TrueFreeThinker – Page 865 – Worldviews in view reviewed: Atheism, Theology, Occult, UFOs, Cultural Commentary, etc.

The following is a basic overview of the some of the activities that take place in the Melchizedek Method workshops, as described in advertisements. Certain terminology such as Merkaba and Adam Kadmon are taken from Hebrew and defined with Kabbalistic concepts. Dr. J. J. Hurtak, from whose book “The Keys of Enoch” the Melchizedek Method came to be, states:

“The ‘Merkabah’ expresses the Divine Will in the experience of an ascension process. In other words, it is the energy vehicle of multi-dimensional travel and ascension which touches upon many realities, from the smallest to the largest part of the All-encompassing, placing the human in relation to the Will of the Creator. In my work, the awareness of the Merkabah is also the awareness of the immanence of God and His powers and vitality expressed in travel.”1

Dr. J. J. Hurtak reveals his belief in, and practice of, numerology or gematria2, in explaining his preference of the spelling of Merkabah over Merkaba he wrote,

“First, let us use the ‘original prophetic spelling’ of the term which I prefer-with a final ‘h’ on the end of the word which adds a higher gematria or mathematical combination of energy to the letters of the word.”3

To give detailed definitions would take a considerable amount of space and would deviate from our main topic and so we have provided basic descriptions. The late Gershom G. Scholem, Professor of Jewish Mysticism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, provides the following definition:The first chapter of Ezekiel mentions God’s Merkabah, His throne-chariot. The Beriah, the world of creation, i.e. of the Throne, the Merkabah and the highest angels. A concept of the doctrine held by the Kabbalists of Safed and in particular Cordovero. The Beriah is one of the four worlds placed between the En-Sof. The Zohar and the Kabbalists refer to the En-Sof as the infinite, the hidden God, the innermost Being of Divinity who has neither qualities nor attributes.

Zohar or Sefer Ha-Zohar “Book of Splendor” is Kabbalists literature written circa 1275. Adam Kadmon is defined as the ontological primary man. “_the primordial man_Adam Kadmon is nothing but a first configuration of the divine light which flows from the essence of En-Sof into the primeval space of the Tsimtsum-not indeed from all sides but, like a beam, in one direction only.” Tsimtsum means concentration or contraction and is defined by Kabbalists as withdrawal or retreat. It is a term used to explain that because God is everywhere He had to make room for the world by “abandoning a region within Himself_He withdrew in order to return to it in the act of creation and revelation.”4

Level 1

“The Melchizedek Method Level One is a revolutionary new form of physical, emotional, mental, etheric and spiritual healing, age-reversal and lightbody activation.”

“The basis of the techniques presented is the activation of the Hologram of Love Merkaba, a rotating lightfield awakening your spherical consciousness. The tool of the Hologram of Love is a high dimensional active conscious living Divine manifestation that accesses all levels of consciousness. It has the ability to heal and rejuvenate any form of creation as it is the living conscious holographic pattern of God Source vibration.”

“The ‘Merkabah’ expresses the Divine Will in the experience of an ascension process. In other words, it is the energy vehicle of multi-dimensional travel and ascension which touches upon many realities, from the smallest to the largest part of the All-encompassing, placing the human in relation to the Will of the Creator.”5

“The Melchizedek Method demonstrates and teaches the skill of holographically removing any part of the body, outer bodies and thought programming into the higher dimensions to be cleansed and healed, and then returned into the physical completely perfect. Holographic healing and rejuvenation is a skill all human beings will practice in the future, according to Thoth, and will be instrumental in ridding this planet of illness and disease.”

“During the workshop, Thoth introduces the Holographic Body Computer through time, space and love. Activating the Hologram of Love 3 Breath Merkaba lightbody. Encoding the five sacred key languages of Egyptian, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Tibetan & Chinese through the pineal gland.”

“The workshop gives the opportunity to gather with other healers and teachers to share your divinity with each other. Each day you will strengthen your skills, and on completing this course you will receive a certificate blessed and honored during a ceremony by Lord Melchizedek.”

“Thoth made the comment at the beginning that the new Orbital Hologram of Love Merkaba was 1000 times higher in light and love frequency and was the true ascension unity consciousness merkaba light body. Once one has experienced the raising of cellular light quotient 1000-fold with the Orbital Merkaba, the following days of meditations are all on a cosmic conscious level.”

“Thoth describes this as having manifested a magnetic exchange with the galactic core (the horizontal band of light) and that you are then being drawn into cosmic consciousness. Many participants have then experienced a shift of consciousness and been drawn into profound experiences.”

“This workshop also explores our connection to Lord Metatron through the Great Pyramid at Giza traveling up the ascension corridor to the Orion Stargate which is the opening to the celestial worlds beyond. Metatron is the overseer of this celestial stargate opening and our connection with his energy is vital to completing our ascension journey.”

“Another aspect of this workshop is to experience Jacob’s Ladder through the four worlds of the Kabbalah. The encodings and energy experienced in this process combined with the Orbital Merkaba activation is once again profound and allows us to build a more powerful Adam Kadmon6 light body_The architecture of this merkaba, of course, is to be experienced, not just perceived.”

Level 2

“Level Two also introduces you to a cosmic thought wave patterning that enables one to perceive and create the incoming Fifth Dimension reality of divine light and unconditional love. It allows the brain to activate as yet unused chambers within itself activating a collage of higher wisdom and experiences to magnetically manifest before you. The inner sanctum of your mind is opened to allow cosmic consciousness to be experienced.”

“Re-directing the Elements to conform to and enhance your reality. Amplifying the 33rd Degree Energies of your Adam Kadmon light body with rotational light color rays_Combine the ancient wisdoms of Egypt, Mayan, Hebrew and Kabbalah_The Hologram of Love Light Body Activation expresses only three breaths and on a daily basis only one breath.”

Level 3Alton Kamadon wrote:

“It has been a long time since I went through a healing crisis, but_On the night of the third day of this workshop I experienced severe pains down the right side of my body to the extent that I ended up in hospital_

The surgeon wanted to operate immediately but I refused, knowing that I could use the Melchizedek Method techniques to heal myself_The next day, the last day of the Denver workshop, I asked all the participants to give me a group healing at the end of the workshop.

The result of that healing was profound. During the group healing session several people and myself saw three gallstones leave my body and dissolve into light_As a result of my healing process Spirit gave to me a new technique they called ‘Body Talk’ to deal with any dis-ease felt in the body on all levels.”7

What a fortunate and well-timed revelation. Just as the second and final workshop was coming to an end, Alton Kamadon receives a new revelation for a third workshop. Considering that the cost of the workshop that came to New Mexico was over $300.00 per person, it is a fortunate revelation indeed.

Apparently, since I first researched and wrote these essays on the Melchizedek Method in 2002 there have been added at least two more workshops which unfortunately I cannot take the time to research at this particular juncture.

‹ New Age : The Melchizedek Method, part 8 of 10 up

Occult New Age children’s TV show songs

Children’s entertainment in whatever form—movies, TV shows, cartoons, books, comic books, etc.—are utterly saturated with occult New Age themes, immorality and non-, to anti-, Christian themes.

Children’s entertainment which would be ousted from the TV, theaters and bookstores if they contained Christian themes are celebrated therein when they contain, as they do, blatant occult New Age “spirituality.”

Consider that when Veggie Tales was placed on broadcast TV its Christian theme was utterly whipped out to the point that its creator stated that had he known what they would do to it he would never have sold it.

Let us consider the lyrics to three shows for the little ones.

Barney is a dinosaur from our imagination And when he’s tall He’s what we call a dinosaur sensation Barney’s friends are big and small They come from lots of places After school they meet to play And sing with happy faces Barney shows us lots of things Like how to play pretend ABC’s, and 123’s And how to be a friend Barney comes to play with us Whenever we may need him Barney can be your friend too

If you just make-believe him!

Overall, this seems pretty harmless and surely, kids are very imaginative and exercising their imaginations is to be encouraged. Yet, the question is towards what ends are their imaginations being put, in this case?

There is a subtle hint here which is actually quite blunt when you notice it. Barney is actually a character and thus, is not “from our imagination.”

The last lines are really just a prescription for how occult practices call upon their various “spirit guides” (demons by any other name). For some reason, kids, who can and do watch Barney on TV are being told that he can/will “comes to play with us” us being the kids on the TV program “Whenever we may need him” at their beck and call but more telling is the statement, “Barney can be your friend too. If you just make-believe him!”

The other Barney song, the “I love you You love me” song states, “Won’t you say you love me too…We’re best friends like friends should be.”

Thus, this make believe TV character can become your personal non-TV friend if the child will just make-believe him. This teaches kids to employ their wills towards creating or inviting entities which are to communicate with them.

Theme song from the cartoon Arthur:

Every day when you’re walking down the street, everybody that you meet Has an original point of view And I say HEY! what a wonderful kind of day. Where you can learn to work and play

And get along with each other

It is true that everybody that you meet has an original point of view or, at least, their own points of views.

You got to listen to your heart Listen to the beat Listen to the rhythm, the rhythm of the street

Open up your eyes, open up your ears

Why is listening to our hearts something that we “got to” do? This is a worldview based epistemological prescription amounting to that we discern truth via seeing how it feels.

Yet, Jeremiah 17:9 states, “”The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it?” Thus, Christians are not to rely on their hearts for truth, epistemology, discernment, etc.

It may be reading too much into it but “the rhythm of the street” may refer to the common beliefs de jour. This is because the hoi polloi, the masses of commoners are generally referred to as the street.

Get together and make things better by working together It’s a simple message and it comes from the heart Believe in yourself [echo: believe in yourself]

Well that’s the place to start

Can we “Get together and make things better by working together” with people who all have different beliefs, “an original point of view”? Sure we can, it may be challenging but diversity does not necessarily equal impossibility of working together on what have you (think of your workplace).

But here it comes again as the “simple message…comes from the heart” which is deceitful and sick is to “Believe in yourself.” Wait! Why? See the point, forget YHVH, forget Jesus, but believe in yourself. This is another occult New Age worldview based prescription.

The song ends:

And I say HEY! what a wonderful kind of day Where you learn to work and play

And get along with each other

Lastly, the theme song from Sonic the Hedgehog with a very familiar theme, this is the character Tails’ theme:

When all alone in my chair, I just go about wishing I wanna be strong, I really wanna be trusted When all alone in my bed, I just go about yearning I wanna be cool, I also wanna be like him But that’s not something I can do so easily This is not simply my way, my style Gotta get a hold of my life [Chorus] I wanna fly high So I can reach the highest of all the heavens Somebody will be waiting for me so, I have got to fly higher When all alone in my sleep, I just go about dreaming I see myself there, having the same adventure If I just follow you, I will never see the light Now is the time to find my way through this life I’m trying so hard to be strong Gotta keep goin’ Everything is a brand new challenge for me I will believe in myself This is the only start for me [Chorus] Many friends help me out, in return I help them Certain things I can do and there are things that only I can do No one’s alone!

[Chorus]

Is this the theme to a cute little cartoon fox, Tails, or some sort of occult New Age hymn? Well, it is both.

The power of will in the form of wishing—will is job one in magick/witchcraft.

It is when they are alone in bed at night that kids ought yearn. Yearn to do/be what? Be strong, trusted, cool, be like him—“him” who , Sonic? Masonic? ;o)

“I wanna fly high / So I can reach the highest of all the heavens”—Tails

“I will ascend to heaven / I will ascend above the heights of the clouds”—Lucifer (see Isaiah 14:13-14)

Who is Tails talking to here, “If I just follow you, I will never see the light”? In any case, Tails has to “find my way through this life” and states “I will believe in myself.”

“I will…I will…I will…I will…I will…” guess who? Hint, see Isaiah 14:13-14 again.

Recall that the theme from Arthur stated:

Believe in yourself / Well that’s the place to start

Tail’s theme is virtually identical:

I will believe in myself / This is the only start for me

Lastly, note a good ol’ fashioned nursery rhyme:

Row, row, row your boat gently down the stream. Merrily, merrily, merrily.

Life is but a dream.

What? Life is but—meaning just, solely—a dream?!?! What sort of odd, weird, twisted worldview is this?

Who would have written such a thing for kids? Well, not one seems to know.

The rhyme was published in 1852 AD (with similar lyrics as those well-known ones above). In their book Dark Side of the Tune: Popular Music and Violence (Ashgate Popular and Folk Music), authors Bruce Johnson and Martin Cloonan note versions and/or extensions of the song which include irreverence and violence.

Examples of these are:

Row, row, row your boat, Gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, Don’t forget to scream. Row, row, row your boat, Gently down the stream. Throw your teacher overboard And listen to her scream

—from Cynthia Lightfoot’s The Culture of Adolescent Risk-Taking Culture and Human Development

Examples of children’s entertainment—keep in mind that amusement literally means lack of musing aka thoughtlessness—is literally saturated with odd, strange, bizarre and occult New Age worldview talking point.

…whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
—Matthew 18:6

Open letter to Cathy Dunson on Zen Garcia and me

I am posting this as an open letter because I received an email, replied to it, got no reply in turn and then I looked up Cathy Dunson’s contact info, send her an email and got no reply.

I am concluding that someone sent me the original message without her knowing, as in hacked her email or what have you or she wanted to take a pop-shot and run off without actually dealing with issues in a serious manner—which seems like the most likely case since she did not reply when I contacted her within a new and separate email chain (a chain with only one link as it turned out) and not attached with the first one.

I received an email via the contact section of my site which was simply subject titled, “Sick.”
Now, my email system informed me that “This message may not have been sent by…” and Cathy Dunson’s email address.

The message read:

Wow. How foul your site is. And you pay to host it? I co-host for Zen. He is the most humble, kind, intelligent and smart man of God I’ve ever met. You know .. I stopped on your site in confusion some months back. And I was going to donate to you. Then I realized what you were about. Very sad for you. [sic.]

I replied thusly:

Shalom, I pray I find you well.

I appreciate you sharing with me but I am a bit confused. What do you find foul about my site and what does Zen being humble, kind, intelligent and smart have anything to do with it?

When I got no reply, I found her contract info on the site to which she posts and wrote this to her:

Good day Cathy,
I pray I find you well. I wanted to offer a word of caution as I received a very confusing, accusatory and not very nice email from your e-address and yet my email system stated, “This message may not have been sent by: [Cathy Dunson’s email address]” thus, it seems that your email has either been hacked or someone otherwise used it as their own.

Well, sadly, hit and run emails are not exactly uncommon as some people feel an emotion, type out and email, send it and simply ignore attempts to engage.

So if it was not by her then she seems unconcerned about her e-address being used in such a manner and if it was her she seems unconcerned about my desire to engage this issue.

But what is the issue? Well, the message was emotive and generic so I am not certain. It basically states that Zen Garcia is a nice guy and that therefore—well, therefore I know not.

Let us review: My site is said to be “foul” but there is no elucidation as to how or why. Yes, I pay to host it as does anyone who runs their own site.

We learn that she co-hosts for and/or with Zen which is true of the real Cathy at Fallen Angels.

I have no idea about Zen’s personality and thus have no problem believing that he may very well be “humble, kind, intelligent and smart” I will say a thing or two about the “man of God” portion below.

Now, Cathy or pseudo-Cathy visited my site “in confusion” whatever that means (by accident or because she was confused and sought answers to whatever issue) and then comes a sort of monetary hand-slap, she “was going to donate to you” but is no longer going to do so for the generic reason of now having “realized what you were about” without explaining what this even means, what she concludes I am about, etc. and that she is sad for me without explaining why.

Well, I have written a lot about Zen Garcia or rather have written a lot in reply to his claims on the specific issue of the serpent see of Satan theory which claims that Cain was literally the result of Satan having sex with Eve and that Cain’s descendants carry within them literal Satanic genetics.
Zen Garcia and I actually had very extensive interaction on this issue which is more than I can say for Cathy or pseudo-Cathy. I dealt with Zen’s claim and for that reason it is irrelevant whether or not Zen is “humble, kind, intelligent and smart” as he could very well be “humble, kind, intelligent and smart” and still his claims could be erroneous.

Cathy/pseudo-Cathy has taken an intellectual issue and turned it into an emotional one: because I oppose Zen’s views on the serpent seed issue then my site is foul and I am “about” something for which she feels “sad” for me.

I would like to know whether Cathy/pseudo-Cathy has even read one single article that I posted in dealing with Zen’s claims: which you can find here (and can find my replies to various other serpent seed proponents here which you can find here).

Lastly, to the touchy issue of Zen Garcia being a “man of God” I would ask: which “God”? I know that I am under some sort of pop-cultural obligation to state that “that is between Zen and ‘God.’” This is true in an ultimate sense. What I can state for certain that is that on the serpent seed issue his views are unbiblical and he refuses correction by myself and the many others who have pointed out where he is going astray. At times I listen to Zen and cannot tell if he is a Christian or not. At one point he stated that we are here on Earth in order to bring “dharma” which is Hindu, Buddhist, Sikhist and Jainist concept.

At one point, I noted to his that he was very clearly contradicting the Bible’s very clear statements about Adam and Eve when he claimed that pre-fall they were disembodied light beings who did not live on Earth. I sent him a list of quotations and citations from the Bible and he basically asked me if the Bible is all I had to go by: you can read that exchange here Zen Garcia on Adam & Eve as beings of light not from Earth.

Things got so out of touch with Zen that when I wrote to Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh about some of the things he was claiming she expressed concern and told me she would be in prayer about it. I reached out to her because they had posted a video discussion wherein they agreed with the serpent seed issue and yet, she was concerned about the direction he was going in general.

zen20garcia20and20dr-20joye20jeffries20pugh-2370554
Zen Garcia and Dr. Joye Jeffries Pugh

This goes to prove something I have suspected and which his words and actions verify. I do not know his personal history but he may very well have begun his research and public speaking and writing career considering the Bible as his authority. However, his words and actions verify that it is not his authority at the present time. I have read many apocryphal texts and so has Zen. However, whenever they contradict the Bible then the Bible has the authority over them. However, Zen’s modus operandi is that whenever they contradict the Bible then the Bible is wrong as they have the authority over the Bible. This can be proven 100% even simply considering the Adam and Eve issue noted above. The Bible is 100% clear on the fact that they were physical and lived on Earth but since Zen wants to assert that they were not then the Bible is ignored and Zen claims that he is right and does so based on apocryphal text.

I would love to see a reply from Cathy/pseudo-Cathy in general and if nothing else on the Adam and Eve issue as that one is very early to follow, is very clear and is one that she can take up with Zen on air or in private.
As always, she can contact me via my “foul” site’s contact page.

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

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.

Angels in St. Ambrose, part 1

Herein we provide info on Angels in Aurelius Ambrosius aka St. Ambrose bishop of Milan (340-397 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.

On the Holy Spirit, Book I The book …according to the word of the Angel, laid its flesh and the unleavened cakes upon the rock, and poured the broth upon them. And as soon as the Angel touched them with the end of the staff which he bore, fire burst forth out of the rock, and so the sacrifice which he was offering was consumed…

That the Angel then stretched forth his staff, and touched the rock, from which fire went out, shows that the Flesh of the Lord, being filled with the Divine Spirit, would burn away all the sins of human frailty.

Chapter 3 The Son is worshipped by Angels, not by the Spirit, for the latter is His witness, not His servant…Lastly, of the Son it is written: “And let all the Angels of God worship Him.” You do not find, Let the Holy Spirit worship. And farther on: “To which of the Angels said He at any time, Sit on My right hand till I make your enemies the footstool of your feet? Are they not all,” says he, “ministering spirits who are sent to minister?” When he says All, does he include the Holy Spirit? Certainly not, because Angels and the other Powers are destined to serve in ministering and obedience to the Son of God.

Chapter 4 So, although many are called spirits, as it is said: “Who makes His Angels spirits,” yet the Spirit of God is but one.

Chapter 5 Whether you speak of Angels, or Dominions, or Powers, every creature waits for the grace of the Holy Spirit…Every creature, then, is subject to change, not only such as has been changed by some sin or condition of the outward elements, but also such as can be liable to corruption by a fault of nature, though by careful discipline it be not yet so; for, as we have shown in a former treatise, the nature of Angels evidently can be changed.

Chapter 7 The Holy Spirit is not a creature, seeing that He is infinite, and was shed upon the apostles dispersed through all countries, and moreover sanctifies the Angels also, to whom He makes us equal…Of what Angel does the Scripture say this? Of what Dominion? Of what Power? Of what Angel do we find the power diffused over many? For Angels were sent to few, but the Holy Spirit was poured upon whole peoples…But in like manner as the Spirit sanctifying the apostles is not a partaker of human nature; so, too, He sanctifying Angels, Dominions, and Powers, has no partnership with creatures. But if any think that the holiness of the Angels is not spiritual, but some other kind of grace belonging to the property of their nature, they will forsooth judge Angels to be inferior to men. For since themselves also confess that they would not dare to compare Angels to the Holy Spirit, and they cannot deny that the Holy Spirit is shed upon men; but the sanctification of the Spirit is a divine gift and favour, men who possess a better kind of sanctification will certainly be found to be preferred to the Angels.
But since Angels come down to men to assist them, it must be understood that the nature of Angels is higher as it receives more of the grace of the Spirit, and that the favour awarded to us and to them comes from the same author. But how great is that grace which makes even the lower nature of the lot of men equal to the gifts received by Angels, as the Lord Himself promised, saying: “You shall be as the Angels in heaven.” Nor is it difficult, for He Who made those Angels in the Spirit will by the same grace make men also equal to the Angels. But of what creature can it be said that it fills all things, as is written of the Holy Spirit: “I will pour My Spirit upon all flesh.” This cannot be said of an Angel…You see that the Spirit gives both fullness and boldness, Whose operation the Archangel announces to Mary, saying: “The Holy Spirit shall come on you.” You read, too, in the Gospel that the Angel descended at the appointed time into the pool and troubled the water, and he who first went down into the pool was made whole. What did the Angel declare in this type but the descent of the Holy Spirit, which was to come to pass in our day, and should consecrate the waters when invoked by the prayers of the priest? That Angel, then, was a herald of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as by means of the grace of the Spirit medicine was to be applied to our infirmities of soul and mind.

Chapter 10 That the Spirit forgives sin is common to Him with the Father and the Son, but not with the Angels. Tell me, then, whoever you are who deny the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit could not be liable to sin, Who rather forgives sin. Does an Angel forgive? Does an Archangel? Certainly not, but the Father alone, the Son alone, and the Holy Spirit alone. Now no one is unable to avoid that which he has power to forgive.

Chapter 11 But if the Angels also proclaim Jesus to be Lord, Whom no one can proclaim except in the Spirit, then in them also the office of the Holy Spirit operates.

Chapter 16 For neither is that city, the heavenly Jerusalem, watered by the channel of any Earthly river, but that Holy Spirit, proceeding from the Fount of Life, by a short draught of Whom we are satiated, seems to flow more abundantly among those celestial Thrones, Dominions and Powers, Angels and Archangels, rushing in the full course of the seven virtues of the Spirit.

In the next segment, we will consider more from Ambrose on Angels.

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

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.

Giant tomb in Afghanistan & the giant of Kandahar

I consider the following to be in line with my report on Ancient Vimana spacecraft found in Afghanistan cave (for background, also see Ancient alien UFOs, the Vimanas: Erich Von Daniken and Sources for re-researching the Ancient Alien issue of Vimana-UFOs).

The s8int site posted a page under “OOPARTS (out of place artifacts) & ANCIENT HIGH TECHNOLOGY—Evidence of Noah’s Flood?” which is titled, “Giants in Those Days—A Tomb Containing a 10 Foot Giant Found, In Afghanistan.”

They refer to “an e-mail sent in by a U.S. Air Force officer” first note: note that no name is given. At the end of the page it notes, “Source:SteveQuayle.com” which would explain the anonymous source which is merely claimed to be authoritative as that is Quayle’s modus operandi: Hey, I was just contacted by an anonymous high ranking source who told me something no one could possibly follow up on since it’s classified. However, I could not find anything regarding this issue on Quayle’s site.

In any regards, the U.S. Air Force officer claims that this photo which was supposedly taken a mere eight months ago shows a sergeant standing next to the giant, 28 feet long, tomb. The site notes that Colonel Haygood, USAF has noted, “it looks as if it was taken in the late 50’s to mid 60’s. That is the old tan AF uniform.” This make sense since, for some reason a new photo is black and white.

giant20found2c20in20afghanistan-4537186

He is said to be holding the giant’ turban and that it was lined with brass (perhaps the original tin foil hat). Now, when you are going to make such claims you definitely want to announce it the USA as being half a world away and make sure you point out, as is the case here, that the corpse, “was flown to a secret military base in Europe.”

The other story of interest is that a Special Forces team operating in Afghanistan in 2002 AD cornered an a circa 12-15 feet tall estimated to be 1,100 pounds cannibalistic giant in a cave which has come to be known as the Khandahar Giant. It is noted that this is “being reported by multiple sources” which, let us face it, means that a bunch of people simply copies and pasted assertions and did no reporting on it whatsoever.

The giant is said to have had a red beard, scarlet red hair and a detail which seems to be based on the common misconception that in the Bible, giants had six fingers and six toes. However, this is only stated of one single person within the Bible, ““man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were four and twenty, six on each hand, and six on each foot” (1 Chronicles 20:6).

Even though our soldiers wear head mounted cameras all we have imagewise is cartoons (surely the government confiscated the video footage and it is locked away in an Indiana Jones style warehouse).

giant20of20kandahar201-8901856

One soldier, identified only as “Dan” is said to have been “skewered by the giant” with a lance/spear.
Of course, “the government did not divulge this encounter” and “the soldiers were told afterward to ‘rewrite’ their after-action reports.” Ultimately, the giant’s dead body was flown “on the C-130 back to the United States” Ohio, to be exact (in as far as it is claimed).

We are told that “Steve Quayle and Gen6 Productions made a mini-doc about this event, interviewing a soldier” but “he remained anonymous.” We are also told that “Several eyewitnesses claim” this and that and yet, they too remained anonymous.

Also, “L.A. Marzulli explores the spectacular charge” and within the video below has George Noory, of Coast to Coast, who noted “a show in 2008 with Steve Quayle where an” unnamed “Air Force pilot said he flew a giant out of Kandahar.”

Here is an image of Marzulli interviewing one of the anonymous soldiers. Note the Arabic on the back of his shirt so, he really must have been a soldier in Kandahar—and he bought the t-shirt!

giant20of20kandahar202-1061679

Yet, we are told of “REAL evidence of spectacular creatures” told by another unnamed soldier who “testified there were rumors at his base in Afghanistan,” that the unnamed “soldier alleged the rumor was actually widely circulated among military forces in Afghanistan” and that the unnamed “soldier also said local people told seemingly ridiculous stories about giants who would attack humans – even eat them.”

giant20of20kandahar-8154543

Of course, the tricky bit is that such claims cut both ways or rather could be argued by both sides: well of course if you were military or ex-military you would not want to divulge your name and the government would cover up such occurrences. And yet, if someone simply felt like making up a story they would claim that they are military or ex-military, do not want to divulge their name and the government would cover up such occurrences.

Sources:
Marines Encounter Red-Haired Giant in Afghanistan Cave During A Mission In Kandahar ..!, Sia Magazine

Is U.S. government hiding the ‘giant of Kandahar’?, World Net Daily

THE WORLDWIDE NEPHILIM COVERUP, L.A. Marzulli

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

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.

The BOBA Digest, part 3: Atheism's Chihuahua

While this is not exactly a BOBA, as it does not necessarily deal with an argument per se, it did seem to qualify for entry into the BOBA Digest nonetheless.

Last night, on the Charlie Rose show, as Bill Maher and Larry Charles pontificated about their own brilliance in the face of those people-you know, the religious folk-I could not help but think that on the opening weekend of their atheism movie “Religulous” they came in far behind the number one movie “Beverly Hills Chihuahua.”

Yes, that little pint-sized puppy scrapped with the big dog and showed him that a little nice beats a whole career built on expressing personal prejudice.

On its opening weekend the atheism movie Religulous‘ box office rank was ten with Beverly Hills Chihuahua coming in at number one the “Christian movie” Fireproof came in at number 8 and a comedy that utterly demolishes the far left liberal movement, particularly Michael Moore, entitled An American Carole came in at number 9.

I would think, I would imagine, I would hope that both atheists and Christians are more than read to abscond from Bill Maher’s style of arguments from outrage and make attempts to engage in civil discourse.

from An American Carole

A more apt title for the atheism movie I could not imagine as the term “Religulous” so succinctly capture’s Bill Maher’s modis operandi and is a great appeal to the particular New Atheist sect of atheism which espouses belligerence over substance.

Bill Maher stated that he is getting email from people telling him that at the end of his atheism movie people actually clapped and he asked when the last time people clapped at the end of a movie. Well, let’s see…what day is it? Just last week when I went to see An American Carole people clapped when the movie was over. And yet, in both cases there sympathetic audiences-so what of it?

Review of John Loftus, “Why I Rejected Christianity: A Former Apologist Explains”, part 2 of 2

We continue and conclude, from part 1, considering John Loftus’ debate with Dinesh D’Souza.

Audio of the debate is being made available via Apologetics 315 at this link.

It appears that John Loftus was less than successful and has actually been taken to task by other atheists such as may be found at Skeptic Money, Le Cafe, UCIC Atheists. Loftus attempted some self defense at his blog here, here, here and here. And yet continues to be unconvincing to other atheists, as can be seen here.

Also, note that Marcus from WHHW has posted a video starring Loftus affirming the absurdity of atheism. And there is a follow up from Marcus wherein Loftus claims that atheist is actually only “seemingly absurd” (and, by the way, proves yet against that no one misunderstands Ockham’s Razor like the atheist apologist).

Let us conclude IrishFarmer’s review of a John Loftus book which deals with The Beginning of the Cumulative Case.

Following is the text of IrishFarmer’s review (with very minor stylistic changes and a succinct addendum):

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

Poor Logic in the Bible?
After a short introduction to his “Cumulative Case”, John attacks the logic of the Bible; which is a pretty good idea, if it works. If Jesus is really God, then we should expect Him to be able to reason properly. The same goes for any inspired writers.

First, however, John makes an interesting statement. Essentially, he believes that historical proofs only give us a probability of truth, and even if the historical evidence backs up Christianity, science (somehow) proves that the doctrinal aspects of Christianity are not true and therefore the historical proof should be dismissed [1, page 37]. This seems rather strange.

If the historical evidence leads us to believe that Jesus actually rose from the dead (thus vindicating the faith of the Church), I would think the first thing we should question are the “scientific” presuppositions which are leading us to reject Christian doctrine.

After that, there are some examples of alleged poor reasoning in the New Testament. Namely Mark 12:26-27 where John says Jesus does a poor job of arguing for the resurrection:

But concerning the dead, that they rise, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the burning bush passage, how God spoke to him, saying, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living. You are therefore greatly mistaken.

The strange thing is that it’s obvious that Jesus is doing no such thing. In Mark 12:20-23 Jesus is being questioned about a hypothetical woman who married three brothers and had no children, and who she would end up with in the resurrection. The question being asked of Jesus assumes the truth of the future resurrection.

Now there were seven brothers. The first took a wife; and dying, he left no offspring. And the second took her, and he died; nor did he leave any offspring. And the third likewise. So the seven had her and left no offspring. Last of all the woman died also. Therefore, in the resurrection, when they rise, whose wife will she be? For all seven had her as wife.

Ken’s addendum:
It seems that elucidation is required in order to not create confusion. IrishFarmer wrote that “The question being asked of Jesus assumes the truth of the future resurrection.” This is true of the question itself. It should be noted that it was asked by people who did not believe in the resurrection but who where employing the concept of resurrection to challenge Jesus. Verse 18 reads,

Then some Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Him; and they asked Him, saying…

Their question was meant to imply the illogicality of a physical resurrection to the effect of “Since you claim a physical resurrection [the only sort held by Jews] whose physical wife will she be when she physically resurrects?”
Jesus begins His answer by stating, v. 24-25,

Are you not therefore mistaken, because you do not know the Scriptures nor the power of God? For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

Firstly, mistaken because certain relationships which life on Earth necessitate for the stability and fidelity of the family and society are not necessary in the resurrection. Secondly, they are mistaken because the scripture, which was the premise upon which their question was based in the first place, makes reference to the present existence of those who have already passed away. Jesus was basing His answer upon their premise.

The second example John Loftus uses isn’t as bad. I just don’t see what’s so crucial about it. I don’t understand the background of Jewish belief in a future resurrection and so forth, so I’ll lay off this one.

I suppose the argument doesn’t have much force as it stands, but if this is what John considers a “cumulative case” against Christianity, then his argument is weak as it stands as well.
However, it appears from these two logical examples John concludes that the NT was written by people who’s cognitive skills were “infantile” and whom we should reject the word of because of their meager scientific standards [1, page 38].

The problem should be obvious, however, since this reasoning would cause us to reject more than just the Bible. We would have to reject the works of reliable historians, simply on the basis that we’re so much smarter and more advanced than they were. That’s just silly, and often simply isn’t true.

Ken’s addendum:
Let us take a moment to consider John Loftus’ own logic. He writes that “There just aren’t any ultimacies” (except this one?) and then notes that “what ultimately matters…” as well as “life is ultimately meaningless.” Thus, there are no ultimacies except those ultimacies upon which he relies for arriving at his ultimacies.
Not only this but he wrote,

Nature is ultimate. According to the late Carl Sagan, “The cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be.” According to Bertrand Russell the universe is simply “a brute fact.” I am an atheist. There is no God. And there is at least one reason for me not to believe in God, and that is because the universe is absurd when we try to figure it out [266].

Let us parse this monkey fist of fallacies:
Nature is ultimate
Even though he claims that “There just aren’t any ultimacies.” Let us ask John: how do you know?

According to the late Carl Sagan
Thus saith Carl? What does Carl Sagan know that we do not? Well…

“The cosmos is all there is, was, or ever will be”
Let us ask John and Carl: how do you know?

According to Bertrand Russell
Thus saith Bertrand? What does Bertrand Russell know that we do not? Well…

the universe is simply “a brute fact”
Let us ask John and Bertrand: how do you know? This is a science stopper; is we simply deem things to be brute facts well, then they are brute fact—period.

I am an atheist.
And to which sect of atheism does he adhere?

There is no God.
Let us ask John: how do you know?

And there is at least one reason for me not to believe in God, and that is because the universe is absurd when we try to figure it out This is certainly the oddest epistemology I have ever encountered. Granting this “logic” and employing it I will conclude that there is no John Loftus and there is at least one reason for me not to believe in John Loftus, and that is because his claims are absurd when we try to figure them out.

If we simply declare that a cause does not exist because the effect appears to be absurd when we try to figure it out this, again, is a science, and philosophy, stopper.

The Chauvinistic Cat is out of the Bag
Having revealed his superiority over the ignorant authors of the Bible, John really harps on this point. That is, he proceeds to dismiss anything that seems strange to him. From the hermeneutical methods of the NT writers, to their reasoning skills [1, page 39]. Which is fine, but I’ll note again that I’ll believe the word of a small child so long as the evidence backs up their case. I’m not going to throw out any corroborating evidence simply because I feel superior to the child.

Ken’s addendum:
Just in case: “hermeneutical” refers to the art and science (as it has been called) of interpreting texts by taking into consideration things such as grammatical context, historical context, cultural context, asking who, what, when, where, why, how, etc., etc., etc. This is done so as to not take a text out of context to make a pretext for a prooftext. This is basic exegesis which is allowing the text to tell us what it is telling us rather than eisegesis (or, isogesis) which is coming to a text with preconceived notions and reading them into the text.
The New Testament writers often applied an interpretive method which was, of course, culturally and historically in keeping with their times: the midrash method (one of various forms that the Jews traditionally employ). This consisted of drawing parallels, making homilies, moralizing, etc.

Again, he uses what I see as a bit of backwards reasoning: saying that since the NT authors were so darned stupid, we shouldn’t believe their word on the resurrection. Which is fine, you don’t have to take their word for it. The evidence, even the evidence we have almost 2000 years later, still supports the resurrection.

For now, John Loftus does nothing to interact with any evidence. He merely dismisses the NT authors as cognitively deficient. We’ll come back to this in a later chapter, however.

Interestingly, John then makes the claim that essentially Jesus’ life was written to reflect the OT. I haven’t the expertise to argue on this front, but clearly neither does John. Nor does he back up his case. Though, this has been more of an “intro” than anything, so we can give him the benefit of the doubt, for now.

Ken’s addendum:
IrishFarmer wrote, “We’ll come back to this in a later chapter, however” and “for now” but he was not able to continue his review and so all we have is parts 1 and 2 in which case Norm Geisler’s review may be of interest.

Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 2 of 2

We will now continue and conclude considering Bart Ehrman’s millions and millions of variants.

Let us continue from the first segment and consider Ehrman as a teacher, as he:

is energetic and possessed of a gregarious personality that endears him to the student body…as he paces back and forth across the stage, Ehrman ruthlessly pounces on the anomalies…Ehrman reels them off, rapid-fire, shell bursts against the bulwark of tradition…“Most of the students have never heard anything like this in their lives,” says Ben White, a graduate student. “For a lot of them, it’s very threatening.”1

Note the emotive and adrenaline spiked description. That “Most of the students have never heard anything like” is surely true for various reasons including 1) there are Christians who have lived all but cloistered lives and have never practiced the true and honest skepticism which the Bible enjoins2, 2) there are indifferent or rebellious students who take Ehrman’s words for it and also do not practice the skepticism which would challenge Ehrman’s views, 3) what they are hearing is not true.

Let us consider option 3 (the following combines statements by an interviewer with Ehrman’s):

in this Gospel, Jesus isn’t born in Bethlehem, he doesn’t tell any parables, he never casts out a demon, there’s no last supper. “None of that is found in John!”

The crucifixion stories are different — in Mark, Jesus is terrified on the cross; in John, he’s perfectly composed…

“In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace of Jesus being divine,” he says, his voice urgent. “In John, you do.”

He points out that in the other three books, it takes the disciples nearly half of Christ’s ministry to learn who he is. John says no, no, everyone knew it from the beginning.

Now, imagine all this and more being presented to you, a captive audience whose grades depend on it, by an energetic, endearing, ruthless, urgent, pouncer reeling them off, rapid-fire, shell bursts against the bulwark of tradition.

No wonder the New Atheist movement targets the college youth: they are naturally rebellious, have left home and are on their own, their libidos are on overdrive and along come the New Atheists, the Bart Ehrmans urging them to rebel against the authority of their parents and traditions, assist them in confusing rebellion against “religion” with rebellion against God and emphasize that traditional “religious” morality is oppressive so basically “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

No wonder that studies show that atheists are generally well “educated” as by the time they graduate college they have been through the atheist catechism numerous times. Every subject they study makes no reference to God, as that would be all but illegal, often if God is mentioned it is in order to condemn and confuse between God and “religion,” and the convenient side effect of treating others as the animals which they are told they are with liberty and fornication for all.

Let us momentarily wipe the stars from our eyes, let the adrenaline subside and actually skeptically consider the statements each in turn:
in this Gospel, Jesus isn’t born in Bethlehem, he doesn’t tell any parables, he never casts out a demon, there’s no last supper. “None of that is found in John!” That something is not found in one Gospel over another one amounts to nothing. Let us imagine that two authors write two books on tennis: one on how to play the actual game and the other describing and recommending the equipment and apparel that one will need in order to play tennis. It is no refutation of the one over the other to state, “In one book the tennis player is described as wearing certain apparel and utilizing certain equipment; none of that is found in the other book!” or “From one book we can actually learn how to play the game; none of that is found in the other book!” Would you really conclude from the one book that a person would purchase equipment and apparel and not play tennis or from the other that one would play tennis without a racket and disrobed?

That different authors emphasize different things as they write for different purposes and to different audiences is so very obvious, as it is done by every author (of fiction, non-fiction, books, novels, newspapers, websites, etc.) that one cannot help but discern emotive excuses for rebellion and rejection.

John’s emphasis is Jesus eternality as deity and so he begins by stating, reminiscent of Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Just because John does not mention where Jesus was born does not mean that in John’s gospel “Jesus isn’t born in Bethlehem.”

Does “he doesn’t tell any parables” mean that in John, Jesus does not say, “Hey guys, I am now going to tell you something that shall hereafter be categorized as ‘parable’?” Well, just in case, in John, Jesus makes parabolic statements: 3:8 (blowing wind), 3:29 (bridegroom’s friend), 4:35-38 (fields ripe for harvest), 5:19-20 (father and son), 8:35 (slave and the son), 10:1-5 (good shepherd), 11:9-10 (twelve hours of daylight), 12:24 (kernel of wheat), 12:35 (walking in the light), 14:2-4 (preparing a place), 15:1-8 (the vine and the branches), 16:20-24 (women in travail).

I suppose that it is true that in John “there’s no last supper” unless you count the last supper that is found in John ch. 13,

Now before the Feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew that His hour had come that He should depart from this world to the Father, having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end. And supper being ended…rose from supper…

The last one.

The crucifixion stories are different — in Mark, Jesus is terrified on the cross; in John, he’s perfectly composed.
This is simply not so, this gives the impression of contradiction whereby Mark and John claim to describe the same time and place but one denotes that Jesus was terrified and the other perfectly composed. The fact is that while Mark more fully describes the scene in the Garden of Gethsemane, John mentions that they went there and goes directly into a description of what happened when Judas (John ch. 18). Jesus was “terrified” before this as He anguished alone, then he became “perfectly composed” and then Judas and company arrived.

“In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace of Jesus being divine,” he says, his voice urgent. “In John, you do.”
I wonder what he means by “trace”? I wrote an essay entitled Did Jesus Say “I am God”? – The Faulty Premise because some people seem to think that unless Jesus stated the word “I” followed by the word “am” followed by the word “God” (in 21st century North American English grammar, mind you) then He did not claim to be God when, in fact, He did claim to be God and was claimed to be God in very many ways.
For the interested reader I have just begun an entire series on God’s Nature and Trinitarian Doctrine. Let us consider the claim that “In Matthew, Mark and Luke, you find no trace” not even a trace mind you “of Jesus being divine”:
Jesus is omnipresent in: Matthew 18:20, 28:20

Jesus is omnipotent in: Matthew 19:26 & Mark 10:27; Mark 4:39-40; Mark 11:13-14 & 20-21

Jesus is identified as God via doing things which only God could do in: Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 9:2-3, 6, 28:18; Mark 2:7, 10, 14:61-64; Luke 5:21, 24

For an example of the above; Jesus forgives sin in: Mark 2:5-11; Matthew 6:12 & Luke 11:14; 6:14-15, 9:2-3; Matthew 9:6 & Mark 2:10 & Luke 5:24; Matthew 26:28; Mark 2:7 & Luke 5:21, 7:48-49, 23:34

Jesus is worshipped, which pertains to God, in: Matthew 2:2, 9:18, 14:33, 20:20, 28:9, 17-18; Mark 5:6; Luke 24:51-52

Jesus is the Ruler of the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth in: Matthew 25:31, 27:37 & John 19:12; Matthew 27:42; Mark 9:1

Jesus is said to be the judge of humanity as ruler in: Matthew 19:28, 25:31-34, 41, 46

And these purposefully restrict us to Matthew, Mark and Luke without citing the rest of the New Testament.

He points out that in the other three books, it takes the disciples nearly half of Christ’s ministry to learn who he is. John says no, no, everyone knew it from the beginning.
This is simply not the case. The Gospel writer, the apostle John, states is that John the Baptist stated,

I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, “Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.” And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God (John 1:33-34).

From this point it is John the Baptist who identified Jesus for others and this was due to the very fact that everyone did not know from the beginning,

John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He…The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me’… (John ch. 1).

Much, much, much more could be said in responding to Bart Ehrman’s assertions. It is fascinating to note that there are people reading his works who would never even imagine reading anything on the subject of textual criticism from the other side. It is no wonder that it was his 19th book, published upon the shoulders of the New Atheist movement, which became a popular best seller and brought Ehrman fame, wealth and empty happiness.

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

Further information:

Bart Ehrman debated Michael Licona twice; found here Is the Resurrection of Christ Provable? and here Can historians really prove Jesus rose from the dead?

Debate with James White Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?

James White review of Misquoting Jesus.

James White comments on Bart Ehrman’s appearance on The Infidel Guy’s radio show.

Plus an intreivew with Licona.

Bart Ehrman and Darrell Bock on National Geographic’s The Lost Gospel of Judas

John Warwick Montgomery responding to Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.

Ben Witherington considers Ehrman’s book Jesus Interrupted in a five part essay Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5

William H. Willimon’s review Ehrman’s book God’s Problem

Peter Williams critique of Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.

Also see Dillon Burroughs’ book, Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus and Timothy Paul Jones’, Misquoting Truth – A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus.

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

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.

‹ Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 4 up Bart Ehrman’s Problem, part 2 ›