Por J. Warner Wallace Traducción Bryan Woodward En mi nuevo libro, “La Escena de Crimen de Dios: Un Detective de Homicidios Examina Evidencia para un Universo Divinamente Creado”, yo examino ocho trazos de evidencia en el universo mientras pregunto algo simple que usamos en investigaciones: “Puedo explicar la evidencia ‘en la habitación’ (del universo natural) mientras me quedo dentro de la habitación’?” Esta es la pregunta que uso en cada escena de muerte para determinar si en verdad es una escena de crimen. Cuando la evidencia “en la habitación” no se puede explicar al permanecer “en la habitación”, tengo que considerar la participación de un intruso. Si la evidencia dentro del universo no puede explicarse al mantenerse “dentro” de la esfera natural del universo, debemos tener en cuenta igualmente la participación de un intruso cósmico. Una pieza de evidencia critica en el universo es la existencia de morales objetivos que son transcendentes. Podemos nosotros explicar estas verdades mientras nos quedamos “dentro de la habitación”? Muchos filósofos y pensadores ateos buscan explicar las verdades morales desde “dentro de la habitación” del universo natural. Ellos ofrecen que las sociedades y culturas son la fuente de la moralidad. De acuerdo con este punto de vista (llamado “relativismo moral”), la moralidad varía de cultura a cultura. No hay morales universales que son objetivas ni transcendentes para “todas las personas todo el tiempo.” Los relativistas morales creen que las culturas y los grupos de personas son los que crean sus propios códigos morales en vez de descubrirlos. Los códigos morales son una construcción social diseñada por la mayoría para ayudar a que el grupo mantenga la armonía social y aumenta su capacidad de supervivencia. Pero si el acuerdo cultural determina las verdades morales, varias problemas emergen: Este Enfoque Confunde la Diversidad Cultural con la Claridad Moral […]Continue reading →
The mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, has criticized Francesca Pardi’s children’s book Piccolo Uovo (Little Egg) as it deconstructs the very concept of family and redefines it as whatever anyone wants to make of it: “a pair of gay penguins, lesbian rabbits successfully bringing up a family, as well as other family models, including a single parent hippo, a mixed race dog couple, and kangaroos that have adopted polar bear cubs,” etc. as per a UK Guardian report.
Mayor Brugnaro was not merely offering emotive criticism but tackled a much larger issue: ensuring that the book was not used for re-education and indoctrination as it, among others, was being used in city schools.
We do not want to discriminate against children. At home parents can be called Dad One and Dad Two, but I have to think about the majority of families where there is a mother and a father.
Francesca Pardi appealed to Pope Francis in an emotive manner (as anyone can experience and emphasize with an emotion but thinking through complex issues is much too much for many), “Many parishes across the country are in this period sullying our name and telling falsehoods about our work which deeply offends us” (emphasis added for emphasis).
Well, what if any of us, much less the Pope, were to state that deconstructing, redefining and re-educating as per the pop-culture de jour so as to claim that “a pair of gay penguins, lesbian rabbits…as well as other” non-traditional “family models” deeply offends us? The likely reply would be “Who cares? Shut up and go away you hate’a!!!”
Now, with regards to any alternate family model, the fact is that all things being equal a family consisting of one male and one female with children is the best model for everyone. Two (or more) males or two (or more) females result in, at least, one of the males playing the female role and, at least, one of the females playing the male role.
As for the other family models a single parent is obviously not in the least bit ideal, for anyone, and yet, if one is abandoned one must make due. Of course, many single parents are as such due to poor choices encouraged by the pop-culture de jour: have irresponsible sex at will, do not demand commitment, use and abandon people at a whim, etc. Mixed race is erroneous as there is only one “race” and that is the human race. However, this merely denotes personages of slightly differing epidermal pigmentation. Adoption is also among the lines of traditional families if the adoptee has one adopted female and one male.
Francesca Pardi also noted, “We have respect for Catholics” and admits that “A lot of Catholics give back the same respect” and then asks, “why can’t we have the whole hierarchy of the church behind us?”
Well, respect can be offered without the necessity of having “the whole hierarchy of the church behind” deconstructing, redefining and re-educating. But think about that, she actually wants “the whole hierarchy of the church behind” to “respect” her worldview-philosophy which is simply astonishing.
And yet, she has gotten, essentially, that which she wanted. Perhaps “the whole hierarchy” does not respect her views but the Catholic hierarchy’s head does as senior official at the Vatican secretariat of state, Peter B. Wells, replied to the Guardian speaking for the Pope to the effect that “His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values.”
Well, this is just good ol’ fashioned flummoxing as what does homosexuals deconstructing, redefining and re-educating with regards to what a family is have to do with “genuine…Christian values”?
Yet, the Vatican sought to distinguish between the author and that which she authored. Peter B. Wells affirmed praise of Pardi but not her book’s message: in which case, why is she being praised?
What is interesting is that Catholicism is a multi-headed beast which, at the same time, has a very, very, very long history of homosexual priests and nuns getting pregnant and having abortions whilst, at the same time, outwardly condemning homosexuality, unmarried sex, abortion, etc.Continue reading →
Hot on the heels of our transference of the article Sacred Abortion, I ran across an interview with Zachary King titled, “Ex-Satanist: Babies ritually aborted for devil ‘Your hands have to get bloody’,” World Net Daily. He has also been interviewed by the Lepanto Institute, et al.
In the early 1980s AD, he was involved in a Satanic coven and at one point the coven’s males were to have sex with a woman so as to get her pregnant so as to, eventually, perform a ritual abortion.
Zachary was a teenager then and had to ask, “What is an abortion?” the reply for which was “we say a spell and there is a baby in its mother’s womb and we kill it…As long as it’s inside the woman, it’s legal” (emphasis added for emphasis).
Ritual abortions were great news to him as if they “kill someone inside a woman, and that’s legal, and five minutes later it’s illegal…This is awesome. I can do this all day long. You step through this door and you can kill, and you step through this other door and you go to prison. That in itself should tell you how satanic it is…The coven leader called it a baby, not a lump of cells, and he said, ‘You kill it.’ They didn’t call it a lump of cells.”
Zachary King would come to oversee some 140 ritual abortion and:
…he wore the same type of wizard’s garb seen in a music video by female rocker Pink for her song, “Just Like a Pill.” The video shows a wizard, dressed in black, his face painted pale and wearing a black top hat, reciting a spell behind the singer, as the scene then flips to simulated group sex.
He explained that intermingling sex and magick and/or Satanism and/or occultism in general was popularized by Aleister Crowley and I will add; by the Ordo Templi Orientis. The OTO accused Crowley of, somehow, accessing their secret sacred sex rites but it turns out that they have just happened upon the same ideas around the same time. That is to say that they were both Satanically influenced to perform the same rites. And, of course, ritual sex has a very, very ancient history what with temple prostitution, etc.
Many have noticed, reported on and have been told about similar occurrences.
Alveda King, a pro-life activist with Priests for Life and the niece of slain civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., said she believes King’s story, because she’s heard others like it over the years. But she has no idea how prevalent such practices may be.
“Yes. Actually, I’ve been aware for many years,” she said. “I’ve heard testimonies of post-abortive parents, especially women. There was a witch in the hospital when my sixth baby was born.”
At a young age Abigail Seidman began working in an abortion clinic managed by her mother. In turn, “her mother’s descent into the abortion culture was…motivated by” the view that abortion “was a religion – literally” as she and the “employees considered abortion ‘a form of sacrifice’” whereby they “would perform the procedure as a sort of ritual.”
See the Life Site News articles:
Complete interview with Abigail Seidman – abortion and the occult
Life Dynamics was founded by Mark Crutcher who notes, “there is a darker spiritual side to the abortion industry that goes unseen.” This is an interesting statement in that just how much darker can it get then murdering beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies in in human, inhumane and subhuman dismembering manners in the hopes of leaving the portions of the corpse intact enough to be sold? Also, that it goes unseen is a major premise of abortion: do not let the mother view an ultrasound because then she will see that she is not with clump of cells, a byproduct of conception, etc. but a beautiful living baby.
Crutcher wrote a book titled, Lime 5 : Exploited by Choice in which he included a chapter titled “Vacant Souls.” Therein, he relates stories about abortion clinic employees which includes undercover work and exposures.
He notes that “a girl who came from Missouri and she claimed to be involved in the same sort of thing” about which Zachary King speaks.
The woman told Crutcher that one of the things they tell women in the counseling sessions is, “You make your baby holy like Jesus, because he shed his blood for you to make your life better, and your baby can shed his blood for you, too.
Senior policy adviser to Operation Rescue, Cheryl Sullenger, has also “heard the rumors for years about ritualistic abortions being conducted at clinics, but she hasn’t been able to find confirmation.” She does note that “one common denominator that links most of the operatives in the abortion industry is a hatred of Christianity” and that “many of the volunteer escorts at abortion clinics hold pagan and neo-pagan beliefs” and that she has “met a lot of women who volunteer as clinic escorts who are pagans.”
This makes perfect sense since abortion clinic employees and escorts are not likely to hand women seeking abortions Christian tracts. Rather, they would take advantage of her guilt, shame, emotional and spiritual turmoil and talk her into believing that she is doing a good thing in a Pagan way.
Now, Zachary King eventually converted to Catholicism which makes an odd sort of sense as Catholicism is very occult: prayer to and for the dead, un-, non- and anti-biblical rituals and theology, etc. see see here for details.
Some Satanic groups have recently made it clear that they do, indeed, support abortion (for various reasons). For example, in 2013 AD at the state House in Austin, Texas, pro-abortion activists began chanting, “Hail Satan, Hail Satan.”
Now, in 2015 AD, Detroit’s Satanic Temple performed a ritual in support of Planned Parenthood; they poured gallons of milk over the heads of two women “saying this simulated the drowning of women in breast milk by stripping them of their reproductive rights.”
Well, of course, all women should have reproductive rights. For example, as a Bible believing Jewish-Christian I am 100% pro-choice in as far as that I believe that all women have a right to choose whether or not to get pregnant. However, once they are pregnant, evidence of their choice, it is another matter altogether as they are now dealing not only with their own lives but that of their baby.
Also, New York’s Satanic Temple “filed a federal lawsuit in July against the state, claiming that such a law violates their ‘free exercise’ of their religion, Satanism.” They claim that “Missouri’s law violates the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. ‘The question of when life begins is absolutely a religious opinion, and the state has no business proselytizing religious beliefs,’ the sect claims.”
Of course, when life begins is absolutely not a religious opinion. For example, if we observe an unfertilized egg, we note that it is washed out via the menstrual cycle. If we observe a spermatozoon which has not fertilized an egg, we note that it is reabsorbed by the body. Yet, when we observe a fertilized egg, we note that the result is a human baby thus, life begins at conception as that is as far back as a human life can be traced.
It is noted that “pagan feminists is that abortion is a ‘sacrament’” which my article Sacred Abortion makes shockingly clear. In fact, Ginette Paris is a Pagan and wrote a book which also proves this fact which she titled, The Sacrament of Abortion.
Interestingly, in keeping with my recent series on homosexuality’s socio-political propaganda (including thought crime and new-speak; see Postgender Re-education of Culture and History of homosexual socio-political psychiatric activism, part 1 of 2), Zachary King notes:
I’m old enough to know that the American Psychological Association said for years homosexuality was a mental disorder.
Then they said it’s OK to think those thoughts, but you can’t act on them.
Then it was OK for you to act on them in your own bedroom.
Then they got to the point where they were having public kiss-ins, and that all moved us toward where we are now with the Supreme Court ruling it’s not only not a psychological issue but it’s no different than heterosexual sex and, therefore, legal to marry.
Speaking socio-politically, much the same could generally be stated about abortion and Satanism. For example, if you do not believe that it is acceptable to murder beautiful, healthy, innocent and defenseless human babies in in human, inhumane and subhuman dismembering manners in the hopes of leaving the portions of the corpse intact enough to be sold then you will be condemned by pop-culture, many politicians, the media, etc.
When it comes to Satanism, the media just take their word for absolutely whatever they say and do not dare question them or bother double checking the facts. For example, one Satanic group is the Church of Satan founded by Anton La Vey. He wrote the Satanic Bible which includes a chapter titled “On the choice of human sacrifice” which makes clear that, in his view, ritual human sacrifice to Satan is perfectly acceptable, see my article here.
Thus far, I have just caught just one episode of the Netflix show “Sense 8” so I do not know very much about it but can comment on that which I have seen and I have seen enough to know that I need see no more.
There were two references to homosexuality within three and a half minutes into the show which, minus the intro, is about one minute into the show. Oh by the way, no, the show is not about homosexuality but is supposed to be a drama/mystery/sci-fi. One issue is that, as per below, homosexuals know that this is an LGBT show but I did not know that and I watched the episode based on my interest in mystery/sci-fi although not so much in drama. Thus, many are sucked into the show based on a faulty premise and end up having homosexual propaganda and anti-Christian hate speech shoved down their throats.
The show is described by the Internet Movie Database as, “A group of people around the world are suddenly linked mentally, and must find a way to survive being hunted by those who see them as a threat to the world’s order.” This somehow ends up in a show all about the righteousness of homosexuality whilst encouraging Christaphobic hate speech.
By six minutes and thirty second another reference is made along with two references about just how bad Christian parents are. One of the point made is that pride is not a sin because, of course, the homosexuals celebrate Gay Pride and the Bible condemns both Gay and Pride so since the homosexual turns same sex attraction into a worldview they have to conclude that the Bible is wrong because they chose to carry out a homosexual lifestyle.
The triumphant moment is when a homosexual rejects her parents, rejects Biblical theology and announces her determination to march in a Gay Pride parade. Now, she feels even more prideful by thinking of herself as a martyr who is standing up not only for herself but for other homosexuals.
Since she was specifically referencing Thomas Aquinas, she ends a bit of self-congratulatory monologue with “So, **** yourself Aquinas” and this, merely because Aquinas had noted that pride is a sin which it cannot be because our politically correct culture de jour commands that pride the celebrated.
The “she” who monologue, Nomi, was born a “he” and had a sex change operation aka sex reassignment surgery. Thus, a man because a woman and ended up with a lesbian sex partner.
Then, at just past t=11:00 the issue of a homosexual not being allowed to visit her lesbian sex partner is raised.
Within this context, a fictional movie is reference which is titled, “Love has not boundaries but death.” Get it? Since “Love has not boundaries” then homosexuality is perfectly acceptable. The movie’s male protagonist is actually a hunk of an actor and a big deal is made about the beautiful babe with whom he shows up to the primer. However, guess what, he is secretly a homosexual—oh no! He is secretly involved in a lifestyle that is literally celebrated by the throwing of parades and against which you can say nothing without risking losing your job, your business, your good name, etc. since we have no freedom of speech but fear of speech in this new McCarthy era…so, what is the problem, exactly, with him being gay?
Now, when a woman who is interested in him shows up at his residence and precedes to take her clothes of, he tells her that his heart belongs to another but she could care less and states that this is “just a little harmless sex.” How sadly indicative of our post-Christian culture which views sex as nothing but the mashing together of two, or more, bio-organisms. Well, his gay sex partner was hidden away in the bedroom and when she barges in and finds him she just makes the next do-what-thou-wilt based decision and wants to have sex with both of them. Welcome to the utter sexuality perverse depravity which shows such as Sense8 celebrates. She calls this moral nightmare a “dream come true.”
There is also a scene wherein a character picks up a magazine about mastering the tarot directly after which he is told that we all experience many births and death thus, reincarnation.
On July 6, 2015 AD, So So Gay Magazine published “You should know about: Sense8” wherein “Jordan Hogan explains why you should be watching the new series ‘Sense8’ on Netflix.”
It notes that “the popularity of LGBT themed television has become increasingly popular.” In fact, I do not have cable or satellite but merely broadcast TV and virtually every single show regardless of genre always (and in a statistically impossible manner) includes reference to homosexuality (and always in a positive light: they are always healthy, happy, well off, well educated, etc.).
It is also noted that “ Sense8 is a new LGBT themed TV show created by J. Michael Straczynski and the Wachowskis, masterminds behind The Matrix trilogy.” Well, the referenced “the Wachowskis” used to be known as the “Wachowski brothers” consisting, as they did, of Andrew Paul “Andy” Wachowski and Laurence “Larry” Wachowski yet, Larry underwent a sex change operation aka sex reassignment surgery and is now “Lana Wachowski.”
As for the Wachowskis being “masterminds behind The Matrix trilogy” the fact is that Sophia Steward is the mastermind, she is depicted as the oracle within the franchise, see here for the background and a review of her script for Matrix IV.
So So Gay states that Sense8 is “about love” with love, apparently, being whatever one wants to make of it and that “there’s quite a lot of sex throughout the series, but it’s not like any Game of Thrones fans will be shocked by this.” Thank you for giving us a reason to never bother watching Game of Thrones!
They note “If you like to see naked bodies (cleverly shot to obscure full nudity)” actually, in the episode in view there is some sexual nudity at t=21:35.Continue reading →
When Atheists ask for scientific, or scientifically verifiable, evidence of or for God’s existence there are a plethora of issues to consider.
Firstly, they should be asked to justify demand for evidence. This is because all of us believe in and/or otherwise hold to certain views without any regard for evidence. For example, our various worldview-philosophies are ultimately founded upon a basis, premises, presuppositions, assumptions, axioms, etc. and these are not proven or evidenced but rather, are assumed, intuited, etc.
The minutia of the nature of properly basic beliefs, what entails a properly basic belief, just what and/or which are properly basic beliefs is another issue.
Also, in claiming that we should or ought to present evidence for __________ (fill in the blank, God’s existence in this case) Atheists are making absolute truth claims and making absolute demands based on nothing but what comes down to personal preferences which are themselves based on personal preferences since “Thou shall ascertain empirical truth via evidence” is not part of the furniture of an Atheist universe.
Now, such evidence would, presumably, be something not natural but rather, supernatural. For if it was natural then it would be part of nature and thus, not count as evidence of/for God.
Yet, if such evidence is supernatural then science would be unable to access and explain it as science is a tool that was intelligently designed for the purpose of exploring the natural world, the material realm.
Thus, an Atheist would do well to recognize these facts and chose to request miraculous evidence, “Show me a miracle” they may say.
When an Atheist is asked “What would you consider to be evidence of/for God?’” their answer needs to be dissected for them and it generally comes in two categories:
1) Evidence that only God could provide, such as a miracle, a personal appearance by God, etc.
2) Evidence I, at least theoretically, could provide.
If they demand evidence that only God could provide then I would make sure to point out that I cannot help them with that—it is a set up for you to fail (consciously set up or not).
One Atheist told me “show me Jesus” well, just how am I supposed to do that? Although, I suppose that I could show him Jesus but then that would be called murder, “Your honor, he asked me to show him Jesus—capiche!?!?”
The Apostle Thomas, to whom the Bible never refers as “doubting,” demanded physical evidence when, and only when, he was told that physical evidence was available.
The Atheists will seek to demand things that they know you cannot provide and in doing so they will consider that they have disproved that any such evidence exists and thus that God does not exist as well—or, some such conclusion.
Of course, there is a much deeper issue which is, for example, that Richard Dawkins wrote, “The God of the Bible is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction,” etc., etc., etc. (note that he did not write of the God of the Qur’an or any other religion as Atheism is an anti-Christian support group). If you could prove to Dawkins that the God of the Bible exists, he would hate him all the more for existing. The point is that, as per Romans 1 for example, God’s existence is not the issue with Atheists, the issue is rebellion against God.
Now, the Atheist is demanding evidence of the supernatural (or, supernatural evidence) so that, by definition, science would not be applicable to it. Now, of course, they are asking for phenomena which science cannot explain (and may be unable to even begin access so as to observe it, etc.).
Notice what they are requesting when we see the bottom line: they are asking for evidence not only of a God of the gaps but they are asking for gap based evidence of such as God.
You will note that Atheists reject arguments, evidences or proofs which they categorize as being God of the gaps arguments, evidences or proofs but ultimately demand such arguments, evidences or proofs.
An issue is that Atheists of the sort in view are not skeptical as in a true and honest skeptic who states, “I will not believe until…” but rather, are cynics who state, “I will not believe—period.” This is because not matter what supposedly alleged evidence of the supernatural could be witnessed, we could never come to the conclusion that it was, indeed, evidence of/for the supernatural as we could simply keep continually stating, “Well, that there’s somethin’ alright, but someday in the future science will surely be able to explain it as the result of an as of yet unknown natural mechanism.”
Even if they must hold, by “faith,” that such a scientific explanation will come about 3,759 years and 3 days after they die, that is good enough for them: the cursed hopeless hope that someday, may thy king-less-dom come, Atheism, which they view as the one truth, will prevail over all.
In a chapter of his book “Orthodoxy” entitled “The Suicide of Thought” G. K. Chesterton made a statement about this sort of absolute skepticism:
Continue reading →
…the new rebel is a Sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything.
He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything.
For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it…By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
We are harkening back to the New York Time’s 2010 AD Mark Oppenheimer report, Atheists Debate How Pushy to Be.
It is stated that they “came to hear panels that included several best-selling atheist pamphleteers, like Richard Dawkins…and Sam Harris, who…is a rock star in the atheist world (he traveled with bodyguards because he receives death threats from both Christians and Muslims).”
That is no less than shameful; that any “Christian” would do such a thing. Also, I cannot think of any “anti-atheism” blogger he knows that has not received death threats from atheists—where are our bodyguards? Of course, we have to become wealthy celebrities like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens and only then will some guy jump in front of a bullet for a paycheck.
The conference came on the heels of a change in leadership at the council and a rumored rift there, which some described as a standoff between atheists, who focus on God’s nonexistence, and humanists, who are also nonbelievers but seek an alternative ethical system, one that does not depend on any deity.
Some of the weekend’s speakers alluded to the turmoil at the council, where several longtime employees have resigned or been laid off.
The in-group out-group squabbles did not end there:
A central question was, “How publicly scornful of religion should we be?” Here even the humanists got less humane, as each side stereotyped the other. Those trying to find common ground with religious people were called “accommodationists,” while the more outspoken atheists were called “confrontationalists” and accused of alienating potential allies, like moderate Christians.
Perhaps at one extreme is Richard Dawkins who simply refers to anyone with whom he disagrees in Hitlerian terms.
The article notes that on the side of “accommodationists” was Chris Mooney who asked “why would you go directly at these deeply held beliefs?” when it came to what he referred to as Christians “rejecting science because of a perceived conflict with moral values…They resist evolution because they think everyone will lose morals.” Confused as this may be it was a plea.
On the side of “confrontationalists” were PZ Myers who stated, “The word for people who are neutral about truth is ‘liars,’” in reference to the infallible truth of evolution defined as “God does not exist.” Keep in mind that PZ Myers is a positive affirmation of God’s non-existence without evidence atheist and that he believes that “science” and atheism are inseparable.
A “confrontationalists” comrade of PZ Myers was Victor Stenger who stated, “It’s time for secularists to stop sucking up to Christians.”
This lead to “Mr. Mooney and Mr. Myers quarreled about a figure frequently cited as living proof of accommodation between science and religion.”
It came out that PZ Myers referred to the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, as “a clown.” But why considering that while Collins is “an evangelical Christian” he is “a leading proponent of the theory of evolution and a supporter of embryonic stem cell research. Mooney asked “By what metric is that a clown?” PZ Myers replied, “When it comes to the way he’s thinking about science, everything I’ve read that he’s written has been complete garbage” and that he “will continue to call him a clown.”
Of course, one cannot count of PZ Myers to have read anything by those with whom he disagrees even when he is besmirching the very books/papers he has not read—see here for evidence.
Overall such meetings seem to evidence, at least, two things:
1) Atheism de jour is a movement of young white males which functions as an anti-Christian support group.
2) They are very successful in arguing against straw-men and straw-gods whilst failing to confront opposition accurately.
3) One brilliant stroke of the New Atheist movement was to realize that in order to begin an activist movement all they had to do is encourage childish taunting. Statistically, Atheism is, primarily a young white male phenomenon and merely by declaring themselves to be an Atheist, they Atheist can instantly claim to be smarter than the room, and begin mocking any and all non-Atheists.
That is to say that they do not have to know much of anything: simply pepper the terms science, evolution and Santa Claus into virtually any statement and be as childish as possible—vociferous and emotive. In this way, the New Atheists capitalized on naturally rebellious youth who were rebelling against their parent’s authority and helped them to take the next step in to rebelling again the ultimate authority figure, God.
Beyond surpassing wonder about God or mere inquiry about Him and His truth, doubt digs much deeper. Doubt doesn’t just ask, “What is real?” It poses the challenge, “Is my faith real?” Is what I believe really valid? Or is it simply a modified myth, an uber-marketed religious fairy tale supported by millions of gullible minds throughout history? Doubt trumps wondering, and it body-slams mere curiosity. In its worst form, it goes beyond simply searching for answers to questions, inevitably denying the legitimacy of the questions themselves. FREE “Doubting Toward Faith” Chapter – Click here to DOWNLOAD NOW! For Christians, doubt can either serve us or sink us. It can drive us to seek truth or it can drown us in despair, hopelessness, and confusion. If ignored or left unchecked, it can bore into our brain, releasing a virus of unbelief, infecting and eventually destroying every healthy thought about God. It can take us to the place where nothing else matters. Where we find ourselves loathing even life itself. If left unchecked, intellectual doubt metastasizes, seeping its way into our emotions and collecting a wide array of fears, worries, anxieties, anger, confusion, depression, and ultimately despair at the thought of being played or duped or envisioning a life without our once “cherished belief” in God. Horrifying so, doubt is no stranger to our time. And capturing the zeitgeist of our changing times is quite the project. We live in a multi-textured culture that is replete with innumerable beliefs, opinions, ideas, and life philosophies. Ours is a culture of doubt and longing, faith and questioning, searching and probing. And much of the doubt has been accelerated by fast-paced change. Our culture is living between the tension of what we once were and what we are now becoming. And for many, waiting […]Continue reading →
In my new book, God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for A Divinely Created Universe, I describe eight pieces of evidence “in the room” of the natural universe and ask a simple question: Can this evidence be explained by staying “inside the room” or is a better explanation “outside the room” of naturalism? One important piece of evidence I consider in this effort is the existence of “free will”. Strict atheistic determinists like Sam Harris don’t even make an effort to explain how free will could exist “inside the room” of the natural, physical universe. Instead, they describe free will as completely illusory and challenge the rest of us to explain why we find it necessary to possess (or account for) it in the first place. Harris sees no need for free will to effectively prosecute law breakers: “We need not have any illusions that a causal agent lives within the human mind to recognize that certain people are dangerous.” Criminals still need to be isolated from potential victims, even if their actions are not the result of free will. In the end, according to determinists like Harris, we need not acknowledge nor accept the existence of free will to explain our need for a criminal justice system. In fact, Harris argues our world would be a far better place if we accepted the non-existence of free will: “Once we recognize that even the most terrifying predators are, in a very real sense, unlucky to be who they are, the logic of hating (as opposed to fearing) them begins to unravel.” Harris believes our inclinations toward hatred would be reduced if we came to accept free will as an illusion. But is Harris’ optimism justified, and does this attitude toward free will do anything to explain our […]
The post Are Atheists Right? Is “Free Will” An Unnecessary, Unimportant Illusion? appeared first on Cross Examined – Christian Apologetic Ministry | Frank Turek | Christian Apologetics | Christian Apologetics Speakers.Continue reading →
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF VARIOUS KINDS
Within this series, see part 1, part 2, part 3 and concluding with this segment, I will glean from Martin Kottmeyer’s articles “Varicose Brains, Part 1: Entering a Grey Area,” “Varicose Brains, Part 2: Heading Towards the Future” and “Varicose Brains, Part 3: Headhunt,” Magonia.
I will attempt to keep things somewhat chronologically. Following I will relate some of the details specifically relevant to the large headed small bodies grey alien archetype in general.
In that regard, many of the images I collected and posted as the original Fifty Shades of Grey article (see slide show of images at the end of this article).
Otto Binder, in a 1974 article surveying 400 occupant cases, indicated 280, about 70%, involved beings below average in height. There was no consistency.
Of skin and clothing colouring he lists: All black; blue and bearded, green skin and hair, shining yellow eyes, black face, and glowing green torso; Dun, like potato bags; fish-scale skin, legs golden yellow; striped clothing; bright red faces; pure white skin.
Anatomical features showed no consistency either. He lists Dwarfs, hairy bodies; glowing orange eyes; misshapen bald head; no arms; slit mouth, nostril holes; 3-fingered hands; shrivelled face, white hair, pumpkin head; 8-fingered hands; large chests; huge heads; furry, clawed hands; thin, hooked nose; heads like potatoes; one-eyed; elephantine ears; fingerless hands; twisted legs.
Some walk or run; some float; some can vanish. Some are vicious; some are shy; some are indifferent…
1974 AD, Allen Hynek’s “The UFO Experience” (Ballantine, 1974 AD), pp. 184-185 relates, “Large heads, spindly feet, and, generally a head that sits squat on the shoulders without much evidence of neck are often described.”
In a 1976 survey of occupant cases, James M. McCampbell similarly reports a clear dominance of humanoids being diminutive. 61 of 81 entity cases with quantitative estimates were dwarves.
Among those with no quantitative estimates, there are another 58 qualitatively considered dwarves. Add them up and there were 119 dwarf cases. The modal value was 3 feet.
Martin Kottmeyer notes that “When MacCampbell offered his analysis of ufonauts he would also notice that big heads appeared repeatedly.”
1973 AD, UFOlogist Antonio Ribera notes, “we can already talk about the classic humanoid: the humanoid with big eyes and a big head.”
1974 AD, a report by a certain “Monsieur X” notes, “The shape of the head is an inverted pear. It has two perfectly round eyes like marbles. The nose was small.”
1979 AD, Eric Zurcher “tried to find some order among 142 entity cases catalogued in France, but ended up with a confusing typology consisting of 8 main groups, but 16 sub-groups. The biggest group were ufonauts of small size”:
…The B group has bald heads that are slightly large. The eyes are bigger than normal. However they have pointed noses and chins. A beard was noted on one…
The C group comes closest to our idea of Grays. The skull is completely hypertrophied in relation to the body. It is bald. It has a flattened nose and an atrophied chin…the skin is very white in this group. There is a hole in the place of the mouth…
One rather striking feature to this taxonomy is the absence of certain generalities of the modern Grays. Beyond the problem of no gray skin, there is no talk of large all-black eyes or long necks. Why does the French version have a mouth hole instead of a slit mouth?
Below are various images of grey aliens taken, mostly, from sci fi/fantasy books, comics and movies which subsequently inform pop-occulture.
The issue at hand is a consideration of the time when, as recorded within the Tanakh-the Old Testament, Caleb and others went to spy out the land and their subsequent reports to Moses.
The issue is not merely one of interpretation but of what is made of the whole scenario within those in circles of research pertaining to the Nephilim giants or, rather, Nephilim giants vs. human giants.
The Book of Numbers chapter 13 states:
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Send thou men, that they may search the land of Canaan, which I give unto the children of Israel: of every tribe of their fathers shall ye send a man, every one a ruler among them.
Moses sent Shammua, Shaphat, Caleb, Igal, Oshea (aka Jehoshua), Palti, Gaddiel, Gaddi, Ammiel, Sethur, Nahbi and Geuel. It is specified that “And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were.” We then learn the following:
And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel…And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.
Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.
And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it. But the men that went up with him said, We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we.
And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Numbers 14 follows this thought by noting:
And all the congregation lifted up their voice, and cried; and the people wept that night. And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!
And wherefore hath the LORD brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? were it not better for us to return into Egypt? And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt.
Some people have taken the issue of bloodlines / seedlines way too far and end up thinking that some cannot be saved not on the basis of by grace through faith but due to genetics. Some trace such bloodlines / seedlines to the serpent seed of Satan via Cain (a theory I dealt with in the various articles found here) and some, such as in this case, trace the genetic lines via the Genesis 6 affair when the sons of God Angels married and copulated with the human daughters of men.
For example, the Nephilim Hybrids site notes:
If you have been told you are a Nephilim, or part Nephilim, alien hybrid, or any other sort of hybrid, or believe you are or may be, please know there is hope, and you can be saved by [grace through] faith in Jesus Christ. If you are human enough to be reading this, then the Bible teaches you can be saved by [grace through] faith in Jesus Christ. We would encourage you to reach out to Jesus Christ right now, and receive His free gift of salvation and eternal life.
The same site also tackles the issue of Caleb and the spies head on within the context of the whether there are Nephilim hybrids and whether such personages could be saved; they note the following in the article, Modern Nephilim Hybrid Deception Part 3 – The Nephilim (continued?):
That the giants after the flood were human-giants and not Nephilim-giants is confirmed in the Bible in Numbers13-14. This is the only time after the flood in which the word “Nephilim” is used, and the Bible makes clear that the statement made was a slander, a lie, and that those who told this lie were punished with death, as a result of the harm they caused with this lie.
“And they brought up a slander of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, saying, The land, through which we have gone to search it, [is] a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it [are] men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, [which come] of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” Num 13:32-33
“And the men, which Moses sent to search the land, who returned, and made all the congregation to murmur against him, by bringing up a slander upon the land, Even those men that did bring up the evil slander upon the land, died by plague before the LORD.” Num 14:36-37 [bold emphasis in original]
As an FYI, the Hebrew word dibbah (Strong’s H1681) in the chapter 13 text is translated as evil in the KJV, RSV, ASV, YLT, DBY WEB and HNV and as bad in the NKJV, NLT, NIV, ESV and NASB.
Within chapter 14 the Hebrew word is ra’ (Strong’s H7451) and is translated as evil in the KJV, NKJV, RSV, ASV, YLT, DBY, WEB and HNV and as bad in the NIV, ESV and NASB.
In his book Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection, pp. 363-364, Gary Bates notes:
At first reading, this may seem like a factual account, but it is part of the quoted false report of the spies. Of the 12 spies, only Joshua and Caleb, trusting God, were keen to enter and take possession of the land; the other 10 did not want to. Because of the false report, the whole nation was too terrified to enter the Promised Land, and they turned against Moses for bringing them there. God responded:
The Lord said to Moses, ‘How long will these people treat me with contempt?… I will strike them down with a plague and destroy them’ (Num. 14:11)…
Some Christians have actually added to the false account of the Nephilim in the Promised Land. They say that during the time that the children of Israel wandered in the desert (38 years), fallen angels were once again cohabiting with women to produce more Nephilim as part of a satanic strategy to prevent the Hebrews entering the land. This is unlikely because, although they encountered the Anakim, they defeated them, as well as many others inhabiting tribes.
When they eventually entered the land of Canaan, there was no mention of the Nephilim or encounters with them. Surely, among the descriptions of all the battles that ensued, encounters with Nephilim would have been mentioned if they occurred. And it should be remembered, according to the fallen angel view, the original angels who stepped out of line in this manner were now in chains in Tartarus.
This can get a little tricky if one ignores detailed research. For example, the KJV has Numbers 13:33 as “And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.” The italics indicate words that are not being translated from manuscripts as they do not appear therein. Rather, they are being inserted by the translators for easy of reading and/or comprehension. Thus, the text states, “the sons of Anak, of the giants.” Now, herein giants is the Hebrew nephiyl (Strong’s H5303) referring to what in English is generally referred to as Nephil or Nephilim (in the masculine plural).
As for the reference to the issue of “during the time that the children of Israel wandered in the desert (38 years), fallen angels were once again cohabiting with women to produce more Nephilim” please see my article Nephilim – one or multiple incursions?
The bottom line for some, such as the Nephilim Hybrids website, is that:
…a slander is a lie…Numbers makes clear that these men brought a slander against the land in particular by: “saying… there we saw the giants (Nephilim) the sons of Anak, of the giants (Nephilim)”…God punished these men for their lie about there being Nephilim in the land…as a result of this lie, the people of Israel refused to take the land in battle, refusing to obey God…no mention is made of Nephilim after the flood, and besides Gen 6 and Num 13 the word Nephilim is not used anywhere else in the Bible. The interbreeding of the ‘sons of God’ and women is not recorded to have occurred again after the flood. [emphasis added for emphasis]
It takes some trudging to draw out the details but the bottom line seems to be that even those taking the point of view of the Nephilim Hybrids site conclude that there, indeed, were the children / sons of Anak in the land but that the false part of it is that they were of the giants / nephiyl.
This would seem to be the dividing line as we are told that “they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were” before we are told about the evil / bad report which specifies that these were of the giants / nephiyl.
There are more indications that there indeed, were children / sons of Anak (generically stated in general) as in Joshua 14 we learn:
Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua in Gilgal: and Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite said unto him, Thou knowest the thing that the LORD said unto Moses the man of God concerning me and thee in Kadeshbarnea. Forty years old was I when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadeshbarnea to espy out the land; and I brought him word again as it was in mine heart.
Nevertheless my brethren that went up with me made the heart of the people melt: but I wholly followed the LORD my God. And Moses sware on that day, saying, Surely the land whereon thy feet have trodden shall be thine inheritance, and thy children’s for ever, because thou hast wholly followed the LORD my God…Now therefore give me this mountain, whereof the LORD spake in that day; for thou heardest in that day how the Anakims were there, and that the cities were great and fenced: if so be the LORD will be with me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the LORD said…
Hebron therefore became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite unto this day, because that he wholly followed the LORD God of Israel. And the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.
Then, in Joshua 15 we are told:
And the border went up by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants [rapha’ (Strong’s H7497)] northward…And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron. And Caleb drove thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak.
Fascinatingly, ‘Anaq / Anak (Strong’s H6061) means neck or long neck so even all of these millennia later and with translating from Hebrew to English: anak is still a neck.
The term appears in the following texts:
Numbers 13:22 And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)
Numbers 13:28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.
Numbers 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.
Deuteronomy 9:2 A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!
Joshua 15:13-14 And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron.And Caleb drove thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children of Anak.
Josuah 21:11 And they gave them the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron, in the hill country of Judah, with the suburbs thereof round about it.
Judges 1:20 And they gave Hebron unto Caleb, as Moses said: and he expelled thence the three sons of Anak.
The plural form of the word ‘Anaqiy / Anakim (Strong’s H6062) appears in the following (the KJV translates as a form of double plural, only in a manner of speaking, as Anakims which is combines the Hebrew (masculine) plural im with the English plural s):
Deuteronomy 1:28 Whither shall we go up? our brethren have discouraged our heart, saying, The people is greater and taller than we; the cities are great and walled up to heaven; and moreover we have seen the sons of the Anakims there.
Deuteronomy 2:10-11 The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants, as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.
Deuteronomy 2:21 A people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; but the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead.
Deuteronomy 9:2 A people great and tall, the children of the Anakims, whom thou knowest, and of whom thou hast heard say, Who can stand before the children of Anak!
Joshua 11:21-22 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.
Joshua 14:15 And the name of Hebron before was Kirjatharba; which Arba was a great man among the Anakims. And the land had rest from war.
Take particular notice that in Joshua 14:12, Caleb himself affirms the presence of the Anakim in the land during the reconnoitering:
Now therefore give me this mountain, whereof the LORD spake in that day; for thou heardest in that day how the Anakims were there, and that the cities were great and fenced: if so be the LORD will be with me, then I shall be able to drive them out, as the LORD said.
Also, note that Genesis 14:5 states that Chedorlaomer and the kings with him smote the Rephaim [rapha’ or Rephaim (Strong’s H7497)], the Zuzim and the Emim. Also, Deuteronomy 2:10-11 states that “The Emims dwelt therein in times past, a people great, and many, and tall, as the Anakims; Which also were accounted giants [also rapha’], as the Anakims; but the Moabites call them Emims.”
Thus, different peoples had different names for giants. And yet, the issue is whether they are merely human giants or Nephilim hybrid giants; half Angel and half human.
Actually, my purpose has not been to iron out that aspect of the issue but to note that the evil bad report seems to be about more than simply the alleged insertion that the Anakim were of the Nephilim.
Let us review the texts referenced above; the other spies emphasize that “the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there. The Amalekites dwell in the land.”
Joshua basically says, get’er’done! as he “stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.”
But the others said, “We be not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we…they brought up an evil report…saying, The land…eateth up the inhabitants…all the people…are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants [Nephilim]…the people wept that night. And…murmured against Moses…And they said one to another, Let us make a captain, and let us return into Egypt.”
My point is that this is actually deeper than whether the Anakim were just human giants of were hybrid giants. The fact is that regardless, God had told them that He would be with them and that they were to conquer the land which they would be able to do with Him on their side.
The evil bad report was a contradiction of this—for whatever reason; human or hybrid—and that is what was really evil bad.