Month: October 2017

On occasion I have written about the issue of slavery/servitude in the Bible. Note that by merely writing and thinking in terms of “slavery/servitude” you have just dissolved just about every atheist besmirching, via appeals to slavery, of the Bible (this is even though the atheist cannot even condemn slavery beyond informing you that they have personally decided to condemn it—which is a tautology, by the way).

I wished to focus upon one text which is ubiquitously employed a well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-point; namely, Exodus 21:20-21.

I will begin by providing examples of the manner in which the talking point has been expressed. I will cite some of the following quotes if they were published in an article/post but not if they were written in the form of comments to an article/post:

Q: Is it OK to beat your slave?
A: Yes, as long as the slave does not die from the beating withing [sic] the first day, you are considered innocent.1

Slowly beating your slaves to death It’s okay with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death. After all, they are your money. Just make sure that they survive at least a day or two after the beating…

It’s okay to beat your slaves; even if they die you won’t be punished, just as long as they survive a day or two after the beating (see verses 21:20-21). But avoid excessive damage to their eyes or teeth. Otherwise you may have to set them free.2

Go ahead, Beat your slave with a rod.

beat your slave as long as he or she can get up after a day or 2.

you can beat your slave without mercy, just dont [sic] kill him.

you can beat your slave all you want, but don’t kill him! you’ll get in trouble.

it’s okay to beat…beat your slave to death [ellipses in original].

I do not see how that says anything other than “it’s OK to beat your slave so long as you don’t kill or seriously injure the slave”.

To be unwarrantedly fair, the “if your slave dies, it is a problem,” verse does indicate that if your slave actually gets up after a couple of days then it is okay; which is to say, it is perfectly alright to beat your slave almost to death.

no explicit condemnation other than not to beat your slave TO DEATH.

you can beat your slave so hard he dies 3 days later.

Beat your slave, just make sure he doesnt [sic] die!

One such law is that you’re allowed to beat your slave all you want, as long as you don’t kill them

you are allowed to beat your slave as much as you like as long as you don’t knock out his eyes or his teeth.

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.3

Exod. 21:21 allows a slave owner to beat a slave to death, as long as it is an unintentional result of the severe beating.4

You can beat your slave with a rod and its all good if the slave can get up AFTER A DAY OR TWO! The beating is so bad the slave needs a day or two to recover, amazing!5

it is legit to beat your slave as much as you want to.

God condoned, instituted and regulated salvery [sic], including giving detailed instruction how to beat your slave if you beat your slave and he dies right away then that is wrong, but if he dies slowly a few days later, than all is peachy.

It is okay to beat your slave as long as the slave does not die as the master owns the slave.

You could beat your slave, almost to the point of death.

Beating one’s slave to death (legal, as long as death lingers and is not immediate.6

If I am to understand correctly; the message is that it is perfectly acceptable according to the Bible and its God to beat one’s slave. I actually encountered so many permutations of this atheist talking point that I had to stop at some point but atheist literature, websites, blogs and comment sections are saturated with likewise sentiments.

The message of Exodus 21:20-21 seems pretty clear: God commands those who follow Him to beat their slaves; this was recorded in the Bible and has been promulgated for millennia. Let us consider the text, the actual quote, the statement, made in Exodus 21:20-21

And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Incidentally, note that “for he is his property” is actually a dynamic translation/interpretation of one single word: keceph which means money, silver, shekel—a monetary amount.

Now, the claim is that the Bible states that God considers it okay to beat your slaves…let us stop here for now: where does it state any such thing? It states no such thing whatsoever. What it states is “if a man beats…” Now, this is a big IF which spells the difference between the atheist assertion and what the text actually states. The texts is referencing what the litigious result are to be if this happens and there is absolutely no indication in the entire Bible that any such beating is being commanded or allowed. But perhaps this “if” is a merely fluke, an accident of grammar, an inference from the context, etc.

Not so. This is because the entire context of the entire chapter is the laying out of hypothetical scenarios and their litigious consequences. The chapter is premised by the phrase, “Now these are the judgments which you shall set before them” and proceeds in an “if this then that” manner: if someone does this the consequence is that. Stating that “if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod…” is an approbation is tantamount to claiming that if the law of the USA states, “If one person beats another but does not kill them, then…” it would mean that the law of the USA commands people to beat one another just short of death.

As I stated, it is not so that the “if” in an incidental since the entire chapter is likewise understood; here is a sample:

If you buy a Hebrew servant…If he comes alone…If his master gives him a wife…if the servant declares…If a man sells his daughter as a servant…If he selects her for his son…If he marries another woman…If he does not provide her with…if he does not do it intentionally…if a man schemes and kills…If men quarrel…if the other gets up and walks…If a man beats his male or female slave…if the slave gets up…If men who are fighting…if there is serious injury…If a man hits a manservant or maidservant…if he knocks out the tooth…If a bull gores…If, however, the bull has…if payment is demanded…if the bull gores…If the bull gores…If a man uncovers a pit…If a man’s bull injures…if it was known…

And to reiterate, note the qualifiers, “If…If…If…if…If…If…If…If…if…if…If…if…If…if…If…if…If…if…If…If…if…if…If…If…If…if…”

Atheists seem to read this as “Since you are commanded by God to beat your slave…” but it is merely speculating about what “If” someone does such a thing. Yet, overall the atheist may think that it is okay because there is not punishment in the second scenario. Firstly, let us note that despite the atheist revision of servant as mere property if the servant was murdered the owner was punished. That the servant could have been considered to have been murdered speaks of their status—otherwise if a servant was killed it would be merely deemed too bad and not even so sad.

I must state that it seems that atheists find such detailed consideration, as those already considered and those which are to follow, simply too much with which to deal as they prefer the emotive nature of their one liners. I find that when I really attempt to understand and explain a text the atheist shouts “Rationalization!” Atheists cannot seem to decide if believers take the Bible too literally or not literally enough—I suppose they just grab whichever club is closest to them at the time when they want to beat upon the Bible and believers.

To reiterate what we are dealing with is the laying out of a carefully regulated litigious system which carries along with it concepts of eyewitnesses, the case being brought before judges and all with which such a system comes.

Note that vv. 12-14 states

He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. However, if he did not lie in wait, but God delivered him into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.

Note that what is being distinguished is what we would call degrees of murder and which we generally define in terms of: first degree—intentional, deliberate and premeditated. Second degree—occurring during the carrying out of a crime such as during a robbery “gone bad.” Third degree—another degree denoting unintentionality.
Thus, in these verses we see the overarching law is that the consequence for murder is capital punishment yet, there are distinctions and considerations such as self-defense (as when the person is delivered into my hands and I then flee to escape retribution from their family, etc.) and premeditated murder.

Now consider vv. 18-19,

If men contend with each other, and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but is confined to his bed, if he rises again and walks about outside with his staff, then he who struck him shall be acquitted. He shall only pay for the loss of his time, and shall provide for him to be thoroughly healed.

Note that the point is that they were fighting and did not intend premeditated murder. In such a case, one person was hurt enough to require recovery and was compensated for his time.

Is it any accident that it is the very next verses with which we have been dealing? Consider the context thus far and let us read the verses in question again—vv. 20-21

And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

Thus, we see that we are dealing with someone who for some reason took it upon themselves to beat their servant—if some does this—it does not seem to be considered murder in the first degree yet, there is a punishment (to be determined by the judges and or referring back to the initial law regarding capital punishment).
As for the second case, note that we previously saw that a person was to have a pain and suffering type of recompense for loss of time which equals loss of earnings. In this case, the loss of earnings is the master’s and so there is no one to recompense. Moreover, note that since the servant remains alive a day or two the legal conclusion may have been that the master did not intend of murdering them and did not kill them unintentionally as in the first case (technically: “murder” is illegal and immoral—such as premeditation, while killing is legal and moral—such as in self-defense).

Note also that such was the view of servants in Israel that, vv. 26-27

If a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant, and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye. And if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth.

If the master damaged their servant they were to release them.

How is it okay to beat them just short of death but not damage their bodies? Because the atheist is misunderstanding the various scenarios and considerations of intent and outcome which this legal system is considering.

Note also that the servants were to rest on the Sabbath just like any Israelite (Exodus 20:10; Deuteronomy 5:14). Note that if a servant had occasion to “escaped from his master” and came to you they were to “dwell with you in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it seems best to him; you shall not oppress him” (Deuteronomy 23:15-16).

Perhaps most importantly is that all laws regarding slavery/servitude were premised on the variously mentioned reminder

You shall remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the LORD your God redeemed you (Deuteronomy 15:15).

In fact, it is a Jewish tradition that every generation of Jews consider themselves as having been personally freed from slavery in Egypt.

‹ Does the Bible and its God Condone Slavery? up

With regards to slavery in the Bible and the claims of biblical defense of slavery it is no surprise that Evilbible.com offered their two shekels on this subject.

Let us consider every statement made in their page Slavery in the Bible which begins thusly:

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

Let us note from the outset that while it is asserted that “Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do” evilbible.com, being written from an atheist perspective, offers no premise upon which to condemn murder, slavery, the beating of slaves, sex with the female slaves or anything at all since they employ the term “immoral” but do not define it nor premised it upon any ethical foundation whatsoever.
The only premise upon which they assert any condemnation at all is an argument from outrage. They condemn strictly based on the fact that they personally prefer to condemn. As has been noted in my various considerations of the contents of evilbible.com (found here) their arguments from outrage are often accompanied by arguments to ridicule, arguments to embarrass, etc. but no arguments premised upon scholarly integrity or an overarching ethos.
Now, this is not merely an arbitrary observation: since they do not, or cannot, provide an absolute standard upon which to condemn slavery why should we reject the Bible and its God due to slavery (even granting evilbile.com misconception of the issue)? But let us go on and consider this rightly emotive and complex issue.

Let us proceed and see if they deliver upon their assertions about slavery in the Bible:

Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

Note the assertion; many translations replace “slave” for other words “to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is.” But from what does this follow? It could very well be, as it is, that the reason is that context determines meaning and so various translations are grammatically warranted particularly when different words are employed—as we shall see. This is one of evilbible.com’s tactics: poison the well. Having begun by asserting that the Bible and its God command and condone slavery and the mistreatment of slaves it is being further asserted that a sort of conspiracy is afoot which seeks to hide behind terms that are less emotive than “slave.” This is not evidence, it is a mere assertion of conspiracy.

Evilbible.com goes on to state:

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

Something to be aware of is that the author of evilible.com appears to change the translation from which they quote according to which one they perceive will make their point juicier (in this case they quote everything from the NLT with the exception of one from the NAB).

Note that the relevant passages from Leviticus 25, namely vv. 39-55, make reference to and distinguish between a “slave” or “bondservant” (`ebed) and a “yearly hired servant” or “hired servant” (sakiyr). Within the text an explanation is given, via a correlation, as to why the slaves bought from the Gentiles were to be permanent (unless they are mistreated such as having even one single tooth knocked out Exodus 21: 26-27 in which case they were to be let go).

Verse 55 reads,

For the children of Israel are servants to Me; they are My servants whom I brought out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Thus, just as God freed the Israelites from slavery in Egypt to serve Him, the Israelites could free Gentiles from Gentile nations to serve them. It seems rather odd to correlate freedom with servitude yet: they, both the Israelites with Egypt and the Gentiles with their nations, were being liberated from malevolence and would now enjoy benevolence. In Israel, Gentile slaves were afforded virtually unheard of rights and privileges.

An important text to note with regards to the concept of freedom for servitude is that engaging upon the manner in which we think of slavery—basically; kidnapping people—was punishable by death,

He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death (Exodus 21:16).

Evilbible.com continues:

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Evilbible.com provided a commentary to this text which reads:

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

Notice the distinctions that are being made between: 1) someone who married afterward 2) someone who was married before and 3) someone who engages upon an arranged marriage via the master. Is this a case of taking hostages? No.
The reason for the distinction is clear if, as in 2), a man was married before he had been financially responsible for the care of his wife. However, if, as in 1) and 3), he was married afterward then his master has been financially responsible for the wife (and children). This means that the man would seek employment elsewhere while the wife and children would continue working for their goods, food and housing as they, and where they, have been.

Now, why would a Kunta Kinte love his master? He would not. But why does the slave in the text say that “I love my master”? Aha! He does not! He is actually said, “I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.” Thus, he is obviously being coerced and is just pretending to love his master to not be torn away from his family. Yet, such an interpretation is reading anti-biblical prejudice into the text. Clearly, he is happy where he is; working with his family, or for his family, for his goods, housing and food. And that is the point: instead of working for money and then purchasing goods, housing and food he is working directly for goods, housing and food.

Evilbible.com goes on:

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

This is what I meant about emotive arguments form outrage as this is described a “sickening practice.” In any regard, I already dealt with this issue in detail in my essay Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 2 of 6. Thus, here I will merely note that the text is clear and very different from the assertion that this constitutes a “sex slave.”

Above I noted a difference between a slave/bondservant (`ebed) and a yearly hired servant/hired servant (sakiyr). In this case, while the NLT translated all of these are “slave” we encounter another words, another concept, this is a maidservant (`amah).

It must be understood that the historical, cultural and overall grammatical context is that someone in financial woe could go into servitude as a mode of employment. In this case a man is having his daughter become a maid. Yet, a lot more is involved and absolutely none of it has to do with sex, slavery and most certainly not with sex slavery. Simply read the text quoted by evilbible.com whilst ignoring what evilbible.com wants you to think about it:

She is to be a maid for six years or be freed at any time if she is not doing a good job. The homeowner is not allowed to break the contract with her. He is not allowed to sell her but may let her go.

I know that this is quaint by today’s standards (which have devolved) but back in the day virginity was a virtue and was actually verified prior to marriage. If a marriage was arranged—note: marriage and not sex slave—her status changed from maid to member of the family.

If—note: if—she married—note: marriage and not sex slave—but the homeowner also took another wife she was not to be neglected in any way.
If—note: if—he does neglect her in any way she was not bound to remain there either as a maid or as a wife.
No sex (except after marriage), no slavery and no sex slavery at all is envisaged, except for in the troubled mind of evilible.com’s author. Just consider the commentary on this text,

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!

Yet, as we saw in the very text which is quoted there is no sexual slavery and in fact no fornication at all but only the implied copulation after marriage.

Evilbible.com further states:

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Since I have dealt with this text in the essay Does God Command You to Beat Your Slaves? I will merely note that of the fourteen translations which I checked ten state “if” and four “when” (NAB, YNG, RSV, ESV). The NLT from which evilbible.com quotes all of the other texts states “if” and so it appears that they thought “when” was more damning—it actually is not when we consider the context. Having researched this issue, and having a basic understanding of hermeneutic; how to determine context and perform exegesis versus eisegesis (or isogesis) I know that “if” or “when” do not make a difference to the text even thought evilbible.com’s author seems to think that it does.

It seems as if “When a man strikes…” is taken to mean “Since God is commanding you to strike…” but the chapter in which the statement occurs—which begins by stating, “These are the rules you shall lay before them”—presents various hypothetical scenarios and offer their legal ramifications. The whole chapter consists of; if someone does this then that will be the ramification—or when someone does this then that will be the ramification.

The NAB peppers whens and ifs thought the chapter:
“When…If…if…if…if…If…When…if…If…If…If…when…When…When…If…When…if…When…If…When…if…If…if…When…When…if…When…”

Evilbible.com’s author states that what the Bible says about beating slaves is that “you can” but it lays out the consequences for if and when it occurs and does not state that you can—not “you can beat” but “if one beats” or “when one beats.” The law in the USA may read, “When one person murders another the ramifications are…” this does not mean approbation—it is not a prescription but a description, the only prescription in the text is the ramification.

Evilbible.com goes on to state:

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Since we are now dealing with Greek let us note that we are dealing with doulos a servant, a bondman. We are again dealing with people who found themselves in financial difficulties so that they made themselves servants in order to subsist. As in certain cases that we have already considered; this amounts to working directly for goods, housing and food instead of working for money.
Moreover, the message of the texts is readily discernable: no matter the circumstances in which you find yourself you can always find a way to behave in a Christian manner—serve them sincerely, respectfully, you have no excuse for being disrespectful and you should even work all the harder.

Evilbible.com also asserts:

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.” (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Firstly, note that, as admitted, Jesus was speaking in a parabolic manner thus, references to cultural norms are to be taken parabolically. I may find myself in Mexico telling a parable which plays upon the concept of cock fighting because the reference would be culturally recognized—this would not amount to an approbation. It must also be noted that the cultural norms are those of Rome and not Israel.

In the first case the servant is “severely punished” due to the fact that “he knew his duty, he refused to do it.” In the second case the issue is what we enlightened modern people living in first world countries still believe, which is that ignorance of the law is no excuse—this does not stand up in any modern court.

Speaking of beatings; just what had the parabolic servant done? He had been left in charge of the household while the owner was away and took it upon himself to “beat the male and female servants, and…be drunk.”

Overall, we have yet again encountered evilbile.com dealing out condemnation without foundation or even definition. We have seen that they attempt to talk the reader into forcing the texts, the Bible, and God, to state that they do not state. And we have seen even more examples of evilbile.com’s misunderstandings, misapplications and misreadings of the Bible whilst exhibiting a lack of knowledge of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts.

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

For further reading on this issue please see the following:

Defending the Bible’s Position on Slavery

As well as, “…Does God condone slavery in the Bible?” in two parts:
Intro and OT discussion
The issue of ‘slavery’ in the NT/Apostolic world (esp. Paul)

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

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.

I realized that I had neglected to mention something whilst discrediting evilbible.com‘s claims that there is ritual human sacrifice in the Bible.
You may recall that there indeed is ritual human sacrifice in the Bible when, that is, the Bible is recording the doings of Gentile Pagans or Jew who have gone astray by worshiping Gentile Pagan gods. For some odd reason evilbible.com‘s author never got around to condemning the Gentile Pagans but, in typical atheist fashion, kept going back to condemning the Jews. And doing to based on misunderstanding, misapplications which came about by taking texts out of context to make pretexts for prooftexts.

In Atheism, Ritual Human Sacrifice in the Bible, and EvilBible.com, part 2 of 5 evilbible.com‘s author was quoted thusly,

Even more peculiar is God’s obsession with first-born sons. In Exodus 13:2 the Lord said “Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.” Later it says that you can redeem (replace) an ass with a sheep and that you must redeem a child for an unspecified price. It is clear from the context that “consecrate” means a burning sacrifice. These priests are guilty of theft and kidnapping. Since any [sic] sins in the Old Testament were punishable by death, these priests used the threat of death to extort food and money from their followers. What do we call a scum-bag that threatens to kill your kids unless you pay a ransom? A kidnapper! If these priests were alive today they would be in prison with Abraham_

What I wanted to point out now, in the form of an addendum, is that the Gospel of Luke it states:

Now when the days of her [Mary’s] purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him [Jesus] to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD”), and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons” (Luke 2:22-24).

What?!?!

They did not offer Jesus as a human sacrifice?!?!

They broke the law?!?!

The question is: who understood the Bible better, the Old Testament better, Judaism better, the Temple and its rituals better: evilbible.com‘s author or Joseph and Mary?

This is a tough one.

One the one hand: evilbible.com‘s author is evilbible.com‘s author and is most certainly not a scholar or any sort particularly when it comes to the Bible, the most basic concepts, contents and contexts of which are lost to evilbible.com‘s author.

On the other hand: you have Joseph and Mary who lived two millennia ago, attended the Jewish Temple services in Jerusalem, at a time when the Jewish Temple services were carried out by the Jewish Temple priesthood, when the Law of Moses – the Law of the Old Testament was in place.

This is a tough one.

One the one hand: evilbible.com‘s author asserted that “consecrate” means a burning sacrifice and that the priests were kidnapping scum-bags who threatened to kill kids unless they were ransomed.

On the other hand: Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the Temple since He was their fist born but they do not sacrifice Him. We are not even told that they ransomed him but simply that “they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord” and also to “to offer a sacrifice.”

This is a tough one unless you conclude that people living whilst the Temple was functioning know more about it than someone two millennia later who succeeds only in discrediting themselves while attempting to discredit the Bible by demonstrating their lack of knowledge of even the most basic of the Bible’s contents, concepts and contexts.

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

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 the Nashville Statement LGBTQIAP+ protest signs
• On the neo LGBTQIAP+ religion & Oscar Wilde temple
• Atheism, Communism, Christianity, Nazism, Dawkins, Harris & “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist” book
• G.K. Chesterton “modern world is insane…it cannot recover the normal”
• VIDEO: May Pang on John Lennon, UFOs, Yoko Ono & hypnotism
• New book “The Antichrist Cookbook”
• New book “Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. I”
• Atheism and Aleister Crowley’s Argenteum Astrum – Silver Star
• VIDEO: Jim Marrs on the Bible, David Icke, religion & channeling
• Christian defends abortion and LGBTQIAP+, part 7

Let us consider the common view of atheism as being anti-religion and also how atheism ties in with the Illuminati.
Apparently, due to Dan Brown’s book “Angels and Demons” and the corresponding movie there is occurring a feverish internet search for information about the Illuminati. Some popular searches for the Illuminati are interesting and some amusing. Some examples are:

Illuminati symbols (not an Atheist Symbols, right?)
History Illuminati (as opposed to the history of atheism)
US currency Illuminati symbol
Illuminati news (can you imagine? Get yer Illuminati news ove’hea!)
Bloodlines Illuminati
Illuminati conspiracy
The Illuminati
How do I join the Illuminati (what, they don’t advertize?!?!)
Illuminati diamond (surely, it would make quite the engagement ring)
Illuminati and Obama or Obama Illuminati (let the conspiracy theorizing begin, or continue) and do not forget George Bush, the Illuminati
25 goals of Illuminati (what about the New Ten Commandments, both Richard Dawkins’ and Christopher Hitches’?-of which there are fifteen)
Origination of Illuminati (where is that chart?)
Pyramids of the Illuminati review
Illuminati and librarians (I could see when they charged five cents for late books but now?)
Illuminati card game (probably makes of more exiting viewing than pro poker)
What is the Illuminati

Beware and be aware my friends, for while the Illuminati are lurking in the shadows attempting to establish their new world order another group, a menace of massive proportions, is acting in the wide open: they are-the Alluminati who are attempting to establish an atheist new world order (FYI: I used to play bass in a band called New World Chaos).

There seems to be a common misconception of atheism being anti-religion yet, it is not-it is very, very pro-religion. They are anti-theistic-religion but very much so pro atheistic-religion. This is not only due to militant activist atheist such as Michael Newdow who has long argued that atheism is a religion or the fact that, as noted in Nietzsche Nails Atheism, Again, atheism (under whatever label) has long held religious services (aspects of Unitarian Universalism are an example of this; see here and here).

It is, quite rightly, said that the best place to hide something is in plain sight. True indeed, as I recall that perhaps the first time that I posted on atheists attempting to establish an atheist new world order in the form of an atheist one world religion someone commented thusly, “‘Atheist religion’???? Dears, you really are a 3rd class blog.”

Atheists have been promulgating their wished to establish an atheist one world religion for, at the very least, three centuries. In seek to establish the atheist new world order the Alluminati complain that theistic religions are manmade and make assertions about supernatural transcendence which can only be known through personal subjective experience. In its place the Alluminati new world order seeks establish a manmade religion that makes assertions about materialistic transcendence which can only be known through personal subjective experience.

Many people ask “Is atheism a religion” and there are some reasons for answering in the affirmative yet, the simple answer is, “Whether it is one now or not one thing is for certain; many influential atheists want to establish it as a religion.”

I have previously chronicled Atheism Spirituality evidencing their attempts to co-opt science in order to replace awe in God with awe in cosmic accidents, including the accident of the cosmos itself: they primed the pump for the Alluminati new world order by preaching the pseudo-gospel of neo-Pagan atheism: awe in nature or nature worship. Now I will chronicle atheism quotes that are more specific to the establishing of a one world atheist religion.

Let us begin with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) who conceptualized of a civil religion one of the commandments of which was,

If anyone, after publicly recognizing these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: He has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law.

Claude Henri de Rouvroy – Comte de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) envisaged a new Christianity premised on Humanism and scientific socialism. The secular priesthood would be composed of scientists, philosophers and engineers.Auguste Comte (1798-1857) envisioned of a religion of humanity.

Dan Barker, of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (established in a country premised on the freedom of religious expression), stated the following:

Atheism and Freethought and true humanistic morality are, are so much more clear, so much more useful, so much more reasonable so, you know, without all the negative baggage of theology and judgment and hell and, and you know, and the supernatural….I don’t have to try to prop up this phony supernatural system…atheists and agnostics are more accountable they are more moral they, they have more responsibility in their lives because they realize that it, it’s a what matters is this world not an imaginary supernatural world.1

This is one of the Alluminati new world order’s consoling delusions: the delusion of lack of ultimate accountability and the delusion of absolute autonomy.

Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine (who was outed as a pseudo-skeptic by Ben Stein), stated that his study of evolution was,

…far more enlightening and transcendent, spiritual, than anything I had experienced in seven years of being a born again Christian.2If religion and spirituality are supposed to generate awe and humility in the fact of the creator, what could be more awesome and humbling than the deep space discovered by Hubble and the cosmologists and the deep time discovered by Darwin and the evolutionists?

Science matters because it is the preeminent story of our age, an epic saga about who we are, where we came from, and where we are going.3

This represents the Alluminati new world order as neo-pseudo-Genesis.Michael Ruse (philosophy professor, University of Guelph) wrote:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity…Huxley, known in the papers as “Pope Huxley”, was determined to find a substitute for Christianity…Herbert Spencer…shared Huxley’s vision of evolution as a kind of metaphysics rather than a straight science…Evolution now has its mystical visionary, its Saint John of the Cross. Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson tells us that we now have an “alternative mythology” to defeat traditional religion.4

Such sentiments represent the Alluminati new world order as replacement theology: replacing Christianity and replacing theist religion with atheistic religion.

In this regard Richard Bozarth has noted that “Atheism will be ready to fill the void of Christianity’s demise when science and evolution triumph…Christianity is nothing!”5 Also, note that a very influential person state, “When understanding of the universe has become widespread…Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.”6 The influential person was Adolf Hitler (see here).

In his article Is Science a Religion? Richard Dawkins wrote:

“science does have some of religion’s virtues…All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it’s exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe – almost worship – this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics…
Science can offer a vision of life and the universe which, as I’ve already remarked, for humbling poetic inspiration far outclasses any of the mutually contradictory faiths and disappointingly recent traditions of the world’s religions.

Thus far, we are getting a taste of the Alluminati new world order as premising its atheist one world religion on science, evolution, goosebumps and anti-Christian prejudice.

Stephen S. Hall wrote the following in Darwin’s Rottweiler – Sir Richard Dawkins: Evolution’s Fiercest Champion, Far Too Fierce:

Einsteinian religion is a kind of spirituality which is nonsupernatural…It is something bigger, something grander, something that I believe any scientist can subscribe to, including those scientists whom I would call atheists. Einstein, in my terms, was an atheist…
I suppose my hope would be that science-the best kind of science, the sort of science which approaches the best sort of religion, the Einsteinian spirituality that I was talking about-is so inspiring, so exciting that it should be sellable to everybody…We have something far better to offer…Why are we freethinking secular scientists not getting into that same marketplace…and selling what we’ve got to sell? Because it’s a far better product, and all we’ve got to do is hone our salesmanship to the level that they are already doing it.

The statement, “Einstein, in my terms, was an atheist” and Richard Dawkins’ reference to Einstein as an “atheistic scientist” are examples of the Alluminati new world order’s attempts to rewrite history. Albert Einstein stated, “I’m not an atheist.”7 Thus, the Alluminati’s minions will argue that Stephen S. Hall qualified his statement with “in my terms” and Richard Dawkins by referencing Albert Einstein as scientist. Behold the Alluminati new world order’s misleading statements: truth mixed with falsehood-classic misinformation.From Gary Wolf’s interview with Daniel Dennett:

No rational creature, he says, would be able to do without unexamined, sacred things…This sounds to me a little like the religion of reason that Harris foresees. “Yes, there could be a rational religion,” Dennett says. “We could have a rational policy not even to think about certain things”…I ask Dennett if there might not be a contradiction in his scheme. On the one hand, he aggressively confronts the faithful, attacking their sacred beliefs. On the other hand, he proposes that our inherited defaults be put outside the limits of dispute. But this would make our defaults into a religion, unimpeachable and implacable gods. And besides, are we not atheists? Sacred prohibitions are anathema to us.

Dennett replies that exceptions can be made. “Philosophers are the ones who refuse to accept the sacred values,” he says. For instance, Socrates. I find this answer supremely odd. The image of an atheist religion whose sacred objects, called defaults, are taboo for all except philosophers – this is the material of the cruelest parody.8

This represents the Alluminati new world order as establishing atheist one world rational religion as refereed by, as coincidentally stated by the philosopher Daniel Dennett, philosophers.From Gary Wolf’s interview with Sam Harris:

We discuss what it might look like, this world without God. “There would be a religion of reason,” Harris says…”We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them. Call it prayer, but we would have prayer without bull****_At some point, there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God.”9 [italics in original]

This is the Alluminati new world order as establishing atheist one world religion of reason that will simply embarrass theistic religions into non-existence.

Sam Harris elucidates in this article, Selfless Consciousness Without Faith:

As a critic of religious faith, I am often asked what will replace organized religion. The answer is: many things and nothing…we need a way of talking about human well-being that is as unconstrained by religious dogma as science is.

Sam Harris notes, in his A Contemplative Science, that,

I recently spent a week with one hundred fellow scientists at a retreat center in rural Massachusetts. The meeting attracted a diverse group: physicists, neuroscientists, psychologists, clinicians, and a philosopher or two…We were on a silent meditation retreat at the Insight Meditation Society, engaged in a Buddhist practice known as vipassana (the Pali word for “seeing clearly”)…Of critical importance for the purposes of science: there are no unjustified beliefs or metaphysics that need be adopted at all_

This denotes the atheist one world religion’s Atheism Spirituality: all of the goosebumpy feelings with none of that bothersome accountability.

Sam Harris further notes that “we can promulgate that knowledge and pursue those experiences very much in a spirit of science, without presupposing anything on insufficient evidence.”10 Also, “We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity – birth, marriage, death, etc. – without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality…we will have no need for divisive religious myths.”11

Moreover, there are countless lower level Alluminati all over the internet composing doxologies to the atheist one world religion in the form of atheism spirituality, delineating atheist beliefs, seeking to establish an atheist symbol, composing atheist prayers, etc. Indeed, the Alluminati are hard a work, right out in the open, seeking to establish their new world order atheist one world religion. They also seek to rewrite history as the triumph of “reason” over “faith” (or seeking to deny that Communism was premised upon atheism). They seek to dictate child rearing. They seek to co-opt science as somehow implying, if not proving, atheism. They seek to paint atheism as holier and more moral than Christianity. And much, much more.

Meanwhile, the more that the Alluminati seek to establish their new world order the more I am reminded of Romans 1:18-28 which refers to:

…men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man…

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity…because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind…

Premised upon denying God, the atheist one world religion seeks to encourage nature worship-atheist-neo-Paganism.

Lastly, note that ex-atheist, the late C. S. Lewis, noted the following of a form of atheism spirituality which he referred to in terms of Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution:

One reason why many people find Creative Evolution so attractive is that it gives one much of the emotional comfort of believing in God and none of the less pleasant consequences.When you are feeling fit and the sun is shining and you do not want to believe that the whole universe is a mere mechanical dance of atoms, it is nice to be able to think of this great mysterious Force rolling on through the centuries and carrying you on its crest.If, on the other hand, you want to do something rather shabby, the Life-Force, being only a blind force, with no morals and no mind, will never interfere with you like that troublesome God we learned about when we were children.The Life-Force is a sort of tame God. You can switch it on when you want, but it will not bother you.All the thrills of religion and none of the cost.

Is the Life-Force the greatest achievement of wishful thinking the world has yet seen?12

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

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.

• On the Nashville Statement LGBTQIAP+ protest signs
• On the neo LGBTQIAP+ religion & Oscar Wilde temple
• Atheism, Communism, Christianity, Nazism, Dawkins, Harris & “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist” book
• G.K. Chesterton “modern world is insane…it cannot recover the normal”
• VIDEO: May Pang on John Lennon, UFOs, Yoko Ono & hypnotism
• New book “The Antichrist Cookbook”
• New book “Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. I”
• Atheism and Aleister Crowley’s Argenteum Astrum – Silver Star
• VIDEO: Jim Marrs on the Bible, David Icke, religion & channeling
• Christian defends abortion and LGBTQIAP+, part 7

…at least when it is convenient that is, until they are challenged at which time they switch to the weak, almost certain, 99% sure, etc. sect/denomination of atheism:

Since I first posted this I keep running into so very many Atheists who have apparently not gotten the pop-cyber-Atheist memo that they still positively affirm God’s non-existence.
Thus, some of those listed below are not necessarily “celebrity New Atheists” but hoi polloi Atheists who follow their lead.

Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong co-authored an article and so either one or both of them wrote and agree that “God is not dead. He was never alive in the first place.”1

The following Q&A is from the debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig, “Does God Exist?,” April 4, 2009 AD, Biola University:

CRAIG: What is your view exactly? Do you affirm God does not exist or do you simply withhold belief?
HITCHENS: I think once I have said that I’ve never seen any persuasive evidence for the existence in something, and I’ve made real attempts to study the evidence presented and the arguments presented, that I will go as far as to say, have the nerve to say, that it does not therefore exist except in the minds of its…

PZ Myers, “gods don’t exist” also “the New Atheist movement is about is saying that God doesn’t exist…The New Atheist movement was established on the basis that there is no God.”2

In his book The Atheist’s Guide to Reality philosopher of science at Duke University, Alex Rosenberg wrote, “Is there a God? No.”

William Provine, “There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind.”

Michael Shermer, “there is no God, intelligent designer, or anything resembling the divinity.”

Victor J. Stenger, “science shows that God does not exist.”

Isaac Asimov:

I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I’ve been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn’t have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I’m a creature of emotion as well as of reason.
Emotionally I am an atheist. I don’t have the evidence to prove that God doesn’t exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn’t that I don’t want to waste my time.3

Daniel Dennett, “We atheists don’t believe that there is any God”4 “There is no person who created the universe…there is really nobody to thank for that”5

Lewis Wolpert: I used to pray but I gave it up because when I asked God to help me find my cricket bat, he didn’t help. Justin Brieley: Right, and that was enough for you to prove that God did not exist.

Lewis Wolpert: Well, yes. I just gave it up completely.6

Lewis Wolpert:, “[I] stopped believing in God when I was 15 or 16 because he didn’t give me what I asked for.”7

Penn Jillette, “I know God doesn’t exist.”

Albuquerque Bernalillo County Deputy Jim Goff, “I am a non-believer, there is no god, there is no Jesus, there is no Satan.”8

Jason Torpy, head of the Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers, told me this about God, “He doesn’t exist…he does not exist.”

Randy Word, President of Metroplex Atheists, wrote the following to me, “I know why, there is no god!!…no god ever worshiped on this planet exists. Of course I cannot prove there is no god but I could care less about doing that since it is irrelevant to me.”

Marie Alena Castle, Communications Director for Atheists For Human Rights, told me that she is a “Strong” Atheist within the context of that being a term referring to someone who positively affirms the non-existence of god(s).

Crispin Sartwell, teacher of philosophy at Dickinson College, “I’m perfectly sincere and definite in my belief that there is no God.”9

Raphael Lataster’s book titles say it all, “There Was No Jesus, There is No God” and “Jesus Did Not Exist: A Debate Among Atheists.”

AronRa, “I know that God does not exist.”10

Stephen Hawking, “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is we would know everything that God would know if there was a God, but there isn’t.” 11

Professor of Chemistry Peter Atkins in answer to the Templeton Organisation question Does the Universe have a purpose?: “Some are mystified by the existence of evil in a world created by an infinitely loving God, another notion that theologians have invented but which dissolves into nothing once it is realized that there is no God.”

Anne Nicol Gaylor, “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world.”

As for this last quote: Anne Nicol Gaylor is the principal founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and directed it 1976-2004, the statement was her aphorism. Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor (Anne’s daughter) now direct the FFRF.
The statement is said to not merely be a quote from Anne but is an FFRF maxim that is use every year as a Winter Solstice message that they put on display in order to counter religious displays in government buildings.

Of course, Dan Barker has also stated the following of and for himself: (during his debate with Dinesh D’Souza, heard here):

…a subset of atheists, capital “A” Atheists, positive Atheists you might say, when it comes to a particular definition of a god, when it comes to the Christian God, the God of the Bible – I am a capital “A” positive Atheist. Not only do I say that God does not exists, that God cannot exist. I’m proud to say that I possess not only a belief but a knowledge that that God does not exist…the Christian God cannot and does not exist. Other gods may or may not.

The author of evilbible.com (about which I wrote here) wrote:

The lack of public acceptance for a “lack of belief” definition of “atheism” is reflected in the fact that no reputable dictionary has a “lack of belief” definition for either “atheism” or “atheist”.
However, this has not kept a few morons from incorrectly claiming that various dictionary definitions have a “lack of belief” definition…I have posted some of the arguments these people have used, and I explained why why [sic] they are so damn stupid.

The following examples are taken from Quora:

Jean Marion, “I never believed…I’ve known all along that there was no God.”

Danny Karg, “is it more likely that there simply is no God? Does that explain more? For me, it was like waking up. Giving up the dream of God wasn’t easy, just like I hated to learn that there was no Santa Claus, but there it is…math is my God.”

Beth Green, “My parents never told me that there was a god but they also never told me there wasn’t. I came to the conclusion that there isn’t on my own at a very young age…I came to the conclusion that God was just an imaginary figure.”

Arunav Sanyal, “there can be no god.”

Jeffrey Baird, “I don’t make the claim that God does not exist, simply that God doesn’t need to exist. Then, for me, the most reasonable conclusion is that God does not exist.”

Theis Poulsen, “There is no god, or afterlife. When we die there is nothing.”

The Skeptic Arena’s Neo, “I finally realized that the God I had been taught to believe in, could not possibly exist.”

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

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.

• On the Nashville Statement LGBTQIAP+ protest signs
• On the neo LGBTQIAP+ religion & Oscar Wilde temple
• Atheism, Communism, Christianity, Nazism, Dawkins, Harris & “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist” book
• G.K. Chesterton “modern world is insane…it cannot recover the normal”
• VIDEO: May Pang on John Lennon, UFOs, Yoko Ono & hypnotism
• New book “The Antichrist Cookbook”
• New book “Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. I”
• Atheism and Aleister Crowley’s Argenteum Astrum – Silver Star
• VIDEO: Jim Marrs on the Bible, David Icke, religion & channeling
• Christian defends abortion and LGBTQIAP+, part 7

• On the Nashville Statement LGBTQIAP+ protest signs
• On the neo LGBTQIAP+ religion & Oscar Wilde temple
• Atheism, Communism, Christianity, Nazism, Dawkins, Harris & “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist” book
• G.K. Chesterton “modern world is insane…it cannot recover the normal”
• VIDEO: May Pang on John Lennon, UFOs, Yoko Ono & hypnotism
• New book “The Antichrist Cookbook”
• New book “Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. I”
• Atheism and Aleister Crowley’s Argenteum Astrum – Silver Star
• VIDEO: Jim Marrs on the Bible, David Icke, religion & channeling
• Christian defends abortion and LGBTQIAP+, part 7

• On the Nashville Statement LGBTQIAP+ protest signs
• On the neo LGBTQIAP+ religion & Oscar Wilde temple
• Atheism, Communism, Christianity, Nazism, Dawkins, Harris & “From Zeitgeist to Poltergeist” book
• G.K. Chesterton “modern world is insane…it cannot recover the normal”
• VIDEO: May Pang on John Lennon, UFOs, Yoko Ono & hypnotism
• New book “The Antichrist Cookbook”
• New book “Cain as Serpent Seed of Satan, vol. I”
• Atheism and Aleister Crowley’s Argenteum Astrum – Silver Star
• VIDEO: Jim Marrs on the Bible, David Icke, religion & channeling
• Christian defends abortion and LGBTQIAP+, part 7