Month: October 2017

VIDEO: Zeitgeist movie The Man From Earth

Serpent and Dragon in Philo of Alexandria, part 1

Herein we provide 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.

Serpent and Dragon in Philo of Alexandria’s On the Creation and Questions and Answers on Genesis.

On the Creation
LV It is said that the old poisonous and Earthborn reptile, the serpent, uttered the voice of a man. And he on one occasion coming to the wife of the first created man.

LVI And any one who follows a reasonable train of conjecture, will say with great propriety, that the aforesaid serpent is the symbol of pleasure, because in the first place he is destitute of feet, and crawls on his belly with his face downwards…And the serpent is said to have uttered a human voice, because pleasure employs innumerable champions and defenders who take care to advocate its interests, and who dare to assert that the power over everything, both small and great, does of right belong to it without any exception whatever.

LVIII But what has been already said is sufficient to show what the reasons were on account of which the serpent appears to have uttered a human voice.

Questions and Answers on Genesis, I
31 Why does Moses say that the serpent was more cunning than all the beasts of the field? (#Ge 3:1). One may probably affirm with truth that the serpent in reality is more cunning than any beast whatever.

32 Did the serpent speak with a human voice?

33 Why did the serpent accost the woman, and not the man? (#Ge 3:2). The serpent, having formed his estimate of virtue, devised a treacherous stratagem against them, for the sake of bringing mortality on them…Since therefore, in his old age, the Serpent (the ancients believed that the serpent became young again by casting his skin. Ovid says—Anguibus exuitur tenui cum pelle vetustas [My punishment is greater than I can bear]) strips himself of his scales from the top of his head to his tail, he, by his nakedness, reproaches man because he has exchanged death for immortality.

34 Why the serpent tells the woman lies, saying, “God has said, Ye shall not eat of every tree in the Paradise,” when, on the contrary, what God really had said was, “Ye shall eat of every tree in the Paradise, except one?”

36 Whence was it that the serpent found the plural word “gods,” when there is only one true God, and when this is the first time that he names him?…the devil proceeds with great art, speaking by the mouth of the serpent.

46 Why the man says, “The woman gave me of the tree, and I did eat;” but the woman does not say, “The serpent gave to me,” but, “The serpent beguiled me and I did eat?”

47 Why God curses the serpent first, then the woman, and the man last of all?…The first offence was the deceit practised by the serpent; the second was the sin of the woman which was owing to him when she abandoned herself to his seduction…But this order is very admirable, containing within itself a perfect allegory; inasmuch as the serpent is the emblem of desire, as is proved, and the woman of the outward sense; but the man is the symbol of intellect.

48 Why the curse is pronounced on the serpent in this manner, that he shall go on his breast and on his belly, and eat dust, and be at enmity with the woman?…since the serpent is the emblem of desire, representing under a figure a man devoted to pleasure.

50 Why God, as he had pronounced a curse on the serpent and on the woman which bore a relation to themselves and to one another, he did not pronounce a similar one upon the man.

In the next segment, we will consider Philo’s Allegorical Interpretation.

Is the movie “Zeitgeist” accurate?

Hereinafter are three documentaries that expose the errors in the Jesus related portions of the movie “Zeitgeist.”

The first one is an utter discreditation of Zeitgeist by its makes, in essence.
It proves again and again and again and again that when the movie maker and one of their top scholars are asked to provide evidence for their assertions in the movie they admit again and again and again and again that yes they claimed ______________ (fill in the black) but in reality the facts is that ______________ (fill in the black).
The movie maker and one of their top scholars discredit themselves even whilst interviewing each other in support of the movie.

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

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.

Are atheist activists gaining ground on college campuses?, Part 3 of 9

We now continue considering the article Atheism Groups Grow on College Campuses, from which we are gleaning certain issue of interest. Find this whole series here.

The article notes:
“It’s nice to be around people who aren’t going to bash me for believing in nothing,” said Bricelyn Rector

This is another excitable new atheist talking point 101. Atheists believe in nothing? This is a belief in nihilism. Even a belief in nothing implies a belief in something such as that it is logical to believe in nothing, that to believe in the something upon which others believe is illogical, that it is meaningful to proclaim that one believes in nothing, etc.

The University of South Florida is home to…an atheist group that protested an anti-abortion group’s campus visit.

This is another moral statement based upon merely subjective personal opinions which support the inhuman, subhuman and inhumane brutal and painful dismembering murder of beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies.

motivational20poster2c20secular2c20atheism2c20new20atheists-9978495
You can purchase this design on a shirt, sticker, etc. at this link

At the University of Southern Maine, a secular humanist organization has celebrated HumanLight, a secular alternative to Christmas and Hanukkah.

This goes a long way towards showing that the majority of what is known as atheism is merely a system of self-worship (see iTheism), it is neo-Pagan atheism (see Atheism as nature worship or neo-paganism). Atheism is the valium of the people and it is so utterly hopeless and meaningless that atheist simply must beg, borrow and steal from religion in order to pretend some sense of spirituality, community, etc. The mimic the forms of religion whist emptying those forms of substance, the are merely going through motions, they possess an empty façade.

…the Iowa State club…worked with a Methodist church on a gay rights candlelight vigil, a gesture that would make some atheists cringe…Victor Stenger, an adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado…
“People bring up Jesus, they’re trying to proselytize, trying to get people to go to church,” Stenger said. “The atheist groups just can’t put up with it. They have to argue against it.”

What?!?! Christians are bring up Jesus, trying to proselytize and trying to get people to go to church?!?! Who would’a’thunk’it? But why is it that The atheist groups just can’t put up with it? What must they argue against?
Firstly, notice that there appear to be many atheist Popes dogmatically proclaiming that which all atheist must believe and do: atheist groups (plural) have to (moral prescription) argue against it.
But why is it that atheist groups (plural) just can’t put up with it? After all, we were told that Many stress that their lives are guided not by anti-religiousness. Well, “Many” is not “every” and we are getting a taste of the reactionary anti-religion voices about which we were told. But imagine that: atheist partner with Christians and then decide that they cannot put up with Christians comporting themselves as Christians, who would’a’thunk’it? In the end, Christians acted like Christians—sharing the love of Jesus—and atheist acted like atheists—having nothing to offer but riding Christian coattails and exhibiting anti-Christian sentiments.

Brian Gress [noted] “You should always try to make friends, but there are certain things about religion that can’t be tolerated,” Gress said. “Basically, the intolerance of religion can’t be tolerated.”

Here is another dogmatheistic proclamation, You should always.
Now we get a taste of the youthful pseudo-compassion, pseudo-diversity, pseudo-tolerance that is being promulgated thought pop-culture: there are certain things about religion that can’t be tolerated…intolerance of religion can’t be tolerated. Tolerance is not putting up only with those things with which you already agree. Tolerance is actually putting up with those things with which you disagree. If you do not tolerate the intolerant then you are not tolerant yourself.

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

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.

ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society

MadTV

Iowa State University

Atheist and Agnostic Society

Are atheist activists gaining ground on college campuses?, Part 4 of 9

We now continue considering the article Atheism Groups Grow on College Campuses, from which we are gleaning certain issue of interest. Find this whole series here.

Now we come to the segment wherein we consider whether the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society is as it is claimed below:
“This is not a group of angry atheists. It’s a group of very exuberant atheists,” said faculty sponsor Hector Avalos…”Their primary aim is not to destroy the faith of Christians on campus. It’s more live and let live.”

Let us consider the content of their website as a clue to their true purpose. Home page, top, front and center is what? A photo of the Society with Mr. Belligerent Militant Atheist himself, Richard Dawkins.

motivational20poster2c20secular2c20atheism2c20new20atheists-3812149
You can purchase this design on a shirt, sticker, etc. at this link

They sell a t-shirt with the club’s name on the front and this on the back, “The deepest sin against the human mind is to beleive [sic] things without evidence.” As they explain it, “The quote is from Thomas H. Huxley, friend of Charles Darwin, and creator of the term agnostic.”
Indeed, he did and this is rather interesting coming from an Atheist and Agnostic Society. You see, the popular modern day definition of atheism, at least when it is proclaimed to those who would challenge atheism, is to claim that atheism is merely a lack of belief in god(s). Granted, even the celebrity New Atheist types positively affirm God’s non-existence but that is generally only to friendly audiences who applaud their every bit of malarkey—see Some celebrity New Atheists who positively affirm God’s non-existence

However, when you consider the Definition of “Atheism” you will note that the very reason that Thomas H. Huxley coined the term agnostic (lack of knowledge) is that he saw that on the one hand, there were theists who positively affirmed God’s existence and on the other hand, there were atheists who positively affirmed God’s non-existence. Thus, he sought to coin a term for a middle position and one that considers both theists and atheists as lacking enough evidence either way.
Thus, it must be interesting when the atheists of the group claim that they simply lack a God believe due to what they consider to be a lack of enough evidence. The agnostics must be thinking, “And what are we, chopped liver?”

The only blog to which they link is John Loftus’ Debunking Christianity which is merely an anti-Christian support group if there ever was one (and one that Mr. Marcus has been taking apart).
Some of the podcasts to which they link are also anti-Christian support groups such as The Non-Prophets, Freethought Radio, The Atheist Experience, etc.
Their “Selected Individual Writings” include works by Dan Barker (who has but one out of tune note to play, I’m an ex preacher who stated, “Darwin has bequeathed what is good” and who claims that rape is not absolutely immoral) and Keith Parsons (who, for some odd reason, thinks that a good debate tactic is to repeatedly yell out, “I will not believe!!!”).

Their book store lists the usual suspects, the very celebrity atheist who have done a great job of giving atheists a bad name: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. Seems that the ISU Atheist and Agnostic Society have contracted the DHDH meme (also see “Inception” the movie and the meme – the New Atheist cover is blown).

One of the website’s articles is titled Faith the Bedrock of Bad Ideas that Religion Rests Upon. Sadly, the term faith has been mis-defined by atheists as belief without evidence when, in reality (at least from a Judeo-Christian perspective) faith is a logical conclusion.
The fact is that we are all metaphysicians because, form the most fundamentalist young earth creationists, to the most self assured positive affirmation of God’s non-existence, all worldviews / philosophies are premised upon axioms that are not evidenced nor proven but are assumed, they are intuited and presupposed.
What greater faith (of the belief without evidence variety) is there but atheism itself?

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

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.

Search