When your worldview is led by a cultural reading of the Bible, believing that man in general is the most superior being in the Universe, that thinking leads to a separation from the rest of nature; thinking that the world and universe revolves around humans, because this creation was all made by a supernatural God, supposedly just for man.

If the title “God’s chosen people” can be claimed to be your ancestry, either by blood or spiritual “adoption”, and placed with the nowadays understanding of creation stories and presumed image of God, that makes a Christian (or whoever else tries to claim the title,) pretty special! It makes you a son or daughter of the King! And even those who love or protect you will be blessed the Bible says!

Many Atheists, sometimes including myself, have sought to discredit Christianity and those “fool enough” to still believe in it by looking at the stupid sheep in mainstream Christianity for their sources of ammo. While there is no shortage of them in mainstream Christianity, those aren’t the intellects in Christianity. Honestly, the Bible has much good in it, that when properly understood, from a historical or non-embittered perspective, it makes a lot of sense. (At least as much as any ancient text can.)

Insecure Atheists and agnostics want to throw out the Bible as all fairy tale, so that they don’t have to believe any of it is not fairy tale. . .I think that this “all or nothing” mentality is bound to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” The understanding we can glean from the Bible about our origins isn’t as whacked out as we may first think . ..

Let’s go over what that ancient text actually tells us of our beginning. First God said, “let US make man in our OUR image “(Genesis 1:26).

Christian’s think of God as 3 persons, or “The trinity”, so that’s why it seems logical to them to say that He is one God, and yet speaks as a group. . .the logic of which reasoning is rarely questioned of course. The only problem with that belief is that there is really very little evidence for a monotheistic belief in history. It was unheard of before the Old testament. So that in itself seems suspicious if those closer to the creation and Noah stories (similar in just about every culture of the world) wouldn’t have gotten their stories a little more clearly, then those further removed. . . do we really have the gall to think we know about God better then those who spoke directly to him/them?!

Without the Holy Spirit part of God in existence, (which is easily explained away as something of the conscience BTW) the Israelites would have had no call to say that “God” speaking as “US” and “OUR” was a reference to more then one person of the “Godhead” speaking in that verse, because most of the Jews didn’t apparently embrace the coming Messiah as God. . .

The Catholic church clearly added the “Holy Spirit” concept to make up for that issue. In 1 John 5:7 it seems to be clearly stating that God is not only father, like all the other cultures claim, but that the son, Jesus, (“begotten not created”) and the very unclear Spirit are one. There, problem solved! The verse goes like this. “For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.”

When you take out the added “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”, the Jews of the time are left with “God” speaking to or for a group of people, not being one. . .That verse is the only and clearest verse in the Bible regarding the Holy Trinity, yet it is missing in many modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV and Jehovah witness versions.
It is not found in the Greek manuscripts and for this reason it should not be included in the Bible.

So was the “us” and “our” way of speaking that “God” always used just a way royals use to talk, as some have said? Or was it possibly a group of peers he was talking to, as nearly every other ancient culture gave reference to with their concepts of many “gods”? And if so, do we now have to consider all the ancient texts in their writings of their gods as on par with the Christians rendering of God? Are they talking of the same ones?

Maybe we can find out by looking more closely at some of the most tricky and misunderstood verses in the Bible, and cross reference a little. . .So, besides the gods, the Bible also speaks of “sons of God” or “Angels” being in the beginning. Can we look at the ancient understanding of those terms to find some enlightenment on why the break off from many gods, to one? First, some context:  “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and took them wives, all of which they chose. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men [had sexual relations with them], that they bare CHILDREN to them, the same became MIGHTY MEN which were of old, men of renown” (Gen.6:1-4).

The Apocrypha, which was a highly respected part of the Bible up until the last few hundred years when it’s many implications were misunderstood as myth. Enoch 6:2 of the Apocrypha is a parallel passage to those very tricky verses in the Bible. Enoch puts it this way, “And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: ‘Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.'”

Enoch also removes any doubt that the giants were the children of these “unholy” unions.  Further, it is a fascinating read as it describes the angels, their children, and the punishments meted out on them.  Enoch’s translation into heaven (which he came back from to write the book of Enoch) is also described in great detail and takes very little imagination to interpret what happened to him. . .

In Bible college they bring up the difficulty of interpreting Genesis 6 and yet I wonder why the book of Enoch is never brought into the discussion, as it fills in all the gaps. I highly suggest checking it out online!

I will take the viewpoint that was widely held in the world of the first century CE, and was supported by Flavius Josephus, Philo, Eusebius and many of the “Ante-Nicene Fathers,” including Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus:  the terms “angels”, “sons of God”, and “the children of heaven” are synonymous in these two passages.

Also, the Bible verses talking about “the sons of God”(otherwise understood as “Angels” or the “children of Heaven”) usually spoke of them coming from the heavens, which was always just referring to “above”. . . showing either their poor understanding of space and the solar system (for more on this, check out my post called A flat Earth teaching in a perfect book), or the Bible just means they came from the sky, or from a “mountain of God”, as every other depiction of the gods of other previous cultures.  Enoch describes these “children of heaven” as “descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon,” which seems to imply from the sky to the mountain to lower elevations.

The Bible also speaks of “the Holy mountain of God” trembling and fire coming from the top of it. This is consistent with other ancient texts depictions of their gods living on the tops of mountains in their houses.  For instance, the gods at mount Olympus in Greek mythology certainly sound suspiciously familiar to the tales in the Bible.

These “Angels” having to “come down” often leads to the speculation of the “Angels” being “fallen” from these high places to have come down to the women, but there is no reference to them being in disfavor with God or the gods on the mountain, or in the sky before they started mingling with the woman.” The Bible speaks of Satan giving a report to these “God(s)” : And the LORD said to Satan, “Where have you come from?” Satan answered the LORD, “From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it.” He certainly didn’t seem to be doing any harm, but he was apparently watching man.

The book of Enoch actually calls these same “sons of God”, or “Angels”, the “watchers”. The Aramaic term “Watchers” is “peculiar to apocalyptic literature”.

Daniel 4:13
“I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven.
In 1 Enoch the Watchers
  • are ‘holy angels who watch’ (20:1)
  • are of the higher class of angels like the archangels, cherubim and seraphim,
  • are ‘the eternal watchers’ (41:1) in the presence of God
  • belong to the Great Holy One (12:3)
  • do not sleep but stand before the glory of God (39:12, 61:12, 71:7)
  • never depart from the Great One (14:23)
  • are known as “sons of heaven” (6:2; 13:8; 14:3)
  • have been given the secrets of the heavens (9:6; 16:3)
  • are appointed to fulfill certain duties (20:1-8)
There are usually 4 leader watchers: Michael, Gabriel, Uriel, and Raphael.  Michael and Gabriel are spoken of in the Bible as good, “Arch Angels”,but the ones in Enoch are said to be a group of 200 watchers, led by Shemihazah/Semyaz (6:3) or by Azael/Azazel (8:1; 10:4; 13:1).

These Angels who “fell”, bound themselves by an oath to leave “heaven” and descend to earth to marry the daughters of earth (Enoch 6:3-5). The Watchers also  teaching the people on earth the “eternal secrets that are performed in heaven” (9:6). The dastardly wicked art of making metal weapons, arts, crafts, incantations, astrology, cosmetics and bracelets (8:1-4)

The concept of Heaven being in a mystical realm with only perfect spirit beings living in perfect bliss kind of gets thrown out when you read that “weapons”, “incantations” (which was apparently well looked on then)”astrology” and such frivolities as make up and jewelry is in “Heaven”. . .as that obviously doesn’t fit in with the picture that has evolved of Heaven, the church threw it out. It is nonetheless consistent with other ancient texts.

Back to the “Watchers” or the so called “fallen” angels: they are so filled with shame that they cannot speak or raise their eyes to heaven. (1 Enoch 13:5)

They are said to be the cause of all the “evil” that entered the world.
The Damascus Covenant of Qumran describes the two-fold “sin” of the Watchers of heaven:
  1. they follow the “eyes of whoredom” (2:16)
  2. they “walked in the stubbornness of their hearts”, following their own ways and rejecting God’s commandments (2:17-18)
 Enoch also speaks of “the hardness of the heart” of the Watchers when they taught the mysteries of heaven to women on earth (16:3). Let’s see, you love a woman, and want to enlighten her to the higher ways of the gods, and the petty gods are mad. . .

So who were these “sons of God” or “Angels” in Genesis 6:1-4? There have been several suggestions as to who they were and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants.

The three primary views on the identity of “the sons of God” are 1) they were “fallen” angels, 2) they were powerful human rulers, or 3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to the first theory is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase “sons of God” always refers to angels (Job 1:6;2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with this is in Matthew 22:30, which indicates that angels do not marry.
The weakness of views 2) and 3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were “giants” or “heroes of old, men of renown.” Further, why would God decide to bring the flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbade powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain? The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the  marriage of “fallen” angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment.

When the Bible speaks of “sons of god” who consorted with “the daughters of men”, it is looked on very unfavorably. These Angels were not allowed to return to Heaven for this act. These giants are referred to in Hebrew as “nephilim.” The word “giants” means the following, from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible#5303:

nephiyl (nefeel’); or nephil (nefeel’); from 5307; which means properly a feller, i.e. a bully or tyrant.

So it really doesn’t mean a giant like the one in Jack and the Beanstalk but rather a bully or tyrant, of large stature. If we look in dictionaries like Nelson’s we will see something like the following:

NEPHILIM, a word of uncertain meaning (Genesis 6:4; Numbers 13:33), (NIV, NEB, NASB, RSV translations), translated as giants by the KJV and NKJV. Some scholars believe . . . were descended from famous rulers, outstanding leaders, and mighty warriors who lived before the Flood.

The Bible speaks of these Nephilim before the flood as being wicked and full of evil, so God planned to destroy these giants with a flood. Again, this is described in The Book of Enoch.

Only Noah and his family had a pure bloodline from Adam the Bible tells us and consequently was given a warning about the impending flood to wipe out the wicked giants, whereas, the giants were not told.

The Bible puts it this way, “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God” (Gen.6:9). God told Noah in Gen. 6:18 “But with thee will I establish my covenant.”

The rest of mankind had become corrupted through intermarriage with the “Angels”.

The giants survived the flood though, as we see them again in  Num.13:32-33 as the sons of Anak. “And there we saw the GIANTS, the sons of Anak, which come of the GIANTS: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so were we in their sight” (The word for “giants” here is the same word used in Genesis 6:4 — the Nephilim.) Obviously, therefore, some of them lived after the Flood.

It was for the destruction of these giants, (Nephilim) that the sword of Israel was apparently necessary, as the Flood had been before.” Because the god(s) were not interested in having a world of violence again, but wanted to start fresh with Noah, who was apparently a true “son of God”, whatever that meant. . .

The Rephaim were another name for the descendants of the giants which existed after the Flood. Moses also talks of the land of Moab saying, “That also was accounted a land of giants; GIANTS dwelt therein in old time. . . the LORD destroyed them before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead” Deut.2:20-21

God clarifies though that, “It is not because of your [The Israelite’s or God’s chosen people’s] righteousness or the uprightness of your heart that you go in to possess their land, but because of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord your God drives them out from before you, and that He may fulfill the word which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.” Deuteronomy 9:5

The Scriptures tell us that young David slew Goliath (whose name means “an exile”) a giant over 9 feet tall! He was probably a descendant from the ancient Rephaim, of whom a remnant took refuge among the Philistines making him stand out because he was an exile in the land. (Deut.2:20-21; II Sam.21:22).

The Anakim (‘anna -‘keem)- another race of giants descended from the Angels are mentioned ten times in the Bible, Duet 1:28, 2:10, 2:11, 2:21, 9:2, Josh. 11:21, 11:22, 14:12, 14:15, and Joshua 47:5. There were nearly a dozen different races of Giants during the time of Israel’s captivity in Egypt. . .

If these many groups of (up to 30 foot) giants or tall men of legend were real, then they were likely not only in the middle east, but also associated earlier with Africa, (more specifically Egypt), which would give a plausible explanation for the problem which has for ages perplexed engineers: that being, how those huge stone pyramids, temples and monuments were built. . . .”

Giants are also a common tale in areas of Europe, and believed to be the origin of the Greek legends of “demi-gods” “Giant-legends of this class are common in Asia too, where the big and “stupid” giants would seem to have been barbaric tribes.”

The Giants were apparently experiments of the Angels gone wrong, a product of their uncontrolled lusts. The first interbreeding of these ancient Angel type “gods” with man, according to many different ancient sources.

Making public the many sites of these giant’s remains in Egypt, Asia, the Middle east, and Europe, and allowing scientists to analyze the DNA, blood type, and RH factor would likely lead to some very interesting conclusions.. . . instead the powers that be tell us the pictures are a hoax, and the evidence of the giants is quickly whisked away. . .telling us they are just a myth?

The Bible speaks of these giants as historical though, and it is supported with many other cultures ancient texts, so it seems pretty likely that they were real.

The fact that the giants fathers were called “sons of god”(s), not only Angels, makes me wonder what their father(s) looked like? Were they tall too?

Ancient civilizations were all thought to have believed in “gods”. “The Egyptians, Chaldeans, Mayans, Aztecs, Aryans, Syrians, and the inhabitants of the ancient Indian Tibet have all recorded the arrival of “gods from the heavens” in their ancient writing. Considering their similarities to the Bible, when you throw out the uneducated presumptions we’ve already dealt with, it seems we might get some clues from these other texts that predated the Bible even!

“The best place to get answers about who these gods were is probably from the oldest known records written by the oldest known civilization, the Sumerians. (Their culture dates back to 6000 BC!)

The Sumerians documented the arrival of “gods” who they called “ilu”, from another world, who brought with them advanced knowledge.” [Sounds like in Enoch. . .]

The Sumerians, as opposed to the later cultures were more descriptive of these “ilu”, calling them the “Anunnaki” which translates into “Those who from Heaven to Earth Came.”  Sound familiar? The Anunnaki were also known to play “god” roles and control civilizations through worship or “work for.”

I believe there has been a simple misunderstanding about these “gods” of ancient cultures though, rooted in a mis-translation of the word used to describe what mainstream linguists say means “god”.

While the word “ilu” has been commonly translated as “god” because it made the most sense to the ancient worldview, “ilu” has a different translation: “tall men.”

Despite this overall acceptance of this “mistake” of translation by linguists, they continue to translate “ilu” to mean “gods,” as any other meaning wouldn’t have made sense to their worldview. . .until now.

Later, the Akkadian, Babylonians, and the Assyrian culture and language evolved from the Sumerian Civilization and brought with them the word “ilu”. It is generally presumed that the “god” word of the Bible evolved from  both the word, and the god(s) that were passed down from those earlier texts and cultures.

The Akkadian cuneiform tablets speak extensively about the affairs of the “ilu” gods, and in every depiction/illustration where “ilu” and ordinary people are shown side by side the ilu are much taller. . .” So, we could presume that these “gods” could have easily have been the fathers (the “Angels” or “sons of God”) that mated with the humans, creating giants in all the Ancient texts!

“The ancient stories tell us a lot about these “gods”. . . The first humans could have been a result of manipulation with the gods’ genes and maybe other life forms here on Earth already.

Source

Many stories in all the ancient texts, especially pre-Christian texts, tell about a race of gods that “from the Heavens to the Earth Came.” And they “created man in their image”. Looking back, these “gods” who all lived long lives (around 1,000 years) had superior knowledge and technology, performing apparent “miracles” would have certainly been looked on as gods. [Even though we believe it is better translated as tall men”] So it’s really no surprise that the meaning morphed into a supernatural being. . .as they were intuitive, wise, advanced, and very different. . .
[These gods, according to the many texts were] “flying about in lighted ships in the sky [sometimes called flaming chariots] and shooting fire or lightning from them [on select occasions] , creating ear-shattering booms and temporary blindness.” [Sometimes the flaming chariots even took people away, never to be seen again!]

The humans watched as these “gods” built massive and glorious houses and created beautiful cities for themselves. (Usually with help. . .)

Source

Many questions have sprung up about who these original “ilu” were?

These “people” have been variously identified with just about every mythical being after them that you can imagine, leading most scholars to automatically place the whole texts they come from in the realm of myth or allegory. Interestingly though that all of these ancient creatures of myth were blond or red headed. . .so, based on my last posts, we can presume they were the original O- blooded Albinos, later “sons of god”, or a hybrid breed of red and blond-haired gods.

Interestingly, these ilu or “gods” made creations that, though in their “image” and “good”, were nonetheless shorter, less intelligent, less large boned, rounder head and apparently the males had a foreskin, whereas some believe the gods did not. So these creations were not sons of god, but a new creation, with genes that were unique to the planet. . .apparently.

The difference between the “ilu” and their creation was probably why the ancient civilizations started the practice of circumcising the male descendants. . .on the best day possible for blood clotting. Could it have been just to hide the fact that they were created “Sons of the gods” instead of true descendants like the Angels? Created, instead of creators.

Considering the violence and maybe even jealousy of the neighboring giant cultures seeking favor with god, it may have been a deceptive safety measure, hoping to confuse the “stupid” giants. . . because we sure haven’t found genital mutilation to being of any other benefit. For a very interesting article on circumcision, check this out.

The mingling of the human species, with these sons of “tall men” (God) happened in other places too. . thus the different cultures’ giants mating with women and creating demi-gods or partially “tall men.” Thus, all these “myths” would have been all talking about the same thing as the Bible.

We could look at them all as myth then, as many Atheists do, or we could look to see what the ancients might have meant by what they were all said to have seen. . .Could “the Lord”, or “gods”, or the fathers of the “Angels” in every culture of the world have been just a depiction of the first ones on earth?

It seems with many ancient texts handing down rules for not intermarrying with other races, (better described as species, as seen in my last post) that some groups coming from the first human creations were taught so to keep their blood pure. Thus, they are still a separate people from the days of Noah.  Could they look like a somewhat tall, RH- O blood type, red and blond headed race of “people”, like all the “gods”?

If all creation came from the mingled species of Angels and the created man in the image of God, it seems they both would have been equally the same color of the “tall men”, white albinos. Like I talked about in my first post in this series.

As we can see in my next post in the series, the blood type that went with the original albinos was always O-. To this day, blood that is O or has the RH – factor would indicate some white in that person’s ancestry. So, as stated earlier, since blood doesn’t mutate, one could ask when the other blood types to make the darker races would have come in, if Adam and Eve were both the same color and in the image of the “gods”?

Creation scientists wisely admit to this discrepancy though, and say, I quote :” If Adam and Eve were heterozygous for blood types A and B, respectively (one allele for type O and one allele for either type A or B), [I believe it would have to be both A and B, as blood cannot mutate] they could have produced children that had any of the ABO blood types.”

Of course, they also say, “Adam wouldn’t have been a white boy, having been created from the dust of the earth/ground. Eve on the other hand, being created from his rib, would have been pale since that would be the shade afforded bone from which she was derived.”
Source: Institution for creation research

That is a hilarious reasoning! And this concession has only been recently admitted to. . . their previous theory stated that Adam and Eve were light brown! So if the people separated nicely into slightly different shades over the years, and did that numerous times (apparently moving away after a while), then our presumptuous understanding of the Bible could be accurate. I think there is a lot easier of an explanation though. . .  but as usual, the Bible won’t change, the reading of it does. So Christians should have no problem with this info, right?

The Creation science people have almost figured it out!  Look at this quote from the same place: “The deletion responsible for converting an A allele to an O allele is not present in chimpanzees, and sequence comparisons between humans and chimps indicate this allele is unique to the human lineage, further complicating an evolutionary scenario for the origin of blood type O. This scenario would fit better if the O allele was rare in the population today and appeared in a specific people group. [It use to be, but with interbreeding it is recessive in a lot of white groups around the world.] However, the O allele is by far the most common allele globally, indicating that if it did originate via a mutational event, it had to occur when the human population was extremely small and before humans divided into ethnic groups and spread across the globe. . .If Adam and Eve did not have all three blood type alleles, then there must have been a mutation creating the O allele while the human race was still very small and before humans dispersed across the globe. Whether the origin of blood type O was in Adam and Eve at Creation or whether it arose as a mutational event [blood has proven the least likely part of the body to be able to mutate] that took place shortly before or after the Flood, it strongly supports that all humans today are descendants of two individuals or a small group of people that eventually populated the globe. Both scenarios are consistent with the biblical model of human origins.”

” For one thing, for a husband and wife to pass on all alleles to their children, they need to, between them, have the A, B, and O alleles. So Adam and Eve could have had any of the following genetic make-ups: AO and BO, AB and OO, AB and AO, AB and BO, AA and BO or BB and AO, that is, any combination where both parents have all three alleles between them. Another possibility is that the O gene arose later.”

Source: Institution for creation research

A genetically manipulated  part-“god” (“tall man”) species, with O- blood being  created and commemorated in the many creation stories is the most logical explanation of the numerous creation stories I can think of. With man’s bestiality bringing in the A and B blood later.

How could I insinuate such a derogatory thing as bestiality causing the origin of the dark skinned people?? Well, from the Start, it seemed that the “tall men” or gods encouraged it! Parading the newly made animals in front of a desperate and lonely man, no doubt hoping one of them would be a good mate for him, saving themselves the trouble of cloning another person from his  bone marrow (rib), and changing it a little to make a female.  I mean, seriously! How many animals did he have to “try out” first before he and the “gods” agreed that he needed a mate  like him?

By going up to one of  “the mountains of God”, Moses eventually got instructions from the “tall men” to condemn bestiality, consequently discouraging the creation of all the hybrid men. . .the “mythical” half men, half horses, or half man, half monkey. . .?

Or was it Solomon’s  many “Strange” wives, that were “his undoing”. . .? And the “undoing” of the whole nation that soon divided “God’s chosen people” from the nation of Judah. Whatever the case, it seemed from the perspective of one of the writers of the Bible, that it was an intentional action of the “tall men” to mix up the genes of some of the tribes of the original Israelite nation.

The Bible gives reference to this in Jeremiah 31:27. “Behold the days come saith the Lord, I will SOW (mingle) the House of Israel and the House of Judah with the SEED (offspring) of man and the SEED (offspring) of beast (rh+). ” The difference to this day between the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah is the Rh- blood.

And when the Bible says “All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats.”  (Matthew 25:31-32) It could be in reference to a physical “End time” separation of the whites from the blacks, O blood types from the A’s and B’s or more likely, the RH-‘s from the RH+. . .  I don’t know which.  Could it be more in reference to an obvious cultural and mental separation of the species that we have done ourselves? Could the intention of the Rh- white elites with their pushing of religion, vaccines, fluoride, GMO’s, BPA’s, drugs and dangerous medical, as well as a pathetic educational system, simply be for the purpose of depopulating the less dominant group, as they did in the Bible days to the stupid experimental giants?

Of course the “Angels” giant descendants were partially wiped out in the flood, and the rest of them were said to be “polished off” by the Israelites. But if the elites realize that we know the giants were real, and we demanded to see their hidden away remains, allowing us to trace their  blood type and DNA, we would likely find a connection even now with all the elites.
Are they intending to make that clear divide still today, as they fought so hard to back then, and with all the RH- leaders of the past? Could they be trying to separate the stupid from the smart, the sheep of Israel from the goats of the Gentiles, so to speak, so they will know who are their descendants, the true “children of God”?  The elite know the thinking person will eventually all opt out of religions, vaccines, fluoride, GMO’s, BPA’s, drugs and dangerous medical practices, as well as a pathetic educational system, as they mostly do so themselves, from what I’ve heard.
It seems, that keeping the masses believing in “God” though, (as they have either intentionally or naively redefined him through mis-translations) helps those in power retain their power. Just like all the other methods of control the elite use on the gullible masses in the US, religion is a method of control that they don’t themselves have much use for. . .or have you not noticed that the countries of Europe, with the highest population of the best minds (Rh-) being the direct descendants of the redheads and blonds themselves, are happily living in Atheism. In fact, by 1970, all 22 of the nations of central and eastern Europe which were effectively atheistic!
They are showing their superior IQ, as is obvious by the last post. And they are leaders because of it! To rebel only shows you misunderstand their intentions, or are judging them as stupid as the majority. They aren’t! They not only know what they are doing, in giving the masses the illusion of  a democracy, but they are given that power by the “tall men” themselves!
As is obvious in JOB 36:7 , “He [God] doth establish them [Kings on the throne] for ever, and they are exalted.” So, as there seems no use in fighting them, as we are out-brained, and out-gunned in every way from the beginning of time as demi-gods at best, while they (O- or RH-‘s) are pure blooded sons of gods we might as well join them and admit that if you are white, o blooded, or RH-, that you are a “child of God” and from the same family. At least I know I am. And I never thought an Atheist would say that she’s a CHILD OF GOD!
Advertisements