Month: April 2017

Herein we continued, from part 1, a series regarding paranormal entities in text generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). The quotations are of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon.

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, considering Demons within texts generally termed the Apocrypha, Deutero Canonical, Pseudepigrapha, Gnostic Texts, etc. (see my article on the Apocrypha here). 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 in general and in apocryphal texts here. See my section on Cherubim and Seraphim in general and in apocryphal texts here and Satan in apocryphal texts here.

Demons in Acts of Andrew, Acts of Thomas, Acts of Andrew, Acts of John, Book of Thomas the Contender and Letter of Clement of Alexandria on Secret Mark.

The Acts of Andrew – 150-200 AD
6 Andrew …said: ‘If you believe in Christ you shall be freed.’ They cried: ‘We will.’ He thanked God and commanded the demons to appear; they came in the form of dogs…Then he bade the demons go into dry and barren places and hurt no man till the last day.

Acts of Thomas – 200-225 AD
47-50 Thy name is named in the book of life, and with thy brother whom thou hast received in our kingdom. And the King [as ambassador] sealed it because of the evil ones, even the children of the Babylonians and the tyrannous demons of Labyrinthus (Sarbug, Syr.).

Book of Thomas the Contender – 150-225 AD
Woe to you who love intimacy with womankind and polluted intercourse with them! Woe to you in the grip of the powers of your body, for they will afflict you! Woe to you in the grip of the forces of the evil demons!

Acts of Andrew – 150-200 AD
5 The son of Cratinus (Gratinus) of Sinope bathed in the women’s bath and was seized by a demon. Cratinus wrote to Andrew for help: he himself had a fever and his wife dropsy.

6 After this he went to Nicaea where were seven devils living among the tombs by the wayside, who at noon stoned passersby and had killed many…He thanked God and commanded the demons to appear; they came in the form of dogs…Then he bade the demons go into dry and barren places and hurt no man till the last day.

7 At the gate of Nicomedia he met a dead man borne on a bier, and his old father supported by slaves, hardly able to walk, and his old mother with hair torn, bewailing. ‘How has it happened ?’ he asked. ‘He was alone in his chamber and seven dogs rushed on him and killed him.’ Andrew sighed and said: ‘This is an ambush of the demons I banished from Nicaea.’

14 A citizen had a son possessed by an unclean spirit and asked for his cure. The demon, foreseeing that he would be cast out, took the son aside into a chamber and made him hang himself.

23 Lesbius’ wife went to the bath with the steward, and as they bathed an ugly demon came and killed them both. Andrew heard and said: ‘It is the judgement of God for their usage of Trophima.’

Acts of John – 150-200 AD
98 There are of the right hand and the left, powers also, authorities, lordships and demons, workings, threatenings, wraths, devils, Satan, and the lower root whence the nature of the things that come into being proceeded.

Letter of Clement of Alexandria on Secret Mark – 70-255 AD
…the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

In the next segment, we will consider Preaching of Peter, Origen and Sibylline Oracles.

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

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. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Herein we continue, from part 1, part 2, part 3, considering info on Angels in Augustine of Hippo (354-430 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.

Social networks:
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Herein we continue considering the UK’s Church And State’s 6 Things Religion Can’t Explain by Dean Van Drasek, February 5, 2015 AD—see the whole series here.

2. Why does God(s) care about humans?
Church And State’s Dean Van Drasek writes, “OK, the Hindu gods don’t care so much…the same wheel of reincarnation…where it’s a ‘you do this for me, and I will do this for you’ sort of arrangement.”

He then notes, “But with the monotheisms, you have to wonder why their god(s) bother. The Hebrew’s god loved the smell of burned animal flesh so, while there was a Temple around at which the sacrifices were made, YHWH got something out of the relationship.”

He then mentions that “in Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda needs people as his ally against Angra Mainyu, almost in the same way as Odin needs heroes to fight with him at the final battle of Ragnarök.” Yet, in fact, Zoroastrianism is generally not conceived of as being monotheistic but dualistic: two gods with one being subjectively “good” and the other being subjectively “evil.”
Drasek claims that in counter-distinction to Ahura Mazda and Odin, “the gods of Christianity and Islam don’t need soldiers, as its already pre-ordained that they will emerge victorious.”

Interestingly, according to him, he was asserting “6 Things Religion Can’t Explain” one of which is “Why does God(s) care about humans?” and while apparently “Religion Can’t Explain” (actually Darsek’s myopic knowledge of “Religion Can’t”), he thinks that he can as he writes, “So why do gods care about humans? Because they want to be worshipped?”

Yet, his point falls apart when after distinguishing different gods, he then lumps them all together in generically and generally stating, “They don’t have compassion for humans, since they send all non-believers (the vast majority of humans) to eternal suffering.” So, Darsek’s answer to “Why does God(s) care about humans?” is that they do not which means that his was a non-question.
He merely asserts that they do not “care about humans” but merely “want to be worshipped” and also do not “care about humans” because “they send all non-believers…to eternal suffering.” Yet, if, for example, someone wants nothing to do with God and proves this by not repenting and thus, holding on to their sin then God gives them that which they want: eternal separation from God.

Since, Darsek of clearly out of sorts he then asks “So why save some at all?” then demands that you “Please don’t say, ‘because they love us,’ unless you can look a starving child in the face and tell her how the god who created her loves her so much that he is sending her to hell for eternity.”
You see, this is not about reasoning through these issues but about Darsek expressing emotions. Here, he has touched upon the problem of evil and yet, he did not premise his condemnation of starving children or sending them to hell for eternity which means that he is merely expressing emotions.

Lastly, he merely asserts, “Let’s face it, the best explanation is probably that the gods were bored and so humanity and all creation is the cosmological equivalent of a Sony PlayStation for a divinity.”

Well, as we have seen, Drasek’s knowledge of theology is embarrassingly myopic which is why he generalizes and does not seem to even realize that not all “monotheisms” are created equal. The fact, is that Trinitarian monotheism denotes that in His nature and essence the Godhead consists of three co-equal, co-eternal persons which means that God has enjoyed relationships eternally. Moreover, this relationship is diverse amongst the persons of the Trinity and yet, unified as God is one.
Thus, God was not bored but created humanity so as to further share and express his relational nature.

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

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

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.

Twitter: #atheism, #religion, #bible
Facebook: #atheism, #religion, #bible

Siri answers James White about Trinity

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

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, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

Book review: “ABOMINATION – Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders” by William Ramsey

Paperback: 504 pages Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (December 1, 2012 AD) Language: English ISBN-10: 1479216631

ISBN-13: 978-1479216635

“Anyone who would do something like this is not like you or me.”
—Fred H. Tinsley, Jr.

William Ramsey holds a B. A. in History from the U of CA at Berkeley and is a member of the State Bar of CA. His book, “ABOMINATION – Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders” is not, nor it is meant to be, an everything you ever wanted to know about every detail of the West Memphis Three case but is a piece of the puzzle. This piece is to be fitted along with many others which form a more complete picture. The book is fascinating, disgusting, engaging, enraging, elucidating, filled with detail, well researched and well cited.

This case, a two decades long saga thus far, has many to take sides both for and against the guilt or innocence of the West Memphis Three (WM3). Keeping in mind that both sides must be considered for consistency, what William Ramsey decided to bring to the table, his piece of the puzzle, is “a significant amount of information about the occult”:

“My interest in the West Memphis Three case began in 2012 while examining the life and works of occultist Aleister Crowley. While undertaking continuing research into Aleister Crowley and those he influenced, I discovered a video on Youtube in which an exchange takes place between a prosecuting attorney…and one of the accused murderers, Damien Echols. Apparently, an enigmatic drawing in two alphabets (one English and one in a secret alphabet unfamiliar to the prosecution) by Echols drew the attention of the prosecutor, who asked why Echols referenced Crowley.”

It must be a happenstance that considering the occult nature of the crimes, the West Memphis Three triple homicide was case file is #93-05-0666.

This case is about three brutally murdered eight year olds—Steve Branch, Christopher Byers and James Michael Moore—and three accused, incarcerated and subsequently released (after circa two decades) teenagers—Damien Wayne Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, Jr.

The book’s chapters titles tell a tale of their own: The Murders, The Investigation, Damien, Jesse Misskelley: First Confession, Arrests, Gathering Evidence, Jessie Confesses: Again, Again and Again…., The Trial of Baldwin and Echols, Convicted, History of Witchcraft: The Occult Basis for the Murders, Witches and Witch Hunts: Past to Present, Satanic Killers , Cause Celebre Killers, Pro and Conned, A Dream Team with Star Money, Mage, Magick, Magickian: Damien Echols, Suspects, Jessie Misskelley: Bible, Jessie Misskelley: “Against the Advice of his Attorneys” Confession and Damien Echols and the Sign of Silence.

In investigating the crime:

“Police compiled detailed descriptions of potential suspects of all types: vagrants, mental patients, convicted sex offenders, oddballs, etc….Tips of all sorts kept them busy following leads: hitchhikers, school teachers, drifters, truck drivers, sex offenders and known occultists were investigated.”

In all, circa 71 individual suspects were investigated by West Memphis Police Department plus all the residents of the Mayfair Apartments, located near the murder site. All except for the West Memphis Three (WM3) were removed from suspicion.

A sizeable portion of William Ramsey’s ABOMINATION – Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders consists of official court document, police report, transcripts of interviews with the accused, etc. In other words, a sizable portion allows the accused to speak for themselves (at least, speak for themselves in accordance to that which they had to say at the time; some of which has been ever changing since).

For various reasons Damien Echols have become the public face of the West Memphis Three. Reasons include that he literally is the public face. All three have appeared at various functions and documentary showings but he seems to, more so than not, become the poster child for well, various things according to your take on the case: the misunderstood and railroaded troubled teen, the satanic murdered who all but got away with it, the white magic Wiccan painted as a black magick Satanist by ignoramuses, etc.

He is also the focus because within the context of the case, Ramsey’s book and the occult activity which was taking place in West Memphis at the time of the murders, he appears to have been the ring leader of, at least, the other two (Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, Jr.) although Jessie himself claimed (at one point anyhow) that Echols got his marching orders from an older man.

Much gossip abounded before, during and after the murders about occult cult activities in the are: hooded figures with painted faces chanting in Spanish (likely, Latin), strangers who would come into town for rituals, etc. In fact, there was an old abandoned and decrepit cotton gin known as “Stonehenge” (see attached slide show) wherein fires were kindled, animals were sacrificed and various activities were said to have taken place; from drug use to sex magick rituals and from blood drinking to the eating of sacrificed dog meat.

During the course of events:

“All of the cases were appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, in whose opinion saw no reversible errors in the original trials…Damien Echols’ case went to the United State Supreme Court, which denied a writ of certiorari, which indicates there were no legal issues the Supreme Court deemed worthy of consideration.”

Todd and Diana Moore wrote a letter to Academy Awards Chairman Robert P. Epstein in 2011 AD since “Paradise Lost III: Purgatory” was up for a documentary category nomination:

“Misskelley was tried and convicted in 1994. Baldwin and Echols were convicted by a separate jury later that year. All three entered Alford pleas to our son’s murder August 19, 2011. They are now, as they have been for the past 17 years, guilty as a matter of law.”

They also note the reality TV (read, fake) nature of the documentary and ask that, for example, Epstein, “Consider what happened to John Mark Byers. He was Christopher Byers’ adoptive father. Confrontations between Mr. Byers and Echols’ supporters at hearings were staged” as “Berlinger and Sinofsky were there to film these episodes.” In fact, they “would transport Mr. Byers to the hearings and wire him for sound beforehand” and “maneuvered Mr. Byers and Echols’ supporters in order to film the anticipated confrontations. Later, after the cameras were packed away, Mr. Byers acted like a different person.”

As it turns out:

“When asked about his change in demeanor, Mr. Byers stated that he was supposed to act that way when the cameras were present. Mr. Byers was quoted as saying he received $500 per hour for ‘exclusive interviews.’”

Ultimately, the West Memphis Three (WM3) were released under an Alford plea:

“Scott Ellington, the prosecutor who negotiated the Alford plea allowing for the release of the West Memphis Three, remained convinced that the convicted were indeed guilty, and said as much in an interview with Gentlemen’s Quarterly:
Prosecutor Scott Ellington also says he believes Damien, Jason, and Jessie are guilty. Straight-faced, he insists his decision to take the Alford pleas was a concession to reality, that he couldn’t hope to win three trials based on eighteen-year-old evidence. But he says they did it. ‘The evidence I saw,’ he tells me, ‘makes me believe they did it.’”

For his part, William Ramsey observes:

“Ellington specifically stated that he thought they were guilty, he just said publicly that he didn’t think he could win a new trial. It is the opinion of this author that he wanted to avoid another trial to prevent any negative impact upon his political aspirations. Ellington is currently running for Congress [written in 2012 AD].”

Since William Ramsey’s book ABOMINATION is not an everything you ever wanted to know; neither is this review as it focuses on the book. The spoiler alert is that Ramsey considers that the at law judgments were accurate and that Damien Wayne Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley, Jr. are guilty.
Thus, he offers some retorts to those who consider them innocent. Consider the following as a partial example:

“There is one common denominator for all the supporters of the West Memphis Three: they all saw one or all of the Paradise Lost documentaries by HBO. They then based their judgment on a 90 minute film and the continued profession of innocence by Echols and Baldwin…”

One specific claim is “The belief that Miskelley only had an IQ of 72”:

“That Misskelley’s IQ has been significantly low-balled is evidenced not only by his 84/88 previous performance scores – actually close to ‘average’ 90-105 range…It wasn’t until his lawyer had told him he might avoid the death penalty if he were judged mentally challenged, that Misskelley began performing poorly on his IQ tests…Footage of his lawyer Stidham telling him about the benefit of being deemed mentally handicapped is in the original Paradise Lost film.”

If there is such a thing as a satanic network then the greatest trick they ever pulled was convincing the world they do not exist. A focus upon satanic crime in the 1990s AD brought about the shrug it off claim of “satanic panic.” Hence, whenever someone make a claim about satanic crime the mainstream media has programmed us to say satanic panic and go back to focusing on Lindsay Lohan’s belly button lint.

Yet, satanic crime does exist and, as noted above, there are two relevant chapters in ABOMINATION; Satanic Killers and Cause Celebre Killers. These chapters provide a succinct retelling of the crimes committed by: Richard “Ricky” Kasso aka “The Acid King”; member of “The Knights of the Black Circle.” Robin Gecht (who used to work with of John Wayne Gacy who, in turn, used to rape and murder children while wearing a clown outfit), Edward Spreitzer, Andrew Kokoraleis and Thomas Kokoraleis; members of “The Ripper Crew.” James Ryan Bunnell who “stated in his writings that he was the ‘Son of Satan’ and desired to kill his entire family as a sacrifice to the Devil.” Jacob Delashmutt, Jospeh Fiorella and Royce Casey. Carl Drew and Robin Murphy of the Fall River satanic cult. Alexander Voronovic. Andrea Volpe, Nicola Sapone and Mario Maccione members of the heavy metal band “Bestie Di Satana” the “Beasts of Satan.” Pietro Pacciani and associates; the “Monster of Florence” Roderick Ferrell, Heather Wendorf, Dana Cooper, Charity Keesee and Howard Scott Anderson; the “Vampire Clan” and the “Black Mask.” Jim Hardy, Pete Roland and Ron Clements. Adolfo Jesus Costanzo aka “El Padrino” and Sara Villareal Aldrete. Daniel and Manuela Ruda; the “Beast of Satan killers.” Jack Abbott.

Jack Unterwager; “The Vienna Strangler” aka “The Vienna Woods Killer.”

As it pertains to the West Memphis Three case, Ramsey replies to the claim that, “The West Memphis Three were prosecuted because ‘they wore black clothing and heavy metal T-shirts’”:

“Echols…he had a well documented history of violence, psychopathy and suicidal ideation, leading to jail time and institutionalization in mental hospitals. Damien Echols was known to collect the bleached skulls of animals he found or killed. He assaulted his peers, and threatened to kill a number of people. His association with Satanic practices was known to the police and the community.”

In the end, although this saga is ongoing, Ramsey notes that in his 2012 AD book Life After Death, Damien Echols, “carefully avoids a detailed explanation of his whereabouts on the day of the child murders.”

But do not think that William Ramsey himself has tunnel vision as he notes various problems with the manner whereby the investigations were conducted, such as:

“By the end of this interview [on May 5, 1993 AD], Jessie had been at the police station for over six hours. In a colossal oversight by the presiding officers, only thirty minutes of the questioning was recorded.”

He also mentions other people, some unknown, that may have had something to do with the crimes. For example, there is the odd case of “Mr. Bojangles” so called because a man covered in mud and blood came in and occupied the women’s bathroom of a Bojangles restaurant for an hour. No one knows who he was and before he left, he also smeared fecal matter all over himself and the bathroom. Initially, Police Officer Regina Meek was called out to the restaurant and “talked to the manager out of the window of her car. She never left her police cruiser and drove off after receiving another call.” She had previously been called to take reports from the concerned parents of the, then only missing, boys. By the time Detectives Bryn Ridge and Mike Allen made it to the restaurant the man was gone and the bathroom had been cleaned up with the exception of a spot of what looked to be dried blood. The detectives extracted it as evidence. But evidence of what; they did not know and as the entire murder scenario was just then unfolding neither of them, “considered the evidence material to the current case. Upon his return to the police station, Ridge placed the container with the dried blood into his desk and promptly forgot about it.”

At this time, in the timeline, no one knew enough about the situation at large to connect the dots.

Ramsey also notes:

“A cab driver told of a passenger who paid 390 dollars for the drive from Memphis to Nashville on the night of the killings. The police never found the passenger.”

Be on the lookout for a follow up article based on Echols various interesting and troubling statements from sleep paralysis to the spirits with whom he consorted.
ABOMINATION – Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders by William Ramsey is an invaluable piece of the sorted puzzle which is the West Memphis Three case.

Gregg O. McCrary and Katherine M. Ramsland wrote the following in The Unknown Darkness: Profiling the Predators Among Us:

“We must understand how criminals think and realize that they have a fundamentally different view of the world from that of people who are basically responsible.”

“not like you or me.”

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

William Ramsey is also the author of, “ Prophet of Evil: Aleister Crowley, 9/11 and the New World Order” and “has written, produced, duct-taped and directed” the documentaries, “Occult Hollywood, vol.1” and “Prophet of Evil: Aleister Crowley, 9/11 and the New World Order.”

For more info and to order, see:
Homepage

Blog

Mrs. Swan Bates was a devout Christian, an excellent
scholar, fond of congenial society and very charitable.

In September 07, 1888 AD the Deer Lodge, Mont. newspaper The New North-West published an article titled, “A Giantess Dead” the focus of which was to announce the death of Anna Swan Bates, who was seven feet seven in height.

Here is the text of the article:

She Was a Native of Nova Scotia and Was Married to a Kentuckian Whose Altitude Was Correspondingly Great—Something of Other Big People.

The recent death of Mrs. Anna Swan Bates, “The Nova Scotia Giantess,” as the show bills had it, has set the curious to speculating once more on the cause of such freaks; but science has no satisfactory explanation. Of course there are tall races of men, and in some families there is a hereditary tendency towards a height of six feet or thereabouts; but “giants” proper are pure “freaks,” and in very many instances their parents are below the average height. Anna Swan’s father was but 5 feet 7 and her mother 5 feet 5; while the mother of her husband, Capt. Martin Van Buren Bates, was an unusually small woman, and his father only a good average Blue Grass Kentuckian. Mrs. Swan
Bates was of Scotch blood, born in Nova Scotia in 1848, and was big from the start; when full grown she was 7 feet 7, and as kind as she was big. She and her husband were highly respected at Seville, O., where they lived.

Every boy’s memory is stored with tales of “bloody giants,” such as “Bugaboo Bill” and the fellow whom Jack-the-giant-killer slew; and all the mythology of early peoples is full of fanciful stories of similar nature. In reality giants are the most peaceable of mankind, and very big women are almost always timid and tender hearted. It raises a smile to think of a sighing and sentimental maiden weighing 500 pounds; and the paragrapher has exhausted himself in witty calculations as to the length of time it takes a tender emotion to travel from the heart to the frontiers of her person. But it is anything but funny to the subject. She loves often with an ardor corresponding to her size; and pursuant to the usual perversity of nature, she is apt to love a small or average sized man. Many instances are on record of the marriages of such oddly assorted couples; and well it is that these gigantic ladies are tender hearted, for a matrimonial row with such a one is not to be thought of without a shudder.

The Greeks have given us the prettiest stories about giants; how they made war on the gods and flung mountains at them; how they were imprisoned under Aetna and struggled till the volcano overflowed ; how some of them forged thunderbolts for Jupiter, and how old Cyclops, the meanest of the lot, was made drunk and had his only eye jabbed out by Ulysses. They also gave us the name gigantess, meaning “born of the earth,” as they were supposed to have been gendered by the blood of Uranus falling on a fertile soil. It is quite likely the Greeks got these notions from fossil bones, just as millions of modern people have found “giant bones.”

This notion that men were formerly of immense stature is among the most persistent of popular delusions. Several years ago a showman traversed the west with the skeleton of a “mylodon robustus,” seated in an immense chair and surmounted by a hideous human skull (fashioned out of plaster for the purpose) and set with frightful glass eyes; and with it he exhibited the certificates of “several eminent surgeons” that it was a veritable human skeleton. The sight of it made even a stout man shudder, and it was no doubt responsible for thousands of nightmares.

There is no proof that there ever was a man ten feet high, but a few have reached nine feet, and many have exceeded eight, while in every age of which we have record there have been women weighing over 500 pounds.
Capt. Bates, husband of the recently deceased lady, is eight feet high, yet he served through the war in the Confederate cavalry, and was thoroughly “reconstructed” without a special act. Herr [Franz] Winkelmeir, of Austria, is the largest man now in the world—if that “9-foot giant in Africa” is a myth—being 8 feet 9 inches high, with unnaturally long arms, their reach being 104 feet. He was of average size till the age of 14.

Mrs. Emma Markley, cf Philadelphia, weighed 560 pounds; her coffin was 8 feet long, 4 feet deep and 45 inches wide, and as no hearse in the city could transport it to the cemetery ten strong men did that service. She was a delicate girl, and at 19 weighed but ninety pounds. She was notably kind and devoted to charitable deeds. “Twenty-three feet and nine inches of Robinsons” was lately one of the attractions of Knoxville, Ia., three brothers of that name being each 7 feet 11 inches high. “The marriage of the fat woman and the Albino” drew a big crowd to a New York dime museum some years ago; she was Maud Pettit, of Tyrone, Ireland, who weighed seventeen pounds at birth and 530 at maturity. The certificate was written with his toes by the “armless man,” the “horned man from Africa” and the “wild boy of Mexico” stood as next friends, and the “living skeleton” enlivened the occasion with some of his most venerable jokes. The wedding ring was bracelet size for the “snake charmer.”

Eight women were collected at Chicago in 1885, whose joint weight was 4,023 pounds, the largest and probably the heaviest in the world being Mrs. Hannah Battersby, weighing 728 pounds.

Scripture tells us of whole races of giants—the Nephilim, Anakim, Rephaim, Emim, Zuzim, etc.—but no figures are given. Enough is told, however, of Og, king of Bashan, to show that he was a “stunner,” and Goliath’s height was “six cubits and a span”—9 feet 9 inches.1
Aside from these, who excited as much attention then as they would now, it is conclusively proved that the average height of Egyptians and Israelites then was a little below that of Americans today2, and such of their tools and weapons as remain indicate that they were not so strong as modern races.

In conclusion it (can only be repeated that of giants and dwarfs, fat women and “living skeletons,” science has no explanation. Their parents are but average, and while attaining their growth giants are usually quite feeble, if not sickly. Capt. Bates especially suffered a great deal in “growing up.” In their mental and moral nature fat women do not differ from the rest of their sex. Mrs. Swan Bates was a devout Christian, an excellent scholar, fond of congenial society and very charitable.

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

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. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Under consideration is an article by Gina on the “Shredding the Veil” titled Giants: Rephaim, Zamzummim, Emim, Anakim, Nephilim, Zuzim, October 25, 2016 AD (find all segments here).

Gina lays it out her conclusion emphatically as that “There is no other acceptable conclusion than that the sons of God in Gen 6:2 were the faithful men of God who unwisely chose women of the unfaithful, and wicked men who lived according to the flesh.” Yet, this is an assertion as the text refers to the “sons of God” and “daughters of men” getting married and producing the Nephilim aka “giants” aka “fallen ones” and nothing about “faithful men” nor “unfaithful, and wicked men” nor that these “lived according to the flesh.”

She also specifies, “To argue…that the sons of God in Gen 6:2, and 6:4 were fallen angels is to say that sons of God are not led by the spirit of God. This is a contradiction of the scriptures!” This is a non-sequitur which gets us back to the point about Gina defining Genesis 6’s “sons of God” by exclusively and therefore myopically referring to Romans 8:13-14. The fact is that there are various references to “sons of God” within the Bible ranging from beings who witnessed part of God’s original creation (Job 38:7, also see 1:6 and 2:1) to Adam (Luke 3:38) to Jesus (various references such as Matthew 27:43) to believers (such as the Romans’ text). Overall, “sons of God” seems to refer to being directly created by God: the beings who predated most of creation were clearly directly created, Adam was created from dust/dirt/soil, Jesus was born of a virgin and believers are born again.

Thus, when Gina again emphasizes, “They cannot be fallen angels, led by lusts of the flesh, and also be sons of God led by the spirit of God!” she is not being specific enough and is painting with a proverbial broom.
She goes on to explain that “Genesis chap. 6 was not discussing fallen angels, but fallen, wicked, earth-born men.” Genesis 6 does refer to the Nephilim as “men” and yet, even on the Angel view of these were half human and are therefore rightly called “men”—we do the same in, for example, referring to Barack Obama as the first US “black” president even though he is half “black” and half “white.”

Recall that Gina referred to “faithful men” and “women of the unfaithful, and wicked men” but why did not any unfaithful men marry women of the faithful godly men? In other words, why was it exclusively male sons of God with exclusively female daughters of men? Or to put is as some would: why only male Sethites and only female Cainites? The Angel view makes perfect sense of this since biblically Angels look just like human males. Thus, only male Angels with female humans.

Gina ends by stating, “The so-called Book of Enoch is a fabrication” of which I will say that there are various books (plural) of Enoch and she is referring to “1 Enoch” aka “Ethiopic Enoch” and about which I agree that even though Jude quotes Enoch the seventh from Adam he may not have quoted “the book of” Enoch as we know it today and what we have today certainly seems to be a fabrication or perhaps an amalgam—see my section on these books.
She also notes that the “Book of Enoch…contradicts God’s word” with which I agree, see my Wherein the Book of Enoch contradicts the Bible.

She states that it “cannot be relied upon for any information” which is an overstatement. For example, if nothing else you can learn from it the manner whereby the Genesis 6 affair was interpreted by early writers—in fact, the Angels view was the preferred view amongst the early Jewish and Christian authors, see Early commentaries on Genesis 6: Angels or not? – interactive chart.

Gina concludes by stating, “The DNA for tall or giant people is still carried throughout the blood line of mankind. Goliath, at 6 cubits and a span, was about 9-1/2 ft tall. (1 Sam. 17:4) We have people today who are sometimes 7 feet tall. We see it occur now and then in each generation.”
Well, if “The DNA for tall or giant people” results in people who are 7-9 feet then giants were not so gigantic after all. As for Goliath, he is taller in Greek than he is in Hebrew as there is a discrepancy between manuscripts of these languages so that he ranged from 6.7 ft. to 9.8 ft.

Overall, Gina did a good job reviewing the info on “giants” even if she overemphasized the issue on occasion and she misses on the Genesis 6 affair issue mostly by being too myopic.

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

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. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

This is a succinct list of argument that atheists should not use. Some of these arguments have faulty premises. That is to say that the following should not logically develop beyond their fallacious or simply missing foundations. Some are simply contradictory when taken to their logical conclusion.

Some, I will comment on from perspective of a generic theistic worldview and others from a specifically Judeo-Christian one.

God cannot exist because evil exists. Unless the atheist can provide an absolute definition of “good,” they cannot complain about “evil.” And this does not mean simply being able to invent a definition but it means evidencing the what, when, where, why and how of good and evil in an atheistic universe: what, when, where, why and how does a blind, unconscious, non-volitional, amoral concoction of laws, energy and chemicals produce morality, or ethics, that are enjoined upon us.

The atheist must understand that in order to complain about evil they must contrast evil against an absolute good hence, an absolute moral/ethical code or law. This logically implies a moral code/law giver, which the atheist does not accept. Nature “cares” not for good, evil, morality/ethics but “cares” only for survival (this was pointed out during my debate with an atheist on the issue of morality). The conjure as to evolution being the moral law/code giver fails for various reasons including lack of evidence and arbitrariness.

Thus, the atheist wants it both ways: they want to appeal to an absolute moral law that will allow them to besmirch YHVH’s character but they cannot admit that the moral law has come from YHVH. Unless the atheist can evidence that a good God would not allow evil, they cannot define God out of existence for this reason. Also, unless the atheist can evidence that YHVH is not doing anything about evil, they cannot besmirch His character for a perceived lack of action. The reason that atheists besmirch the character of YHVH, as presented in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, is because they judge that character against their own theistic concepts. The Bible has taught about this subject since long before any atheist made the argument. And yet, atheists still make this argument, even though the answer has been available for millennia.

Simply stated: God did not create evil but did allow it to be produced by our freewill. In order to ultimately rectify evil God paid the price and offers us eternal salvation.

Recommended essays:
My Evil Thoughts
Was “the Problem of Evil” Solved Before it was Ever Proposed?
Find it Fast – Fast Facts: are you a metaphysician?
Morality’s Reality
“Love” and “Hate”-Defining Terminology
Atheism’s Theistic Concepts

God’s existence is irrelevant because I am a good person without believing in God. Just as stated above, the atheist must provide an absolute definition of “good” in order to claim that they are just that. In order to substantiate their claims of being good the atheist will generally end up, subconsciously, appealing to the morals/ethics of the Judeo-Christianity. They will state “I don’t steal, murder, lie, and I help people,” etc.

To an atheist being “good” may be besmirching theists at every possible opportunity. It may mean putting down and bickering with co-workers, friends and family members about theism. It may mean telling theists that they are ignorant, superstitious and unable to think. It may also be loving their neighbours and caring for their families.

Recommended essays:
“A Good Person”
Atheism On Meaning and Purpose
Oh, My Goodness!!!
Does Atheism Provide Ethical Grounding?

God cannot exist, or cannot be good/loving, because suffering exists. Unless the atheist can evidence that a good God would not allow suffering, they cannot define God out of existence for this reason. Unless the atheist can evidence that there is no purpose to suffering they cannot besmirch God’s nature for allowing, or causing it.This argument contradicts the non-theistic evolutionary concept held by atheists in general. This concept is the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

According to, the logical conclusion, of this view evil and suffering are good because their grease the wheels of evolution by both, ridding us of the less fit and preserving the fittest

Recommended essays:
Four Succinct Statements on Suffering
Our Much Learning Has Made Us Mad

God cannot exist because humans invented the idea of God. Unless the atheists can evidence that humans invented the idea of God, they cannot claim that God does not exist for this reason.

To make this argument is to commit the genetic fallacy, or ad hominem, it is to attack the person making the argument, the argument’s source, instead of offering a viable counter argument.

It would be saying that God (the argument) cannot exist because humans (the postulators) invented the argument. Maybe God exists and put it into the mind of humankind to conceive of Him.

Recommended essays:
God cannot exist because humans invented the idea of God
On the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorns, et al.

God cannot exist because no one has ever had an experience with God. Unless the atheists can evidence that no one has ever had an experience with God, they cannot claim that no one has ever had an experience with God.Unless every claim of an experience with God has been thoroughly investigated and determined to be fictitious (fraud, hallucination, deception, etc.), they cannot make this claim.

This argument is based on atheism’s presupposition, their a priori commitment to atheism. Atheism’s circular logic states that since God does not exist, no one has ever had an experience with God. There are no credible experiences with God because God does not exist. God must not exist because no one has ever had an experience with God.

Recommended essays:
Atheism’s Circular Logic
Atheism’s Faith Based Dogmatic Beliefs

God cannot exist because bad things happen to good people. As above: unless the atheists can offer an absolute standard of “good” and “bad,” they cannot define God out of existence by citing good and bad.The atheist must also provide absolute standards as to why God could not exist for the stated reasons. I.e., they must therefore demonstrate why God’s goodness would not allow bad things to happen to good people. Moreover, they must evidence that good cannot come out of bad. They must offer reasons why bad things ought not happen to good people.

If God cannot exist because bad things happen to good people what are we to conclude when considering the fact that good things happen to bad people?

Recommended essays:
“A Good Person”
Oh, My Goodness!!!
Four Succinct Statements on Suffering

If God existed God could simply make a personal appearance and end all arguments.
Unless the atheists can evidence that God’s appearance would end all argument regarding His existence, they cannot make this claim.

In fact, even if God personally appeared to every individual or Earth it would change nothing. Even if God appeared to every atheist on Earth they could still argue that it was a hallucination of some sort, technology based manipulation by aliens or the Illuminati (or, who knows what) and that thus, it never happened.

Recommended essay:
What Would Atheists Do If God Appeared To Them?

The supernatural cannot exist because we can only gain knowledge of real things through our senses.
Unless the atheists can evidence that we can only gain knowledge through our senses, they cannot argue in this manner. This argument is based on a belief in absolute materialism, which has not been evidenced.

Recommended essay:
“…Professing Themselves To Be Wise, They Became Fools…”

People believe in God because their parents raised them to do so.
Unless the atheists can evidence that people believe in God because their parent raised them to do so, they cannot make this argument. This argument is also contradictory since there are atheists who raise their children to be atheists.

Moreover, this argument denies that many believers believe due to a lifelong pursuit of truth. This is just another generic argument / ad hominem: parents teach their children about God therefore, God does not exist. This is as fallacious as claiming that since parents teach their children that 2+2=4 therefore, 2+2 for not =4.

Recommended essays:
Natural Born Atheist
Atheist Child Rearing

God cannot exist because religion breeds violence and intolerance. Unless the atheists can evidence that it is religion that causes violence and intolerance, they cannot use this argument (this is not even to deny that “religion” does so).

This argument ignores that violence and intolerance are caused by religion, politics, territory, atheism, material goods/resources, racism, sexism, wealth and poverty, science, atheism, etc., etc.

Since there are various reasons for violence and intolerance religion cannot be excluded as the only, nor the main, cause. Whenever anyone gets in power, regardless of what they believe, or claim to believe, they tend to abuse their position. Since atheists have likewise done this, their argument is hypocritical.
The Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005) was compiled by nine history professors who specifically conducted research for the text for a decade in order to chronicle 1,763 wars. The survey of wars covers a time span from 8000 BC to 2003 AD.

From over 10,000 years of war 123 wars, which is 6.98 percent, are considered to have been religious wars.

Recommended essays:
American Atheist’s Webmaster’s Astounding Assertions
Is the Atheist Argument from Religious Violence Cogent?
Find it Fast – Fast Facts: on religious wars

Christians are intolerant. Unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard of tolerance, they cannot claim that Christians are intolerant. If atheists do not tolerate those whom they consider intolerant then they themselves are not tolerant.

Intolerance comes in many forms such as political intolerance, religious intolerance, lactose intolerance, spousal abuse intolerance, etc.

Recommended essay:
Christians Are Jerks, Therefore, God Does Not Exist

It is arrogant to believe in absolutes / there are no absolutes / there is no absolute truth. Unless the atheist can provide an absolute standard by which believing in absolutes is arrogant, they cannot make this argument.

Of course, if they provide such an absolute standard they would be defeating their own argument. This is, in fact, a self-defeating argument since it presupposes absolutes. To state that there are no absolutes is to make an absolute claim. To claim that there is no absolute truth is to claim that it is absolutely true that there is no absolute truth.

Recommended essays:
Is Truth True?
Relativism is a Faith Based Belief Which is Paradoxically Both Relativistic and Absolutist
Monophobia

All things are relative. Playing off of the above: unless the atheists can evidence that all things are relative, they cannot make this claim.

This argument is hypocritical because the relativist is absolutely certain that relativism is absolutely true. Relativism is not a viable worldview, some people claim that they are relativists but they are not. They believe that relativism is true and that any other worldview is wrong-black and white, and no grayscale. The bottom line is that if all things really are relative then the very statement “all things are relative” is a relative statement and thus, ultimately meaningless.

It is arrogant to claim only one way of salvation. Unless the atheists can offer a numerical figure as to how many ways of salvation would free Christianity (and many other theistic systems) from the realm of arrogance, they cannot refer to the offer of one way of salvation as arrogant.This argument comes to us from a worldview that offers zero ways of salvation. Surely, an atheist would argue that salvation is not required for anyone since there is no such thing as sin. But even if they can, momentarily, grant a need for salvation would they accept that one way is to become a terrorist bomber? No, they would instantly become exclusivists.

Moreover, this proves the utter depravity of humanity: that we learn that there is, in fact, indeed, a way of salvation and we say, “Oh, yeah? Not enough!” Nay, we want to sing that, horrible, old Frank Sinatra song, “I did it my way.”

Recommended essays:
Exclusivism, Part I: Is Only One Worldview True?
Exclusivism, Part II: Is There Only One Way of Salvation?
Oprah Winfrey – Priestess of Spirituality and Preacher of Strict Exclusivism
In the Beginning…Cosmology, Part II – Book, Chapter and Multi-Verse

It is arrogant to claim that one is right and everyone else is wrong. Unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard by which claiming this sort of uniqueness is arrogant, they should not make this argument.This argument comes to us from a worldview that believes that all the theists, regardless of chronology, geography, or theology, have been 100% wrong. According to atheism they are right and all theists are wrong.

One time atheist, and later Christian scholar, C. S. Lewis wrote:

If you are a Christian you do not have to believe that all the other religions are simply wrong all through. If you are an atheist you have to believe that the main point in all the religions of the whole world is simply one huge mistake.
If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth. When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been wrong about the question that mattered to them most; when I became a Christian I was able to take a more liberal view.1

Recommended essay:
“…Professing Themselves To Be Wise, They Became Fools…”

It is arrogant to tell people that they are wrong. Playing off of the point made above: unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard by which telling people that they are wrong is arrogant, they cannot make this claim.

But what happens if someone is wrong? And are atheists telling us that some people are wrong for telling other people that they are wrong? They would then be wrong for telling people that they are wrong to tell other people that they are wrong.

Recommended essays:
Exclusivism, Part I: Is Only One Worldview True?
Exclusivism, Part II: Is There Only One Way of Salvation?
Oprah Winfrey – Priestess of Spirituality and Preacher of Strict Exclusivism
In the Beginning…Cosmology, Part II – Book, Chapter and Multi-Verse
“…Professing Themselves To Be Wise, They Became Fools…”

It is arrogant to push one’s beliefs down someone else’s throat. Unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard by which it is arrogant to push one’s beliefs down someone else’s throat, they cannot make use this argument. They must also offer absolute guidelines by which to determine when a person really is pushing their beliefs down someone else’s throat.

This argument is hypocritical because the atheists hold to a belief that it is wrong to push one’s beliefs down someone else’s throat and they push this belief down everyone else’s throats.

It is arrogant to claim to know what happens after we die. Unless the atheists can provide an absolute standard by which it is arrogant to claim to know what happens after we die, they cannot make a viable argument.Atheism is hypocritical in making this argument since atheists themselves claim to know what happens after we die. They hold to a faith based dogmatic belief in annihilation. Moreover, if I said that I did not know something it would not mean, nor evidence, that no one knows it. Atheism’s view of annihilation also demonstrates the utter lack of justice in their worldview. According to atheism the only justice to be had is by human laws and courts. If you can avoid getting caught (or, bribe your way out) you can literally get away with anything. In the atheist view Hitler lived a wonderful life (in a manner of speaking): he enjoyed his power, had thousands of loyal followers, and when the Reich was coming apart around him, he chose when to take his own life-period, that is all. In fact, in the atheist view Mother Theresa and Hitler ended up the same way-no heaven, no hell, no reward, no punishment, no glory, no justice. One left hope and inspiration, the other horror and despair and in the end, they simply came to an end-nihil.

Note this interesting statement by Unitarian Universalists, “Unitarian Universalists do not believe in Heaven or Hell as happy or evil places where people go when they die depending on how they have lived. We believe that no one can know what happens to us when we die.”2 Well, which is it? First they say heaven and hell are not places people go when they die and then they say that no one can know what happens when we die.

Ockam’s Razor defines God right out of existence as an unnecessary being. Unless the atheists can evidence that it is God that is the unnecessary being, the complexity in the equation, they cannot argue thusly.

What atheist’s fail to consider is that Ockham’s Razor cuts both ways. Since they hold to a dogmatic faith based belief in materialism they believe in the beginning energy/matter. Thus, any addition to this matter, such as a spiritual being, is an unnecessary complexity. Judeo-Christianity believes in the beginning God. Thus, beginning with God, as is logically feasible, materialism becomes that unnecessary complexity.

The bottom line is that Ockham’s Razor is merely a dictum and offers no methodology whereby to actually discern between two theories.

Recommended essays:
Ockham’s Razor Cuts Both Ways
Firmly By The Blade

Christians do good deeds for fear of God thus, Only atheists have pure motives. Unless the atheists can evidence that Christians do good deeds for fear of God and do not have pure motives, they cannot use this argument.Unless the atheist can read the minds, and determine the motivations of, Christians they are being maliciously judgmental in making such a claim. Moreover, the Bible makes it very clear that good deeds are to be done because there are people who need good deeds done for them, we are not to do good just to be noticed, we are not to do good only to those who do good to us, etc., etc. That YHVH will reward us is besides the point: our motivation is to be to help others.

This is just a plain old bad argument to make to Christians since the Bible does not teach a works based salvation. Moreover, an atheist may do good deeds for recognition, in order to get something back, etc., etc.

Recommended essays:
Only Atheists Have Pure Motives
Do Any Atheists Have Pure Motives?
The Red Light of Punishment
Is There a Common Misconception Regarding Absolute Moral Claims?
The O’Hair Fallacy

God cannot exist because the world religions disagree on God’s nature. This is a faulty premise. Let us offer an example: we ask one thousand people to give us the sum of 2+2. Each of the one thousand gives us a different answer; one of them tells us that the answer is 4. What do we conclude? All of them are wrong, because they all disagree? No one can ever know the answer, because they all disagree? There is no correct answer, because they all disagree? Or, is one of them is right and the others wrong? The blind men groping around offering different opinions as to what the elephant is are just that, blind men who are ignorant of the facts. But we can clearly see that they are dealing with an elephant and we can see that they are wrong in their various opinions. This is because truth is objective and absolute. Something is true whether we like it or not, whether we would prefer that it be different or not, whether we agree with it or not.

The fact is that one worldview is right and all of the others are wrong. Moreover, this argument exposes atheism’s hypocrisy since we could ask: “How could atheism be true considering that fact that there are various sects within atheism?”

Recommended essays:
Atheism’s Sects

It is ignorant and superstitious to believe in God. Again, without absolute standards this is an unviable argument. Apparently, we are to believe that: It is ignorant and superstitious to believe in God, but intellectual and scientifically enlightened to believe that there is no God. It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God created everything out of nothing, but intellectual and scientifically enlightened to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing. It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God is uncaused, but intellectual and scientifically enlightened to believe that the universe is uncaused. It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God created humans, but intellectual and scientifically enlightened to believe that humans spontaneously evolved from chemical pools that lead to modern man. If God created the universe, who created God? The universe is the uncaused first cause.

Etc., etc., etc.

Recommended essays:
Cosmology, Part I: Atheists and Scientists Avoid the Pre Big Bang Scenario at All Cost
Cosmology, Part II: Book, Chapter and Multi-Verse

Theists believe in God in order to fill the gaps in their knowledge.
Even if we grant that theists use the concept of God to fill the gaps in their knowledge we must note that atheists do the very same thing. They fill the gaps in their knowledge with the time of the gaps, the random chance of the gaps, the materialism of the gaps, (their own brand of) “faith” of the gaps, etc.

Recommended essays:
The Gap Filler

America’s Founding Fathers were… It is difficult to know how to finish this sentence/argument since it demonstrates a contradiction in atheism’s besmirching of Christianity.

On the one hand, when considering the freedoms that America offers (such as the freedom to establish organizations whose goal is to besmirch theism) they claim that the Founding Fathers were not Christians but were deists. On the other hand, when the issue is the Founding Father’s exploitation of the Natives and enslavement of Africans, atheist will claim that they were fundamentalist Bible believing orthodox Christians who evidence that Christianity is violent and oppressive.

Recommended essays:
One Nation Under Whom?!?!
Dan Barker Sues George Washington or, Happy Thanksgiving!!!

Atheism is not linked to Communism but Christianity is linked to Nazism. This is an argument that shocks us with a demonstration of atheism’s malicious ability to pray upon ignorance and exploit baseless emotive charges. At a certain point atheists who blame violence and oppression on theism find out that since atheists have done the very same things, they are disqualified from making such charges.Under the reign of atheists, particularly in the form of Communism, the world has experienced violence, oppression, starvation, and mass slaughter the like of which no theistic system has ever perpetrated. Faced with this clear contradiction, and faced with the dismantling of their “religion equals violence” argument, atheists seek to rewrite history and claim that atheism is not linked to Communism. This, of course, can be instantly discredited by the most cursory reading of any text written by Communists.Now to the charge that Hitler was a Christian, or more precisely, a Roman Catholic and thus, that Nazism is to be blamed on Christianity. Simply stated, Hitler may have been baptized as a Catholic, may have, at adventitious times referred to himself as such, may have been considered as such by “church” leadership. However, Jesus taught that we could know His followers by their fruits, Hitler’s fruits evidence that he was not a Christian.

Moishe Rosen has made the following observation, “Anyone who gives credence to such an accusation bestows upon Hitler the power to change theology.'”3

While one could never justify the Holocaust by appealing to the Bible/Christianity one could never condemn Hitler’s brutality by appealing to atheism. It is the Bible’s/Christianity’s very own morals that condemn the Holocaust’s brutality. By accusing Hitler of wrongdoing the atheist is presupposing a moral absolute, one that they must borrow from the Judeo-Christian scriptures. Evil done in Christianity’s name does not evidence the evil of Christianity, since no such evil can rightly be claimed as being prescribed in its orthodox teachings, nor did its founder or apostles engage in such actions, but it does evidence human evil.
Karl Schleunes wrote, “Darwin’s notion of struggle for survival was quickly appropriated by the racist…such a struggle, legitimized by the latest scientific views, justified the racists’ conception of superior and inferior peoples…and validated the conflict between them.”4

Recommended essays:
Adolf Hitler / Nazism / Communism
American Atheist’s Webmaster’s Astounding Assertions