Archive

Posts Tagged ‘history’

American Humanist Association new ads

November 13, 2010 Comments off

The American Humanist Association has an expensive ad campaign to combat, not what Scriptures actually say through critical exegesis,  but rather their own false ideas (eisegesis) read into Scripture. It is to show that humanist values are mainstream while religious fundamentalists that read the Bible are not. But don’t worry many are fighting back, like on Ricochet by being… depressed!? Don’t just sit there, report on the story and claim depression. This isn’t how the Bible reads and furthering lack of proper reading by not pointing out the clear fallacies is telling. It is dishonest work by the AHA as their interpretation gleaned from the passages quoted CLEARLY lack any context and thus critical exegesis. Typical of Christian critics they remain dishonest in their approach of reading the Bible.

The main AHA biblical quotes are; 1 Timothy 2 and Hosea 13:16. They juxtapose those Scriptural fragments with quotes of prominent scientists and the like and use their words to contradict the false interpretation that AHA has presented. So instead of being depressed and crying about it, this blog will actually analyze these pieces of Scripture to determine if indeed they represent exactly the notions that are implied by the AHA. If the Scriptural exegesis I present is not the same as the AHA, then one of us has a dishonest agenda. I would hope the eisegetical nature of AHA would sharply show which is the guilty party.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NASB):

11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

To think that the writer of 1 Timothy was bashing woman verbally is wishful neo-liberal feminist thinking (feminazi for those in  Rio Linda). What in fact is happening is that the writer is addressing the women of his time and how Christian woman act. The writer was not attempting to use religion to mold future subjugation of woman by man but rather conveying certain characteristics of Christian woman. Namely you should not talk if receiving instruction, much like anybody shouldn’t talk while receiving instruction. Thus, the writer specifies that it is wrong for a woman to exorcise authority over the man if at that time the man was trying to instruct the woman. Modesty and that the true nature of woman is to help man and to give birth to life were highlighted. This is taking into consideration the context of Galatians 3:28 (which the AHA didn’t do because it would of cost them more money to be honest as they had to purchase space to write it) in which clearly favoritism by gender is rejected through equality inherent in biblical Christianity. Check here for more as well.

Galatians 3:28 (NASB);

28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The AHA opposition to the exegesis of Scripture I have laid out would mean that they don’t endorse respect to a teacher, but rather I guess endorse nonsensical outbursts by woman within the teacher-student setting. Good anti-learning values AHA, really feminist of you. Next up on the laughable AHA quote mining (lack of context) list is Hosea 13:16 (NASB), it states;

16Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

For insightful commentary that does not let you read into the text what you want by leaving out context, read John Calvins’ commentary here. I say to you, what is so depressing about dishonest representation of the biblical text Ricochet? Nothing, when you can use your standing on a high-traffic site to rebut such laughable uncritical organizations like AHA, of which their little ad campaign clearly shows. The fact that space is required to write down the context and fully understand the texts in question, essentially means that the amount of truth allowed by the AHA ad campaign is determined by the amount of money they spend, how ridiculous.

Advertisements

Obama on Islam in India

November 7, 2010 Comments off

Here is video of President Obama speaking on Islam after being asked a question about jihad and what he thinks about it. The answer is stunning and vastly ignorant. Just like much of the establishment political, media and academic elite.

What about Muhammad directly participating in war to further Islam? Why is there never logic connecting that to Muslims warring today? Why does he invoke Ghandi’s name? Ghandi has absolutely nothing to do with Islam or Jihad. It is Obama’s wishful thinking that somehow Islam’s enemies, Muslims who are violent, need to be isolated from the the Ghandi Muslims. Muslims are not going to care about Ghandi, it is Muhammad they follow and are loyal to. They will follow his mold principally rather then Ghandi, no matter how much Obama thinks they should do otherwise because Islam is a religion of peace.

What should have taken place after 9/11 or prior to be perfectly honest, is that Islam should of been singled out by the intellectuals and politicians as a violent religion that preaches Muhammad, who directly participated in war, is the Muslims mirror for his/her pattern of conduct. Obama you are a piece of work, and cannot intelligently deal with topics because your political investment swings counter to the truth.

America will be no more under Obama

October 28, 2010 Comments off

Islam and Muhammad debate

October 27, 2010 Comments off

Another debate at Liberal Forum, this time dealing with the religion of Islam and its history. Click HERE to view it and enjoy!

Somali pirates need to be stopped!

October 18, 2010 Comments off

Voice of America News has an article about piracy hijacking and the statistical trends during the past five years. The main points are that attacks are increasing and their reach is exceeding that of traditional piracy routes we know of. In 203 hijackings either guns or knives were used and almost 800 hostages were taken. There have also been a rise in attacks within the South China Sea as well.

However Gulf of Aden attacks are down. A curious change but one that may correlate with the rise in South China Sea attacks. In other words, movement from traditional fronts of the Gulf of Aden, etc are moving to South China Sea, in  response to the setbacks by Philippines counter terrorism efforts, hammering against Abu Sayyaf “bearer of the sword”. The movements could coincide with reorganization of al shabab an al qaeda affiliate in Somalia.

Al shabab is a powerful force in Somalia that facilitates a safe haven for piracy. In 1969 a military coup led by Major General Muhammad Siad Barre initiated a socialist state that lasted until 1991. Northern clans established relatively stable rule, while the South turned into violent clashes by clans vying for power. Thousands of civilians were killed prompting the useless UN presence of which led to the tragic 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in which there was US fatalities. Transitional Federal Institutions since 2004 were in exile because of the threat of assassinations. All of this enables global Islamic terrorist organizations to supplant themselves and exorcise power as al shabab has done through Shariah law.

There is a counter insurgency grassroots movement called The Alliance of several warlords willing to attempt peace and stability. They fight back the violence of al shabab with some African Union help.

Whoopie and Joy go unhinged!

October 14, 2010 Comments off

Wow, Whoopie and Joy really got upset on The View about O’reilly telling it like it is. Namely Muslims were responsible for September 11th, 2001. Whoopie just goes berserk and cannot handle the truth so much she immediately tries to equate. She thinks O’reilly was over the top in saying that Muslims were responsible. Yet, then Whoope immediately uses the tired old lie of stating that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. He is not and was not. But I guess its OK for Whoopie to use, as an argument, what she gets upset at O’reilly for. Typical double-standard!

Perhaps Whoopster needs a little history lesson and needs to spend some time doing comparative religion studies! Check my Islam commentaries for more information on that.

Democrat slavery, Republican liberty

October 14, 2010 Comments off

Political party platforms define the governing political philosophies and how they are to be applied. Platforms for the Democratic party began in 1840, while the Republican party platform began in 1856. It is important that either party was entirely focused on the Constitution more so than any current platform seems to do, although Republicans are showing promise.

The very first Democrat party platform was in 1840 and it lists 9 Resolved principles of which politics form.  There is only one mention of slavery and it is number 7. It states;

7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

Line one, prior to “;” essentially says that congress should not interfere with, “domestic institutions of the several states”. Now the important part surfaces, as to what these institutions are, namely institutional slavery stating that all efforts by “abolitionists” to rid the US of slavery (one of the United States most tragic histories) was actually to reduce happiness of the people and should not be entertained by any political institution, namely congress. The federal government should not determine the outcome of slavery, inherently the Democratic party saw nothing wrong with slavery, and in fact thought it made people happy. It stays the same for the 1840, 1844 and 1848 platforms until 1852 in which several other governing principles were introduced. Number 7 specifically dealt with slavery, and had lasted since 1840, it was now not given a number and moved below that last number  of 9. Then below, there is an added portion that states;

Resolved, That the democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question, under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

It is clear the Democrat party does not want any change in the use of slavery for America. In 1856, the Republican party is birthed and the 1856 Republican political party platform is defined! How does the Democrat party deal with such opposition to their view that slavery makes people happy? They now make a more coherent argument for slavery, as well as concluding that they are reasserting their focused energy toward that position. The whole platform becomes entrenched with defense of slavery. I will quote some of the more interesting and telling portions below, but not quoting all parts that mention the word “slavery”.

Resolved, That we reiterate with renewed energy of purpose the well considered declarations of former Conventions upon the sectional issue of Domestic slavery, and concerning the reserved rights of the States.

1. That Congress has no power under the Constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several States, and that such States are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the Constitution; that all efforts of the abolitionists, or others, made to induce Congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences; and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people and endanger the stability and permanency of the Union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend of our political institutions.

2. That the foregoing proposition covers, and was intended to embrace the whole subject of slavery agitation in Congress; and therefore, the Democratic party of the Union, standing on this national platform, will abide by and adhere to a faithful execution of the acts known as the compromise measures, settled by the Congress of 1850; “the act for reclaiming fugitives from service or labor,” included; which act being designed to carry out an express provision of the Constitution, cannot, with fidelity thereto, be repealed, or so changed as to destroy or impair its efficiency.

3. That the Democratic party will resist all attempts at renewing, in Congress or out of it, the agitation of the slavery question under whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.

As you can see, point 1 mirrors point 7 from their historical platforms from 1844 to 1852. The great Compromise of 1850 had already finished, halting a four year confrontation between slave supporting states of the South and then non-slave states of the North or free states. This uneasy tension that culminated in 1850 followed the Mexican-American War (1846–1848). Thus in point 2, the Democratic platform was the support of the “compromise measures”, thus because of it being law, could not be agitated or repealed, etc. Point 3 is again a reiteration of what was stated in the 1852 Democrat party platform.

How did the Republican party deal with such law and entrenched interests by the Democrat party? Their 1856 party platform states the following;

This Convention of Delegates, assembled in pursuance of a call addressed to the people of the United States, without regard to past political differences or divisions, who are opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; to the policy of the present Administration; to the extension of Slavery into Free Territory; in favor of the admission of Kansas as a Free State; of restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson; and for the purpose of presenting candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President, do

Resolved: That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution are essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions, and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the States, and the union of the States, must and shall be preserved.

Resolved: That, with our Republican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our Federal Government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction; that, as our Republican fathers, when they had abolished Slavery in all our National Territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislation, of any individual, or association of individuals, to give legal existence to Slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be maintained.

Resolved: That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign powers over the Territories of the United States for their government; and that in the exercise of this power, it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.

The first paragraph calls for a restoration of principles to “Washington and Jefferson”. Secondly the reliance upon the Declaration of Independence as embodied within the Constitution is honored and preserved which is essentially, if arguing against slavery, liberty for all! Thirdly after paraphrasing the pertinent parts of the Declaration of Independence, the Republican duty is presented;

… to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing Slavery in the Territories of the United States by positive legislation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein.

Thus to Republicans, the Democrats are interpreting the Constitution in an incredibly racist way, not using an honest originalist perspective. If all are to have liberty and if the Constitution is the best government to facilitate and foster individual liberty and it being the supreme law of the land, to the Republicans;

it is both the right and the imperative duty of Congress to prohibit in the Territories those twin relics of barbarism—Polygamy, and Slavery.