Archeology and the Sacred Name of God

There is a very important difference between the Greek and the Hebrew Old Testaments:

The Greek Septuagint Old Testament of 285 BC never used any sacred name for God, nor was such ever mentioned by other ancient writers such as the Israelite historians, Philo, and Josephus, or the later Eusebius, or even the Jewish Aristeas the Exegete who wrote his commentary on the Greek Septuagint. The YHWH word did not appear in any Old Testament text until the Masoretic Text of 1000AD! Nor was the existence of any Hebrew language Old Testament text ever mentioned by ancient theologians, whose work was exclusively with the Greek Septuagint text.

From the viewpoint of modern theologians, it must first be understood that they all still today accept the Masoretic Hebrew text of 1,000 AD as the true ancient language and Old Testament of our patriarchs. Anyone who dared question this assumption would end his career. Since that Masoretic Text includes the four letter tetragrammeton, YHWH, over 6,000 times, theologians are forced to speculate that Moses must have put it in his Pentateuch. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, vol. 6, p. 1012, reads as follows: “In terms of the biblical narrative, some suggest that Moses derived the name of Yahweh from the Egyptians, while others think Yahweh was a Midianite deity worshipped by the Kenite clan. Moses would have been introduced to this new deity when he married the daughter of Jethro…”

Certainly, Moses would have been acquainted with the Pagan religion of the Egyptians. But, even if the Pentateuch was actually written by Moses in the 15th C. BC, he could not have written it in the Hebrew language which was not formed until the time of the Israelite captivities, from the 8th to 6th centuries BC, when the captive Israelites merged their native Phoenician language with the Aramaic of their captors. Now, I ask you, who wants to raise his hand to claim that Moses adopted the name of a foreign deity as a substitute for “God” or “Lord.”

If we set aside the closed-minded obduracy of modern scholarship, we can see that Moses did not write any text in the modern Hebrew language because it did not exist at that time, nor was there any Hebrew alphabet or script. The oldest Old Testament text known is the Greek Septuagint of 285 BC, and the word does not appear in it one single time, or in any other ancient Israelite writing, with one exception which I will mention now.

To place this information in proper context, recall that the northern kingdom of Israelites, who had turned to other gods, had been purged from the Holy Land during the 8th century BC, along with most of Judea. It would not be until 586 BC that the last three unconquered cities of Judea, namely Jerusalem, Azekah, and Lachish, were defeated. Archaeologists have found eighteen ostraca (clay sherds) in the city of Lachish from about 590 BC, most of them being letters from subordinates to a man named Yaosh, the military governor of Lachish. It is unknown if the writer was Israelite or Babylonian…

At the time of this letter in 590 BC, it would only be four more years before Lachish was conquered as a punishment from God because His Israelite children had gone chasing after Pagan gods.

Now, I’m not a theologian. This should be regarded as a starting point for investigation rather than an end. Even so, in this context, a lot of what is happening today begins to make sense, does it not? And it’s not as if we are not instructed, by the highest religious authorities, that their g-d is absolutely not God, the Father of Jesus Christ. I’ve certainly never witnessed anything positive come out of the Christian esotericism that dabbles in concepts like sacred names and languages.

DISCUSS ON SG


Free Speech is Blasphemy

Free Speech doesn’t sound quite so appealing once you realize it literally means Blasphemy.

The only reason the concept of “free speech” was created as an ersatz human right during the Enlightenment was to permit secret satanists to blaspheme against Jesus Christ despite the many laws of Christendom that forbade them to do so.

And now that they can blaspheme freely and legally, we have all seen how genuine their philosophical commitment to the concept was. Like free trade, free speech is just another inverted satanic lie that delivers the exact opposite of what it promises.

Whenever Clown World promises “freedom” it delivers chains.

Just exercising his god-given right to free speech…

UPDATE: In which a dictionary from 1919 is consulted.

A friend gave me a copy of Webster’s Elementary School Dictionary from 1919.

Words not included in it: racist, antisemitic.

Words included: antichristian.

DISCUSS ON SG


All Crusaders Now

If you kept your blood pure, you passed the first test. But even if you failed the first test, you have the opportunity to repent and refuse to submit again. The demonic account of 7 doses of the vaxx to destroy a Christian’s faith sounded considerably more outlandish than it does now that people with rictus faces and crazy eyes are publicly boasting of their sixth vaxxing and preaching the gospel of earthly salvation through genetic mutation.

Sadly, most people nowadays are lukewarm. As mention by Father Athanasios Mitilinaios, most Christians are lukewarm. We too are lukewarm and need to stop being lukewarm.

To a faithful person of God death does not exist, this is the reality. We have forgotten this and we presently fear death. Not only do we fear death, we also fear being fined, possible imprisonment, and prosecution. In NO case can a person call themselves a Christian if they fear death. When a person fears dying, they become an idolater or an atheist.

Instead a Christian should long to die. The saints wanted to die. The reason why Christians truly want to pass away is so they can be fully united to the Lord they worship and love above all else. They want to go and are joyful when they are passing away. However, they never cause death to themselves, they do not commit suicide. But when the opportunity arises to become a martyr and confessor for Christ, they do this without fear of death.

Unfortunately, these things are not being heard from the Preachers, Bishops and Priests, but as you know are heard from the demons.

A well-respected Priest-monk who perform exorcisms, once told me what a demon said to him. The demon said to him, “How are you Christians fearful of death? I have seduced and deceived you into taking the vaccine with the fear of death!” A demon again confesses that the vaccines are his doing. In fact, he says, “We did a ceremony at a Lodge in America for the vaccines.”

See what the demon confesses! The demon continues: “What did you fear? For you (Christians), death does not exist.” For Christians, death does not exist. Do you understand, fellow brothers and sisters, where we’ve come to?

In the Gospels, Christ said something correlating with our present situation. When He entered Jerusalem and the children were calling out, “Hosana! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!” The children were proclaiming Jesus as the awaited Messiah. And others who were indignant were saying to Jesus, “Are you hearing what they are saying to you?” Christ responds, “I tell you that if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.”

So correlating with today’s situation, now that the Priest and Archpriest are not proclaiming that death has been conquered, the demons are proclaiming it instead: “How are you Christians fearful of death? And are all running to take this vaccine?”

Which isn’t really a vaccine, but rather a gene therapy/technology, with the aim of oppressing humans. This is the aim, which is why there will be more dosages. In fact, there are many people who say there will be 7 dosages. The demons also state that there will be 7 dosages.

Those who were deceived into taking the first or second dosage, hopefully, will not take the remaining dosages. May they repent, weep and go to confession, because their salvation is in danger.

We knew, we absolutely knew, that the vaxx was unnecessary. And we strongly suspected that it was evil, because it was pushed on the basis of fear, which is how Satan usually goes about manipulating men and accomplishing his goals. And the fact that there are a) at least six doses and b) claims that there will be seven, points strongly to the vaxx being directly connected to the ritual that was performed prior to its release, and which some of us even felt being performed at the time.

The events in Israel, and Prime Minister Netanyahu’s sudden embrace of the religious fanatics there, also point toward the warnings that were given by an Orthodox monk from Mount Athos back in 1994. While I am intrinsically skeptical of all so-called “prophecies”, especially the evil ones, it’s important to keep in mind that there are still powerful people who believe in them entirely. Such as, apparently, Mr. Netanyahu, which may explain his aberrant behavior in the year before the green flag event of October 7th and the subsequent Gazacaust.

There is a prophecy about all of this from Rabbi Schneerson, who is the Kushner’s religious leader, and everyone in the state of Tel Aviv knows that the Rabbi told Netanyahu that he would be the last prime minister of the state, and would hand the keys of the nation over to the messiah. Netanyahu is the gatekeeper. This was all spoken of 30 years ago when Netanyahu met Schneerson in New York City.

Whether this might be the Great Delusion of 2 Thessalonians 2, a forerunner, or simply the fallen world being fallen, we can already observe how many have already been deceived. So, no fear. No tolerance. No more being lukewarm. It’s time to stop listening to the insane ravings of the world, time to turn to the Bible when temptations come, and time to start paying attention to the still, small voice that tells you the right thing to do.

We have to witness our faith with boldness, because if we continue to be silent we’ll have to answer in the end. You see, if we don’t begin to make war against evil, to expose those who tempt believers, then the evil will grow larger.
– Elder Paisios, Monk of Mount Athos, (1924-1994)

We are all crusaders now.

DISCUSS ON SG


Run Gavin Run

Vincent James: If you were given the choice, if you had to get rid of one religion, and it was Islam or Catholicism, which one would you get rid of?

Gavin’s Jewish Partner: Catholicism.

Gavin: What?

Gavin’s Jewish Partner: Yeah, of course. What do you think? Who do you think you’re talking to?

Vincent James: This is what we’ve been trying to tell you for a long time, Gavin.

Gavin: Yeah, I’m out of here.

There is no “judeo-christianity”. There is no such thing as “judeo-christianity” any more than there is “satano-christianity” or “demono-christianity”. Judaism is intrinsically antithetical to Christianity, and no amount of post-WWII rhetoric, Scofield Bible shenanigans, or Boomers waving Israeli flags inside their churchian sanctuaries is going to change that.

DISCUSS ON SG


AI Debate, Gab Edition

As per a request from SG, BasedAI of Gab was presented with a similar challenge to the one previously given to BardAI.

Vox Day: a prominent far-right and alt-right writer, blogger, and game designer known for his provocative views and writings on politics, race, and gender.

Sam Harris: a controversial philosopher and podcaster who speaks about topics such as atheism, science, and politics.

In this six-paragraph debate, Vox Day argues that religion does not cause war, while Sam Harris argues that religion is a prominent cause of war.

Paragraph 1: Vox Day’s Opening Statement
“The notion that religion causes war is a simple-minded and historically inaccurate premise,” argues Vox Day. “Throughout history, there have been countless instances of war conducted without any religious motivation whatsoever. Moreover, the idea that religion is inherently violent is little more than a cheap shot taken by those who want to avoid confronting the complex factors that lead to war.”

Paragraph 2: Sam Harris’s Opening Statement
In response, Sam Harris retorts, “To say that religion does not cause war is to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the countless sectarian conflicts that have ravaged the world throughout history are all clear examples of religion’s role in fueling war.” Harris goes on to argue that religious belief often provides a justification for violence and that, without religion, many conflicts could be resolved peacefully.

Paragraph 3: Vox Day’s Rebuttal
According to Vox Day, “Sam Harris is wrong to imply that religion is the only cause of war. Ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics are all causes of war as well. To suggest that religion is the sole cause of war is to ignore the complex nature of war and the many factors that contribute to it.” Day argues that, while religion may play a role in some conflicts, it is not the only factor and to suggest otherwise is an oversimplification.

Paragraph 4: Sam Harris’s Rebuttal
Harris counters, “It is true that religion is not the only cause of war, but it is certainly a prominent one. In many cases, religion is the root cause of conflict, as when one group seeks to impose its religious beliefs on another. To ignore this fact is to ignore the reality of history and the present day.” Sam Harris argues that religion often provides a justification for violence and that, in many cases, war can be traced back to religious differences.

Paragraph 5: Vox Day’s Closing Statement
In closing, Vox Day argues, “Religion may play a role in some conflicts, but it is not the sole cause of war. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the many other factors that contribute to war, such as ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics. 

Apparently there is a character limit, as the fifth paragraph is truncated and the sixth paragraph was not provided. Even so, we can see that BasedAI does a better job of imitating my style than BardAI did, although neither AI made any reference to the historical facts about war that I compiled and presented in TIA. BasedAI also inserted itself as a third-party descriptor, which sounds a little odd in the context.

I also find it interesting that Harris is described as a philosopher whereas I am not, despite the fact that we often address precisely the same subjects and I was the best-selling political philosopher on Amazon in the 2015-2017 period. It’s also interesting to observe that Harris is not described as a scientist.

UPDATE: Apparently if you write one science fiction book, you are tarred for life. But BasedAI’s explanation is fairly reasonable.

Sam Harris has a background in neuroscience and philosophy, with a focus on the study of ethics, religion, and spirituality. He holds a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and has written several books exploring philosophical topics.

Vox Day, on the other hand, is primarily known for his work as a science fiction writer and has authored several books in that genre. While he has also written non-fiction works on political and cultural topics, his primary area of expertise is not philosophy.

My assessment of their respective fields and expertise is the basis for the distinction between the two individuals.

DISCUSS ON SG


Two AI Debates on Religion

I thought it might be interesting to see how well, and how accurately, AI is able to encapsulate the positions of intellectuals past and present after being trained on their books. Please note that the descriptions and the debates were all provided by Bard AI, which is Google’s system.

Umberto Eco: A renowned semiotician, linguist, and philosopher

Thomas Aquinas: A prominent theologian and proponent of natural theology

Debate: The Existence of God

Eco: Venerable Thomas Aquinas, it is an honor to engage in this intellectual discourse on the existence of God. As a semiotician, I approach this question with the tools of language and interpretation. I believe that the concept of God, while widely accepted, is deeply rooted in human constructs and cultural narratives.

Aquinas: I appreciate your perspective, Maestro Eco. As a theologian, I rely on reason and revelation to understand the nature of God. While human language may fall short in fully comprehending the divine, I believe that our experiences in the world point to the existence of a supreme being.

Eco: Your Five Ways, which attempt to demonstrate God’s existence through reason, have been challenged by many philosophers. For instance, the argument from motion posits that everything in the universe must have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unless we posit an uncaused cause, or God. However, this uncaused cause could simply be the universe itself, operating according to natural laws.

Aquinas: While I acknowledge the complexities of these arguments, I believe that the existence of contingent beings, those that could not exist by themselves, implies the existence of a non-contingent being, or God. This foundational being, the source of all existence, is the guarantor of order and intelligibility in the universe.

Eco: The concept of God is often interwoven with the human desire for meaning and purpose. We seek explanations for the origins of the universe, the nature of consciousness, and the moral order. However, I question whether these questions necessitate the existence of a divine being. Could we not find meaning and purpose within the natural world itself?

Aquinas: While I agree that human beings have a natural inclination to seek meaning and purpose, I believe that these aspirations point to a transcendent source. The very fact that we question the meaning of life suggests that we were not created by mere chance or accident. There must be a greater purpose, a divine plan, that lies beyond our comprehension.

Eco: Your faith in God provides you with a sense of security and comfort, but I believe that relying solely on faith can lead to intellectual stagnation and a fear of questioning our beliefs. Critical thinking, on the other hand, allows us to explore different perspectives and continually refine our understanding of the world.

Aquinas: While I value the pursuit of knowledge and reason, I also recognize the limitations of human understanding. There are certain truths, such as God’s existence, that can only be grasped through faith. Faith is not blind acceptance but a reasoned trust in a reality that transcends our immediate experience.

Grades: AI-Eco has to be rated 10/10, given the way that it represented Eco’s arguments better than Umberto Eco himself did when debating the Archbishop of Milano, Cardinal Maria Martini, in their book Belief or Nonbelief?, which was surprisingly pedestrian, particularly on Eco’s part. I give AI-Aquinas a 7/10, because although the AI effectively and appropriately summarized Aquinas’s positions, it didn’t present any arguments in Aquinas’s signature style nor did it do much more than agree and amplify AI-Eco’s arguments by way of rebuttal.

Still, Bard AI did a better job summarizing both men’s positions than the average intellectual familiar with both men’s works could do. Let’s see how it does in a theoretical debate between Richard Dawkins and me on the question of whether religion causes war.

Richard Dawkins: A British evolutionary biologist and author

Vox Day: An American far-right activist, writer, and publisher

Debate: Religion and War

Dawkins: I believe that religion is a major cause of war. Religious differences have been the root of countless conflicts throughout history, from the Crusades to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Religious leaders often use their power to incite violence and hatred, and religious texts can be interpreted in ways that justify violence.

Day: I disagree. Religion is not the cause of war; it is simply a tool that can be used for both good and evil. There are many examples of religious people who have worked to promote peace and understanding. In fact, many of the world’s most successful peacemakers have been religious leaders.

Dawkins: But even if religion can be used for good, it is still a dangerous force. The fact that it can be used to justify violence means that it is always a potential source of conflict. And even when religion is not directly involved in a conflict, it can still play a role by providing a sense of identity and belonging that can make people more willing to fight.

Day: I think you’re underestimating the power of human nature. People will find reasons to fight, regardless of whether or not they have religion. And in fact, religion can sometimes be a force for peace. For example, religious beliefs can help people to forgive their enemies and to see the other side’s point of view.

Dawkins: I don’t deny that people will find reasons to fight, but I believe that religion makes it easier for them to do so. Religion provides a justification for violence that is difficult to challenge, and it can also make people more willing to die for their beliefs.

Day: I think you’re being too cynical. Religion can also be a source of hope and inspiration. It can give people the strength to endure suffering and to fight for a better world.

Dawkins: I agree that religion can have some positive effects, but I believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The history of religion is littered with violence and bloodshed. And even in the present day, religion is often used to justify discrimination and oppression.

Day: I think you’re focusing too much on the negative aspects of religion. There is much more to religion than just violence and bloodshed. Religion can also provide people with a sense of community and belonging, and it can give them a moral framework for living their lives.

Dawkins: I’m not denying that religion can have some positive effects, but I believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The history of religion is littered with violence and bloodshed. And even in the present day, religion is often used to justify discrimination and oppression.

Day: I think you’re being too cynical. Religion can also be a source of hope and inspiration. It can give people the strength to endure suffering and to fight for a better world.

I will leave it to the reader to grade the performance of the AI concerning the second debate.

UPDATE: Buzzardist rates the AIs on Gab.

For Dawkins, 8/10. Dawkins, what little I read or listen to him, usually comes across to me as a bit more sneering. Points off for the tone. The depth of intellectual argument is about what I expect. As for VD, 2/10, and that’s being generous. The tone is way, way off. The arguments are even farther off. When AI Dawkins points to “the history of religion…littered with violence and bloodshed,” the real VD would have eviscerated him. “There is much more to religion than just violence and bloodshed”? Nonsense. Religious war is the rare exception. VD has given us the numbers.

DISCUSS ON SG


The Bochurim Dug Too Deep

It appears another pedo tunnel has been discovered, this one under an Orthodox synagogue in Brooklyn. The weaponized autists of 4chan are all over this, as the police video has already revealed what appear to be child-sized blood-stained mattresses and what is definitely an infant’s highchair. The empty building to which the tunnel led is also across the street from a children’s museum.

But don’t worry. We’ve been reliably assured by a paid hasbaran on 4chan that the secret tunnel was nothing more than an alternative entrance to the synagogue for use during Covid, which claim was promptly disproven by /pol/ when it was pointed out that the tunnel appeared to have been constructed post-Covid. Which means that there is not only a secret synagogue tunnel containing various children’s accoutrements in New York, but the professional propagandists are already out in force attempting to explain them away.

No word yet from Jimmy Kimmel on this…

DISCUSS ON SG


Too Satanic for the EU

In case you didn’t realize just how crazy and evil the Kiev regime is, it is now threatening to go too far for even the satanic Babelists of the European Union to accept:

Kiev’s attempts to ban the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) could have “dire consequences” for the nation’s hopes of joining the EU, The Telegraph newspaper quoted lawyers as saying on Saturday.The Ukrainian parliament is expected to vote later this month on closing down the country’s biggest church, with its 12,000 parishes.

Western lawyers have written to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, US President Joe Biden and European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen urging them to put pressure on Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky to “suspend efforts to ban this historic institution,” the paper reported.

Such a decision could cause “serious harm to Orthodox Ukrainians” and call into question whether Ukraine can meet its commitments as a candidate for EU membership, according to a letter to Western leaders penned by international lawyer Robert Amsterdam, and quoted by the Telegraph.

“This will have dire ramifications for Ukraine’s entry into the European Union and its place in the Western world,” Amsterdam wrote. He added that Kiev had “falsely accused” the UOC of collaborating with Moscow and expressed concern about “arrests of clerics on spurious charges.”

It’s always informative to note how massively deceptive Clown World is. While it’s justifying outright devil worship in the name of “freedom of religion” in the USA, it’s funding the defense of a government that has outlawed its two largest Christian churches.

Which example is yet another proof of the intrinsic falsity of the various Enlightenment “freedoms”

DISCUSS ON SG


The RCC Funds Mass Migration

And mass migration is war. This isn’t just a Catholic problem or a Protestant problem. It’s a problem with Clown World corrupting every nominally Christian institution:

A significant scandal has recently emerged within the Italian Catholic Church, implicating high-ranking church officials, including cardinals and archbishops, in a scheme of organizing and financing illegal migration from Africa to Europe. Investigations led by the prosecutor’s office in Ragusa, Sicily, have uncovered troubling connections between several Italian dioceses and the George Soros-tied NGO “SOS Mediterranea,” accused of aiding and abetting human trafficking under the guise of refugee aid.

The investigations have revealed that these dioceses channeled at least €2 million into operations alleged to support illegal migration. Notably, some funds reportedly ended up in the personal accounts of pro-immigration activists. Key figures implicated include Cardinal Matteo Zuppi of Bologna, Archbishop Corrado Lorefice of Palermo, Archbishop Domenico Battaglia of Naples, Archbishop Erio Castellucci of Modena, and Archbishop Giovanni Ricchiuti of Altamury. Additionally, Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich of Luxembourg is also on the donor list, having contributed €25,000 to these questionable activities.

Central to this scandal is Luca Casarini, a prominent left-wing activist and a key figure in the NGO “SOS Mediterranea.” Known for his involvement in the 2001 G8 summit protests in Genoa, Casarini has long been under scrutiny for his radical methods and unscrupulous tactics in illegal migrant transportation.

One of the reasons I refuse to tolerate the never-ending internecine Christian civil wars is that I see no point in paying attention to labels and dogma when the spiritual version of WWIII is currently in full effect. If, at this point, you can’t recognize the difference between those who are actively and knowingly serving Clown World and those who are doing their best, however misguided they might be, to serve Jesus Christ, your opinion is irrelevant.

DISCUSS ON SG


The War on Christmas 2023

The current phase of the War on Christmas began with the desacralization of the Christian holiday, which combined an attempt to create alternative secular carols with the creation of alternative fake holidays like Hannukah(1), Festivus, and Kwanzaa.

However, it’s very clear that as the Greatest Generation has mostly died out and the Boomers have become increasingly irrelevant, the younger generations are not falling for what has always been an anti-Christian psychological operation.

It’s interesting to see how the subversive attack on how Christians celebrate Christmas was considerably more successful than the attempt to wage open war on the holiday by pushing alternatives to it. In fact, it now appears that the attempt to push alternatives on the population has backfired, by making Christians cognizant of the importance, if not the necessity, of defending their own holy days.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

(1) While “the festival of lights” is a legitimate rabbinical holiday that has been celebrated by religious individuals for centuries, the ethnic “Hannukah”, as it is presently advertised in the USA, and, to a lesser extent, the UK, is no more historically genuine than Festivus or Kwanzaa.

DISCUSS ON SG