TrueFreeThinker – Page 878 – Worldviews in view reviewed: Atheism, Theology, Occult, UFOs, Cultural Commentary, etc.

“The Melchizedek Method was gifted to Earth in August 1997 by the great Ascended Master Thoth. According to Thoth this technique was first practiced on Earth in the ancient Atlantean times, introduced to man by the Cetaceans (dolphins and whales) within the temples of self-discovery and higher learning_The order of Melchizedek is mentioned many times in the bible (Hebrews 7:1, 15, 24; Genesis 14:18); and in other chapters as well but the tradition can be traced back to its creation by the Creator Son and the Creator Spirit eons ago, long before our solar system was brought into manifestation_

The Melchizedeks are a unique group of cosmic beings_Lords of Light_[who] assist Archangels Metatron and Michael.”1

Thoth is the Egyptian Moon god of Wisdom and Magic:

“Thoth has had quite a few incarnations on Earth. He is also known through his work during his incarnations as Chiquetet Arlich Vomilities, an Atlantean life time, and as Hermes Trismegistus in Ancient Greece. Each time he has appeared he has had had a significant impact on the cultures of humankind on Earth.”2

Alton Kamadon is a clairvoyant channel who received The Melchizedek Method in August 1997 from the Ascended Master Thoth. He has been initiated into the Alpha Omega Order of Melchizedek. Alton Kamadon is a regular columnist for Elohim magazine. He has been a guest speaker at the United Nations where he gave a speech on unconditional love and channeled a message of love from Lord Sananda (see next paragraph). He also constantly receives information and works with The Ascended Masters, The Angelic Realms, Lord Sananda, Melchizedek and Sai Baba. He also has memories of his deep connection to the ancient Mystery Schools of Lemuria, Atlantis and Egypt.

Regarding Lord Sananda:

“The Ashtar-Command is the airborne division of the Great Brother/Sisterhood of Light, under the administrative direction of Commander Ashtar and the spiritual guidance of Lord Sananda, know to Earth as Jesus, or the Christ, our Commander-in-Chief. Composed of millions of starships and personnel from many civilizations_”3

“The Brother/Sisterhood of Light is a multi-dimensional, interplanetary, intergalactic organization of beings who choose to serve the divine cosmic plan in this universe_Many lightworker groups call Jesus: Jesus-Sananda or Sananda. It’s his primary energetic name. Jesus was the name of one 3rd dimensional incarnation. Some reference Sananda with Christ too.”4

Likenesses between spirit channeler mediums and alien contactees/experiencers

Of the very many likenesses between spirit channeler mediums and alien contactees/experiencers there are a few noteworthy ones.

Succinctly stated, spirit channeler mediums and alien contactees/experiencers come in a variety of forms; both denote humans who claim to be in contact with otherworldly beings.

Spirit channeler mediums claim that the otherworldly beings are deceased humans and ascended masters and alien contactees/experiencers claim that they are extra-terrestrial aliens from other planets, other galaxies or even other universes (you can learn all about multiverse theory here).

Both spirit channeler mediums and alien contactees/experiencers are likely to have had a background of involvement in occult practices—by any other name. These may be generalized as practices that open one up. For example, emptying one’s mind of one’s own thoughts and thus allowing something’s else’s thoughts to enter. Or, via chanting or pulsating repetitive motions or drumming, short circuiting the mind so that it blanks out and, again, allows something else to take over.
In fact, the most well-known psychics (who are essentially spirit channeler mediums) have a background of Catholicism (find evidence of this in the article The Long Island Medium, Theresa Caputo & the Catholic psychic/medium connection). This is significant because Catholic are taught that communicating with the dead (necromancy, which the Bible forbids) is perfectly acceptable and holy. Thus, they pray to Mary, saints, etc. and it is one mere baby step away from communicating with any and all sorts of otherworldly beings.

Moreover, the point is that being a practicing spirit channeler medium is, itself, an occult practice. Being an alien contactee/experiencer is as well but some claim that they do not ask for it nor want it; however, there are those who do ask for it and want it.

Spirit channeler mediums and alien contactees/experiencers also report the appearance of spheres or globes of light; from large ones in their sky to small ones in their homes. Likewise, they both report electromagnetic disturbances.

Both spirit channeler mediums and alien contactees/experiencers claim to receive messages from otherworldly beings via telepathy; meaning that there is no need to be physically present with the otherworldly beings.

In the case of deceased humans it would technically not be possible as they are no longer physical. In the other case, we run into the difference between extra-terrestrial alien abductees, on the one hand, and contactees and/or experiencers on the other. Abductees have the experience of being taken aboard spaceships, being experimented upon and also receiving messages but contactees/experiencers need never even have as much as seen a UFO off in the distant sky.

Both spirit channeler mediums and alien contactees/experiencers involve the same practices two of which are: 1) some claim to receive the messages in their minds and simply retell them and 2) some claim to be “walk-ins” which denotes when a being takes over their bodies and speak through the directly (usually with very poor British accents).

Beyond the reception of the messages themselves there is also something similar about the actual messages: 1) Concern about our destructive systems of governance. 2) Concern about our destruction of the environment. 3) Assurance that the afterlife is a wonderful place wherein everyone and everything is wonderful (sure, you may have to pay back some karma or whatever but then; you’re good to go).

4) They promulgate a theology according to which there is no personal God but an impersonal force (Energy, Qi, Ki, Chi, Prana, Vril, the Force, etc.) into which anyone can tap and manipulate via their wills (this is magick 101 such as is practiced by the actor Will Smith).

5) The messages are 99.9% anti-Christian and .1% anti any other faith.

It is true that we have destructive systems of governance and have negative impacts upon the environment. However, the spirit channeler mediums and alien contactees/experiencers answer, the how to, is always the same; form a one world government and a one world religion—a new world order.

There are certainly many more likenesses so feel free to add them into the comment section.

Unitarian Universalism and the illogical sham of pluralism

Simply stated; religious pluralism refers to the (supposed) acceptance of various religions. It is the (supposed) acceptance of the validity of various theologies.

But why the “(supposed)” statements?

Consider the following statement:

The Rev. Ron Hersom will be welcomed…as the new minister of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Jacksonville… Hersom was the 2004 scholar at the Tsubaki Grand Shrine in Mie Prefecture, Japan where he studied Shinto, the national religion. A Unitarian Universalist for 20 years, his experiences in Japan as the 2004 Tsubaki Grand Shrine scholar, he says, deepened his commitment to pluralism and his belief that no one faith or tradition has the answer — they all do…

Ordained in 2007 into the Unitarian Universalist ministry by First Unitarian Church of Albuquerque, N.M….He then stayed as the assistant minister in Albuquerque until his call to the Jacksonville Church.[1]

The key is the statement about “his commitment to pluralism and his belief that no one faith or tradition has the answer — they all do.”

That “no one faith or tradition has the answer” implies that there is an unstated question and that either there is one answer which all religions have or that there are various answers which is why all religions have it.

Now, here is the issue and it is the same issue as with the popular versions of syncretism, relativism, inclusivism and pluralism of all sorts and kinds: the fact is that we are all exclusivists. This is very simply proved: if you disagree with the statement “we are all exclusivists” then you have just proved the point as you have excluded the statement from the realm of truth.

What if my religion claims that only one faith or tradition has the answer? Then my religion would be wrong and thus would end the great pluralism experiment—if, that is, pluralists were logically consistent which, by definition, they cannot be.

Consider this: all religions do not claim that all religions have the answer. All claim to have the answer. All claim some sort of exclusivity; or else they would not be distinct religions.

Now, Ron Hersom claims that all religions do have the answer. In making this claim he is affirming that he is right in this view and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Thus, he is an exclusivist.

In short and in all actuality Ron Hersom may have a point as all religions are and believe the same things. Oh, yeah, they only differ on minor side issues such as origins, the nature of God, sin, salvation, end times and our eternal destiny—other than that, they are all the same :o)

To learn more about Unitarian Universalism, please see this link.

Note:
[1] “Jacksonville Unitarians welcoming new minister,” St. Augustine Record, August 12, 2010, copyright 2010 St. Augustine Record. All rights reserved

Life's origins, abiogenesis and Darwinian evolution

For whatever reasons, which are irrelevant to the context of the article, many Darwinian evolutionists deny that, or insist that, Darwinian evolution has nothing to do with, has nothing to say about and simply does not deal with life’s origins.
Moreover, they claim that it does not because it is not meant to, it is not supposed to deal with it because Darwinian evolution is about the change that occurs to organisms which already exist. In short, they claim that Darwinian evolution deals with life and not with how life came into being.

For our current purposes go ahead and grant that to the Darwinian evolutionists: fine, you do not need to account for the origins of life.
Now, many Darwinian evolutionists are not content to have found a preferred theory about biology but they deleteriously turn Darwinian evolution into a worldview. A byproduct of committing this logical and scientific fallacy is that the Darwinian evolutionists who are also Atheists turn Darwinian evolution into a worldview which they think has something to say about God’s existence. They claim that Darwinian evolution makes God superfluous: an unnecessary addition.

Now, what is it about organisms changing that makes God superfluous? Well, Darwinian evolutionists conclude that small changes within species (which is scientifically observable) add up to changes from one species into another species (which is a conclusion based on interpretation of evidence).

Finally, they regress this idea, applying it to prehistoric past and conclude that changes from species to species means that all species are related, that they all came from one source (the mythological crypto-zoological creature, the “common ancestor”).

Now, what is it about there being a common ancestor that makes God superfluous? Well, as with change within organisms or change from one organism to another the answer is: nothing.

These things have nothing to do with God’s existence. They many step on particular theological toes but really have nothing to do with God’s existence.

The bottom line, within the parameters of this article, is that the best thing that a Darwinian evolutionist can claim is that 1) Darwinian evolution does not deal with life’s origins and also that 2) Darwinian evolution disproves God’s existence.

This is a great combination for the non-Darwinian evolutionists theist because the changes undergone by organisms have nothing to do with God’s existence and since the Darwinian evolutionists does not deal with life’s origins then they cannot even claim that God is unnecessary because life can just happen all by itself.

In short, Darwinian evolutionists are inviting you to disprove their fallacious conclusion based on their very own standard. This is the very best sort of refutation: grant someone’s position and show how they discredit themselves.

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

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

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

Twitter: #abiogenesis , #evolution, #Darwin
Facebook: #abiogenesis , #evolution, #Darwin

John Gill on the Nephilim, part 2 of 2

We conclude that which was begun part 1 which is a consideration of John Gill’s (1697-1771 AD) Exposition of the Old and New Testament pertaining to the issue of the Nephilim:

At long last, continuing where we left off from John Gill’s commentary on Genesis 6 itself:

…the souls of the saints before the resurrection, during their separate state, are in some sense like the angels, to which may be applied those words of Maimonides [Gill’s note, “Hilch. Teshuba, c. 8. sect. 2”], “In the world to come, there is no body, but the souls of the righteous only, without a body, “as the ministering angels”; and seeing there is no body, there is no eating nor drinking in it…

We have already considered the issue of eating and drinking in eternity and merely citing another who misinterprets the text, Rabbi Moses ben Maimon aka Maimonides aka Rambam (1135-1204 AD) does not help matters.

Gill continues thusly, “And according to the sense of the Jews, they will be like to the angels after the resurrection.” He, at least, makes a good point to the effect that “Christ, by making mention of angels, strikes at another notion of the Sadducees, that there were no angels, Act 23:8.”

john20gill20_0-8325018

Now, getting more to the point of the Genesis 6 affair, note that Gill’s premise is not the Bible but Arabic traditions:

According to the Arabic writers [Gill’s notes, “Elmacinus, Patricides apud Hottinger. Smegma, l. 1. c. viii. p. 226, 227, 228”], immediately after the death of Adam the family of Seth was separated from the family of Cain; Seth took his sons and their wives to a high mountain (Hermon), on the top of which Adam was buried, and Cain and all his sons lived in the valley beneath, where Abel was slain; and they on the mountain obtained a name for holiness and purity, and were so near the angels that they could hear their voices and join their hymns with them; and they, their wives and their children, went by the common name of the sons of God: and now these were adjured, by Seth and by succeeding patriarchs, by no means to go down from the mountain and join the Cainites; but notwithstanding in the times of Jared some did go down, it seems; and after that others, and at this time it became general; and being taken with the beauty of the daughters of Cain and his posterity, they did as follows…

And upon this Arabic tradition, Gill weaves his interpretation of the Biblical text as we pick up directly where the quote above leaves off:

…and they took them wives of all that they chose; not by force, as Aben Ezra and Ben Gersom interpret, for the Cainites being more numerous and powerful than they, it can hardly be thought that the one would attempt it, or the other suffer it; but they intermarried with them, which the Cainites might not be averse unto; they took to them wives as they fancied, which were pleasing to the flesh, without regard to their moral and civil character, and without the advice and consent of their parents, and without consulting God and his will in the matter; or they took women as they pleased, and were to their liking, and committed fornication, to which the Cainites were addicted; for they spent their time in singing and dancing, and in uncleanness, whereby the posterity of Seth or sons of God were allured to come down and join them, and commit fornication with them, as the Arabic writers (m) relate.

So much for the Bible’s contents, concepts and historical, cultural and grammatical contexts.

On Genesis 6:4, John Gill comments thusly (first ellipses in original):

There were giants in the earth in those days,…. That is, in the days before the sons of God took the daughters of men for wives, in such a general manner as before declared, or before the declension and apostasy became so universal; even in the times of Jared, as the Arabic writers [Gill’s note, “Elmacinus & Patricides apud Hottinger, p. 235, 236” also see the Book of Enoch 6:6] understand it, who say that these giants were begotten on the daughters of Cain by the children of Seth, who went down from the mountain to them in the days of Jared, see Gen 5:20 the word “Nephilim” comes from a word which signifies to fall; and these might be so called, either because they made their fear to fall upon men, or men, through fear, to fall before them, because of their height and strength; or rather because they fell and rushed on men with great violence, and oppressed them in a cruel and tyrannical manner; or, as some think, because they fell off and were apostates from the true religion, which is much better than to understand them of apostate angels, whom the Targum of Jonathan mentions by name, and calls them Schanchazai and Uziel, who fell from heaven, and were in the earth in those days: and also after that, which shows that the preceding clause respects giants in former times: when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, came into their houses and chambers, and lay with them: and they bare children unto them, or giants unto them, as may be supplied from the former clause; for the sense is, as there were giants before this general defection, so there were at this time, when there was a mixture of the Cainites and Sethites; which were the offspring of the sons of God, or posterity of Seth, mixing with the daughters of men, or the posterity of Cain; for this is not to be understood after the flood, as Aben Ezra, Ben Melech; and so they are described in the following words: the same became mighty men; for tallness and strength, for power and dominion, for tyranny and oppression: which were of old: like those that were of old before; or who in after times were spoken of, as in the days of old: men of renown, or “of name” (o); whose names were often made mention of, both for their size and for their wickedness; they were much talked of, and extolled for their exploits, and even wicked ones: they were famous men, or rather infamous; for some men get a name in the world, not for their goodness, but for their greatness, and sometimes for their great wickedness; which sense is countenanced by what follows:

that there were giants in these early times is confirmed by the testimony of many Heathen writers; such were the Titans that made war against Saturn, begotten by Ouranus, who were not only of bulky bodies, but of invincible strength, as Apollodorus (p) relates, and Berosus (q) speaks of a city about Lebanon, called Enos, which was a city of giants, who were men of vast bodies, and of great strength, inventors of arms and music, were cannibals, and exceedingly debauched.

Yes indeed, that was all one single sentence, you gotta love it!

But what we cannot love is John Gill’s reaching in each and every direction, except for the Bible’s own context, to weave a tapestry of seeking to elucidate that which the Bible does not imply.
Note that “giants were begotten on the daughters of Cain by the children of Seth” but just how do giants result from two humans producing offspring? One more time Gill admits knowledge, original and ancient, that “some think” that it “is much better than to understand them of apostate angels.”

John Gill states that “there were giants before” and specifies “this general defection” and that “so there were at this time, when there was a mixture of the Cainites and Sethites.”
He states this because Genesis 6:4 states that “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.” The questions are when were “those days” and when was “after that”? Well, the text pinpoints the timeframe by specifying that it was “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men.” Gill is stating that it there were giants before but the text states that there were giants at the time, as a result, of the Genesis 6 affair and afterwards but not before.

Lastly, note that Gill makes a good point in noting that the Bible affirms “the testimony of many Heathen writers” who also knew about giants, “such were the Titans.” Such shared legend and myth, as they came to be termed, resulted from the common history being dispensed as humanity populated the far reaches of the Earth after the Tower of Babel event.

Sara Fernanda Giromin aka Sara Winter on Feminism’s success and failure

Sara Fernanda Giromin aka Sara Winter hit the cyber scene from Brazil as a member of feminist protestor named Femen who’s go to tactic was going topless for publicity. Upon leaving Femen, claiming that it became a business, she formed Bastardxs which was a feminist group including males and females.

Sara Fernanda Giromin aka Sara Winter was an outspoken supporter of abortion and had one herself yet, the birth of her second child, the first to be birthed made her rethink her position and protests, “I have repented of having had an abortion and today I ask for forgiveness….Please, women who are desperate to abort, think carefully about it. I was very sorry I did it. I don’t want the same for you,” she pleaded.

Sara Fernanda Giromin aka Sara Winter had also been involved in the politics, as it were, and action of “gender ideology” which lead her to choose a bisexual lifestyle. One of her stunts was kissing another seminude female in front of a cross before the Church of Our Lady of Candelária in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; an act for which she now asks forgiveness, “I ask Christians for forgiveness for feminist protest.”
Now, I say that she “choose a bisexual lifestyle” because any sexual act is a choice (unless one is raped and rape is not sex, it is violence). Yet, she was pushed into the choice via feminists’ pressured to do so. Apparently, being merely heterosexual is to “normal” for extremists. As she put it, “Lesbian and bisexual women have much more voice and respect within the movement, so in the search for recognition of my struggle, with each day that passed, I deconstructed my heterosexuality and was substituting it with an artificial bisexuality.”

bitch2c20no2120seven20times20i20was20betrayed20by20feminism-8916644

Sara Fernanda Giromin aka Sara Winter has concluded the following:

For the feminist sect, women are not the inspiration, they are prime matter in the worst sense of the term.

They are convenient objects useful for the purpose of inflaming hatred against the Christian religion, hatred against men, hatred against the beauty of women, hatred against the equilibrium of families. That’s what feminism is, and I can guarantee it is like that because I was on the inside!

I saw the feminist movement cover up for PEDOPHILES. I saw the feminist movement PERSECUTE WOMEN…I am a witness to the fact that today in the feminist movement women are not of any importance but serve as fuel for the fires of hatred that the feminist sect cannot allow to die.

Not only was the deconstruction of a “normal” person related to sexuality but the feminists’ new norm included drugs, sex with strangers and being sexually abused by feminist lesbians.

Please pardon the terminology but, Sara Fernanda Giromin aka Sara Winter has published a book about her experiences with the feminist movement which is titled Vadia não! Sete vezes que fui traída pelo feminism / Bitch, no! Seven times I was betrayed by Feminism.

VIDEO: Selena Gomez cell phone ghost detecting app

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

Bob Schlenker on Michelangelo and serpent seed of Satan DNA

If there were another legitimate way to interpret the scene in the garden that wasn’t a sex orgy

version, I’d like that very much

—Bob Schlenker

Herein is the continuation of a review of Bob Schlenker’s article Who is Cain’s Father? Part Three having already considered parts 1-2, you can (eventually) find the whole series in toto here.

Bob Schlenker references “how Michelangelo had painted a very astute representation of the deep primal imagery of the serpent/tree/DNA identity.” He thinks that the coiled serpent implied knowledge not only of the DNA molecule but knowledge of DNA, as in Satanic genetics, and the serpent seedline of Satan. Of course, he seems to neglect that DNA consists of a double helix.

He ponders whether Michelangelo “or his patron (Pope Julius II) believe oral sex was practiced in the Garden?” Wait, what?! He thinks that the painting was “an inside joke, who see it and understand what it really means.”
But how does the painting, much less Genesis 3, implies oral sex. Well, Bob Schlenker asks us to “consider how cannibalism as a consequence might relate to oral sex as a cause.” Well, let us say that he connects the non-existing dots by, for example, reference to Hebrews 7 which refers to Levi who when Melchizedek met Abraham “was still in the loins of his father.” In keeping with his X-Rated sex orgy misinterpretation of Genesis 3 we now learn a new previously not only unknown but unimagined (and unimaginable) alleged factoid, “Did the serpent eat Adam’s seed in the Garden? If not, for what reason did the Lord God condemn the serpent to go on his belly, eating dust?”
Interestingly, he follows directly with “If you deny the presence of the ‘dots’ or refuse to ‘connect them’ you’ll have no legitimate answers at all to the hard questions that beg to be asked.” Thus, he asks us to accept his perverted sex fantasies based on gotcha questions. Well, I have already dealt with this issue in this series and the simple answer is that as per the Bible’s very own greater context: going on one’s belly and eating dust is a manner whereby to denote being humbled (see Deuteronomy 32:24, Psalm 72:9, Micah 7:17 and Lamentations 3:27-28). But that is not all, not only did Satan and Adam sodomize each other but Bob Schlenker then asks, “Did Adam engage in oral sex with the serpent, consuming his seed? Adam had eaten of the tree” so you get the picture—sadly get the picture as that would be a picture worth censoring since, as he himself puts it, “when you see what becomes so obvious you cannot un-see it.”

Bob Schlenker wrote, “I don’t know of any explicit account of oral sex in the Bible (beyond the Garden scene)” well, I don’t know of any explicit, or implicit, account of oral sex in the Garden scene. In fact, as far as I know, Bob Schlenker is the only person in history to know of it.

So infatuated is he with his very own gotcha questions (as serpent seed of Satan theorists tend to be) that he states that without his literally invented stories, “what are we left with but no answer at all?”
He states, “If there were another legitimate way to interpret the scene in the garden that wasn’t a sex orgy version, I’d like that very much” and it is “the singular version to which the evidence points. Can’t we find some reasonable alternative.” But what about that which he dismissively relates as “Adam having actually eaten some apple-like fruit from a common orchard-like tree?…If you can make that work for you with all honesty and integrity, well, good luck with that.”

Well, there is another legitimate way to interpret the scene which has worked for Judaism and Christianity for some three and a half millennia with all honesty and integrity and it is to recognize that the Bible says what it means and means what it says. The most succinct elucidation I have written is Serpent Seed of Satan article in a Christian Apologetics journal.

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

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

Twitter: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines
Facebook: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines