Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

David Cameron, Prime Minister of Great Britain

In the harsh economic times prevailing there is an understandable focus on the need to make every dollar count. In an environment where there is the perception of rising crime, demon possessed children and groups labelled evil because they dare to question the cost benefit of a government delegation journeying Down Under; should we not encourage equal focus on the direction the moral campus of Barbados is pointing? Given the agenda of this government to build out a society first and foremost, a holistic concern about the kind of society we want to build should be par for the course. Why therefore do we allow the narrative to be led mostly by economic considerations?

A benefit to Prime Minister Fruendel Stuart networking with his Commonwealth colleagues last week is that he heard from British Prime Minister David Cameron first hand, if Barbados expects to get financial aid from Britain in the near future – discrimination against homosexuals will have to cease. To quote theGuardian: Britain has threatened countries that ban homosexuality with losing aid payments unless they reform, David Cameron has said. But he conceded that “deep prejudices” in some countries meant the problem would persist for years. In Barbados we are known to be tolerant of homosexuals although our laws say otherwise.

It is fair to say given the leadership position of Great Britain in the world’s leading financial institutions that in the not too distant future lending agencies like the International Monetary Fund, Inter-american Development Bank and World Bank will be adopting a similar position. Other countries will obviously follow Great Britain which will affect bilateral arrangements with those countries.

Over the years the homosexual debate has moved from the affected parties being thought to be afflicted by genetic flaws to a civil rights issue. Despite how some would want to describe individuals who speak out against the homosexual lifestyle or what is aesthetically referred to as an alternative lifestyle, the world remains divided on the issue. In the land of the free the battle continue to rage  between the Gay Movement and the Courts. What makes the issue more complex is that the Church, Christians especially, remain divided on the issue.    

In the absence of conclusive studies homosexual behaviour must clearly be identified as a lifestyle. The question raised is what next?  Bottomline this is not a Black or White issue as some social commentators would make out. It speaks to how as small societies especially we have weaved a value systems over time upon which we have raised our families.

BU read an article recently titled Gays—No Easy Answers; A Christian Response . After reading the article non Christians are forced to ask the question – why would God create a homosexual? In other words, why did God create murderers or for that matter human beings with all the imperfections which we see manifested everyday. Frankly the article has created more questions than answers.

The threat by Prime Minister David Cameron – no doubt other so called first world countries will follow – means that the financial dependent countries of the world will have no choice but to fall in line. Nothing else matters.


Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

364 responses to “Accept Homosexuality Or Else”


  1. millertheanunnaki
    Didn’t the same Britain withheld aid and trade from South Africa, because of what they deemed to be inappropriate legislation/policy?


  2. the church has already said their peace on “Homosexuality” in that they send down “fire and brimstone on homosexuals while the world send “Peace and Love” are they “two Gods” chose which one ye shall serve.


  3. @enuff

    You make a good point if we accept that the bible gives all sin equal weight.

    It seems Christians have bought in to the very relativist tendency it criticizes by giving different weight to different sin in the way the Courts would give a different sentence to different crime.

  4. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    Sargeant | November 6, 2011 at 9:56 AM |
    “Folks its Sunday and perhaps the hostilities can cease for awhile but I like a god “bassa bassa” so to all concerned here a story about Buddy and Pedro.”
    Yes, a day true christian believers should deem “sacred’ and make their sacrifice in the form of “Jesus’”on the altar (cross +) of the Sun God.

    If you want a better insight into the sexual deviance of humans then observe their 95% + DNA relatives called the “Bonobos” in action.


  5. Irreligion, evolutionary belief, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience
    See also: Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality

    Carl SaganThe notions of extraterrestrial life and UFOlogy are fast growing pseudoscientific religions which are perpetuated and/or substantially aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, atheists, liberals and other promoters of quackery.[3][4] However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, exobiology, evolution and abiogenesis are anti-biblical ideas which are not supported by sound science.[5][6]

    The agnostic and liberal Carl Sagan, an avid smoker of marijuana who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense.[7]

    Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy
    Astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross indicates that ninety-nine percent of what people have told him were UFOs, experienced astronomers can identify as a star, cluster, or other object in the night sky. The 1 percent of sightings, which he calls residual UFOs, have attracted his attention. [8] According to Dr. Ross very few astronomers have seen “residual UFOs”.[8]

    The following Toledo Blade newspaper excerpt[8] summarizes Dr. Ross’s findings:

    “ In 1969, however, Dr. Ross met two astronomers who were having regular UFO encounters. Both also happened to be involved in occult activity.
    Upon investigation, Dr. Ross consistently found a connection between occult involvement and residual UFO encounters. For example, he said, countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia’s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.

    When one plays with such Demonic ‘Occultic’ activity, Satan will bring you every kind of deception, imaginable!

    Just listen to Nnaki! And the rancid nonsense he believes IN!

  6. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ Zoe:
    “Just listen to Nnaki! And the rancid nonsense he believes IN!”

    I prefer to believe in the existence of extraterrestrial life albeit in different forms than the baby jesus pap found in Genesis which expect intelligent humans to accept that we are all descended from a murderer who had to be incestuous in order to procreate. Why would your god create in 6 days billions of billions of stars and planets and not carry out similar life designing experiments and he and his cronies mythologically did with major defects in some garden; ergo man!
    There is certainly more merit and scientific appeal (even the Vatican accepts the possibility of extraterrestrial life) than the child-like stories from the Jewish collection of stage plays adopted by Europeans to trick, enslave and brainwash naive unsuspecting groups mainly from gullible Africa. It’s ironic that the institutional vehicle used to peddle this religious opiate is effectively controlled by racists, homosexuals passing of as celibates, known paedophiles and money hungry showmen.

  7. Random Thoughts Avatar

    Ha!!!haa!! Haa!!

    Quoting millertheanunnaki | November 6, 2011 at 5:09 PM | “the baby jesus pap found in Genesis”

    Jesus is not mentioned in Genesis. As a maatter of fact he is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testatament.

    Cuh dear millertheannunnaki if you are going to comment at least read the Bible, or at least a chapter or 2.

  8. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    Random Thoughts | November 6, 2011 at 5:52 PM |
    “Jesus is not mentioned in Genesis. As a matter of fact he is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament.”
    The use of the term “baby jesus pap” was used to convey the simplistic and puerile stories told in that first book of volume 1 of Jewish “(f)airy-like” tales.
    But I am sure Zoe will disagree with you! According to Zoe Jesus along with the 2 other members of the god-head (1in3 and in1 god formula) was there when Adam was designed, Eve extracted by Caesarian means- sorry not Caesar (he was not around until later) but Serpentine (caduceus like) skills. As far as Zoe is concerned Baby Jesus was at the beginning of things, no mother to suckle just father and holy ghost to feed him pap.

    But can’t I also exercise a bit of poetic licence just like the writers of myth and legend and glaring inconsistencies as done in the same book of Genesis. “Adam & Eve had sex and produced 2 boy children. One name Cain and the other called Abel. Jealous Cain killed the favourite Abel and fled to the Land of Nod where he found a wife” as told in chapter 4 of the same book. Now where in the previous chapters of the book was there mention of a sister or other female before taking a wife. What would you a grown man, intellectually and spiritually matured, conclude from this bedtime story?

    Listen, this tale of Cain and Abel is as old as Sumeria and can be found in many ancient cultures long before these Jewish story tellers came along.

  9. Random Thoughts Avatar

    Quoting millertheanunnaki “Now where in the previous chapters of the book was there mention of a sister or other female before taking a wife. What would you a grown man, intellectually and spiritually matured, conclude from this bedtime story?”

    I would conclude that much of the text is anti-woman and that men deliberately wrote women out ot the text, or as we say when we were childrenthe men out-out the women, therefore I would conclude that much of the text was written by men and not by God.

    I don’t think that a God who created men and women in his image would then proceed to largely write women out of the text.

    Smell like men’s doings to me.


  10. Evidence for the Resurrection
    by Josh McDowell
    For centuries many of the world’s distinguished philosophers have assaulted Christianity as being irrational, superstitious and absurd. Many have chosen simply to ignore the central issue of the resurrection. Others have tried to explain it away through various theories. But the historical evidence just can’t be discounted.

    A student at the University of Uruguay said to me. “Professor McDowell, why can’t you refute Christianity?”

    “For a very simple reason,” I answered. “I am not able to explain away an event in history–the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

    How can we explain the empty tomb? Can it possibly be accounted for by any natural cause?

    A QUESTION OF HISTORY
    After more than 700 hours of studying this subject, I have come to the conclusion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is either one of the most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted on the minds of human beings–or it is the most remarkable fact of history.

    Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven.

    From that foundation, Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and has continued to exert great influence down through the centuries.

    LIVING WITNESSES
    The New Testament accounts of the resurrection were being circulated within the lifetimes of men and women alive at the time of the resurrection. Those people could certainly have confirmed or denied the accuracy of such accounts.

    The writers of the four Gospels either had themselves been witnesses or else were relating the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events. In advocating their case for the gospel, a word that means “good news,” the apostles appealed (even when confronting their most severe opponents) to common knowledge concerning the facts of the resurrection.

    F. F. Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegesis at the University of Manchester, says concerning the value of the New Testament records as primary sources: “Had there been any tendency to depart from the facts in any material respect, the possible presence of hostile witnesses in the audience would have served as a further corrective.”

    IS THE NEW TESTAMENT RELIABLE?
    Because the New Testament provides the primary historical source for information on the resurrection, many critics during the 19th century attacked the reliability of these biblical documents.

    By the end of the 1 9th century, however, archaeological discoveries had confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts. Discoveries of early papyri bridged the gap between the time of Christ and existing manuscripts from a later date.

    Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world’s foremost biblical archaeologist, said: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today.”

    Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of “authentic evidence” concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: “Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. ”

    ——————————————————————————–
    I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
    E. M. Blaiklock
    Professor of Classics
    Auckland University

    ——————————————————————————–

    BACKGROUND
    The New Testament witnesses were fully aware of the background against which the resurrection took place. The body of Jesus, in accordance with Jewish burial custom, was wrapped in a linen cloth. About 100 pounds of aromatic spices, mixed together to form a gummy substance, were applied to the wrappings of cloth about the body. After the body was placed in a solid rock tomb, an extremely large stone was rolled against the entrance of the tomb. Large stones weighing approximately two tons were normally rolled (by means of levers) against a tomb entrance.

    A Roman guard of strictly disciplined fighting men was stationed to guard the tomb. This guard affixed on the tomb the Roman seal, which was meant to “prevent any attempt at vandalizing the sepulcher. Anyone trying to move the stone from the tomb’s entrance would have broken the seal and thus incurred the wrath of Roman law.

    But three days later the tomb was empty. The followers of Jesus said He had risen from the dead. They reported that He appeared to them during a period of 40 days, showing Himself to them by many “infallible proofs.” Paul the apostle recounted that Jesus appeared to more than 500 of His followers at one time, the majority of whom were still alive and who could confirm what Paul wrote. So many security precautions were taken with the trial, crucifixion, burial, entombment, sealing, and guarding of Christ’s tomb that it becomes very difficult for critics to defend their position that Christ did not rise from the dead. Consider these facts:

    FACT #1: BROKEN ROMAN SEAL
    As we have said, the first obvious fact was the breaking of the seal that stood for the power and authority of the Roman Empire. The consequences of breaking the seal were extremely severe. The FBI and CIA of the Roman Empire were called into action to find the man or men who were responsible. If they were apprehended, it meant automatic execution by crucifixion upside down. People feared the breaking of the seal. Jesus’ disciples displayed signs of cowardice when they hid themselves. Peter, one of these disciples, went out and denied Christ three times.

    FACT #2: EMPTY TOMB
    As we have already discussed, another obvious fact after the resurrection was the empty tomb. The disciples of Christ did not go off to Athens or Rome to preach that Christ was raised from the dead. Rather, they went right back to the city of Jerusalem, where, if what they were teaching was false, the falsity would be evident. The empty tomb was “too notorious to be denied.” Paul Althaus states that the resurrection “could have not been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the emptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.”

    Both Jewish and Roman sources and traditions admit an empty tomb. Those resources range from Josephus to a compilation of fifth-century Jewish writings called the “Toledoth Jeshu.” Dr. Paul Maier calls this “positive evidence from a hostile source, which is the strongest kind of historical evidence. In essence, this means that if a source admits a fact decidedly not in its favor, then that fact is genuine.”

    Gamaliel, who was a member of the Jewish high court, the Sanhedrin, put forth the suggestion that the rise of the Christian movement was God’s doing; he could not have done that if the tomb were still occupied, or if the Sanhedrin knew the whereabouts of Christ’s body.

    Paul Maier observes that ” . . . if all the evidence is weighed carefully and fairly, it is indeed justifiable, according to the canons of historical research, to conclude that the sepulcher of Joseph of Arimathea, in which Jesus was buried, was actually empty on the morning of the first Easter. And no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.”

    FACT #3: LARGE STONE MOVED
    On that Sunday morning the first thing that impressed the people who approached the tomb was the unusual position of the one and a half to two ton stone that had been lodged in front of the doorway. All the Gospel writers mention it.

    ——————————————————————————–
    There exists no document from the ancient world, witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies . . . Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias.

    Clark Pinnock
    Mcmaster University

    ——————————————————————————–

    Those who observed the stone after the resurrection describe its position as having been rolled up a slope away not just from the entrance of the tomb, but from the entire massive sepulcher. It was in such a position that it looked as if it had been picked up and carried away. Now, I ask you, if the disciples had wanted to come in, tiptoe around the sleeping guards, and then roll the stone over and steal Jesus’ body, how could they have done that without the guards’ awareness?

    FACT #4: ROMAN GUARD GOES AWOL
    The Roman guards fled. They left their place of responsibility. How can their attrition he explained, when Roman military discipline was so exceptional? Justin, in Digest #49, mentions all the offenses that required the death penalty. The fear of their superiors’ wrath and the possibility of death meant that they paid close attention to the minutest details of their jobs. One way a guard was put to death was by being stripped of his clothes and then burned alive in a fire started with his garments. If it was not apparent which soldier had failed in his duty, then lots were drawn to see which one would be punished with death for the guard unit’s failure. Certainly the entire unit would not have fallen asleep with that kind of threat over their heads. Dr. George Currie, a student of Roman military discipline, wrote that fear of punishment “produced flawless attention to duty, especially in the night watches.”

    FACT #5: GRAVECLOTHES TELL A TALE
    In a literal sense, against all statements to the contrary, the tomb was not totally empty–because of an amazing phenomenon. John, a disciple of Jesus, looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty–like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar’s cocoon. That’s enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it. The first thing that stuck in the minds of the disciples was not the empty tomb, but rather the empty grave clothes–undisturbed in form and position.

    FACT #6: JESUS’ APPEARANCES CONFIRMED
    Christ appeared alive on several occasions after the cataclysmic events of that first Easter . When studying an event in history, it is important to know whether enough people who were participants or eyewitnesses to the event were alive when the facts about the event were published. To know this is obviously helpful in ascertaining the accuracy of the published report. If the number of eyewitnesses is substantial, the event can he regarded as fairly well established. For instance, if we all witness a murder, and a later police report turns out to he a fabrication of lies, we as eyewitnesses can refute it.

    OVER 500 WITNESSES
    Several very important factors arc often overlooked when considering Christ’s post-resurrection appearances to individuals. The first is the large number of witnesses of Christ after that resurrection morning. One of the earliest records of Christ’s appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience’s knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, associate professor of history at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: “What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, ‘If you do not believe me, you can ask them.’ Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago.” Let’s take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial, and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history.

    HOSTILE WITNESSES
    Another factor crucial to interpreting Christ’s appearances is that He also appeared to those who were hostile or unconvinced.

    Over and over again, I have read or heard people comment that Jesus was seen alive after His death and burial only by His friends and followers. Using that argument, they attempt to water down the overwhelming impact of the multiple eyewitness accounts. But that line of reasoning is so pathetic it hardly deserves comment. No author or informed individual would regard Saul of Tarsus as being a follower of Christ. The facts show the exact opposite. Saul despised Christ and persecuted Christ’s followers. It was a life-shattering experience when Christ appeared to him. Although he was at the time not a disciple, he later became the apostle Paul, one of the greatest witnesses for the truth of the resurrection.

    ——————————————————————————–
    If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.

    F. F. Bruce
    Manchester University

    ——————————————————————————–

    The argument that Christ’s appearances were only to followers is an argument for the most part from silence, and arguments from silence can be dangerous. It is equally possible that all to whom Jesus appeared became followers. No one acquainted with the facts can accurately say that Jesus appeared to just “an insignificant few.”

    Christians believe that Jesus was bodily resurrected in time and space by the supernatural power of God. The difficulties of belief may be great, but the problems inherent in unbelief present even greater difficulties.

    The theories advanced to explain the resurrection by “natural causes” are weak; they actually help to build confidence in the truth of the resurrection.

    THE WRONG TOMB?
    A theory propounded by Kirsopp Lake assumes that the women who reported that the body was missing had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. If so, then the disciples who went to check up on the women’s statement must have also gone to the wrong tomb. We may be certain, however, that Jewish authorities, who asked for a Roman guard to be stationed at the tomb to prevent Jesus’ body from being stolen, would not have been mistaken about the location. Nor would the Roman guards, for they were there!

    If the resurrection-claim was merely because of a geographical mistake, the Jewish authorities would have lost no time in producing the body from the proper tomb, thus effectively quenching for all time any rumor resurrection.

    HALLUCINATIONS?
    Another attempted explanation claims that the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection were either illusions or hallucinations. Unsupported by the psychological principles governing the appearances of hallucinations, this theory also does not coincide with the historical situation. Again, where was the actual body, and why wasn’t it produced?

    DID JESUS SWOON?
    Another theory, popularized by Venturini several centuries ago, is often quoted today. This is the swoon theory, which says that Jesus didn’t die; he merely fainted from exhaustion and loss of blood. Everyone thought Him dead, but later He resuscitated and the disciples thought it to be a resurrection. Skeptic David Friedrich Strauss–certainly no believer in the resurrection–gave the deathblow to any thought that Jesus revived from a swoon: “It is impossible that a being who had stolen half-dead out of the sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthening and indulgence, and who still at last yielded to His sufferings, could have given to the disciples the impression that He was a Conqueror over death and the grave, the Prince of Life,

    ——————————————————————————–
    For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

    A. N. Sherwin-White
    Classical Roman Historian

    ——————————————————————————–

    an impression which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made upon them in life and in death, at the most could only have given it an elegiac voice, but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into enthusiasm, have elevated their reverence into worship.”

    THE BODY STOLEN?
    Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that.

    The theory that the Jewish or Roman authorities moved Christ’s body is no more reasonable an explanation for the empty tomb than theft by the disciples. If the authorities had the body in their possession or knew where it was, why, when the disciples were preaching the resurrection in Jerusalem, didn’t they explain: “Wait! We moved the body, see, He didn’t rise from the grave”?

    And if such a rebuttal failed, why didn’t they explain exactly where Jesus’ body lay? If this failed, why didn’t they recover the corpse, put it on a cart, and wheel it through the center of Jerusalem? Such an action would have destroyed Christianity–not in the cradle, but in the womb!

    THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
    Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: “I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.” Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: “raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it.”

    REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES’ LIVES
    But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?

    Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts–prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits–we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this “risen Christ .”

    As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.

    Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.

    WHERE DO YOU STAND?
    How do you evaluate this overwhelming historical evidence? What is your decision about the fact of Christ’s empty tomb? What do you think of Christ?

    When I was confronted with the overwhelming evidence for Christ’s resurrection, I had to ask the logical question: “What difference does all this evidence make to me? What difference does it make whether or not I believe Christ rose again and died on the cross for my sins!’ The answer is put best by something Jesus said to a man who doubted–Thomas. Jesus told him: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me” (John 14:6).

    On the basis of all the evidence for Christ’s resurrection, and considering the fact that Jesus offers forgiveness of sin and an eternal relationship with God, who would be so foolhardy as to reject Him? Christ is alive! He is living today.

    You can trust God right now by faith through prayer. Prayer is talking with God. God knows your heart and is not so concerned with your words as He is with the attitude of your heart. If you have never trusted Christ, you can do so right now.

    The prayer I prayed is: “Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank You for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and trust You as my Savior. Thank You for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Make me the kind of person You want me to be. Thank You that I can trust You.”

    ——————————————————————————–

    The Only religious World view, that is grounded in historical evidence and facts, is the Judeo/Christian Worldview; not MYTHOLOGICAL fancy, folly, and foolishness!

    —————————————————————————


  11. The Eternal Word became flesh ( man), Jesus Christ.

    “IN the BEGINNING was the WORD, and the WORD was with God (The Father) and the WORD was God. Hewas in the beginning with God (The Father). ALL things were made (Created) through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” ( John 1: 1-3 Emphasis added).

    The following is an Exegesis of this absolutely amazing text as taken from John chapter 1.

    In the beginning was (ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν)

    With evident allusion to the first word of Genesis. But John elevates the phrase from its reference to a point of time, the beginning of creation, to the time of absolute pre-existence before any creation, which is not mentioned until John 1:3. This beginning had no beginning (compare John 1:3; John 17:5; 1 John 1:1; Ephesians 1:4; Proverbs 8:23; Psalm 90:2). This heightening of the conception, however, appears not so much in ἀρχή, beginning, which simply leaves room for it, as in the use of ἦν, was, denoting absolute existence (compare εἰμί, I am, John 8:58) instead of ἐγένετο, came into being, or began to be, which is used in John 1:3, John 1:14, of the coming into being of creation and of the Word becoming flesh. Note also the contrast between ἀρχή, in the beginning, and the expression ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς, from the beginning, which is common in John’s writings (John 8:44; 1 John 2:7, 1 John 2:24; 1 John 3:8) and which leaves no room for the idea of eternal pre-existence. “In Genesis 1:1, the sacred historian starts from the beginning and comes downward, thus keeping us in the course of time. Here he starts from the same point, but goes upward, thus taking us into the eternity preceding time” (Milligan and Moulton). See on Colossians 1:15. This notion of “beginning” is still further heightened by the subsequent statement of the relation of the Logos to the eternal God. The ἀρχή must refer to the creation – the primal beginning of things; but if, in this beginning, the Logos already was, then he belonged to the order of eternity. “The Logos was not merely existent, however, in the beginning, but was also the efficient principle, the beginning of the beginning. The ἀρχή (beginning), in itself and in its operation dark, chaotic, was, in its idea and its principle, comprised in one single luminous word, which was the Logos. And when it is said the Logos was in this beginning, His eternal existence is already expressed, and His eternal position in the Godhead already indicated thereby” (Lange). “Eight times in the narrative of creation (in Genesis) there occur, like the refrain of a hymn, the words, And God said. John gathers up all those sayings of God into a single saying, living and endowed with activity and intelligence, from which all divine orders emanate: he finds as the basis of all spoken words, the speaking Word” (Godet).

    The Word (ὁ λόγος)

    Logos. This expression is the keynote and theme of the entire gospel. Λόγος is from the root λεγ, appearing in λέγω, the primitive meaning of which is to lay: then, to pick out, gather, pick up: hence to gather or put words together, and so, to speak. Hence λόγος is, first of all, a collecting or collection both of things in the mind, and of words by which they are expressed. It therefore signifies both the outward form by which the inward thought is expressed, and the inward thought itself, the Latin oratio and ratio: compare the Italian ragionare, “to think” and “to speak.”

    As signifying the outward form it is never used in the merely grammatical sense, as simply the name of a thing or act (ἔπος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα), but means a word as the thing referred to: the material, not the formal part: a word as embodying a conception or idea. See, for instance, Matthew 22:46; 1 Corinthians 14:9, 1 Corinthians 14:19. Hence it signifies a saying, of God, or of man (Matthew 19:21, Matthew 19:22; Mark 5:35, Mark 5:36): a decree, a precept (Romans 9:28; Mark 7:13). The ten commandments are called in the Septuagint, οἱ δέκα λόγοι, “the ten words” (Exodus 34:28), and hence the familiar term decalogue. It is further used of discourse: either of the act of speaking (Acts 14:12), of skill and practice in speaking (Acts 18:15; 2 Timothy 4:15), specifically the doctrine of salvation through Christ (Matthew 13:20-23; Philippians 1:14); of narrative, both the relation and the thing related (Acts 1:1; John 21:23; Mark 1:45); of matter under discussion, an affair, a case in law (Acts 15:6; Acts 19:38).

    As signifying the inward thought, it denotes the faculty of thinking and reasoning (Hebrews 4:12); regard or consideration (Acts 20:24); reckoning, account (Philippians 4:15, Philippians 4:17; Hebrews 4:13); cause or reason (Acts 10:29).

    John uses the word in a peculiar sense, here, and in John 1:14; and, in this sense, in these two passages only. The nearest approach to it is in Revelation 19:13, where the conqueror is called the Word of God; and it is recalled in the phrases Word of Life, and the Life was manifested (1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:2). Compare Hebrews 4:12. It was a familiar and current theological term when John wrote, and therefore he uses it without explanation.

    Old Testament Usage of the Term

    The word here points directly to Genesis 1, where the act of creation is effected by God speaking (compare Psalm 33:6). The idea of God, who is in his own nature hidden, revealing himself in creation, is the root of the Logos-idea, in contrast with all materialistic or pantheistic conceptions of creation. This idea develops itself in the Old Testament on three lines. (1) The Word, as embodying the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry. Consequently divine attributes are predicated of it as being the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy (Psalm 3:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105). The Word is a healer in Psalm 107:20; a messenger in Psalm 147:15; the agent of the divine decrees in Isaiah 55:11.

    (2) The personified wisdom (Job 28:12 sq.; Proverbs 8, 9). Here also is the idea of the revelation of that which is hidden. For wisdom is concealed from man: “he knoweth not the price thereof, neither is it found in the land of the living. The depth saith, It is not in me; and the sea saith, It is not with me. It cannot be gotten for gold, neither shall silver be weighed for the price thereof. It is hid from the eyes of all living, and kept close from the fowls of the air” (Job 28). Even Death, which unlocks so many secrets, and the underworld, know it only as a rumor (Job 28:22). It is only God who knows its way and its place (Job 28:23). He made the world, made the winds and the waters, made a decree for the rain and a way for the lightning of the thunder (Job 28:25, Job 28:26). He who possessed wisdom in the beginning of his way, before His works of old, before the earth with its depths and springs and mountains, with whom was wisdom as one brought up with Him (Proverbs 8:26-31), declared it. “It became, as it were, objective, so that He beheld it” (Job 28:27) and embodied it in His creative work. This personification, therefore, is based on the thought that wisdom is not shut up at rest in God, but is active and manifest in the world. “She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths. She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors” (Proverbs 8:2, Proverbs 8:3). She builds a palace and prepares a banquet, and issues a general invitation to the simple and to him that wanteth understanding (Proverbs 9:1-6). It is viewed as the one guide to salvation, comprehending all revelations of God, and as an attribute embracing and combining all His other attributes.

    (3) The Angel of Jehovah. The messenger of God who serves as His agent in the world of sense, and is sometimes distinguished from Jehovah and sometimes identical with him (Genesis 16:7-13; Genesis 32:24-28; Hosea 12:4, Hosea 12:5; Exodus 23:20, Exodus 23:21; Malachi 3:1).


  12. Zoe …stop all this mumbo jumbo and hocus pocus . You cannot convince anyone with this shite you are writing. Give it up and take a long break.


  13. Where did Cain get his wife?

    E-mail typical message we received: “Hello, I’m a hardcore Evolution believer. I’m always telling my friends who are religious, that perhaps the Bible is just another story like King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table… Even though I make some good points, in my opinion, against creationism, they still do not agree with me. That’s OK, but there is always one question that always seems to stump them… ‘If Adam and Eve were the first people on this planet, then how did the population become what it is without incest? Doesn’t the Bible state that incest is bad…?’” Sincerely, Yoendry.

    We don’t even know her name, yet she was discussed at the Scopes trial, mentioned in the play and movie “Inherit the Wind”[1] and the book and movie “Contact,”[2] and has been talked about in countries all over the world. Is she the most-talked-about wife in history?

    Skeptics have used Cain’s wife time and again to try to discredit the Book of Genesis as a true historical record. Sadly, most Christians have not been able to give an adequate answer to this question. As a result, the world thinks Christians cannot defend the authority of Scripture and, thus, the Christian faith.

    For instance, at the historic Scopes trial in Tennessee in 1925, William Jennings Bryan, the prosecutor who stood for the Christian faith, failed to answer the question about Cain’s wife posed by the outspokenly anti-Christian ACLU[3] lawyer Clarence Darrow.[4]

    The world’s press was focused on this trial, and what they heard has affected Christianity to this day—Christians are seen as unable to defend the biblical record. And skeptics then make the logically fallacious jump of concluding that the biblical record is indefensible!

    The agnostic Carl Sagan used this same question in his book Contact[5] (which was on The New York Times best-seller list), and the movie “Contact,” which was based on Sagan’s book, also used it.

    In the book, the fictional character Ellie could not get answers about Cain’s wife, and other questions, from a minister’s wife, who was the leader of a church discussion group.[6]

    Sagan cleverly used common questions—such as “Who was Cain’s wife?”—questions that are often directed at Christians in an attempt to prove the Bible cannot be defended.

    Sadly, most Christians probably could not answer these questions! And yet, there are answers. But, since most churches are lacking in the teaching of apologetics,[7] particularly in regard to the Book of Genesis, most believers in the church are not “ready always to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope in you” (1 Peter 3:15).

    Why is it important?
    Many skeptics have claimed that, for Cain to find a wife, there must have been other “races” of people on the earth who were not descendants of Adam and Eve. To many people, this question is a stumbling block to accepting the creation account in Genesis and its record of only one man and woman at the beginning of history—a record on which many Old and New Testament doctrines depend.

    Defenders of the gospel must be able to show that all human beings are descendants of one man and one woman (Adam and Eve)—as only those people who are descendants of Adam and Eve can be saved. Thus, believers need to be able to account for Cain’s wife and show clearly that she was a descendant of Adam and Eve. (The relevant Bible passage is Genesis 4:1-5:5.)

    Before we answer this question, we will first show how important it is to the meaning of the gospel.

    The first man
    Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed on all men inasmuch as all sinned (Romans 5:12).

    We read in 1 Corinthians 15:45 that Adam was “the first man.” God did not start by making a whole group of men.

    The Bible makes it clear that only the descendants of Adam can be saved. Romans 5 teaches that we sin because Adam sinned. The death penalty, which Adam received as judgment for his sin of rebellion, also passed on to all his descendants.

    Since Adam was the head of the human race when he “fell,” we who were in the loins of Adam “fell,” also. Thus, we are all separated from God. The final consequence of sin would be separation from God in our sinful state forever. However, the good news is that there is a way for us to return to God!

    Because a man brought sin and death into the world, all the descendants of Adam need a sinless Man to pay the penalty for sin and the resulting judgment of death. However, the Bible teaches that “all have sinned” (Romans 3:23). What is the solution?

    The Last Adam
    God provided the solution—a way to deliver man from his wretched state. Paul explains in 1 Corinthians 15 that God provided another Adam! The Son of God took on a human nature in addition to His full divinity, becoming a perfect God-man—Jesus Christ. In His humanity, He was a descendant of Adam (through Noah, Abraham and David)—He thus became our relation! He is called “the last Adam” (1 Corinthians 15:45), because he took the place of the first Adam. He became the new head, and, because he was sinless, He was able to pay the penalty for sin:

    “For since by a man came death, by a man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:21-22).[8]
    Christ suffered death (the penalty for sin) on the cross, shedding his blood (“without shedding of blood is no remission” Hebrews 9:22) so that those who repent of their sin of rebellion and put their trust in His work on the cross can be reconciled to God.

    Since the Bible describes all human beings as sinners, except the God-Man Jesus, and we are all related (“And He has made all nations of men of one blood to dwell on all the face of the earth” Acts 17:26), the gospel makes sense only on the basis that all humans alive and all who have ever lived are descendants of the first man Adam.[9] If this were not so, then the gospel could not be explained or defended.

    The Book of Hebrews amplifies how Jesus took upon himself the nature of a man to save mankind (Hebrews 2:11-18).

    Thus, only descendants of the first man Adam can be saved.

    All related
    Thus, there was only one man at the beginning—made from the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7).

    This also means that Cain’s wife was a descendant of Adam. She could not have come from another “race” of people and must be one of Adam’s descendants.

    The first woman
    In Genesis 3:20 we read, “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.”[10] In other words, all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—she was the first woman.

    Eve was made from Adam’s rib (or side) (Genesis 2:21-24)—this was a unique event. Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) use this historical and one-time event as the doctrinal foundation for the marriage of one man to one woman.

    Also, in Genesis 2:20, we are told that when Adam looked at the animals, he could not find a mate—there was no one of his kind.

    All this makes it obvious that there was only one woman, Adam’s wife, at the beginning. There were never any other women around who were not Eve’s descendants.

    If Christians cannot defend that all humans (including Cain’s wife) can trace their ancestry ultimately to Adam and Eve, then how can they understand and explain the gospel? How can they justify sending missionaries to every tribe and nation? Therefore, one needs to be able to answer the question about Cain’s wife, to illustrate that Christians can defend the gospel and all that it teaches.

    Cain’s brothers and sisters
    Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this earth.

    Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—“And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.” This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born.

    During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, “The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.”[11]

    The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, They were commanded to “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

    The wife
    If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations!

    We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history.

    But what about God’s Laws?
    Many people immediately reject the conclusion that Adam and Eve’s sons and daughters married each other by appealing to the law against brother-sister intermarriage. Some say that you cannot marry your relation. Actually, if you don’t marry your relation, you don’t marry a human! A wife is related to her husband even before they marry because all people are descendants of Adam and Eve—all are of “one blood.” The law forbidding marriage between close relatives was not given until the time of Moses (Leviticus 18-20). Provided marriage was one man to one woman for life (based on Genesis 1 and 2), there was no disobedience to God’s law originally when close relatives (even brothers and sisters) married each other.

    Remember that Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). God blessed this union to produce the Hebrew people through Isaac and Jacob. It was not until some 400 years later that God gave Moses laws that forbade such marriages.

    Biological deformities
    Today, brothers and sisters (and half-brothers and half-sisters, etc.) are not permitted by law to marry because their children have an unacceptably high risk of being deformed. The more closely the parents are related, the more likely it is that any offspring will be deformed.

    There is a very sound genetic reason for such laws that is easy to understand. Every person has two sets of genes, there being some 130,000 pairs that specify how a person is put together and functions. Each person inherits one gene of each pair from each parent. Unfortunately, genes today contain many mistakes (because of sin and the Curse), and these mistakes show up in a variety of ways. For instance, some people let their hair grow over their ears to hide the fact that one ear is lower than the other—or perhaps someone’s nose is not quite in the middle of his or her face, or someone’s jaw is a little out of shape—and so on. Let’s face it, the main reason we call each other normal is because of our common agreement to do so!

    The more distantly related parents are, the more likely it is that they will have different mistakes in their genes. Children, inheriting one set of genes from each parent, are likely to end up with pairs of genes containing a maximum of one bad gene in each pair. The good gene tends to override the bad so that a deformity (a serious one, anyway) does not occur. Instead of having totally deformed ears, for instance, a person may only have crooked ones! (Overall, though, the human race is slowly degenerating as mistakes accumulate, generation after generation.)

    However, the more closely related two people are, the more likely it is that they will have similar mistakes in their genes, since these have been inherited from the same parents. Therefore, a brother and a sister are more likely to have similar mistakes in their genes. A child of a union between such siblings could inherit the same bad gene on the same gene pair from both, resulting in two bad copies of the gene and serious defects.

    Adam and Eve did not have accumulated genetic mistakes. When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect. Everything God made was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), so their genes were perfect—no mistakes! But, when sin entered the world (because of Adam—Genesis 3:6, Romans 5:12), God cursed the world so that the perfect creation then began to degenerate, that is, suffer death and decay (Romans 8:22). Over thousands of years, this degeneration has produced all sorts of genetic mistakes in living things.

    Cain was in the first generation of children ever born. He (as well as his brothers and sisters) would have have received virtually no imperfect genes from Adam or Eve, since the effects of sin and the Curse would have been minimal to start with (it takes time for these copying errors to accumulate). In that situation, brother and sister could have married with God’s approval, without any potential to produce deformed offspring.

    By the time of Moses (a few thousand years later), degenerative mistakes would have built up in the human race to such an extent that it was necessary for God to forbid brother-sister (and close relative) marriage (Leviticus 18-20).[12] (Also, there were plenty of people on the earth by then, and there was no reason for close relations to marry.)

    Cain and the Land of Nod
    Some claim that the passage in Genesis 4:16-17 means that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. Thus, they can conclude there must have been another race of people on the earth, who were not descendants of Adam, who produced Cain’s wife.

    “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch: and he built a city, and he called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.”
    From what has been stated previously, it is clear that all humans, Cain’s wife included, are descendants of Adam. However, this passage does not say that Cain went to the land of Nod and found a wife. John Calvin, commenting on these verses, states:

    “From the context we may gather that Cain, before he slew his brother, had married a wife; otherwise Moses would now have related something respecting his marriage.”[13]
    Cain was married before he went to the land of Nod. He didn’t find a wife there, but “knew” (had sexual relations with) his wife.[14]

    Others have argued that because Cain built a “city” in the land of Nod, there must have been a lot of people there. However, the Hebrew word translated as “city” need not mean what we might imagine from the connotations of “city” today. The word meant a “walled town” or a protected encampment.[15] Even a hundred people would be plenty for such a “city.” Nevertheless, there could have been many descendants of Adam on the earth by the time of Abel’s death (see below).

    Who was Cain fearful of? (Genesis 4:14)
    Some claim that there had to be lots of people on earth other than Adam and Eve’s descendants, otherwise Cain would not have been fearful of people wanting to slay him for killing Abel.

    First of all, in the days before civil government was instituted to punish murderers (Genesis 9:6), someone would want to harm Cain for killing Abel only if they were closely related to Abel! Strangers could hardly have cared. So the people Cain was afraid of could not have been another race of people.

    Second, Cain and Abel were born quite some time before Abel’s death. Genesis 4:3 states:

    “And in the course of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to the Lord.”
    Note the phrase “in the course of time.” We know that Seth was born when Adam was 130 years old (Genesis 5:3), and Eve saw him as a “replacement” for Abel (Genesis 4:25). Therefore, the period from Cain’s birth to Abel’s death may have been 100 years or more—allowing plenty of time for other children of Adam and Eve to marry and have children and grandchildren. By the time Abel was killed, there could well have been a considerable number of descendants of Adam and Eve, involving several generations.

    Where did the technology come from?
    Some claim that for Cain to go to the land of Nod and build a city he would have required a lot of technology that must have already been in that land, presumably developed by other “races.”

    However, Adam and Eve’s descendants were very intelligent people. Jubal made musical instruments such as the harp and organ (Genesis 4:21), and Tubal-Cain worked with brass and iron (Genesis 4:22).

    Because of intense evolutionary indoctrination, many people today think that our generation is the most intelligent that has ever lived on this planet. But just because we have jet airplanes and computers, it does not mean that we are the most intelligent. Modern technology results from the accumulation of knowledge. We stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us.

    Our brains have suffered from 6,000 years of the Curse (since Adam). We are greatly degenerated compared with people many generations ago. We may now be nowhere near as intelligent or inventive as Adam and Eve’s children. Scripture gives us a glimpse of what appears to be great inventiveness from the beginning.[16]

    Conclusion
    Many Christians cannot answer the question about Cain’s wife because they focus on today’s world (and the problems associated with close relations marrying), and do not understand the clear historical record God has given to us.

    They try to interpret Genesis from our present situation, rather than understand the true biblical history of the world and the changes that have occurred because of sin. Because they are not building their world view on Scripture, but taking a secular way of thinking to the Bible, they are blinded to the simple answers.

    Genesis is the record of the God who was there as history happened. It is the word of One who knows everything, and who is a reliable witness from the past. Thus, when we use Genesis as a basis for understanding history, we can make sense of questions that would otherwise be a mystery.

    [ Read more about Cain in our Bible Encyclopedia. ]


  14. Atheism and mass murder

    Joseph Stalin’s atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.See articles: Atheism and Mass Murder and Atheism and communism and Atheism and sadism
    Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote relative to atheism and mass murder that “the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them.”[70] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under regimes which advocated atheism.[70] As noted earlier, Richard Dawkins has attempted to engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error.

    Koukl summarized by stating:

    “ It is true that it’s possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We’re talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God.[70] ”

    Aleksandr SolzhenitsynNobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn wrote:

    “ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.
    Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.”[71]

    In 2008, Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:

    “ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
    The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

    The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

    Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation![72]

    See also:

    Militant atheism
    Soviet Union and morality
    Atheism and charity
    See also: Atheism and charity and Atheism and depression and Atheism, uncharitableness and depression

    According to a study by the Barna Group regarding charitable giving:”The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics.”[73]Concerning the issue of atheism and uncharitableness, the evidence indicates that per capita charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists, according to a study by the Barna Group:

    “ The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.[74] ”

    A comprehensive study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam found that religious people are more charitable than their irreligious counterparts.[75][76] The study revealed that forty percent of worship service attending Americans volunteer regularly to help the poor and elderly as opposed to 15% of Americans who never attend services.[77][78] Moreover, religious individuals are more likely than non-religious individuals to volunteer for school and youth programs (36% vs. 15%), a neighborhood or civic group (26% vs. 13%), and for health care (21% vs. 13%).[79][80]

    Arthur C. Brooks wrote in Policy Review regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research):

    “ The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.[81] ”

    ABC News reported the following in respect to atheism:

    “ …the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.
    Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

    “Actually, the truth is that they’re giving to more than their churches,” he says. “The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities.”[82]

    Given that atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable.

    Atheism and immoral views
    See: Atheism and morality and Atheism and bestiality and Atheism and sadism
    The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[83] Given the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the biblical prohibition against homosexuality is quite arguably one of the many examples where the Bible exhibited knowledge that was ahead of its time. Although Western atheists generally subscribe to the evolutionary paradigm, there is a conflict between the evolutionary paradigm and Western atheists often having favorable views toward homosexuality. In 1993, Professor Miron Baron, M.D., the renowned medical researcher and Professor at Columbia University, wrote in BMJ (British Medical Journal) “…from an evolutionary perspective, genetically determined homosexuality would have become extinct long ago because of reduced reproduction.”[84]

    The Journal of Medical Ethics declared concerning the atheist and sadist Marquis de Sade:

    “ In 1795 the Marquis de Sade published his La Philosophic dans le boudoir, in which he proposed the use of induced abortion for social reasons and as a means of population control. It is from this time that medical and social acceptance of abortion can be dated, although previously the subject had not been discussed in public in modern times. It is suggested that it was largely due to de Sade’s writing that induced abortion received the impetus which resulted in its subsequent spread in western society.[85] ”

    Population control is based on pseudoscience and ill founded economic assumptions.[86] CBS News reported: “According to a mail-in survey of nearly 4,000 British doctors, those who were atheist or agnostic were almost twice as willing to take actions designed to hasten the end of life.”[87]

    In 2007 the Baptist Press reported:

    “ …a pollster at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, found that adults who profess a belief in God are significantly more likely than atheists to say that forgiveness, patience, generosity and a concern for others are “very important.” In fact, the poll found that on 11 of 12 values, there was a double-digit gap between theists and atheists, with theists more likely to label each value “very important.”
    The survey by sociologist and pollster Reginald Bibby examined the beliefs of 1,600 Canadians, 82 percent who said they believed in “God or a higher power” and 18 percent who said they did not.[88]

    Dr. William Lane Craig states the following concerning the comments of debater Dr. Kai Nielson who advocates atheism:

    “ He doesn’t really defend his point there, but he says, “I have a reason why we should be moral.” He says, “It’s in our self-interest to be moral.” I was really surprised to hear that coming from him. That sort of purely self-interested motivation for morality is, I think, fatal to the atheistic position because for someone who is sufficiently powerful not to be worried about what others do, self-interest can only lead to a sort of self-aggrandizing hedonism. It leads to the kind of life of a Marcos, a Papa Doc Duvalier, a Mbbutu, and so forth. Self-interest will never be able to justify an ethic of compassion. And so I think that was a fatal admission on Dr. Nielsen’s part for the atheistic worldview.[89] ”

    An essay by the Christian apologist Dr. James Spiegel describes Bertrand Russell as a “misogynistic and a serial adulterer; a chronic seducer of women, especially very young women, even in his old age.”[90]Dr. Phil Fernandes states the following regarding atheism and moral relativism:

    “ Nietzsche preached that a group of “supermen” must arise with the courage to create their own values through their “will to power.” Nietzsche rejected the “soft” values of Christianity (brotherly love, turning the other cheek, charity, compassion, etc.); he felt they hindered man’s creativity and potential….
    Many other atheists agree with Nietzsche concerning moral relativism. British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) once wrote, “Outside human desires there is no moral standard.” A. J. Ayer believed that moral commands did not result from any objective standard above man. Instead, Ayer stated that moral commands merely express one’s subjective feelings. When one says that murder is wrong, one is merely saying that he or she feels that murder is wrong. Jean-Paul Sartre, a French existentialist, believed that there is no objective meaning to life. Therefore, according to Sartre, man must create his own values.

    There are many different ways that moral relativists attempt to determine what action should be taken. Hedonism is probably the most extreme. It declares that whatever brings the most pleasure is right. In other words, if it feels good, do it. If this position is true, then there is no basis from which to judge the actions of Adolph Hitler as being evil.[91]

    Evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.”[92] The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, “I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.”[93]

    An essay by the Christian apologist Dr. James Spiegel examines the morality of some well known atheists. Dr. Speigel describes Bertrand Russell as a “misogynistic and a serial adulterer; a chronic seducer of women, especially very young women, even in his old age.”[94] Spiegel refers to the atheist Karl Marx as a “fiercely anti-semitic; egocentric, slothful, and lecherous; exploitive of friends and unfaithful to his wife; sired an illegitimate son, whom he refused to acknowledge.”[95] In addition, Spiegel refers to atheist Jean-Paul Sartre in the following manner: “in his old age Jean-Paul Sartre—notorious for his sexual escapades with female students, often procured by his colleague and lover Simone de Beauvoir.”[96]

    Many consider atheist Harry Hay to be the founder of the American homosexual movement.Given that atheistic evolutionary thinking has engendered social darwinism and given that the proponents of atheism have no rational basis for morality in their ideology, the immoral views that atheists often hold and the low per capita giving of American atheists is not unpredictable.

    Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA
    see also: Atheism, pederasty and NAMBLA and Teenage homosexuality and Homosexuality and pederasty

    Some of the well known atheist advocates of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) are:

    1. The atheist and homosexual David Thorstad was a founding member of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).[97]

    2. Harry Hay (1912 – 2002) was an liberal advocate of statutory rape and the widely acknowledged founder and progenitor of the activist homosexual agenda in the United States. Hay joined the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) in 1934. [98] Harry Hay was an atheist.[99] He was a vociferous advocate of man/boy love. [100][101] In 1986, Hay marched in a gay parade wearing a shirt emblazoned with the words “NAMBLA walks with me.”[102]

    3. The writer Samuel R. Delaney is an atheist and a homosexual.[103][104] Delaney said he was a supporter of NAMBLA.[105]

    See also: Richard Dawkins on child molestation and so called “gentle pedophiles” and John Maynard Keynes and pederasty

    Atheism and bestiality
    See also: Atheism and bestiality

    Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[106][107]

    The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia). Despite holding these immoral views the liberal and pro-evolution academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at Princeton University.[108] See: Atheism and bestialityThe Bible says that bestiality is a perversion and, under the Old Testament Jewish Law, punishable by death (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15 and Deuteronomy 27:21). The atheistic worldview does not lend itself to the establishment of morality within society and individuals (see: Atheism and morality and Atheism and deception).

    The Christian apologist and author Michael Caputo writes:

    “ Although bestiality is not openly supported by well known Militant Atheist sites, support for it is inherent in their insistence that decisions of a sexual nature should be left up to the individual adults to determine. God disagrees.[109] ”

    British atheist Christopher Hitchens on bestiality
    See also: Atheism and bestiality and Bestiality and Britain and Christopher Hitchens on bestiality

    At the end of the Christian apologist William Lane Craig vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was a audience question and answer period.VIDEO The first audience member to ask a question twice asked Christopher Hitchens to label bestiality as an immoral act, but he refused to do so.[110] Dr. Craig said the question posed to Hitchens was a good one and it helped illustrate that atheism cannot offer objective moral standards (see: Atheism and morality).[111]

    Additional information on atheism and bestiality
    For additional information please see:

    Atheism and bestiality
    Evolutionary belief and bestiality
    Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality
    Godless Britain and bestiality
    Atheistic Netherlands and bestiality
    Washington state and bestiality
    Joseph Stalin’s ape-men experiments
    Christopher Hitchens on bestiality
    Skeptic Skatje Myers’ comments on bestiality (Daughter of atheist PZ Myers)
    Wikipedia on bestiality
    Atheism and miracles
    See main article: Atheism and Miracles
    In relation to atheism and miracles, modern scholars are divided on the issue of whether or not David Hume was an atheist.[112] With that caveat in mind, Hume is well known for arguing that it is always more probable that the testimony of a miracle is false than that the miracle occurred.[113] Christian apologists William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, C.S. Lewis, JP Holding, and others have shown the inadequacy and unreasonableness of Hume’s position regarding miracles.[114]

    Atheism and questions of origins
    See main article: Atheism and Evolution
    Creationist scientists state that the first law of thermodynamics and the second law of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by God.[115][116][117] A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism since World War II have had the worldview of atheism.[118][119] Creation scientists assert that the theory of evolution is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth.[120] In addition, the current naturalistic explanations for the origin of life are inadequate. The theory of evolution has had a number of negative social effects.

    Atheism and mental and physical health
    See also: Atheism and health and Atheism and obesity
    The is considerable amount of scientific evidence that suggest that theism is more conducive to mental and physical health than atheism and some of the more significant findings are given below [121] (For more information please see: Atheism and health).

    Mayo Clinic, university studies, and other research
    The prestigious Mayo Clinic reported the following on December 11, 2001:

    “ In an article also published in this issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings, Mayo Clinic researchers reviewed published studies, meta-analyses, systematic reviews and subject reviews that examined the association between religious involvement and spirituality and physical health, mental health, health-related quality of life and other health outcomes.
    The authors report a majority of the nearly 350 studies of physical health and 850 studies of mental health that have used religious and spiritual variables have found that religious involvement and spirituality are associated with better health outcomes.[122]

    The Iona Institute reported:

    “ A meta-analysis of all studies, both published and unpublished, relating to religious involvement and longevity was carried out in 2000. Forty-two studies were included, involving some 126,000 subjects. Active religious involvement increased the chance of living longer by some 29%, and participation in public religious practices, such as church attendance, increased the chance of living longer by 43%.[123][124] ”

    In December of 2003, the University of Warwick reported:

    “ Dr. Stephen Joseph, from the University of Warwick, said: “Religious people seem to have a greater purpose in life, which is why they are happier. Looking at the research evidence, it seems that those who celebrate the Christian meaning of Christmas are on the whole likely to be happier.[125] ”

    Duke University has established the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health.[126] The Duke University Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health is based in the Center for Aging at Duke and gives opportunities for scholarly trans-disciplinary conversation and the development of collaborative research projects.[127] In respect to the atheism and mental and physical health, the center offers many studies which suggest that theism is more beneficial than atheism.[128]

    Currently, there is an ongoing debate on whether Friedrich Nietzsche’s insanity was caused purely through disease or whether his atheistic/nihilistic philosophical outlook on life was the cause.The Christian group Teen Challenge reported:

    “ Teen Challenge claims of a 70% cure rate for the drug addicts graduating from their program attracted the attention of the U.S. Federal Government in 1973. Most secular drug rehabilitation programs only experienced a cure rate of 1-15% of their graduates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), part of the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, funded the first year of this study to evaluate the long term results of the Teen Challenge program.[129] ”

    Teen Challenge has a number of studies that indicate the high effectiveness of their drug treatment program compared to other programs.[130] Studies indicate that consumers of secular counseling psychology programs show hardly any benefit at all for alcoholism (see also: Ineffectiveness of secular counseling psychology).[131][132] The Apostle Paul in a letter to the church of Corinth indicated that Christians were able to overcome being drunkards through the power of Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 6:9-11). The website The Berean Call has a number of articles on various false claims and unbiblical notions that many practioners of counseling psychology promote.[133]

    Currently, there is an ongoing debate on whether Friedrich Nietzsche’s insanity was caused purely through disease or whether his atheistic/nihilistic philosophical outlook on life was the cause.[134] [135]

    An article published on the Hong Kong Baptist University declares:

    “ Trying to explain what caused his insanity can only be a matter of speculation. Some people believe it was the result of a physical illness. Others interpret his suffering as that of a true prophet, almost as if he were accepting the punishment on behalf of those who could not see mankind’s tendency towards self-destruction so clearly. Still others regard his final fate as a natural outcome of his philosophical outlook.[135] ”

    The Russian-born psychoanalyst and writer Lou Andreas-Salomé, who had a brief and tempestuous affair with Nietzsche, believed that Nietzsche’s philosophy can be viewed as a reflection of his psychology and that his madness was the result of his philosophizing.[136] In addition, the French historian René Girard asserted that Nietzsche’s philosophy led to his insanity.[137]

    Atheism and suicide
    See also: Atheism and depression and Atheism and suicide and Atheism, gender and suicide and Atheism, marriage and suicide
    Although there are recent studies relating to atheism being a causal factor for suicide for some individuals, an early proponent of atheism being a causal factor for suicide was the Reverend Dr. Robert Stuart MacArthur.[138][139][140] In 1894, the NY Times stated the following in relation to atheism and suicide:

    “ Dr. Martin urged that a great cause of suicide was atheism. It was, he said, a remarkable fact that where atheism prevailed most, there suicides were most numerous. In Paris, a recent census showed one suicide to every 2,700 of the population. After the publication of Paine’s “Age of Reason” suicides increased.[140] ”

    Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman stated concerning suicide rates: “this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations.”The same NY Times article quotes the Reverend Dr. MacArthur describing suicide in the following manner:

    “ It is mean and not manly; it is dastardly and not daring. A man who involves his innocent wife and children in financial disaster and disgrace and takes his life and leaves them to bear the burden he was unwilling to bear, is a coward.[140] ”

    In 2004, the American Journal of Psychiatry reported the following:

    “ Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.[141] ”

    The website Adherents.com reported the following in respect to atheism and suicide:

    “ Pitzer College sociologist Phil Zuckerman compiled country-by-country survey, polling and census numbers relating to atheism, agnosticism, disbelief in God and people who state they are non-religious or have no religious preference. These data were published in the chapter titled “Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns” in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:
    “Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.”[142]

    Australian online opinion writer and lecturer in ethics and philosophy at several Melbourne theological colleges, Bill Muehlenberg, in his essay The Unbearable Heaviness of Being (In a World Without God) states the following:

    “ Announcing, and believing, that God is dead has consequences. And it is we who suffer the most for it. We cannot bear the whole universe on our shoulders. We were not meant to. We must let God be God. Only then can men be men. Only then can we find the way forward to be possible, and the burdens not insurmountable.[143] ”

    Atheism, uncharitableness and suicide
    See also: Atheism and depression and Atheism, uncharitableness and depression and Atheism and suicide

    A number of studies have confirmed that there is an inverse relationship to doing volunteer work and depression.[144] The atheist population has a higher suicide rate than the general population. (see: Atheism and suicide).

    Ex-Christians, self-esteem and suicide
    See also: Ex-Christians, self-esteem and suicide and Atheism and depression and Atheism and self-esteem and Richard Dawkins and Jesse Kilgore and Ex-atheists

    There are preliminary studies indicating that individuals who reject Christianity in Western cultures have lower self-esteem than the Christian population.[145][146] There are studies indicating that lower self-esteem is associated with suicidality.[147][148]

    Atheism, gender, marriage and suicide
    See also: Atheism and depression

    Please see: Atheism, gender and suicide and Atheism, marriage and suicide

    Stephen Fry is an atheist and a homosexual.

    (photo obtained from Wikimedia Commons, see license agreement)Atheism and obesity
    See also: Atheism and obesity and Atheism and health

    According to the Gallup Organization, “Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviors than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious.”[149] For more information please Atheism and obesity

    Gallup declared concerning the study which measured the degree to which religiosity affects health practices: “Generalized linear model analysis was used to estimate marginal scores all five reported metrics after controlling for age (in years), gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, education (number of years), log of income, and region of the country… Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index survey Jan. 2-July 28, 2010, with a random sample of 554,066 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, selected using random-digit-dial sampling.”[150]

    Please see:

    Atheism and obesity
    Atheism and health
    Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism
    New Atheism and obesity
    Atheism, obesity and self-esteem
    Homosexuality and obesity
    Atheism is significantly less appealing to women
    see also: Atheism and women and Elevatorgate

    Christian women at a religious retreat. Studies and web traffic data appear to indicate that women in the Western World tend to be more religious than men.[151][152]Recent studies
    Surveys by country
    In November of 2010, Discover Magazine published survey results published by the World Values Survey which showed significant differences between the percentage of men and women who are atheists for various countries.[153]

    United States surveys
    A 2008 study by Trinity College found that women are significantly more religious than men in America.[154] In 2007, the Pew Research Center found that American women were more religious than American men.[155]

    Atheist PZ Myers commentary concerning atheist meetings
    In June of 2010, the atheist PZ Myers commented that atheist meetings tend to be significantly more attended by males.[156]

    Large atheist group survey and atheist meetings
    In 2011, Beliefnetnews reported concerning the race and gender of American atheists:

    “ From the smallest local meetings to the largest conferences, the vast majority of speakers and attendees are almost always white men. Leading figures of the atheist movement – Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett — are all white men.
    But making atheism more diverse is proving to be no easy task.

    Surveys suggest most atheists are white men. A recent survey of 4,000 members of the Freedom from Religion Foundation found that 95 percent were white, and men comprised a majority.[157]

    2010 New York Times description of atheist meeting attendees
    In 2010, an atheists’ meeting was organized in the United States concerning the future direction of the atheist movement and 370 people attended. The New York Times described the attendees as “The largely white and male crowd — imagine a Star Trek convention, but older…”. [158]

    Prominent general atheist websites appear to receive significantly less traffic from women
    The website run by the organization American Atheist has significantly less women trafficking their website according to Alexa and Quantcast.[159][160] The Internet Infidels website has significantly less woman trafficking their website according to Alexa and Quantcast.[161][162] The British Website New Humanist Magazine receives significantly less traffic from women according to Alexa and Quantcast.[163][164] Atheist Ireland also has significantly less women trafficking their website according to Alexa (there is no web traffic data from Quantcast).[165]

    New Atheism websites appear to receive significantly less traffic from women
    The four most prominent writers of the New Atheist movement are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. Like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris has his own website. According to the website tracking firms Alexa and Quantcast women frequent the website of Samharris.org and richarddawkins.net significantly less than men.[166]

    Summary
    The above data suggest that atheism in general and the New Atheism movement is significantly less appealing to women in the Western World.

    Atheism and marriageability
    See also: Atheism and marriage

    Studies indicate that atheists are a minority in the population. Studies also indicate that people tend to marry people with similar values or who resemble their parents or themselves.[167][168] In addition, the Bible teaches Christians not to marry a non-Christian (The Bible also teaches a believer to stay married to a non-believer if you are already married).[169] Also, interfaith marriages often have greater marital friction and interfaith marriages historically have had higher rates of divorce.[170] Therefore, it would not be surprising if atheist/theist marriages also have increased marital friction and higher rates of divorce since these two worldviews are so different.

    Given that atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women, atheists are a minority in the population and that people tend to marry people with similar values or who resemble their parents or themselves; this would suggest that male atheists may find it more difficult to find prospective female partners for marriage. And of course, militant atheism might make matters even more difficult.

    Atheism and rates of marriage in the United States
    See also: Atheism and women

    Christian apologist Michael Caputo wrote:

    “ Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews… According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.[171] ”

    Vox Day declared that according to the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) “more than half of all atheists and agnostics don’t get married.”[172]

    The claim that atheists tend to be quarrelsome and socially challenged men
    See also: Atheism and women and Elevatorgate

    In 2007, Vox Day wrote:

    “ It’s not just a figment of my imagination, it seems atheists truly are socially autistic by their own report. Asperger’s Syndrome is a disorder described as “autistic psychopathy” by its discoverer, Dr. Hans Asperger. Those with the disorder tend to be intelligent, socially awkward and difficult to converse with. They are also likely to be male.
    Based on Wired magazine’s observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men, to say nothing of the unpleasant personalities of leading public atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Michel Onfray, one could reasonably hypothesize that there is likely to be a strong correlation between Asperger’s and atheism. It’s by no means a scientific test, but it is interesting to note the coincidence that 59 of the virulent atheists over at Dr. PZ Myers place report an average score on the Asperger’s Quotient test of 27.8. And this does not include the two individuals who actually have Asperger’s but did not report any test results.

    The test notes that “Scores over 32 are generally taken to indicate Asperger’s Syndrome or high-functioning autism”. The average male score is 18, the average female score is 15. By way of comparison, I scored 14…

    Obviously, more comprehensive and scientific tests would be advised before any definite conclusion can be reached…[173]

    In 2010, the Christian apologetics website True Free Thinker wrote:

    “ Scienceblogger Chad Orzel described the commentators on PZ Myers ‘ Scienceblogs.com site Pharyngula, and other Scienceblogs.com commentators, as “screechy monkeys.”[174] ”

    Of course, there is no necessity to assert that atheists are more likely to have Asperger’s Syndrome. The historical militancy of the atheist/evolutionist community and the ideas their ideologies have often engendered provides more than enough explanatory power to explain the origin of the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheists/evolutionist population (see: militant atheism and social effects of the theory of evolution ). In fact, it is arguably the best explanation for the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheist/evolutionist community. In addition, ultimately the decision to reject or be reconciled with God is a matter relating to the grace of God and free will and nobody is forced into atheism due to a physical condition.

    In February of 2010, the news organization The Telegraph reported that the atheist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins was embroiled “in a bitter online battle over plans to rid his popular internet forum for atheists of foul language, insults and ‘frivolous gossip’.”[175] In addition, Richard Dawkins has a reputation for being abrasive. For example, in September of 2010, Richard Dawkins became nasty towards a woman in an audience he spoke before (see: Women’s views of Richard Dawkins).[176]

    See also: Elevatorgate (scandal involving Richard Dawkins)

    Obese atheists and marriageability
    See also: Atheism and obesity

    As indicated earlier, atheists have significantly lower rates of marriage in the United States. According to the abstract for a paper presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Sociological Association: “Obese individuals have fewer dating opportunities, marry later and marry less desirable partners.”[177] For more information please see: Atheism and obesity

    Obese male atheists and marriageability
    See also: Atheism and obesity

    Given that atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women, obesity reduces one’s marriageability, atheists are a minority in the population and that people tend to marry people with similar values or who resemble their parents or themselves as noted above; this would suggest that obese male atheists may find it more difficult to find prospective female partners for marriage. And of course, militant atheism might make matters even more difficult. For more information please see Atheism and obesity

    New Atheism movement and contention between atheist men and women
    See also: Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins and Atheist factions

    Within the militant New Atheism movement, there appears to be a significant amount of contention between men and women with complaints from women that there is a significant amount of misogny within the atheist community and its leadership is too heavily populated with men.[178][179] This may partly explain why Western atheism is less appealing to Western women (see: Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women). In addition, the significant amount of contention between men and women may apply to Western atheism as a whole. As noted earlier, Wired magazine made the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men.

    Western atheism and race
    See also: Western atheism and race

    As note earlier, an atheists’ meeting was organized in the United States concerning the future direction of the atheist movement and 370 people attended. The conference, sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism, drew members from all the major atheist organizations in the United States. The New York Times described the attendees as “The largely white and male crowd — imagine a Star Trek convention, but older…”[180] According to the Quantcast data, white males appear to be the group of individuals who are most receptive to Richard Dawkins’ and atheist Sam Harris’ message.[181][182] These findings,combined with the aforementioned data indicating that atheism is significantly less appealing to women, suggests that atheist movement in the Western world and New Atheism movement are significantly more appealing to white males.

    Atheism and evolutionary racism

    An evolutionary racist put Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo in the monkey house.[183]See also: Atheism and evolutionary racism and Social effects of the theory of evolution

    Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[184] The errant and ill founded writings of atheist Charles Darwin (see: religious views of Charles Darwin) [185], which became very influential in the late 19th century, provided a pretext for racism. Evolutionary racism refers to a racist philosophy based on Charles Darwin’s evolutionary theory. It assumes that men have continually evolved, and thus some races are more evolved than others. It replaces Christian morality with the atheistic “survival of the fittest” ideology of Social Darwinism.

    Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex:

    “ At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes…will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.[186][187] ”

    An example of evolutionary racism is when an evolutionary racist put Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo in the monkey house.[188] In addition, evolutionary racism was directed at Michelle Obama.[189]

    The atheist Ernst Haeckel was a virulent evolutionary racist. The agnostic and staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:

    “ Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany…. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a “just” state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science – all contributed to the rise of Nazism. – Stephen J. Gould, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny,” Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).[190] ”

    Stephen Jay Gould

    (photo obtained from Wikimedia commons, see license agreement)As noted earlier, when asked in an interview, “If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”, Richard Dawkins replied, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”[191]

    The interviewer wrote in response, “I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point.”[191]

    Evolutionary racism still exist today. For example, evolutionary racism was recently directed at Michelle Obama.[192] The historic taint of white evolutionary racism within the white atheist community no doubt has been a factor which has hindered the adoption of atheism in the Western World among racial minorities. Leading creation science organizations such as Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research commonly point out the evolutionary racism that has existed within the evolutionary community.[193][194][195][196]

    Thomas Sowell wrote:

    “ While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in hits history…not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all…. Moreover, within Western civilization, the principle impetus for the abolition of slavery came first from very conservative religious activists – people who would today be called ‘the religious right.’…this story is not ‘politically correct’ in today’s terms. Hence it is ignored, as if it never happened.”[197] ”

    The Christian abolitionist William Wilberforce was the father of Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford who took part in the famous creation vs. evolution with evolutionist T. H. Huxley in 1860. In the United States, the black church has been a major force in advancing the cause of racial equality.

    Atheism and deception

    Charles DarwinFor more information please see: Atheism and deception and Irreligion and superstition

    As alluded to earlier, prior to Charles Darwin publishing his evolutionist work On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin wrote in his private notebooks that he was a materialist, which is a type of atheist.[198] Charles Darwin’s casual mentioning of a ‘creator’ in earlier editions of The Origin of Species appears to have been a merely a deceitful ploy to downplay the implications of his materialistic theory. [198]

    German scientist Ernst Haeckel was a very influential proponent of the evolutionary position and Haeckel was an advocate of atheism.[199] Ernst Haeckel attempted to portray himself as an ethical proponent of atheism, however, history shows he was a deceitful individual.[200][199][201] [202][203] The March 9, 1907 edition of the NY Times refers to Ernst Haeckel as the “celebrated Darwinian and founder of the Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism.”[199]

    Noted evolutionist Stephen Gould wrote the following regarding Ernst Haeckel’s work in a March 2000 issue of Natural History:

    “ “Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if not always accurate, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution… Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start. Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology… Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts…. [W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!”[204] ”

    Stephen Gould continues by quoting Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated: “I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically”.[204]

    Intelligent design theorist Michael Behe exposed the fraudulent nature of Haeckel’s embryos in a NY Times article.[202] It appears as if Stephen Gould was irritated that the fraud was exposed in manner that publicly embarrassed the evolutionary community – namely though a high profile NY Times article.[202]

    In addition, many of the ideas that Haeckel supported had a number of negative social effects.

    Modern proponents of atheism and deception
    As mentioned previously, a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism since World War II have had the worldview of atheism.[205][206] The continued use of deceitfulness has continued by modern evolutionists. In recent times, evolutionists have tried to convince the public of the supposed validity of the evolutionary position by frequently using the term “overwhelming evidence” or similar terms in relation to the alleged existence of evidence that supports their position.[207] For example, Richard Dawkins, a prominent advocate of atheism and the evolutionary position, claimed in an interview with journalist Bill Moyers that there is “massive evidence” for the theory of evolution.[208] However, the scientific literature certainly contains material which illustrates the deceitfulness of stating there is “overwhelming evidence” to support the evolutionary position which is a commonly cited aspect of Western world atheism. For example, in January 2000 scientist Simon Conway Morris stated the following:

    “ When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: “It happened.” Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd. -(Simon Conway Morris, [palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK], “Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold,” Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11)[209] ”

    Jonathan SarfatiDr. Jonathan Sarfati states the following in relation to the diluted definition of the word “evolution”:

    “ …many evolutionary propagandists are guilty of the deceitful practice of equivocation, that is, switching the meaning of a single word (evolution) part way through an argument. A common tactic, ‘bait-and-switch,’ is simply to produce examples of change over time, call this ‘evolution,’ then imply that the GTE [General Theory of Evolution] is thereby proven or even essential, and creation disproved. The PBS Evolution series and the Scientific American article are full of examples of this fallacy.[210] ”

    Evolutionary paradigm – degree of public support
    In 2010, the Gallup organization reported that 40% of Americans believe in young earth creationism.[211] In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain:

    “ Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll.
    Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons.[212]

    The Wall Street Journal reported: “A comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows …that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.”[213]Irreligion and superstition
    See also: Irreligion and superstition and Theory of Evolution, Liberalism, Atheism, and Irrationality and

    In September of 2008, the Wall Street Journal reported:

    “ The reality is that the New Atheist campaign, by discouraging religion, won’t create a new group of intelligent, skeptical, enlightened beings. Far from it: It might actually encourage new levels of mass superstition. And that’s not a conclusion to take on faith — it’s what the empirical data tell us.
    “What Americans Really Believe,” a comprehensive new study released by Baylor University yesterday, shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians….

    This is not a new finding. In his 1983 book “The Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener,” skeptic and science writer Martin Gardner cited the decline of traditional religious belief among the better educated as one of the causes for an increase in pseudoscience, cults and superstition. He referenced a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer that showed irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born-again Christian college students were the least likely.[214]

    Evolution, irreligion, extraterrestial life, UFOlogy and other pseudoscience
    For more information please see: Irreligion and superstition

    The notions of extraterrestrial life and UFOlogy are fast growing pseudoscientific religions which are perpetuated and/or aided by the ideologies of evolutionists, atheists, liberals and other promoters of quackery.[215][216][217] However, the ideologies of extraterrestrial life, UFOlogy, exobiology, evolution and abiogenesis are anti-biblical ideas which are not supported by sound science.[218][219]

    The liberal and agnostic Carl Sagan, an avid smoker of marijuana who claimed that marijuana gave him scientific insights, was a prominent peddler of extraterrestial life, evolution and other pseudoscientific nonsense. Sagan’s agnosticism and avid marijuana smoking no doubt helped inspire Sagan’s pseudoscientific fantasy that evolution was a “fact”.[220][221]

    No doubt pseudoscientific and superstitious thinking in many cases is partly due to a lack of self-discipline as rigorous scientific and logical thinking requires disciplined thought[222]

    Irreligious/atheistic France and the Soviet Union and UFOlogy
    See also: Irreligion and superstition and Christianity and UFOs

    On January 4, 2003, it was reported in the newspaper the Toledo Blade concerning the irreligious countries of the former Soviet Union and France that “in countries with a high degree of occult activity such as Russia during the Soviet era, France, and certain parts of Brazil also had high percentages of UFO encounters. During Russia’s Soviet period when every expression of religion except occult activity had been outlawed, he said, “Russians were seeing UFOs at five to eight times the rate Americans were.”[223]

    Christian apologists who reject naturalistic explanations of life such as the theory of evolution argue that difficult to explain UFOs are spiritual in nature and not amenable to naturalistic explanation.[224]

    Library of Congress researcher’s findings on UFOs
    See also: Atheism and satanic deception

    Lynn Cato, senior bibliographer for the library of Congress, created a 1600 entry on UFO bibliography for the United States Air Force Office of Scientific Research. After a two year investigation, in which she reviewed thousands of documents, Catoe stated:

    “ A large part of the available UFO literature…deals with subjects like mental telepathy, automatic writing and invisible entities…poltergeist manifestations and ‘possession’….Many of the UFO reports now being published in the popular press recount alleged incidents that are strikingly similar to demonic possession and psychic phenomenon which have long been known to theologians and parapsychologists.[225][226] ”

    Prominent UFO researcher John Keel concurred. After surveying the literature on demonology Keel declared:[226]

    “ The manifestations and occurrences described in this imposing literature are similar if not entirely identical to the UFO phenomenon itself. ”

    Intellectuals increasingly rejecting atheistic ideology
    According to Munich theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg “Atheism as a theoretical position is in decline worldwide.”[227] Given that the evolutionary position is a often cited component of the ideology of atheism in the Western world, the gradual loss of public support of the evolutionary position is one of the many factors which are eroding the ideology of atheism. Oxford scholar Alister McGrath cites a number of additional factors in regards to the decline of atheism as an intellectual position.[228] [229]

    Given the many factors which are eroding atheistic ideology McGrath states:

    “ …Atheism is in trouble. Its future seems increasingly to lie in the private beliefs of individuals rather than in the great public domain it once regarded as its natural habitat.[230] ”

    Christian websites with a large focus on the topic of atheism
    See also: Atheism and the internet

    Four of the more notable Christian apologetics which have a large focus on the topic of atheism are: True Free Thinker, the Creation Ministries International resources on atheism, the Fixed Point Foundation website, and Atheism Analyzed.

    Liberal media – apostles of atheism
    The Media Research Center released a study in 2008 reporting pro-atheism bias by major press outlets in the United States.[231] The study is not surprising given the liberal bias that commonly exists in the major media outlets.

    Richard Dawkins, pseudoscience, and other errors
    For more information please see: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience and Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism

    Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.[232][233]Richard Dawkins is an atheist, biologist, evolutionist and leftist/liberal. Most of Richard Dawkins’ popular books have been on the topic of evolutionary biology. He is an ardent opponent of religion, which he dismisses as mere superstition.[234] However, Dawkins has offered no effective rebuttal to studies which show that the irreligious are more likely to be superstitious than evangelical Christians.[235] Moreover, in terms of the theism vs. atheism issue, Dawkins has shown himself to be rather ignorant in matters of theology and philosophy. For example, atheist philosopher Dr. Michael Ruse declared concerning Dawkins’ book The God Delusion: “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist.”[236]

    Richard Dawkins and debates
    Richard Dawkins has established a reputation for avoiding debates with his strongest opponents. In the case of his debate with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach concerning the existence of God, Dawkins lost the debate according to the college student poll of the debate which determined how many students changed their minds.[237] Dawkins later tried to claim the debate never took place despite the fact that the Dawkins vs. Boteach debate was videotaped (see: Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach).

    Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience
    see also: Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience

    Within the evolutionary science community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and also has faced charges of committing elementary errors.[238][239]

    Reasonable explanations for atheism
    See main article: Causes of atheism and Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian
    There are a number of reasonable explanations for atheism:

    Matthew HenryMoral depravity: The history of the atheist community and various studies regarding the atheist community point to moral depravity being a causal factor for atheism.[240] In addition, there is the historical matter of deceit being used in a major way to propagate atheism from the time of Charles Darwin onward. Francis Thompson wrote: “Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.” (see also: Atheism and morality ). The Bible asserts that “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” (Psalms 14:1 (KJV)). The biblical fool is said to be lacking in sound judgment and the biblical fool is also associated with moral depravity. For example, the biblical book of Proverbs states: “A wise man is cautious and turns away from evil, But a fool is arrogant and careless. A quick-tempered man acts foolishly, And a man of evil devices is hated. The naive inherit foolishness, But the sensible are crowned with knowledge.”(Proverbs 14:16-18 (NASB)). The book of Proverbs also has strong words regarding the depravity of biblical fools: “The desire accomplished is sweet to the soul: but [it is] abomination to fools to depart from evil.” (Proverbs 13:9 (KJV)). Regarding the deceitfulness of fools Proverbs states: “The wisdom of the sensible is to understand his way, But the foolishness of fools is deceit.” (Proverbs 14:8 (KJV)). Noted Bible commentator and clergyman Matthew Henry wrote regarding atheism: “A man that is endued with the powers of reason, by which he is capable of knowing, serving, glorifying, and enjoying his Maker, and yet lives without God in the world, is certainly the most despicable and the most miserable animal under the sun.”[241]

    Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul VitzAtheistic upbringing. However, according to recent research by the Pew Forum Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, in the United States, a majority of those surveyed who were raised in atheist or agnostic households, or where there was no specific religious attachment, later chose to join a religious faith.[242][243] In addition, as noted earlier, Christianity is experiencing rapid growth in atheistic communist China and has experienced rapid growth in former communist countries. [244][245][246]
    Rebellion: Atheism stems from a deliberate choice to ignore the reality of God’s existence[247] Dinesh D’Souza declared: “Look at Satan’s reason for rebelling against God. It’s not that he doesn’t recognize that God is greater than he is. He does. It’s just that he doesn’t want to play by anybody else’s rules. This idea that it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven is Satan’s motto, and it turns out that this is also the motto of contemporary atheists such as Christopher Hitchens.” [248]
    Naiveté/Gullibility: Many atheists have embraced a number of far fetched, unworkable, and errant notions and ideologies such as communism, abiogenesis, and evolution despite abundant evidence of their falsity.
    Irrational thinking: As noted earlier, a comprehensive study by Baylor University found that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.[249] Also, as noted above, a 1980 study published in the magazine Skeptical Inquirer found irreligious college students to be by far the most likely to embrace paranormal beliefs, while born again Christian college students were found to be the least likely.[250]
    Superficiality: Noted ex-atheist and psychologist Dr. Paul Vitz has stated that he had superficial reasons for becoming an atheist such as the desire to be accepted by his Stanford University professors who were united in disbelief regarding God.[251]
    Error: Some argue that atheism


  15. Luckily BU has different rules to the rest of the world about what you can say about homosexuals and religions with charges for defamation not applicable


  16. Caswell Franklyn | November 1, 2011 at 1:03 AM |
    It was the British who introduced homosexuality to Barbados and now they are bullying us to conform to their warped behaviour.
    *******************************************************************
    They also introduced us to Cricket and we were ,until recently, happy to be always on top of them. So what’s new

  17. Caswell Franklyn Avatar
    Caswell Franklyn

    Colonel Buggery
    Are you equating cricket to bulling?


  18. 39,639 words from the one escapee from the Bat Cave to press the down key on before you get a chance to read the comments of anyone else. My fathers!!!!! My system tells me that this amounts to over 80 pages of letter-size paper.


  19. @David wrote ”David | November 1, 2011 at 1:01 AM | @TheDoc

    Many continue to question if this is a human rights issue at all.

    If there is no empirical evidence to support genetic shortcomings why not treat homosexuality as a malady which has to be attended”

    ——

    Inherently it is and has to be a human rights issue, as it involves the personal right to choice, without harming others. No more, no less need be said.

    As one person chooses a member of the opposite sex for companionship, another may not.

    What skin off your or mine noses? Will it take bread from my mouth? Will it cause me to enjoy eating a sandwich by the sea watching the sunset going down, for example, any less??

    If these souls choose that for themselves, it is a personal right and human right, nuff said.

    And contrary to any gobbledegook, eventually these souls WILL live on and continue past this worldly life, when the time comes, they are as you and I, souls experiencing life.

    No more nor less.


  20. Caswell Franklyn | November 7, 2011 at 2:37 PM |
    Colonel Buggery
    Are you equating cricket to bulling?
    *********************************************
    Buggy ,Buggy ,Buggy as in a super donkey cart.
    Course I am not equating buggery with cricket.All that I am pointing is that as individuals we had the choice of to either refuse to play the games or learn and accept them. If we accepted openly,then we cannot blame the Brits for that.


  21. Ten of the 27 countries in the European Union do not allow gay people to serve openly in the Armed Forces. namely; Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece,Hungary, Latvia, Malta ,Poland ,Portugal Romania and Slovakia, who despite an EU ruling on human rights are under no obligation to change their rules. These countries mostly, are piss poor and on the brink of bankruptcy having to receive large amounts of aid and bale out packages from the United Kingdom either directly or via the EU. Has the British Prime Minister ever threatened to withhold aid from these countries? Course not, as British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, put it over the Rhodesia issue, “they are our kith and kin. ” Threatening to, or withholding aid is the British 21st Century’s version of Gunboat Diplomacy.
    Sir “Sleepy” Smith has long been advocating, the scrapping of the monarchy when the present reign of Her Majesty QE2 is ends. Following the British Prime Ministers condescending,bully boy speech ,I am sure that Sir Frederick will gain much more support.
    Perhaps David Cameron would like to see a much reduced British Commonwealth, comprising the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.


  22. Exposing the Homosexual / Pedophile Link

    ——————————————————————————–

    In 1987, Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. He studied 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

    Dr. Judith Reisman, in her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, describes the research done by Dr. Gene Abel. This researcher compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. Dr. Abel concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring from five times greater than the molestation of girls.”

    This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:

    In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them were homosexuals (22%). (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

    In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

    Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200)


  23. Human Rights, Social Justice and ‘Gay’ Spin

    How Schools Deceive and Corrupt Kids
    Linda Harvey

    Is homosexuality a human right? Is it an issue of social justice? Yes, if you listen to liberal educators, many U.N. affiliated groups, and self-labeled “progressive” churches.

    But no, it’s not, if you heed the word of God. Homosexuality is not innate, it’s not God-ordained, and it’s always a sin in Scripture, something that separates the practitioner from God.

    Two homosexuals and their sexual actions are always outside the will of God, with or without a commitment or some notion of “marriage.” By contrast, a heterosexual couple is outside the will of God if they have sex before marriage, but fine after marriage. The structure is designed by God, so sin here is a timing issue. But homosexuality is always a structural dysfunction. It’s just that simple, and virtually all cultures recognize this.

    But youth are hearing the “social justice” spin literally everywhere now, and it is dulling their eyes to obvious truths. Why are advocates using this particular twist? They are desperate to re-position these activities as “identity,” and move away from a close look at the unnatural, high risk and degrading behaviors of homosexuality. How can we make sure our kids are not deceived by the seductive but erroneous concept that homosexuality is a noble “right”?

    Social Justice at School

    If your son or daughter comes home with an assignment on “social justice,” make sure you look through the backpack. “Homophobia” and “heterosexism” may be some of the “injustices” taught in these lessons.

    Some schools observe the United Nations “Human Rights Day” on December 10 and weave in pro-homosexual sentiments. Others go much further and observe the so-called “Coming Out Day” for homosexuals on October 11.

    Many high schools teach about the Matthew Shepard case as part of “injustice.” Matthew Shepard is the homosexual college student murdered in 1998 in Laramie, Wyoming. His murder is held up as evidence of widespread discrimination and “hatred” of homosexuals, and also as validating the need for hate crimes legislation including sexual orientation as a special category.

    But an investigation by ABC’s “20/20” revealed that money and drugs motivated the two murderers, not prejudice against a homosexual.1 The killers are both serving life sentences. But that’s evidently not enough justice.

    Despite the facts, high schools throughout the country are producing a drama about Matthew Shepard as a routine part of “social justice” curricula. A play called “The Laramie Project” (which was also a movie) has been produced in West Des Moines, Iowa, York, PA, Arlington Heights, IL, Bloomfield, NJ, Sleepy Hollow, NY, Seattle, WA, several high schools in Oregon, all over California and even in Shenandoah Junction, WV and Danville, KY.

    In many of these school districts, parents did object but their concerns were overruled. In Beaverton, OR and Oakhurst, NJ, school officials at one point cancelled the play’s production, only to cave in and re-schedule the play after pressure from homosexual activists.2

    The play has even been produced in several Catholic high schools: St. Ignatius in Cleveland, OH; Bishop O’Dowd in Oakland, CA and Jesuit High in Beaverton, OR.

    The drama is an inaccurate propaganda piece that includes sex, profanity, violence and anti-Christian elements. In some cases, the profanity is toned down in the high school productions. But the flagrant deception remains.

    To complicate matters, the loony anti-homosexual protester Fred Phelps has picketed several of these plays. He is featured in the play because he picketed Shepard’s funeral. Phelps always makes the local news and is depicted as representative of those who oppose homosexuality. His irrational venom does not represent a pro-family position, and all the major Christian groups have denounced his message and tactics. (We do as well).

    Regarding the play, the picture is not totally bleak. The sense of school officials and parental objections have resulted in the cancellation of “The Laramie Project” productions in high schools in Surrey, BC, and Yakima, WA.

    Social justice endorsement of homosexuality can permeate a curriculum. In the Canadian province of British Columbia, school officials have drafted a pilot program which aims to teach students how to “move toward a socially-just world.” Diversity and acceptance of homosexuality are throughout the program. One of the lessons will “analyze specific examples of injustice in Canada related to characteristics such as…sexual orientation.”3

    Fixing Schools by Creating Student Revolutionaries

    In troubled school districts like Boston and Chicago, the “social justice” concept is sometimes much more than one lesson. Now, themed high schools called “social justice academies” are the newest experiment to fix failing schools. These urban schools are essentially taking disadvantaged kids and under the guise of “excellence,” have begun training teens as left-wing activists.

    In Boston, the Social Justice Academy at Hyde Park High School claims to provide “rigorous” academics. “SJA will guide its students to be critically thinking, informed and empowered agents of positive change in their communities…” says its mission statement, yet one of its first “core values” is “an anti-bias orientation (race, class, religion, sexual orientation, gender, “ability”).” 4 Student input is of high importance. The school has partnerships with a laundry list of left-wing educational groups, including Harvard School of Public Health and Facing History and Ourselves.

    So far, the rigorous academics aren’t very visible. The Great Schools web site rates this school at 1 (the lowest on a 1-10 scale). The score for English was 38%,and math was 29%, reflecting students who tested at proficiency level or above. 5

    The Social Justice High School in Chicago lists one of its core values as “Struggle and Sacrifice…Our struggle is against systems of power that have been historically used to deny, regulate, and prohibit access to the most basic human rights that should be granted freely to members of society regardless of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, or religious belief. We accept the reality that such struggle will require sacrifice from all involved.”6 There is no rating yet on this school of 100 ninth graders.

    Is this the solution to failing schools? Is this what will give minority students a leg up — fine-tuning rage against traditional values? Learning to be “inclusive” of sexual deviancy? This is a recipe for more failure, not less.

    But, hold on. It’s not just inner-city kids who are guinea pigs. There are also “social justice academies” as special programs at suburban high schools like North Hollywood High (CA) and East Chapel Hill High (NC).

    Where does this nonsense get started? First, educators get indoctrinated in teachers’ colleges. Sol Stern in Front Page Magazine wrote about the prestigious Teachers College of Columbia University, where “social justice” permeates every aspect of course work.

    And terrorists are the tutors. Stern points out that one of the leaders of the social justice education movement is none other than William Ayers,

    ….who took a doctorate in early childhood education from Teachers College in the late 1980s and is now Distinguished Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Ayers will be remembered as one of the leaders of the Weather Underground of the 1960s and 1970s. He participated in numerous acts of terrorism against our democratic institutions during that period, including planting a bomb in the Pentagon. Coming up from the underground in the early 1980s, Ayers found a second act for himself as an education professor… Without having expressed a word of repentance for his terrorist past, Ayers now promotes the infusion of “social justice” teaching throughout the K-12 curriculum.7

    Ayers also wrote an endorsement appearing on the cover of the radical book Queering Elementary Education (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,1999), which has a foreword written by none other than Kevin Jennings, founder and president of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

    This perhaps explains at least in part why radical “gay” activism goes hand in hand today with a virulent, anarchistic strain of anti-Americanism in today’s left-leaning youth. How ironic that affluent, healthy, privileged American youth are learning in social justice lessons that, being the “oppressed,” they can now justifiably become the oppressors.


  24. This so-called veneer of ‘Human Rights’ that pervades the ‘Homosexual’ agenda, is an abased, lie, deception, that IS* VALUE-NEUTRAL, and VALUE-FREE, which it is seeking to IMPOSE on the rest of society, under this ‘Human Rights’ facade, to ultimately DESTROY by legal sanction, the TRUE definition of marriage, that Almighty God ordained between one man and one woman, the historic bedrock upon which, all socities, both ancient and modern flourished, UNTIL this amoral, disguisting, filthy paractice, et al entered in full swing, as is being witnessed today, and WAS one of the fundamental reasons, they ALL came to runination!


  25. @Colonel Buggy. | November 7, 2011 at 9:13 PM. Well put. It is clearly Casewell’s time of the month. But I had to scroll down so much shite before I could comment to you. Lordeeee!


  26. Yes, gays have often been the victims of prejudice. But they now risk becoming the new McCarthyites
    By Melanie Phillips

    Last updated at 8:04 PM on 24th January 2011

    Comments (258) Add to My Stories Share
    Here’s a question ­shortly coming to an examination ­paper near you. What have mathematics, geography or science to do with homosexuality?
    Nothing at all, you say? Zero marks for you, then.
    For, mad as this may seem, schoolchildren are to be bombarded with homosexual references in maths, geography and ­science lessons as part of a Government-backed drive to promote the gay agenda.
    Upholding Christian values: Peter and Hazelmary Bull fell foul of the law when they refused Steven Preddy (left) and Martin Hall (right) a room at their bed and breakfast
    In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the ­countryside to cities. In maths, they will be taught ­statistics through census ­findings about the number of ­homosexuals in the population.
    In science, they will be directed to ­animal species such as emperor ­penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.
    Alas, this gay curriculum is no laughing matter. Absurd as it sounds, this is but the latest attempt to brainwash children with propaganda under the ­camouflage of ­education. It is an abuse of childhood.
    And it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very ­concept of normal sexual behaviour.
    Not so long ago, an epic political battle raged over teaching children that ­homosexuality was normal. The fight over Section 28, as it became known, resulted in the repeal of the legal requirement on schools not to promote homosexuality.

    More…Gay messages built into school maths lessons for children as young as FOUR
    Hallelujah! Christian who says family life can beat addiction is new Government drugs adviser

    As the old joke has it, what was once impermissible first becomes tolerated and then becomes mandatory.
    And the other side of that particular coin, as we are now discovering, is that values which were once the moral basis for British society are now deemed to be beyond the pale.
    What was once an attempt to end ­unpleasant attitudes towards a small sexual minority has now become a kind of bigotry in reverse.
    Expressing what used to be the moral norm of Western civilisation is now not just socially impermissible, but even turns upstanding people into lawbreakers.
    The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding ­Christian values.
    Dale McAlpine: Charged with making threatening, abusive or insulting remarks for saying homosexuality is a sin
    Catholic adoption agencies were forced to shut down after they refused to place ­children with same-sex couples. Marriage registrars were forced to step down for refusing to officiate at civil unions.
    Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine was charged with making threatening, ­abusive or insulting remarks for saying homosexuality was a sin to passers-by in Workington, Cumbria. In the event, the case against him was dropped and he won a police apology and compensation.
    It seems that just about everything in Britain is now run according to the gay agenda.
    For, in addition to the requirement for gay-friendly hotels, gay adoption and gay mathematics, now comes, apparently, gay drugs policy.
    Last week, the Government announced the appointment of some new ­members to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, who included a GP by the name of Hans-Christian Raabe.
    Dr Raabe has long maintained a close interest in drug policy, on which he has robustly traditional views. He has spoken out in favour of ­abstinence-based approaches and criticised the flawed logic behind the claim that it is the illegality of drugs such as ­cannabis that is the problem.
    Promising: Hans-Christian Raabe has been appointed to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
    Considering the unhappy fact that over recent years many on the Advisory Council have taken the ultra-liberal view that ­treating drug-users is the priority rather than reducing their numbers, Dr Raabe’s membership of the council was very ­welcome news.
    But as soon as his appointment was announced, Dr Raabe was targeted in an astonishing attack.
    For he is also a leading member of the Manchester-based Maranatha Community, which is dedicated to re-establishing ­Christian values in society and which campaigns against gay rights.
    It was the BBC’s Home Editor Mark ­Easton who led the charge. On his BBC News blog, he announced that Dr Raabe’s views on homosexuality were causing such fury among (anonymous) members of the Advisory Council that at least one member was threatening to step down.
    Well may you rub your eyes at that. Just what have his views on homosexuality got to do with illegal drugs? Well, according to Easton, more than one member of the ­council is gay or lesbian.
    How extraordinary. Just imagine if the boot were on the other foot and Dr Raabe had refused to serve on the drugs council because some of its ­members were gay. He would be out on his ear within the hour.
    How reprehensible of the BBC to lend itself to such a partisan attack. Unsurprisingly, Easton’s remarks provoked more advocates of drug ­liberalisation to join in the blood-sport of baiting Dr Raabe.
    Yesterday’s Observer listed among his crimes certain briefing documents he had produced for MPs identifying the benefits of marriage in fighting drug addiction.
    He had written, for example, that marriage is associated with greater happiness, less depression, less alcohol abuse and less smoking. But what’s the problem with that? It ­happens to be true.
    Sorry…We are currently experiencing some technical difficulties with this section of our site. We are doing everything we can to resolve this as soon as possible.
    Other sections of the site are not affected by this. You can continue to navigate through other pages.
    Back to Mail Online home
    Back to the page you came from
    Other things to try:Search http://www.dailymail.co.uk: The Observer reported that drugs charities and experts expressed surprise that someone of such ‘stringent opinions’ could be appointed to the Advisory Council.
    Clearly, ‘stringent opinions’ in favour of drug liberalisation are considered entirely appropriate in such circles; but anyone who goes against the politically-correct grain on homosexuality or who has robust Christian views must be considered a bigot and thus have no place in public life.
    In fact, anyone truly concerned to end the scourge of drug abuse should be delighted that at last there is a strong voice for ­common sense and morality on the ­Advisory Council.
    Penalising religious people for speaking and acting in accordance with their beliefs is neither liberal nor tolerant. It is behaviour more commonly associated with totalitarian dictatorships.
    It must be said that many gay people are themselves uneasy or even appalled by this increasingly oppressive use of their cause. Privately, many will say that all they ever want is to live free from discrimination and not to provoke discrimination against others.
    After the case of Christian street preacher Dale McAlpine, the gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell spoke out in ­support of the rights of people to express their views against homosexuality — although, by ­contrast, he also endorsed the lawsuit against B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull on the grounds that the equality laws should apply to all.
    Of course, for people such as the Bulls, George Orwell’s famous observation that some are more equal than others is all too painfully true. Indeed, the obsession with equality has now reached ludicrous, as well as oppressive, proportions.
    The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has paid £100,000 for a report into how efforts to boost Britain’s coastal fish stocks would affect minority communities including the Chinese, ­homosexuals and Welsh speakers.
    And the Department for Transport issued a study looking at harassment and discrimination on ships and hovercraft against a range of groups, including transsexuals.
    Many different groups are involved in promoting this crazy, upside-down world of the equality agenda. But the seemingly all-­powerful gay rights lobby carries all before it. If it isn’t careful, it risks turning gay people from being the victims of prejudice into Britain’s new McCarthyites.

  27. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    Zoe | November 8, 2011 at 8:40 AM |
    “The bed and breakfast hoteliers Peter and Hazelmary Bull — who were recently sued for turning away two homosexuals who wished to share a bedroom — were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding ­Christian values.”

    What a name “Bull”! Bajans should be ROFLTA!
    Zoe, one can safely bet that these same people or their parents would have had 40 years ago a sign outside the B&B that read as follows:
    No dogs, No Children, & especially NO NIGGERS!

    I wonder what the said Bull couple would have done if an odd couple
    Stephanie Preddy (female) and Martina Hall (female) wanted to rent a room at their bed and breakfast.?


  28. Nnaki, You are such a classic example of the FUTILE* thinker; empty, vain, foolish, useless, confused; no wonder, then,

    “Professing (Nnaki!) to be wise, they (You!) became fools.” ( Rom. 1:22 Emphasis added).

    True to form!

  29. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    Zoe | November 8, 2011 at 3:15 PM |
    Zoe, I beg you, please help me solve this little puzzle that been put before me! Out of the estimated 7 billion people living on this planet Earth how many would you say approximately are of African descent i.e. black? Say, 700 million or say, approx. 10 % of the World population?
    Are these too the descendants of those 2 white prototypes from the Eden project?
    No cut & paste for your answer, please or you will have to redo your first set of homework since entering 2nd form!


  30. @ Zoe
    “In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.”

    And the other 2/3 (the larger percentage) were asexual? In the US, the number of Black people in jail is disproportionate to their percentage of the population, which in 2003 was 12% and 44% respectively. Based on your reasoning, those statistics infer that we as Black people are prone to criminality.

  31. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ enuff | November 8, 2011 at 5:12 PM |
    Well done, enuff! I think this one has taken the wind out of Zoe’s sails!

    @ Zoe: enuff has sank your boat! You need a lifesaver?
    “Professing (Zoe!) to be wise, they (You!) became fools.” ( Rom. 1:22 Emphasis added).” Sounds familiar!


  32. Nnaki,

    “Are these too the descendants of those 2 white prototypes from the Eden project?
    No cut & paste for your answer, please or you will have to redo your first set of homework since entering 2nd form!”

    “Do not speak in the hearing of a fool. For he will despise the wisdom
    of your words.” (Prov. 23: 9)

    “Though you grind a fool in a mortar with a pestle along with crushed grain. YET, his FOOLISHNESS will not depart from him.” (Prov. 28: 22)

  33. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ Zoe | November 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM |

    Continue to look into the mirror and vainly smile at yourself while you perform your soliloquies!


  34. @Nnaki, You likewise, carry on smartly in your deeply ingrained “Ignoratio Elenchi” well buttressed by your ‘Kakia’!


  35. @Nnaki, So tell us, Mr. UFO’ER, dipsy-doodler, extraterrestrialist,
    the following is the kind of SATANIC canard, cock-and-bull, taradiddle, CRAP that you have bought into!

    “The MessageFor centuries, scholars have been debating the two main possibilities for the origin and meaning of life. Some aspire to a higher philosophical dimension, which they can’t find in the theory of evolution, while others dismiss as irrational any reference to an almighty god.
    But what if another theory, one both rational and with philosophical depth, were to be available?
    This is what the “Message” proposes: Thousands of years ago, scientists from another planet came to Earth and created all forms of life, including human beings, whom they created in their own image. References to these scientists and their work can be found in the ancient texts of many cultures. Due to their highly advanced technology, they were considered as gods by our primitive ancestors and often referred to as ‘Elohim’ which in ancient Hebrew meant ‘Those who came from the sky’.
    Despite being a plural word, Elohim was mistranslated over time to the singular ‘God’ reference that appears in modern-day Bibles.
    Nevertheless, these people who came from the sky (the Elohim) educated humanity through the ages with the help of various messengers (also called prophets) with whom they had made contact. Each messenger was given a message suitable for the level of understanding prevailing at the time, with the primary purpose of instilling basic principles of non-violence and respect. Once humanity reached a sufficient level of scientific understanding, the Elohim decided to make themselves more visible in UFO sightings and to conceive their final message. Rael was given two missions: spreading that last message on Earth and preparing an embassy to welcome the return of our creators.

    The atheist ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ offers a rational solution to the age-old debate between God-believers and evolutionists. It’s compatible not only with today’s scientific discoveries but also with the ancient historical accounts of all cultures.
    But don’t take our word for it. Read Intelligent Design – Message from the Designers for yourself and do your own research.
    We guarantee you’ll never look at the world the same way again!”

    Certainly NOT, having ingested this ‘idee fixe’ into your Pythonated gut, no wonder you felt like you swallowed a JACKASS!!!

  36. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    @ Zoe | November 9, 2011 at 8:16 AM |
    You want to join the raelian movement? Then go to rael.org and sign up!
    It’s free and you can download all the books from which you can cut and paste to de-programme your ilk.


  37. Nnaki, ALL of this UFO visitation citing and encounters, are real, BUT, they are ALL* orchastrated and deviously presented, by the ‘father’ of all LIES, and subterfuge, SATAN, masterfully presented, to ignorant fools like Rael et al, like yourself!

    “Rael: Messenger of the ElohimAt the age of 27, on the morning of December 13, 1973, while he was still leading his successful racing-car magazine, RAEL had a dramatic encounter with a human being from another planet, at a volcano park in the center of France, known as “Puy de Lassolas”. This extra-terrestrial gave him a new detailed explanation of our origins and information on how to organize our future, as recorded in the book: Intelligent Design. After six consecutive meetings in the same location, Rael accepted the mission given to him, to inform humanity of this revolutionary message and to prepare the population to welcome their Creators, the Elohim, without any mysticism or fear, but as conscious and grateful human beings. After a few months considering this huge task, Rael almost developed a stomach ulcer before finally deciding to give up his much loved career as a sports-car journalist and devote himself fully to the task assigned to him by Yahweh – the extra-terrestrial whom he met. Within the year following the encounter, he managed to print the book reporting about the event and appeared on two of the main TV and Radio shows in France, announcing a public conference. This first public conference held in Paris on September 19, 1974 attracted more than 2000 people. Shortly after, he founded the association MADECH – a group of people interested in helping him in his huge task- that would later become the Raelian Movement. By the end of the year 1974, the association counted 170 members. They are now more than 70000 members in 97 countries.”

    “On October 7th, 1975, he had a second encounter and was given additional information recorded on his second book, also part of Intelligent Design. Since that time, Rael has been touring the World, giving conferences and seminars on every continent, gathering those who share the desire to welcome our Creators.”

    “He also authored several other books like Sensual Meditation which is a central part of his teachings, “Geniocracy” advocating for a more intelligent management of the planet and “Yes To Human Cloning” explaining the possibility of becoming eternal and the beautiful future one can expect thanks to Science.”

    “Over the years, Rael has inspired several public actions from the promotion of the use of condoms in schools to the promotion of masturbation; from worldwide campaigns in support of minorities with the slogan “to tolerate differences is not enough, one should love differences” to the disturbing request to have all Religious books censured where they don’t respect Human Rights; from the support of Human Cloning through the founding of Clonaid, to the promotion of GMO as the only chance for all human beings on Earth to have food; from the creation of Clitoraid, an association to help women who have been circumcised to have their clitoris repaired so that they can experience pleasure again to the call for the gathering of all African traditional chiefs to create the United States of Africa.”

    “Rael has been a guest on most of the major TV programs worldwide like 60 minutes, CNN, FOX, and BBC news programs, as well as programs like Breakfast with Frost and Entertainment Tonight, to name a few. He has been invited to explain his vision of science to the American Congress and has been the guests of many leaders of this world, with the President Denis Sassou N’Guesso of Congo being the first to welcome him officially in 2000. Many artists acknowledged him as well like the French author Michel Houellebecq and Hugh Hefner.”

    “In every culture on Earth, a messenger is expected, whether it is the Maitreya of the Buddhists, the Messiah of the Jews, the Paraclet of the Christians, or any other name that has been given by the many tribes around the world. This expected messenger, like all the previous ones, isn’t supposed to please everyone, but to state what our Creators are expecting from us. This is what RAEL has been doing for more than 30 years now, traveling relentlessly while making the vow not to own anything, but to give everything towards welcoming our Creators in the Embassy they requested be built before 2035.”

    What LIES from the Pit-of-Hell!


  38. @Nnaki, Tell us man, think you’ll be considered, If you’r around at 2035, to be appointed as the ‘Charge d’affaires’ for BIMSHIRE in this Galactic Embassy of the gods* creators* affair? (LOL!)

    The following is the story of another of Satan’s masterfully presented LIES and UTTER DECEPTIONS to the Roman Catholics ‘The WHORE of Revelation’ chapter 17, at Fatima, which they bought into, as they know NOT* the TRUTH, Jesus Christ, as is the case with Raelism, Nnaki, et al!

    Miracle of the Sun

    “Starting in May of 1917, something happened to three shepherd children in the town of Fátima, Portugal. The events have become known as Our Lady of Fátima. Starting on May 1, 1917, the children began to describe seeing a woman “brighter than the sun, shedding rays of light clearer and stronger than a crystal ball, pierced by the burning rays of the sun.” The being was reported to have appeared to the children on the 13th day of six consecutive months in 1917, starting on May 13. According to ten year old Lúcia Santo, in the course of her encounters, the woman confided to the children three secrets, now known as the Three Secrets of Fátima. Thousands of people flocked to Fátima and Aljustrel in the ensuing months, drawn by reports of visions and miracles. On three separate occasions before the Miracle of the Sun, the children reported that the Lady had promised to them that she would, on October 13, 1917, reveal her identity and provide a miracle “so that all may believe.”

    “On October 13, 1917, the Miracle of the Sun was witnessed and reported by 50,000 to 100,000 people in the Cova da Iria fields near Fátima, Portugal. The people in attendance had assembled to observe the publicized event. According to many statements, after a downfall of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the Earth, the people and the surrounding clouds. The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern. It was said that the people’s previously wet clothes became “suddenly and completely dry,” as well as the wet and muddy ground that had been previously soaked because of the rain. According to the reports, the event lasted approximately ten minutes.”

    “The Miracle of the Sun was marked by a large amount of angel hair over the land. On July 13, 1917, the lady is said to have entrusted the children with three secrets. These secrets have been highly controversial in the Catholic Church, and have been revealed to the public at different time periods, with the final one coming out in 2000. The First Secret was allegedly a vision of Hell. The Second Secret was a statement that World War I would end and goes on to predict World War II. The second half of the secret includes information about Russia and requests that it become consecrated to the Immaculate Heart. It should be noted that the Second Secret wasn’t revealed until 1941, after World War II had already began.”

    “The majority of the controversy is with the Third Secret. It was revealed in 2000 and includes information about the persecution of Christians in the 20th century that culminated in the failed assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. However, historical references to the Third Secret indicate something else entirely, with information regarding Apocalypse, a great apostasy, and satanic infiltration of the Catholic Church. If you are unfamiliar, apostasy is the formal disaffiliation from, or abandonment of, a religion by a person, basically, criticism of a person’s former religion. In 1980, John Paul II was quoted on the Third Secret. “It should be sufficient for all Christians to know this much. If there is a message, it is said that the oceans will flood entire sections of the Earth and from one moment to the other, millions of people will perish.”


  39. BU David…

    Could you PLEASE limit the amount of words people have to type here? Because I REALLY don’t have that kind of patience to scroll for hours just to get some decent comments! You should be able to speak your mind in 1,000 words or less!

    Geez!


  40. @ Zoe ……YOU will see HELL. . .
    YOU will smell HELL. . .
    YOU will breathe HELL. . .
    YOU will hear HELL. . .
    YOU will feel HELL. . .
    YOU WILL BE HELL. . .


  41. The following is a sound critique of this Satanically driven, UFO nonsense, that only blockheaded, doltish, pinheaded, fools like Rael and his stupified followers would believe, swallow and ingest, like Jackasses would do!

    RAEL AND THE SPACEMEN

    INDEX

    INTRODUCTION

    THE MESSENGER

    THE SPACEMEN

    RAEL AND THE BIBLE

    PHILOSOPHY AND THE ELOHIM

    THE LATEST MESSAGE

    CORRESPONDENCE WITH A RAELIAN
    INTRODUCTION

    “The French cult leader, Claude Rael, claims to have received messages from extra-terrestrials called the Elohim, which he says denotes “those who came from the sky”, who purport to have scientifically made the human race. He founded the Raelian Movement which apparently has 40,000 members in 80 countries (page 11 and 197, The Final Message, Tagman Press, London, 1998). While his Raelian Movement’s opposition to the concept of a supernatural God is uplifting we rationalists cannot accept the revelations of his aliens as authentic. The errors in them that tell us not to can be read in Rael’s fascinating book, The Message Given to Me by Extra-Terrestrials. Let us look at the errors. The sect declared toward the end of 2002 that it had succeeded in making the first human clone which it called Eve. The fact that such a thing would be announced alone proves that the Elohim evilly approve of cloning despite the dangers for the child born this way.”

    Top of the Document

    THE MESSENGER

    “It is interesting that the Elohim couldn’t find anybody more worthy of credence than a journalist. Their scanners must have broken down. One witness is not good enough for there are plenty of groups that claim to have a message from aliens and to have gone riding in a spaceship. We know we should be ready to believe two people more than one. Despite their allegedly vast intelligence the Elohim have not grasped this! Yet they formed the Jewish religion which teaches that at least two independent and good witnesses are needed before a report can be trusted (Deuteronomy 17:6).”

    Top of the Document

    THE SPACEMEN

    “The alien messenger told Rael to tell the world about the Elohim so that the aliens could see from its reaction if it was time to descend openly on earth and meet everybody (page 10, 68, The Message Given to Me by Extra-Terrestrials). Clearly, the Elohim think the whole world could be nice to them which is mad. Why didn’t they make people intelligent enough to believe that they made us all and love us so that thing would run smoothly? The Elohim don’t know that it is one thing for Rael to make the world happy at the thought of aliens landing but another for them to come. Faith is comforting as long as it remains faith. People might panic when they see it is not just a consoling belief anymore but a fact that could result in invasion or planetary catastrophe.”

    “The aliens say we already know how to see how people will take things through psychology (page 110). Why don’t they use one of their super-computers to test us all instead of relying on Rael? Why don’t they cure us of the evil that could make us turn on them and revile them if they return? Why don’t they give us the instant education through injecting brain matter which they do to one another (page 132) so that we can have the intelligence to be positive towards them? Raelians would say we could be too dangerous if we knew too much about science but they don’t have to tell us all. They can still use their miracle science to make sure we don’t abuse the wisdom.”

    “The Elohim stupidly express their fear that earth-people will scientifically progress until they are able to conquer the Elohim! Beings with better machines than ours can do plenty to hinder or slow the pace of this progress so they couldn’t possibly have said that they were afraid. Rael made up this message and he and all the eggheads who believe in him show that they are not so smart after all. Page 11 of The Message Given to Me by Extra-Terrestrials even says that the alien told Rael that he would tell him nothing about his home planet for fear of earth people. The aliens take two months to reach us on their space-ships (page 99). They could make force-fields to protect their planet and act to prevent us getting through them or knowing how to. They could let us progress all we want as long as they are safe. But they say they won’t. Why are they so scared of us when they are 25, 000 years ahead of us in scientific knowledge? The reason is that Rael had to come up with a reason for why we never see them.”

    “The alien also told Rael not to bring anything metallic with him and to tell nobody so that they could meet the next day (page 14). The alien does not know that there is metal in the human body. And they were standing in a volcanic crater which should have had plentiful traces of metal. The messenger said that he would never meet with Rael against if he told anybody. But did it really matter if he told one or two people as long as he visited the messenger alone?”

    “Page 118 says the aliens will never help Rael openly for that would prove their existence to the sceptics which they do not want for scepticism is often aggressive. This follows the old stereotype that sceptics are bent on sticking by their rejection of certain beliefs at any cost. The Raelians are guilty of this aggression themselves for if they thought more and were open-minded they would not be Raelians. They plan to appear some day and there will always be sceptics on the earth. Rael and his Elohim seem to think that nearly everybody on earth is going to become Raelian.”

    “The Elohim say that they can cure violent and jealous urges which ensures the absence of crime on their planet (page 127) and this ought to be done (page 259). The Raelian suggestion that the Elohim can’t cure bad people on earth because they don’t want to be healed is farcical. When they need curing and don’t want it their refusal is invalid for it is a symptom of mental sickness too. And if the treatment works why not give it when it will put them in their right mind and they will be glad you did it. Why put their little opposition before all the long-term consent they will give later? What about the people they will hurt? Don’t they count? Most criminals hanker after liberation from their faults but nobody comes down in a flying saucer to offer any help. Suggestion can be used to get a person to agree to what they wouldn’t agree to without it of their own free will.”

    “If the Elohim are too busy they could send those biological robots of theirs that they brag about to do it for them. These robots could feed the starving in the Third World and especially if the Elohim are as concerned about free will as they pretend to be for only a few are letting this happen and most of us and none more so than the victims want it stopped.”

    “The Elohim are evil for idly looking on as Hitler went about his wicked work. Remember, the objections to the goodness of God work against the idea of any kind of being that has powers we can only wish for.”

    “The Elohim enjoy barbaric sports. Participants must abide by the curious rule prohibiting their being restored to life if they are killed (page 130). The excuse that violence is necessary to evade mental breakdowns is unacceptable if they can cure evil. Only a few might need to bash up people and our reason and laws all say that nobody needs to. But anyway, if the Elohim have the technology to cure bad tendencies they can make all the same way.”

    “Rael allows very violent sports for those who need them (page 261). But violent people can change through practicing love and indulging in meditation and getting a reason not to be violent that makes them glad not to be.”

    “The Elohim reveal that every atom is full of little planets and is a universe or solar system or whatever. There is life on many of them. See page 190 and see The Final Message page 14 of Anthony Grey’s introduction. So, burning your paper or exploding nuclear bombs must be mass murder. How the Elohim can expect us to be moral with a doctrine like that proves that Rael either imagined or made up his revelations.”

    “The Elohim ascribe vice and badness to disorders of the mind – across the board to justify love of enemies (The Message Given to Me by Extra-Terrestrials, page 258). They must have caught the bug when they threatened evildoers with severe and eternal punishment.”

    “The Elohim say that they live a long time but only let some live forever if they are geniuses (page 125). This limit is made to prevent overpopulation. But they have the science to turn any planet into a paradise and there is no shortage of planets.”

    “The Elohim advocated the wearing of a medal like a Star of David with a swastika in it (page 192). This symbol had to be replaced without a swastika because of the Nazi connotations. One would think that the Elohim should have realised that the symbol would not be taken too well in the first place!”

    ” Against realism the Elohim forbid going to war against unjust aggressors (page 195). They are living at the tops of ivory towers that are tall enough to stretch from here to the moon. Then hypocritically, Raelians are instructed to get involved in helping in war in ways that don’t involve killing, perhaps by doing office work or something (page 246). It cannot be wrong to kill and then to help others to kill by helping war.”

    “Teaching children about sex and how to enjoy it and about masturbating is encouraged on (pages 233, 234). I find that disturbing.”

    “Babies conceived by accident must be aborted for the child will never each its full potential when it was not wanted at the time of conception (page 237). This is nonsense and the mother can adjust and welcome the baby. No cut-off point when abortion would be wrong and murderous is given implying it can be done anytime. What business have the Elohim giving a command like this when they refuse to prove that they spoke to Rael? It could be the unlawful killing of a human life.”

    “Rael permits killing animals for food but they must not suffer (page 248). ut death is painful. He says that plants suffer the same way as we do (page 249). Science disproves this which shows how little respect he has for it. It makes cruelty of cutting a tree so why does he judge people who do that? Meat eating is allowed (page 249). A real message from benevolent beings would tell us to eat meat if we have to and then to eat chickens and fish and other lower animals. To eat the higher animals is bad because they are more likely to be conscious beings.”

    “The stupidity of the book is apparent when it says in the discussion of sensual meditation which involves sexual activity and romantic love and indulgence that you should be happy if the person you love loves somebody else and then there is the sinister idea that rejecting somebody who wants to make you happy is wrong even if they do not appeal to you. This seems to suggest that you should let them have sex with you (page 256-7). Jealousy is inevitable with falling in love. Rael is right however that the jealously is about the fear that some other person will make your partner happier than you can. This shows the hypocrisy and satanic nature of the Christian Church which hallows love. But Rael’s aliens should be able to draw the inevitable conclusion that falling in love is immoral. Yet their promotion of love attacks this idea.”

    “Page 248 wants science to start on making the biological robot do all our work leaving us to have a good time. But if the Elohim are so anxious that this be done why don’t they tell us how to make one? To make one would bring us a lot closer to the Elohim for super-science. Thought they didn’t want that!”

    “Page 252 prescribes a prayer to the Elohim which says among other things that I love all people Elohim for they are made in your image. That is uintelligible when the Elohim are just ordinary beings who happen to have developed a super-science. They might have made us but they are not that special. Our own parents are better for at least we know them and know they exist.”

    “Page 273 says that the Elohim do not intervene in our affairs unless somebody lies saying he has met them and/or got a message from them nd they will make his life unbearable. Why don’t they stop such a person before he does any damage or at least send light into those who are thinking about his teaching? Priests all claim to have got a message from God that Romanism is true and most of them live like royalty.”

    “The book says that telepathy with the aliens is possible and desirable. Yet it ridicules magic. If hidden forces exist to make telepathy possible then why can’t ones exist to make magic work? Magicians don’t all believe that magic is supernatural or from God but some say that it is the activity of natural forces that have not been discovered yet. The Raelians should be able to refute all magical claims before they cast aspersions on magic but they are not.”

    “The writings of Rael are filled with very numerous absurdities that indicate where the messages really came from. Rael did not encounter any otherworldly beings for they would not have made such inexcusable blunders. His stories of encounters with aliens and getting messages and being taken to their planet is a pack of lies. No sufficient reason is given why we should heed his often dangerous doctrines. The system is evil.”

    Top of the Document

    RAEL AND THE BIBLE

    “The alien told Rael to buy a Bible and bring it to him to explain it. No worse interpretation could anybody imagine. One would not expect anything else of anybody who rejects evolution like Raelianism does (page 103).”

    “The messenger gives a totally unjustified interpretation of the first few chapters of Genesis to make them seem to be talking about the Elohim. he serpent who tempts is said to be a small group of rebel Elohim who wanted to train Adam and Eve in science (page 23). Fanciful! There is no hint in the story that it is non-literal. Interpretations like that can make the serpent be anything.”

    “There is no need to understand the burning bush as a rocket behind a bush (page 33) or to attribute the parting of the waters as a repulsion eam (page 34). The text says that the bush was burning but not being consumed unlike Rael’s interpretation. The serpent of brass the snake-bitten Israelites had to look at to survive is interpreted as a syringe (page 38). But then why does the Bible stress looking at it? All that is just speculation. Yet Rael says it is what the Elohim say.”

    “I had to laugh at page 35 which says the Elohim had to come down on Mount Sinai and cause smoke and fire because they were afraid of being attacked by the Israelites! Primitive tribes would have posed no threat to them when they were able to cause the fire and smoke. There is no hint in the story that Israel was willing to attack. The contrary is what is hinted at for if the aliens appearing to Moses were frightened then they could have appeared to him quietly without the people knowing of the meeting. Also when they were able to land on top of the mountain why could they not use a force-field or flee if the people came too close? Had Rael really been in contact with aliens they would have been able to correct his error for they could not risk their work and message being made to look stupid.”

    “There is no evidence that Psalm 8 ever said that man is equal to the Elohim before it was changed to say less than them. Yet Rael says it was. The Bible would not refer to the Elohim as he and one person if it meant a plurality of space-beings. Elohim is plural but it is only a name for God. Even Genesis uses the name to refer to a single being just like Joan Rivers is one person despite the plural name. Elohim denotes one being with a plural of majesty. Supreme majesty of majesty perhaps.”

    “The Elohim bragged that they destroyed all life on earth apart from Noah nd some of his friends at the time of the Flood because their scientific progress jeopardised the security of the Elohim. What a laugh! Murderers is what I would call them when they had no need to kill.”

    “It was thoughtful of the Elohim to confess that they lied to the bible prophets (page 47) and even asked mega-dope Abraham to commit filicide to try his devotion. Following their revelations, Raelians understand the apparitions of Mary as visits from an extra-terrestrial and not the real Mary. Anyone who flicks through Mary’s messages with their pleas for more faith in God and in magic can see that if this is true then nothing that comes from the mouths of the Elohim can be called believable when they are such deceivers.”

    “The Elohim say that the miracles of religion were just tricks done by their advanced science. They are evil beings if they exist for they command blind faith for if miracles are deceptive then how do we know that the message given to Rael was not deceptive?”

    “Rael says that Moses and Elijah came out of a spaceship to talk to Jesus during the transfiguration. There is no mention of a spaceship in the gospel.”

    “It takes quite a huge flight of fancy to interpret the parable of the sower in atthew 13 as referring to the attempts made by the Elohim to create life on other worlds (page 77). Jesus interpreted it differently but here is Rael coming centuries after the people who would have known better had died to tell us that this parable does not mean what the records say. He just plucks out of the Bible whatever suits his argument regardless of the context and has no reason for this but his own peculiar prejudices.”

    “The messenger told Rael that Jesus had to die so that the truth about the lohim would be known on earth and that the biblical writings would give clues so that we could recognise them as benevolent creators when they come back (page 83). All of this is ridiculous for Jesus is two thousand years dead and nobody in the early Church believed in aliens as a result of his work and only comparatively few Raelians walk the earth. And the clues could back up anything for they are simply not there and just imagined.”

    “I don’t like the references to the Ages of Pisces and Aquarius and to their main characteristics being predicted centuries ago (page 91-94). That is approving of the unscientific and anti-scriptural practice of astrology. The Elohim say they are not infallible and have made mistakes and do not know the future so the fulfilment of the predictions must have been engineered by some other kind of force, the stars.”

    Top of the Document

    PHILOSOPHY AND THE ELOHIM

    “The Elohim just dropped the concept of God in the chapter Neither God or Soul composing the book, The Extra-Terrestrials took me to their Planet. The Elohim denied the existence of God but when God is immaterial how could they possibly know? They ignore philosophy which alone can settle the question. They are oblivious to the arguments of St Thomas Aquinas for the existence of God. Nobody has the right to say that there is no God without looking at the arguments first. The same chapter says that there was no beginning meaning that time always existed. But just like you can’t get to the end of time if it does not end you will not get to the beginning of time if you go back in time for there is no beginning. Then how did you get to the present moment if there is an infinity of moments before that? The idea of time makes no sense without time having an origin. The Raelians cannot use the problem of evil to refute God because that would do away with the Elohim as well. The Elohim want to come first and to be obeyed for their own sake and because they are our creators but the fact as that each individual person comes first in his or her own life for that person is not as sure of the existence of anything outside himself or herself as he or she is of his or her own existence.”

    Top of the Document

    THE LATEST MESSAGE

    “The foundational doctrine of Raelianism is that an Embassy must be created in Israel where the spacemen can meet with us in peace.”

    “Rael got a new message on December 13, 1997 which is in the book, The Final Message. In it the Elohim say they love all people but the Raelians re dearest to them. They complained about the authorities in Jerusalem not given them a site for the Embassy and granting the site extra-territorial status. They said they chose Jerusalem for the Embassy because they appeared there before and it was of sentimental value for them. This contradicts their claim that they were the gods reported by the pagan religions and they did not appear as much there as they do in other places. They say they appeared to Joseph Smith the founder of the Mormons so why don’t they have their Embassy in Palmyra in Upper State New York for Smith had more visions than took place in Jerusalem. Why did the Elohim tell Smith that Independence, Missouri was to be the New Jerusalem next the old one? The Elohim can’t make up their minds about anything. The Elohim then stated that Israel was getting its last chance and that if nothing was done the Embassy will be constructed in another place (page 203). One would think that with their power and the fact that political status is dependent on luck and pulling strings that the Elohim could have pulled a couple so as to have the right people running Israel who would let the cult build.”

    The Elohim said, “The hour of our Great Return is near and we will support and protect the most devoted ones among you. Your enemies will increasingly see our all-powerful arm strike them, particularly the usurper of Rome, his bishops and all those who act in our name without our mandate” (page 203).”

    “Why then can’t they do anything about the Israeli authorities who won’t let Rael build the Embassy near Jerusalem?”

    “Rael is described as the Way, the Truth and the Life (page 203). It should be that the Elohim are the Way, the Truth and the Life for Rael is only a messenger. The Bible stresses that revelation should not glorify the prophet but the one who uses the prophet to speak through.”

    “And the Elohim state that Buddhism is closest to Raelianism and even that uddhism stripped to the essentials is Raelianism and that therefore Raelianism will be most popular among Buddhists (page 203). This is totally wrong for original Buddhism repressed the desires of the flesh and never spoke of aliens and spaceships and its Nirvana is a mystical state beyond all our comprehension and full of paradoxes or contradictions while Raelianism boasts that it offers no mystical and religious paradoxes.”

    “The more Raelians love Rael the more they love the Elohim and that nobody can turn against Rael without being unloving towards the Elohim (page 204). They even present Rael as a mediator who persuades them to forgive what they find unforgivable. Rael then is taking religious devotion to himself and trumpeting his own importance. I know this because if he were humble and the Elohim were sensible they would say that Rael should be loved as all people should be loved for the Elohim love all and are hurt if we do not do this. They should stress that Rael’s teaching is more important than Rael. The Elohim irrationally value Rael more than anybody else when he can persuade them to forgive even though the Elohim say that anybody who sincerely prays to God prays to them and though the world prays for mercy.”

    Top of the Document

    CORRESPONDENCE WITH A RAELIAN

    “In a letter from Moya Henderson of the Irish Raelian Movement dated 23/02/94 she responded to my objection to the existence of the Elohim on the grounds that the problem of evil worked against them as against God. I stated that the Elohim should be able to cure those who oppose Rael. She answered that people who don’t want to be cured can’t be cured and that those who are sick may not accept that they are sick. She said the Elohim want us to learn for ourselves. But you only let people learn for themselves if you can’t do any better. The Elohim told Rael that anybody showing signs of becoming evil or sick is instantly treated in their world. She said that people dying accidentally in sport is not unlawful killing for I stated that it was hypocritical to allow dangerous sports that could kill and forbid participation in war for allowing such sports is to cause death somewhere down the line. If it is bad to participle in war then life comes first and this principle is undermined by allowing sports that could kill. These sports are not necessary and that is why they should not be.”

    “I argued that the Elohim should put a force-field around babies to save them from being battered and hurt. She replied that man will never learn tat it is wrong to abuse if this is done. But the field would not be put around the babies if it were right to abuse them. And everybody knows the abuse would be wrong. Even if the Elohim let us hurt adults that is different for adults can bring good out of what happened to them but babies cannot. The Elohim are as bad as the baby-beater.”

    “I had written to her that the Elohim were dishonest because they appeared in apparitions interpreted to be of Jesus and Mary for example. She stated that human beings were too conditioned to see that the persons they saw were not Mary and Jesus so they deceived themselves and it was not the Elohim’s fault. Then why did a female Elohim appear to St Bernadette at Lourdes dressed as the Virgin Mary and use a rosary and defend the sinless conception of the virgin? These apparitions increased faith in the spiritual God the Elohim says does not exist and so decreased in many the likelihood that they could believe in the Elohim instead if they heard of them. The telepathy the messenger used to make Rael buy the Bible should be used to make the world open to the gospel according to the Elohim (page 9).”

    ” An information letter she sent me in 1993 says that the movement has over 50,000 members all over the world and it grows by 30% every year. et this leaflet which I received in 1998 and which came with an advertisement for The Final Message published that year states that the membership is 28, 000 in 40 countries. There is a serious discrepancy in all this. Is the movement truthful?”

    “A leaflet I received says that even if Rael or the Elohim make a request that is against your conscience that you should not obey it.”

    “Rael was even quoted as saying that even if all humanity could be saved by the death of one peaceable person that person should not be killed and that one good person is worth more than humanity. But the person would be neither peaceable nor good if he consented to be saved. This is pacifism at its worst and this hyper-pacifism is a form of hypocrisy too. The very reason we take so long with our courtships or at least should is because it is so hard to really know anybody for it is in everybody’s best interest to act good even if he or she is not good inside. I’d sacrifice the good person for humanity for maybe the person is not that good. And Rael has forgotten that it is better for one good person to die than for all humanity to be destroyed for that destruction would entail the deaths of innocent precious babies who have done nobody any harm.”

    “His view that tolerance is not enough and that we must encourage other eople to be different if that is their nature is good.”

    FURTHER READING

    The Final Message, Claude Rael, Tagman Press, London, 1998

    The Message Given to Me by Extra-Terrestrials, Rael, AOM,1986

  42. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    Zoe | November 9, 2011 at 12:12 PM |

    One can see you are really enjoying this kind of cutting & pasting!
    Sounds like another version of your biblical works! Living to 800 years, Elijah taking of in a fiery chariot to the sky, miracles for days and miracle for days!
    Tell us about the book of Ezekiel in your biblical repertoire!


  43. Are the Chariots of Fire mentioned in Elijah’s abduction in the Bible UFO’s?
    . .
    RESISTANCE is FERTILE

    “In February of 2002, The History Channel flew Guy Malone to Los Angeles to interview him as part of a special entitled “Ufos in the Bible.” Producer Gabe Vandervort sent Malone a list of 10 questions he would like Guy to discuss, the answers to which were typed out beforehand, to rehearse from (which were posted below).”

    “While grateful for the opportunity at first, please note that the special which aired DID NOT IN FACT faithfully represent Malone’s answers, but instead merely spliced in certain things said to affirm the flawed premise of the show. They did this with others who have likewise gone on record saying the same was done to them. That story and Malone’s response is here. Mike Heiser’s response is here.”

    Question #6 Go Here for all 10 questions and answers
    “What might ancient Judeans have claimed to see chariots of fire in the sky? (What is the significance of chariots?) How do these compare to modern-day UFO accounts in the Holy Land?”

    “I’m often asked in regard to UFOs and the angelic understanding “Well if they’re angels, why do they need ships to fly in?” My first response is that maybe they don’t. I don’t “need” a car to go from here to the corner for a cold drink, but 9 out of 10 times I’m going to use one. I’m lazy, it’s quicker, it’s more convenient to not have to get there “under my own power.” In the case of angels, maybe they don’t want to get their robes dirty flying through our polluted atmosphere! I’m being light-hearted of course, but really there’s nothing in scripture that indicates that normal angels (like we’re talking about) even have wings – that’s just artwork. The fact is however, there simply is no getting away from the fact that in the Bible, angels DO use vehicles to fly around in! Whether they need to or not is debatable, but that they do use them is not.”

    Typical depictions of
    Elijah’s Ascension

    But this is more accurate

    Elijah was taken “…by a
    whirlwind,” NOT a chariot.
    2 Kings 2:1 & 2:11

    “The really easy example is the account of Elijah being taken up to heaven. This chariot was witnessed by his younger counterpart Elisha, as well as 50 other prophets who were waiting for them to return. Now technically though, the Bible specifies that it was a whirlwind that took Elijah, so we can’t even say for sure whether he actually boarded a chariot, or how the wind and the chariots were connected. He may have been raptured like Enoch apparently was, or simply translated like Phillip. There’s no chariots mentioned in these other cases. But because there are also “horses of fire” in this scene, I think we have sort of a “Ben Hur” image of this chariot, and paintings have reinforced that image.”

    “But this may or may not be accurate – the craft could have looked very different than a typical horse-drawn vehicle that we think of. It seems from reading the passage closely that the horses actually had the job of separating the two (E & E), and may not have been actually drawing the chariots mentioned. The younger Elisha actually specifies in his own words “…the chariots of Israel AND the horsemen of Israel…” (whatever they are!). It’s hard to picture a typical horse and rider, where the horses are also drawing a chariot – that doesn’t happen, so I don’t think it’s the case here either. I think the chariots and the horses were separate. Nonetheless this is THE ONE – and I’m going to have to emphasize here THE ONLY – clear-cut case in scripture where a chariot was physically visible, and by multiple witnesses. It was a physical craft of some sort.”

    “The truth though, is that these occurrences are really not as frequent as some people tend to make out. We can’t honestly say that “the Judeans,” or “the Hebrews” (plural) claimed to see these things. We have only two passages of scripture, both involving Elisha. The actual phrase “chariots of fire” only appears once in the entire Bible. The younger Elisha was surrounded by enemies and he asked God to open his servant’s eyes so that HE would see the situation was not hopeless. Elisha’s servant was then able to see the Chariots of Fire surrounding the prophet. BUT there’s no indication at all that anybody else saw them. This is a unique case where God allowed the guy to see into the spirit realm (or perhaps the ultra violet realm, given recent technological findings about UFOs). And the earlier instance is the only time that mentions both chariots and witnesses in the same passage. To say that the Bible is full of these cases is simply not true.”

    “There is one other really usable passage where the words “chariots” and “fire” come very close to being mentioned together, that I want to mention, mainly because nobody in the secular humanist or New Age community ever brings it up. It’s a reference to what most will say is a future event…”

    Isaiah 66:15-6 says “The Lord will come with fire, and his chariots are like a whirlwind; he will bring down his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. For with fire and with his sword the Lord will execute judgment on all men, and many will be those slain by the Lord.”

    “Now, here we have another instance where the chariots and fire are connected to the angelic hosts, but in large numbers and only in the sense of final battle. These are not individual flying chariots being seen by casual observers however. This scene of the Lord’s judgment by sword and fire is echoed in Revelation’s accounts of Jesus and his armies riding into the battle of Armageddon on the “horses of heaven” from earlier.”

    “You want Biblical chariots of fire, HERE they are, in spades (!), but they’re apparently nothing to be courted. I don’t think modern UFO sightings are examples of these either. You better be real sure which side you’re on by the time you encounter one of these!”

    Satan’s UFO deceptions and LIES, are for the EXPRESSED PURPOSE of fooling mankind, with just enough subtle, actual appearances, that are REAL, so that the so-called message(s) of the LIES told to Rael , re the supposed coming of the gods* creators* will be believed by IGNORANT, and spiritually inept fools!


  44. @All…

    Only today, Zoe radiated 7683 words, 44026 characters, here on BU.

    No human could produce that much original content.

    Hmmmmm….

  45. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    Zoe | November 9, 2011 at 3:08 PM |
    “He may have been raptured like Enoch apparently was,….. ”

    Since you have not done your homework regarding the book of Ezekiel, I will discipline you by giving some extra homework to do some research and present your findings to the BU class.
    Tell the BU class in less than 100 words why the producers of the word of your god refuses to publish and make easily available in the King James version of the Story Book of Myths the writings about your god(s) according to Enoch. In other words, why has the book of Enoch been omitted? Suppression of Truth! Or should we ask Melchizedek?
    (Remember, 100 words maximum!)


  46. YEAH, RIGHT! LMAO!

    If Zoe must preach, that’s all well and good….but this is SPAM! Straight up!

    If y’all want to read through that, good for you! I, however, value statements that are concise and accurate!

    100 words maximum…my RANT is less than 50!


  47. You guys should count your respective lucky stars that Dictionary left BU. 😉


  48. @Technician: “You guys should count your respective lucky stars that Dictionary left BU.

    Not to mention Dr. GP.

    I think it might have been because of the constant barrage of those true thinkers who dared to ask “why do you believe that?” and “why should we believe you?”.

  49. millertheanunnaki Avatar
    millertheanunnaki

    Seeker | November 9, 2011 at 5:12 PM |
    “100 words maximum…my RANT is less than 50!”

    Zoe gets a “high” from the glue he uses in his cut and paste time & motion performance. He needs to be slowly weaned off the opiate of the religious right. Any cold turkey treatment would cause serious withdrawal symptoms; 100 cc’s at first then 75, then 50, then 25 is the recommended dosage of spiritual methadone as prescribed by St. Luke the snake man aka Asclepius.


  50. @Techiee

    By now all of them “True thinkers” would have taken up bat and balland stumps and run fuh cover. BTW i wunda wuh happen to Georgie Porgie. He needs to make his presence known.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading