The idea of a personal God who demands exclusivity of worship offended him. Given Dawkins’s worldview, this seemed like a logical protest. After all, the other nine commandments hang on that one.

Do you see the point? Anything and everything that is premised upon “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” is instantly and ad hominemly rejected because, as an iTheist, Dawkins cannot allow any gods before or beside he, himself.

What Richard Dawkins does not seem to consider is that without premise “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” the commandments which follow would be about as authoritative, alive, potent and enjoining as Dawkins’ very own New Ten Commandments (of which he lists 15 see here for Dawins’ and here for Christopher Hitchens’). Which is to say that they would be yet another mere list of moral assertions promulgated by a temporary bio-organism who formulated them upon bio-chemical reactions in its brain as it lives on a pale blue dot in the universe’s backwaters.

This is clearly not about ritualistic, dietary and otherwise behavioral laws in general; this is about the iTheist not wanting God to get in the way of their self worship.

Again I turn to Friedrich Nietzsche who understood that the death of God would lead to the deification of man as we shrug off the celestial monarch and replace Him with terrestrial monarchs. In his Parable of the Mad Man he states that after murdering God the question is posed, “Must we ourselves not become gods…?” in that we would concoct, by necessity iTheistic, “festivals of atonement…what sacred games shall we have to invent?”

atheism2c20itheism2c20true20freethinker-9262081

As for satan, the text continues:

Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, to the lowest depths of the Pit.
Those who see you will gaze at you, and consider you, saying:

“Is this the man who made the earth tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities, who did not open the house of his prisoners?”

All the kings of the nations, all of them, sleep in glory, everyone in his own house; but you are cast out of your grave like an abominable branch, like the garment of those who are slain, thrust through with a sword, who go down to the stones of the pit, like a corpse trodden underfoot.

Cast off your crowns my dear iTheists, repent and cast them at the feet of the true King, Jesus the Messiah, who said,

Behold, I stand at the door and knock.
If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me (Revelation 3:20).”

Deleterious effects of pseudo-skepticism via evilbible.com

For some reason the Fine Art America site had the following section posted within a forum Makes Being An Artist A Little Tougher…. Perhaps slightly un-contextual to the site’s purpose but hey it is, after all, in keeping with the do what thou wilt nature of cyberspace. Therein, it was noted:

I’m playing around with the stumble feature again, and stumbled on this: ****( “2nd. Commandment, Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below.” Old Testament punishment- Deuteronomy 27: 1 5 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.” That’s right kids don’t EVER draw, sculpt or paint or else god will curse you. Wanna be an artist, a photographer, take a picture of yourself or family? TOO BAD, God says no! You better drop out of art class before he smites you with boils.”) *****

http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/5NmXf0/www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm

I think I’m going to hell ………oh well.

Evilbible.com is a website that purports to expose the Bible’s true and wicked nature. The contents of evilbible.com have been carefully considered, researched and found fallacious as it manipulatively promulgates misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misapplications and miscomprehensions of the Bibles contents, concepts and contexts.

bible2c202c20true20freethinker-7996531

They weave tall tales by taking texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts. The more someone relies on evilbible.com for their information about the Bible, the more you can be assured that they know not of what they speak (evidence discrediting evilbible.com is found here).

Having said that, further note that the author of the comment in question, sadly, appears to have simply read, copied and pasted from evilbible.com without being skeptical enough to actually look up the texts and discern the context. Let us be honestly and biblically be skeptical enough to do so as the Bible praises the Bereans for doing as they daily double checked everything that Paul taught them (Acts 17:11).

Note that the conclusion is that, biblically, we cannot “EVER draw, sculpt or paint or else god will curse you…TOO BAD, God says no!…”

The supposed supporting evidence is quoted directly from the Bible with citations provided so it must be true and accurate—right! Some people, on whichever side of the aisle, actually function on this level: someone states that the Bible states thus and such and so it must be so.

Let us review the claim and elucidate it in the next segment as the author claims to have quoted: 1) The “2nd. Commandment” 2) From “Exodus 20:4” 3) Which reads, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water below” 4) And that the “Old Testament punishment” 5) Is found in “Deuteronomy 27:15”

6) Which reads, “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image”

I will now elucidate the fallacious nature of claims made in the discussion referenced above as the commentator expressed a sentiment that actually represents a common misconception.

Generally, some people argue against icons of various sorts by appealing to the commandments against making images—there is no such commandment. Yet, the sentiment is actually an uncommon misconception as it is taking it as far as claiming the condemnation of any and every art form.

Let us begin with Exodus 20:4 and note that verse 5a reads, “you shall not bow down to them nor serve [worship] them…”
That the verse refers to “them” means that it is, of course, referring to the images mentioned in the previous verse. Thus, only quoting verse 4, as the commentator did, is taking the commandment out of context by tearing it in half. The commandment represents a complete thought and the thought is do not make an image in order to worship the image and not merely, do not make images.

Now, what of Deuteronomy 27:15? The author of the comment only quoted a portion of verse 15, the entirety reads, “‘Cursed is the one who makes a carved or molded image, an abomination to the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and sets it up in secret.’ And all the people shall answer and say, ‘Amen!’”

Note that considering the greater context of the Ten Commandments we know that this is in reference to making images in order to serve/worship them and so they will seek to set them up in secret for the purposes of idolatry. Thus, the readily discernable immediate and greater context make is clear what is meant by the condemnation of making images; that making images is not being condemned but making images in order to serve/worship them is condemned.

Further evidence of the accuracy of this conclusion is the fact that God actually command them making of images such as:

The making of images of cherubim (Exodus 25:18-20, 37:7-9, 26:1, 31, 36:8, 35, 1st Kings 7:18-20, 22). Images of fruits (Exodus 28:33-35, 39:24-26). Images of flowers (Exodus 37:19-20).

Images of oxen, lions, lilies, palm trees and bulls (1st Kings 6:23-29, 7:18-20, 22, 25-26, 29, 36, 2nd Chronicles 3:14, 16, 4:5, 13, 5:7-8).

Lastly, consider an interesting case in which “the LORD said to Moses, ‘Make a fiery serpent…’” (Numbers 21:8)—“fiery” meaning that it was to be an image of a poisonous serpent. Yet, when years later the Israelites began serving/worshiping this image Hezekiah, the king at the time, “brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan” (2nd Kings 18:1, 4).

The making of the image was actually commanded by God but much later when it was misused as an idol it was destroyed and it was named Nehushtan which means “a thing of brass”—in other words, you are worshipping a mere piece of brass that has been shaped into an image.

Thus, we see that with a little discernment, with a little curiosity, with a little skepticism, with actually going through the trouble of opening the Bible and seeing what it has to say for itself; fallacies such as those promulgated by the author of the comment in question are dispelled.

For a detailed consideration of the issue of images, please see On the Treatment of Images.

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

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

Twitter: #evilbible, #Atheism, #Bible
Facebook: #evilbible, #Atheism, #Bible

Serpent and Dragon in Philo of Alexandria, part 2

Herein we continue, from part 1, providing quotations and citations on Serpent and Dragon (within a Satanic context) from Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Allegorical Interpretation, II
XV “And they were both naked, both Adam and his wife, and they were not ashamed; but the serpent was the most subtle of all the beasts that were upon the Earth, which the Lord God had Made.”

XVIII “Now the serpent was the most subtle of all the beasts which are upon the Earth, which the Lord God Made.”

XIX For Moses says, “And the Lord God sent among the people deadly serpents, and they bit the people, and a great multitude of the children of Israel Died”…Moses, say, “We have sinned in that we have spoken against the Lord and against you; pray, therefore, for us to the Lord, and let him take away the serpents from us.”

XX How, then, can there be any remedy for this evil? When another serpent is created, the enemy of the serpent which came to Eve, namely, the word of temperance: for temperance is opposite to pleasure, which is a varied evil, being a varied virtue, and one ready to repel its enemy pleasure…Moses speaks truly, for if the mind that has been bitten by pleasure, that is by the serpent which was sent to Eve, shall have strength to behold the beauty of temperance, that is to say, the [brazen] serpent made by Moses in a manner affecting the soul, and to behold God himself through the medium of the serpent, it shall live.

XXI Do you not see that not only did the soul, while longing for the passions which prevailed in Egypt, fall under the power of the serpents, but that, also, while it was in the wilderness, it was bitten by pleasure, that affection of varied and serpent-like appearance?

XXVI Accordingly, the word of God in Leviticus recommends men “to feed on those creeping things which go on four feet, and which have legs above their feet, so that they are able to leap with Them;” among which are the locust, and the attacus, and the acris, (these are different kinds of locusts.) and in the fourth place the serpent-fighter; and every properly; for if pleasure, like a serpent, is an unprofitable and pernicious thing, then the nature which contends against pleasure must be a most profitable and saving thing, and this is temperance. Fight thou then, O my mind, against every passion, and especially against pleasure, for “the serpent is the most subtle of all the beasts that are upon the Earth, which the Lord God has made.”

In the next segment, we will consider Allegorical Interpretation III.

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

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

On the evilbible website; is it reliable?

A few years ago, I set up an email alert for anything published on the world wide web pertaining to the website evilbible. A few people had gotten to work considering its contents and writing detailed replies (see list of sources at the end of this article). This appears to have had an impact as the returns from that alter system have gone steadily down to virtually zero.

The returns that come in anymore are circa 49.5% from someone who is still dissecting/discrediting evilbible, 49.5% from a CNN website/blog troll who looks for any and every article on religion aka Christianity and posts a canned comment to the effect of evilbible has the truth. The other 1% are alerts to occasional mentions such as we will consider here from au.answers.yahoo.com.

The Yahoo Q&A system is just that; anyone can ask anything and anyone can answer, regardless of how lacking in substance their replies may be.

Having written very detailed responses to the contents of evilbible.com, replying to whole pages of theirs point by point and line by line, well, one this is certain; it is no wonder why its author refuses to debate the issues raised therein.

Now, considering that Atheism is an anti-Christian support group it is little wonder why, at least in its heyday, was viewed by Atheists as, well, inspired. After all, at least so the reason, it just quotes the Bible. These are, likely, the same people who believe that Adolf Hitler was a Christian because he quoted the Bible—apparently it is reasonable that the world’s most infamous anti-Semite worshipped a Jewish man as his Lord, God and Savior, go figure!

Here is the question posted to AU. Answers Yahoo:

Is evilbible.com giving real verses from the bible?

I’ve been interested in learning about Christianity (for fun) and came across this website that says many vicious verses from the bible are these verses authentic

http://www.evilbible.com/

When I searched them on the Internet they said they were authentic

If these are authentic I’m glad I’m not a Christian

If you find a white supremacist that claims that “Jews have horns” you can search that claim on the internet and find affirming statement which would authenticate the claim—so what?

One reply stated:

The verses are real, but Christians are going to say the website is taking them out of context.

What if they are out of context, are we then not allowed to state it? If you claim that something is out of context, be prepared to prove it.

Well, my reply reads as follows:

What evilbible is doing is to make an assertion (such as “this is what you are about to read”), the quoting fragments of texts (making them uncotextual) and then telling you what you are supposed to get out of them (such as “see, told you so” it only means what we say I meant).

It really is a very, very, very poor source of “info” and it is no wonder why its author refuses to debate the issues he raises.

Large portions of evilbible.com have been considered, dissected and declared fallacious on very many levels.

Two examples of this fact are as follows:

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding rape evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention the most relevant biblical text related to the biblical view of and law about rape. Why this omission? Who knows, but it would certainly have gotten in the way of a good session of emotive expression of prejudice-it would have discredited evilbible.com to reference this most important text. Indeed, those annoying little facts have an annoying way of getting in the way of good fallacious assertions.

Whilst besmirching the Bible for allegedly commanding human sacrifice evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that the Bible does not command but condemns human sacrifice. Evilbible.com, for some odd reason, neglects to mention that when the Bible reports that human sacrifices did take place they were carried out by Gentile Pagans who were not worshiping the God of the Bible but various false gods. When “Jews” were performing human sacrifices it was only when they turned away from the God of the Bible and joined Gentile Pagans in worshiping various false gods. Yet, in typical militant activist atheist fashion, evilbible.com does not condemn Gentile Pagans but only condemns the Jews.

Two replies read thusly:

Yes. They’re real. You can just pop the verses into google and see that they also appear on biblegateway.

And that’s just a small sampling of the nasty stuff that appears in the bible.

Yep there authentic, its an evil religion.

This is indicative of many who hate Christianity and love evilbible.com; they rain down brimstone and fire, they condemn, without providing, first, a premise upon which to base their condemnation. They are merely reacting emotionally.

Moreover, note that the question was about the Bible and the replies focus on besmirching Christianity and yet 3/4 of the Bible is the Jewish holy book(s). More evidence that Atheism is an anti-Christian support group.

Other comments read (these are three quoted in whole):

Yes, those are actual quotes from the Bible.

Great website! i like it. And factually correct (largely) too!

Yea, they’re true.

It is no wonder why the word gullible is not in the dictionary; these folks appear to think that partial, fragmented, verses strung together and sandwiched between assertions are good enough.

For actually, well researched replies to evilbile.com, see: TrueFreethinker – on evilbible.com

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

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

Twitter: #Atheism, #evilbible, #Bible
Facebook: #evilbible, #Atheism, #Bible

Evil Bible? Slaughter old, young, men, women and children

FYI: I just finished posting a series considering one of many talking point scare quotes that are oft employed against Bible believers.

Ezekiel 9:6 states, “Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children.”

For pseudo-skeptical-atheists a fragment of a verse is always enough information upon which to rain down condemnation.

Let not take a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext but let us delve into the immediate and greater statements.

ezekiel2c20michelangelo2c20sistine20chapel-4201679

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

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