God Give Me Rome!

November 5, 2009

Should you with me deal sorrow Lord,

Then may it be of memories past…

And let not the evil hoards

Stick me with their pagan swords,

While tears stain cheeks of saints at last.

 

I lept from Rome into the dark

Where no man knows what waits

Upon my conscience and beating heart

I must stand and never part,

Though consequence be damned to fate!

 

Democrats and Bibles

Seldom a healthy mix,

What peaceful foibles

and war-born travels,

Land the church in an aweful fix.

 

With infants murdered in houses of mercy,

And perversion marching in the streets,

Can we with conscience bow or courtsey

Before a God who hates universly

these ideals we cannot defeat?

 

God, give me Rome

That I could trade

the horror of our present home

for power of the church alone

in place of a Christless facade!

 

- By Shotgun…who wishes we could all just get along…


Evolution of Morality?

October 28, 2009

The following is my review of a blog suggested by Keith C. Thanks Keith for the suggestion and chance for critique:

http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries/ … isions.php

The author of this blog begins by unfairly stating the Christian’s case:

Morality is the final domain that theists cling to in order to justify the existence of God. They argue that, without a supernatural deity (or deities), there would be no reason for people to be kind with one another and we would be constantly at each other’s throats.

Maybe Bill Mahr, who seemingly worked hard to find the most uneducated Christians for display in his movie “Religulous”, could help the author find a Christian willing to make the above argument? So stated, it isn’t an argument a trained theologian would present. Nor is it (certainly) the “final domain” that we Christians “cling to” in order to “justify” God’s existence. (I wonder at the presumptuous tone of the author. Has he really investigated all Christian claims and considered all arguments? I’d love to read his critique of Van Til’s transcendentalism.)

The historic Protestant position is that…due to God’s common grace, no fallen man is as terrible as he possibly could be. Therefore, even pagan societies in the heart of Africa (who are without knowledge of systematic Christian ethics) aren’t as terrible as they could be.

The traditional moral argument is better stated thus: Given an ideological commitment to utilitarianism or other subjective ethical systems…there is no objective grounding for ethical statements and in such systems…were they adhered to consistently, one ethical position would be just as valid as another (the only commanding factor being the strength and ability to implement the desired action.) Thus, no atheist would be able to justify (in principal) any law…other than by an appeal to arbitrary emotional dispositions…dispositions like: “Well, I feel we should only allow actions that benefit society.” If they are strong enough to implement such emotional dispositions, then great.

The author of the blog arrogantly presupposes this definition of morality, without interacting with the history of philosophical speculation surrounding the position. He says this:

Moral behavior is little more than behaving in ways that are beneficial to the group rather than merely to yourself.

Says who? The author wants to arbitrarily stamp the term “moral” on actions that make him feel good…or align with an ethical philosophy he has arbitrarily chosen.

This is a subjective definition, dressed in objective clothing, and the discerning Christian will not let the author get away with it.


What Is a Presupposition?

October 26, 2009

Consider this assertion:

“Dogs pee on brick walls.”

How would you discover if this were true or not? You’d have to go out and find a dog peeing on a brick wall! But then, the skeptic would demand that you prove it really is a dog! So, first, you’d have to properly define “dog” by appealing to a dictionary. But wait says the skeptic, why is the dictionary authoritative? You then appeal to majority opinion! “But wait!” demands the skeptic, how do you know the majority really approved? So, you appeal once more to another thing…then another…then another and another…

In order to prove A, you appeal to B. In order to prove B, you appeal to C…in order to prove C, you appeal to D…and so on ad infinitum! You’ll never be able to prove that Dogs pee on brick walls! (Scroungy mutts the world over bark happily at the news…at least until they read Van Til and find out that proof is possible after all!)

When a person makes an assertion that we as Christians disagree with, then…(in light of the above) we need to play the part of the skeptic. We need to dig into his assertion, and find out what lies beneath it. For example, in saying “Dogs pee on brick walls”…we are assuming what a dog is. We assume what a brick wall is. We assume we know what peeing is. Those are three “presuppositions” that must be true in order for the assertion to be true.

A presupposition is the term given to beliefs that stand behind various assertions. Any belief can be a presupposition. “There is ice in the freezer,” presupposes the belief that the “freezer is working properly.” It also presupposes the belief that “there was water in the freezer.” So the belief: “There is water in the freezer” is a presupposition…a presupposed belief that is taken for granted and implied by the statement: “There is ice in the freezer.”

When A is asserted, we need to look for what supports it (B). Then we need to look for what supports B, (C). We do this until we come to that final belief a person holds that is not authenticated by any supporting belief. If this belief is not self-authenticating in some way…then it is NOT the final link in the chain…we must keep searching.

In this sense (deconstruction), when we do “Presuppositional Apologetics”…we are searching for the ultimate or final presupposition that a person holds. The one belief that is at the very foundation of all his or her other beliefs. When we find it…we examine it, and see if it can authenticate itself, and see also if it is consistent with the rest of his beliefs.

I hope this helps clarify what a presupposition is, and how it is different from the mathematical concept of an “Axiom.” (Presuppositions can be axioms, and axioms can be presuppositions…but the two aren’t the same.)


Domo Arigato Mr. Apologo

October 16, 2009

MrRoboto

“There is not a truth existing which I fear or would wish unknown to the whole world.” – Thomas Jefferson

Little girls across the nation are elated to discover their Biblical superpower! Playing the piano is a wonderful skill. God needs piano players after all. Many little boys can’t contain their grins the day they first pick up a hammer and use it for God!  The church needs carpenters as well!

From lawn-mowers and babysitters, to carpenters and piano players, Christian people grow into their gifts with righteousness and smug self approval following close behind. Oh how blessed is the American church!

But, infrequently, something goes drastically wrong! The angel that delivers Christian gifts is blown off course. That morning, an unfortunate child runs downstairs, flings open the front door, and on the porch, wrapped in a basket…is not the gift of piano playing, carpentry, or lawn mowing, but rather, something sinister, something terrible! They find the gift of apologetics!

There is no servant more hated than the apologist. Doomed to care for people that will despise him, the apologist roams web forums and chatrooms, looking for the chance to publicly defend the faith. A righteous anger burns within him when he hears falsehoods bandied about as truth…when the Christian God is painted as a joke, and Christ is spoken of in blasphemous terms! Indeed, he looks forward to the confrontation! When he’s not engaged in verbal battle, he is studying, preparing…always preparing. Honing his skills in order to best defeat the next principality.

The rulers of the air…foul beings who inhabit the high-places…they fear the apologist! Unfortunately, so do well meaning brothers and sisters in Christ who consider Christianity to be nothing more than “huggle-pouncing” and constant quotes from meaningless contemporary praise songs. These lambs fear any voice other than the messianic state (ruled by the powers of the air.) They spit at, curse, and despise the apologist, because their hearts are hardened against the truth. (The apologist is not a robot, without emotion.) Any honest pursuit of truth is a threat! It’s best to keep the average Christian’s mind addled by emotional fluff sold en mass from Christian book stores across the nation. They simply don’t want to hear certain truths!

But there is a small light breaking through the clouds…shining down hope onto the browbeaten apologist. When one sincere lamb of God opens her heart to Christ, and sees the beauty inherent in the service provided by Mr. Apologist, thanks will pour forth. It’s a glorious sound. A precursor to the honor and acceptance these forlorn warriors will receive in paradise. Upon hearing it…the Apologist, of any denomination, from any theological tradition…cannot help but smile.

Thank you very much (o) Mr. Apologist (o) for doing the jobs, that no body wants to.


John Knox Puts a Woman in Her Place

October 2, 2009

John Knox: In very deed, Madam, that book* was written most especially against that wicked Jezebel of England.

Queen Mary: But ye speak of women in general?

John Knox: Most true, Madam.

Queen Mary: But yet ye have taught the people to receive another religion than their Princes can allow. How can that doctrine be of God, seeing that God commandeth subjects to obey their Princes?

John Knox: Madam, as right religion took neither original strength nor authority from worldly princes, but from the Eternal God alone, so are not subjects bound to frame their religion according to the appetites of their princes. Princes are oft the most ignorant of all others in God’s true religion, as we may read in the Histories, as well before the death of Christ Jesus as after. If all the seed of Abraham should have been of the religion of Pharaoh, to whom they were long subjects, I pray you, Madam, what religion should there have been in the world? Or, if all men in the days of the Apostles should have been of the religion of the Roman Emperors, what religion should there have been upon the face of the earth? Daniel and his fellows were subjects to Nebuchadnezzar and unto Darius, and yet, Madam, they would not be of their religion; for the three children said: “We make it known unto thee, O King, that we will not worship thy Gods.” Daniel did pray publicly unto his God against the expressed commandment of the King. And so, Madam, ye may perceive that subjects are not bound to the religion of their princes, although they are commanded to give them obedience. **

Shotgun: Queen Mary tries to tie in her gender and religion with the authority of the state. This is similar to what various feminists try to do today, though theirs is a different religion, and a different state. Their religion is the religion of humanism, disguised in Christian garb. And their state is the American state; where Satanism masquerades in language of democracy and equality. Knox eloquently places this feminist in her place by pointing out that our Religion is not of the world, nor do our heros pay homage to the trends and whims of contemporary society. We are God’s men…and Godly women will support us and love us. Feminists will get put into their place.

*Knox’s “Treatsie Against the Regiment of Women.”

** http://www.ccel.org/ccel/knox/blast.iv.iv.html


A Letter to Mr. Bertram From His Daughter Maria

September 17, 2009

Forgive me my dear father for not writing sooner. A most scandalous and ill-natured rumor has reached my ears, and I write to inquire as to the truth of it. I’ve heard tell from the servants, as well as from correspondence with my dear sister Julia, that you disapprove of my relationship with Mr. Crawford. I’m sure that I’ve heard wrong, and a day or two will clear up the matter. I eagerly anticipate your response and hope that it will alleviate my suffering. I’m so certain that it would since no father of mine would be so muddle-headed as to deny the wisdom of love.

It’s true father, Mr. Crawford has won my heart in ways my husband Mr. Rushworth never could have. Mr. Rushworth is dry, and uninteresting. He glides about on whims of fancy that shock even Julia (who, as we both know, is disposed to imaginations.) And father, I don’t want you feeling as if your judgment has been defied in the marriage, or that your previous consent is being scorned in some way. This is far from the truth and I’ve attempted to absolve you of this burden by sneaking out of Sotherton with Mr. Crawford as quietly as possible. I trust that my comings and goings were observed by no one other than perhaps the maidservant.

More ways to help with my suffering should not be wanting father, if I know anything of your virtue. I’ve heard something more from Julia, this concerning Fanny Price, who I am to understand, is currently visiting her parents in Portsmouth. In her comparison of our two houses, I heard that she’s alluded to Dr. Johnson’s celebrated judgment as to matrimony and celibacy, saying that “though Mansfield Park might have some pains, Portsmouth could have no pleasures.” Is not this a shame father? Portsmouth is of the lower classes and I wouldn’t want Fanny being accused of racism! Can we condone her thinking more highly of Mansfield Park than of Portsmouth? I realize that this must be a painful revelation father, and I highlight it only because I know how dear Fanny is to you. I want you to know that I am also aware of how well you approve of Mr. Crawford and now you can rest knowing that I have saved him from the love of a possible racist!

I long to be at home with Mr. Crawford and I hope this letter finds your sentiments in my favor without delay. In terms of my finances, Mr. Crawford has seen to my comfort, though I could wish for thirty extra pounds, and I know how you would fret if I were not comfortable, and so I mention here only briefly (in order to lessen your angst father.) I remain forever, and truly yours. – Maria


What a Cute and True Clip!

September 11, 2009


Is “Jew” a Race? (A guest article by my friend R.F.)

September 3, 2009
For those of you who don’t know me well, or your knowledge of me comes from many years ago from either my days in the government schools or the Air Force, I assure you that I am a Trinitarian Christian, and that I believe all people are born with a sin nature. No race is free from the curse of Adam, and everyone needs Christ.

Having made those prefacetory comments, let’s dig in.

When I look at Bahar Soomekh, the actress who played Dorri, the daughter of the Persian store owners in the movie “Crash” (and Dr. Lynn Denlon in the reprehensible “Saw III”), I say to myself, “That is one hot looking Persian.” The man who is an adherent of dispensationalism would probably say, “That is one hot looking Jewess.” I would maintain that Mrs. Soomekh is a Persian, who follows a variety of Judaism and belongs to the Jewish culture specific to Persia and Los Angeles. The dispensationalist would say that she is a Jew, but would not and could not account for her obvious Persian racial features (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_Jew%3F).

If you look at Persian Jews, Ashkenazic Jews, Ethiopian Jews, and Sephardic Jews, they are obviously not from the same race (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions). Or just look at well-known Jews in the entertainment industry such as Alicia Silverstone, Sarah Silverman, Larry David; Sammy Davis Jr. (who was black!); or Paula Abdul; it is obvious that we are not talking about one, homogeneous race.

Jews only constitute a race when it is convenient for the Anti-Defamation League (henceforth referred to as ADL) or some similar body to yell “Anti-Semite”. When a Jew thinks he is being attacked for his race, instead of his religion, it hardens his view, because he cannot help what race he was born into. That is why it is very important that the rabbis and Jewish organizations twist comments about Judaism, Jewish culture, Israel, etc., into being about race. It makes their jobs much easier.

Jews were treated as a race by the Third Reich and to a lesser extent elsewhere in Europe. However, this is because the Jews that hailed from Poland and the western USSR (pure-blood Ashkenazic Jews), frequently have some distinct physical traits. And Ashkenazic Jews look considerably different from Sephardic Jews, which I will talk more about shortly.

Can a Jew be a Christian? Most Jews would answer “No”. According to the ADL’s and Israeli immigration department’s websites in times past, the answer was a resounding “No”. This web site lists all of the reasons why a Jew can’t be a Christian, http://www.jewish-history.com/Cresson/cresson15.html. All of the cited reasons are religious in nature. If being a Jew consisted purely of being a member of some race, then that person could be of any religion he or she wanted to be. But from these Jewish sources, being Jewish is tied to either to the Jewish religion, or more accurately–not being a Christian. You can be a Buddhist and be a Jew, but you can’t be a Christian because the Jewish religion is inherently anti-Christian.

The Anti-Defamation League’s web site has said in the past as well that Jews who converted to Christianity are no longer Jews. Still sounds like it a religious issue to me. But then, of course, the ADL, or Israel or some other Jewish group will turn right around and treat the subject of being Jewish as being part of a race instead of a religious groups. Groups like the ADL want to have their cake and eat it to. It is good for business. “You can’t convert to Christianity because you are Jewish, and because the Christians hate us, you need to give money to the ADL.”

From “Jews Who Were Israelis’: Anti-Semitism and the Mumbai Chabad Center” by Shaul Magid (http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/850/%E2%80%98jews_who_were_israelis%E2%80%99:_anti-semitism_and_the_mumbai_chabad_center):

“In some ways, this issue revolves around the vexing question of “who is a Jew?,” a question whose origins reach back at least to Paul’s Letter to the Romans and is crucial in determining the status of citizenship in the modern “Jewish” State of Israel. One interesting articulation of this dilemma is the 1962 Israeli Supreme Court case of Brother Daniel. Oswald Rufeisen (a.k.a. Brother Daniel), born a Jew in Poland in 1922, was able to escape the Nazis and saved other Jews in the White Russian city of Mir by disguising himself as a Gentile. He secured a job with the Germans as a policeman, eventually converting to Catholicism and becoming a Carmelite priest.

“In the late 1950s, Brother Daniel applied for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return, which allows any Jew to settle in Israel and become a citizen. The Israeli government denied his request on the grounds that even though he was born a Jew, his conversion to Catholicism rendered his (secular) status as a Jew null and void. (Emphasis mine) The Israeli Supreme Court upheld the decision against the general opinion of Rabbinic Law which states that, according to halakha (traditional Jewish Law), Brother Daniel, despite being a Carmelite priest remained, by most definitions, a Jew.

When Jews do push the race angle, it is frequently to push “Jewish racial supremacy”. Here’s a quote from Manichem Begin, former prime minister of Israel, in a speech he made to the Knesset, quoted by Amnon Kapeliouk, “Begin and the Beasts,” (New Statesman, June 25, 1982):

“Our race is the Master Race. We Jews are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves.”

While many Jews do not believe in this sort of rubbish, plenty of them do. Look around, these sorts of sentiments are not exactly rare.

Unfortunately, a lot of the confusion on this issue among Christians started with dispensationalism, which is popular among many evangelicals, Baptists and charismatics. Does the Bible teach that the Jews were a monolithic race in the Old Testament? No, it certainly does not.

Abraham left Ur and settled in Canaan. There he made converts of his servants and others around him, who were presumably Canaanites. From there, the story of the “chosen people,” not the “chose race,” goes to Egypt.

During their time in Egypt, the numbers of the Hebrews expanded drastically. The problem of trying to explain the population explosion that took place in Egypt prior to the Exodus is most easily explained if one believes that the servants of Jacob and their descendants are counted, in addition to Egyptian converts. Consider this quote from Gary North’s “Moses & Pharaoh”, (p. 20):

“If as many as 3,000 came into Egypt in Joseph’s day, then the rate of population growth over the next 215 years was 3.18% per annum in order to reach 2.5 million by the time of the Exodus. Had this rate of increase been maintained after their settlement of Canaan, there would have been over 2 billion of them 215 years later, not counting the “mixed multitude” (Ex. 12:38) that went with them out of Egypt. Two hundred and seventy five years after the settlement of Canaan, there would have been 13.8 billion, roughly equivalent to three times the world’s population in 1980.”

This continued population explosion obviously did not happen, which gives credence to the conversion argument. Now the dispensationalist pastors will yell and scream that this was a sign of a miracle. That’s nothing more than sloppy exegesis looking for a quick cop out.

Think about this. Rahab, the former prostitute from Jericho, who hid the spies, was later included in the lineage of Christ, and she was not a part of the Exodus from Egypt. King David’s friend, Uriah the Hittite, was presumably a convert, and he, too, was not a part of the Exodus, but rather a Hittite.

In the Old Testament, after ten generations a person from a heathen tribe was considered a full-member of Israelite kingdom. There were no racial conditions presented.

From Esther 8:17 (NKJV): “In every province and in every city, wherever the edict of the king went, there was joy and gladness among the Jews, with feasting and celebrating. And many people of other nationalities became Jews because fear of the Jews had seized them.”

The Geneva Study Bible offers the following commentary about the above verse: “Conformed themselves to the Jew’s religion.” That is the obvious interpretation.

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary states: “8:15-17 Mordecai’s robes now were rich. These things are not worth notice, but as marks of the king’s favour, and the fruit of God’s favour to his church. It is well with a land, when ensigns of dignity are made the ornaments of serious piety. When the church prospers, many will join it, who will be shy of it when in trouble. When believers have rest, and walk in the fear of the Lord, and the comfort of the Holy Ghost, they will be multiplied. And the attempts of Satan to destroy the church, always tend to increase the number of true Christians.”

The Jewish Encyclopedia offers the following on Esther 8:17: “Before the day set for the slaughter arrived a great number of persons, in order to avoid the impending disaster, became Jewish proselytes, and a great terror of the Jews spread all over Persia (viii. 17).” http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=483&letter=E

More things to think about:

1) Jonah preached to Nineveh and many people there repented of their evil, Ninevehites were not “racial Jews,” yet many found saving faith.

2) Moses was married to a Midianite (and possibly an Ethiopian, too), a dark-skinned race, so Moses children were not “pure-bred Jews” from Egypt. Yet, the children of Moses are obviously considered Jews. And even more ironically, according to Jewish law, which is itself based on nothing permanent, one’s “Jewishness” comes from the mother.

3) The Canaanites tricked Joshua into being their slaves and thus became a part of the two Israeli kingdoms.

4) King David is described as having a ruddy or red appearance. That does not sound very “Jewish looking” to me because most so-called racial Jews have darker hair (red hair sure does sound Celtic, though). Of course if you want to say there are red-headed Jews, such as the adorable Kyle Brovloski on South Park, then I will respond that this makes my point: that to be a Jew means you can be from any race.
5) The wives of Jacob were Egyptians, yet, Jacob’s children were considered Jewish.

6) What happened to the ten lost tribes? They obviously ended up inter-marrying with people beyond the borders of the two kingdoms.

7) Ruth was a Moabite

These references are all from the OT, which supposedly the followers of Judaism love. But the reality is that they don’t. The Talmud is their real holy book.

From what I can tell, it wasn’t until the Babylonian captivity that the Jewish racial superiority syndrome started to become a part of the Hebraic religion. As a rebuke to the Jewish leaders who espoused pride in being descendants of Abraham, Christ said, “for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham” (Matthew 3:9).

The first chapter of Matthew lists the genealogy of Christ. Look at all of the non-Jewish people: Tamar (v. 3), Ruth the Moabite (v. 5), Rahab (v. 5), and Bathsheba (v. 6).

The Biblical argument I encounter most frequently trying to prove that there is a Jewish race is Romans 10 & 11. In light of the facts from the Old Testament, the “pro-Jew” interpretation of these two chapters, which is not at all concrete, needs to be rethought. More than a few post-millennialists subscribe to the “Jewish race view” because it allows them to look politically correct (at least this is what I think). There are people that reject this pro-Jew interpretation of Romans 10/11, Reformed theologian James Jordan is one of them (of course I have tons of issues with many of Jordan’s beliefs, so my citation here should not be misconstrued as an endorsement).

In closing this section, I would say the concept of replacement theology confuses the issue because their was no chosen race to replace.

What does observing the natural order, or God’s natural revelation tell us?

The Hebrews/Jews/Israelites were a people–not a race. Texans are a people. Even if you use the Alamo-era as a standard, Texans were comprised of whites, Mexicans, American Indians and blacks. Of course, the whites were the dominant race, and there may have been a dominant race among the Israelites, too.

If you look at an Ethiopian Jew, what do you see? An Ethiopian. If you look at a Persian Jew, what do you see? A Persian. The previously cited article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_ethnic_divisions has more information about Jewish ethnic divisions, and it is absolutely fatal to the idea that there is a Jewish race.

I believe in the premise as postulated by Arthur Koestler, who was Jewish, in his book “The Thirteenth Tribe” (despite Koestler’s impeccable Jewish credentials, the book quickly fell down the memory hole). He believed that the Ashkenazim were descendants of the Khazars, a people who were from what is today southern Russia. With time, undoubtedly some Slavic blood entered the mix. Others have written about this subject, too, so Koestler isn’t the only one. But that only explains the background of the Ashkenazim. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars or http://khazaria.com for more.

But even among the Ashkenazim, you have Jews as diverse looking as the aforementioned comedians Larry David and Sarah Silverman. Larry David is a white looking as I am.

The other major Jewish group in the West (aside from the Persian Jews in the Los Angeles basin), are the Sephardic Jews, who are a mix of Berber, Latin, Arab, Chaldean and Assyrian.

Back in 2001, there was an article in the journal “Human Immunology” that stated that there were almost no genetic differences between Palestinians and Jews of Middle Eastern origin. However, a firestorm of protest from “certain quarters” drove the journal to retract that article. As The Guardian, a liberal, mainstream newspaper in the UK newspaper wrote concerning the controversial article, “In common with earlier studies, the team found no data to support the idea that Jewish people were genetically distinct from other people in the region. In doing so, the team’s research challenges claims that Jews are a special, chosen people and that Judaism can only be inherited,” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/25/medicalscience.genetics). You should ask yourself, why is there such a drive to avoid open debate on this topic. The truth does not fear being investigated.

As I mentioned earlier, Jews only constitute a race when it is convenient for the ADL or some similar body to yell “Anti-Semite”. The Semitic people themselves are comprised of Assyrians, Arabs, and some Jews, so the term “anti-Semite” as commonly employed is grossly inaccurate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic). And it turns out, that the Jews of Semitic origins, which are also referred to as Sephardic or Mizrahim, fare pretty poorly among their Ashkenazim brethren in Israel who clearly see them as being from another race. This article http://www.meforum.org/707/post-zionism-and-the-sephardi-question elaborates further. FYI, you can frequently find articles addressing such controversial subject matter in Israeli newspapers such as Haaretz–but you won’t find such articles in American newspapers. Consider, too, the recent revelations about the Ashkenazim using 35,000 Sephardic Jewish children in medical experiments involving ultra-high level of X-rays, http://web.israelinsider.com/views/3998.htm.

Another article detailing how the Mizrachi Jews, the true “Middle Eastern Jews,” are considered to be another race by the reigning Ashekenazim in Israel can be found here http://www.newvoices.org/opinion?id=0037. A pertinent quote from the author, who happens to be a Mizrachi woman:

“Mizrachi Jews who came to Israel with promises of green plots of land and Jerusalem of Gold were plopped down in the middle of the night for months on end, in desert tent colonies. This lowly beginning allowed for continual discrimination against Mizrachi Jews, who largely came from trade or agricultural backgrounds and lacked the educated sophistication of their Ashkenazi counterparts.

“Such prejudice continues to be a shameful part of Israeli society, as the periphery of modern Israel continues to be populated by Mizrachim. The stratification is seen in common parlance, and is seen in the racialized slang term “arsim,” which refers to young Mizrachi troublemakers. Despite the musical and culinary bliss of Ramleh, my time in Israel has been a constant reminder of the Mizrachi/Ashkenazi divide. In Israel, the music, food, and art that remind me of home are categorized as “ethnics,” a Hebraicized English word that means “everything that is not white European.” (Emphasis added)

As far as defenses of the Jewish race position goes, I think the only one the rabbis can come up with is from the oral tradition–that is the Talmud or perhaps the Kabbalah. I am more than prepared to deal with this in hopefully a future short paper on the Jewish religion. But for now I will say that such a position, because it runs contrary to the created order, would indicate that “G-d” is an irrational and capricious deity. But those are things that the Christian God are not.


Is Evolution as a Theory Problematic?

August 31, 2009

I’m taking an online class and we have weekly questions. The question for Monday is this:

Some critics of evolution claim that the evolutionary process is weakened by the fact that it is only a theory. Is there validity to this idea? Does this weaken the argument? Why or why not?
 
I thought this would be a great topic for this forum and it could lead me to some other resources for my homework.

Thanks, guys!

Catie

(See her original question, and the discussion that followed by clicking here:  http://www.americanvision.org/worldviewforum/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=990&start=0 )

Shotgun replies:

Catie,

I’m not sure what a small-town guy can add to what’s already been said, nor am I convinced he should try. But small town guys seem to have noses permanently fixed where they don’t belong, and mouths constantly full of their own feet, and so on behalf of them all, I’ll provide a brief two-cents (and hopefully it will be more poetic than the others, if less accurate):

Scientists aren’t too different from small-town boys. They’re stuck with finitude. Maybe that’s a common ground?  They’re both convinced of an infinity, and both attempt to describe it. But, just like the kid that looks to heaven and says “the sky goes on forever” the scientist is stuck in an equally mysterious world. Perhaps his theory is more complex than the child’s, but is one more important than the other?

When looking for practical results, we could say the naive beliefs of the scientist are more worthwhile than the child’s or the small-towner that believes in better things beyond his front porch. In the end, the small-town guy may realize the front porch was priceless, and similarly, the scientist may realize his “theory” was simply a pipe-dream?

I’d fight to defend the notions of the child. I see no reason why the scientist should give up his theory for any less a price. It may prove to be useless in the end, but the child needs to believe SOMETHING about the sky. The small-town guy needs to have SOME notion of the world. And the scientist, well, to do his job at all he must have SOME view of the world. Without it, he’d not be able to operate.

Even Mr. Vaughn, (who claims to have validated the theory of relativity in a lab) was operating within SOME view of the world. He believed his instruments were working properly, and that his eyes were true! He didn’t test those theories beforehand. (And if he did, then what test would he run to make sure his equipment test was conducted properly? It would be an endless cycle of tests. Tests upon tests to make sure other tests are accurate!)

In the end, we’re all constrained by our finitude. We’re no better off than the child that says “the sky goes on forever!” In this sense, the child’s theory, as well as the theories of the brightest scientists are on equal footing. This is the nature of all our beliefs.

That we have theories, shouldn’t, in and of itself, be a cause for rejecting one or the other of them, since they’re all unavoidable. And should the child be right, and the sky really does go on forever…then let him be happy with what that belief brings him. It’s my hope that God regenerates all our hearts so that we all shared the same “theory” but until that happens, I’ll not rob the child of his, nor the scientists of theirs. (Unless they force theirs on the child. At that point, the small-town boy will extract his foot from his mouth and place it firmly up the scientist’s backside…metaphorically speaking of course!)


A Pagan Hocus Pocus?

August 31, 2009

When you say “God bless America” are you presenting a humble request, or demanding payment? Is there a comma in your statement?

Don’t we deserve it after-all? From the time we are young, we are taught the brilliance of our founders. The luxury of capitalism, the integrity of libertarian economic ideals! Value theory, trade cycles, and free markets. All founded on Biblical principals of course. When followed, these ideals lead to prosperity and wealth. They demand God’s blessing! It’s only logical to conclude that education is the key to surmounting all the world’s problems. There is no man that cannot be blessed by wielding these ideals eh?  Lest we be too hasty, it should be added that Christian virtue be a vital part of this education if we are to demand God’s blessing. When taken together as a system, all people can look at the sovereign lord and demand payment for their adherence to the system! God, Bless America!

And yet, something seems terribly wrong with that attitude. This is a soulless religion, fit only for pagans who utter magic words and spin magic circles hoping they will reap benefits. There is no blood tie with the God who became man. The God who covers His people with His blood! How dare we demand anything of Him? He, Who does what He wills! Oh no, God doesn’t bless systems, charts, or magic words…rather, He blesses people. For no virtue of their own, He blesses whom He blesses, and curses whom He curses, and I praise Him for it!

When a true love for the true God-man is established among His people, an organic out-pouring of appreciation occurs. I’m a lover of the “dominion mandate,” as much as anyone but I cannot stand to see it treated as an analytical truth. It is the gracious outpouring of love from a regenerated people…a love that tempers and molds a people to the very core. There has only been one race to have sustained this…and the world has been blessed through them. Pagan cultures no longer eat each other. Wars between tribes are abolished (temporarily) and babies are no longer sacrificed en-mass (at least as long as this race held sway.)

Sadly, this evangelistic spirit has been taught to children as the most heinous of evils, and given the name “colonialism” or “racism.” Even worse, it’s being re-worded into nothingness…a fantasy. Races, they say, don’t even exist. Certainly not the one that did battle with Satan for so many years. That race of ALL the races doesn’t exist! Any man who says otherwise is a true fiend!

God pours out material blessings on the pagan as well as His own people…but only His own people are blessed with a blood knowledge of Him. A familial bond.

Will you view the world through the lens of blood, or through the lens of a Pagan Hocus Pocus?