text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1842447250335588862017-04-28T02:11:46.845-05:00Sola Scriptura Christian LibertyMark 7:13 "Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered:"JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-48533306422913673782017-04-24T15:11:00.001-05:002017-04-24T15:11:32.777-05:00The Christian position on WallsEphesians 2:14

For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us
JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-45485397673230710072017-04-05T08:33:00.001-05:002017-04-18T17:02:42.346-05:00Is Islam an inherently violent religion?Lots of people cite the Koran and Hadiths to make a strong case that it is. Others respond to them insisting the actions of Terrorists are not supported by Islamic doctrine at all.

I already talked a bit about Sura 9 in The Koran says the Land of Israel belongs to the Israelites. Where I explained that the portion of that Sura cited to make Islam seem violent and Anti-Semitic is just about Arabia, which was all Muhammad intended to conquer.

David Wood is a Christian who posts a lot of videos on YouTube criticizing Islam. He's studied the Islamic sources a lot and I find his videos very informative. But he has a bias for wanting to interpret the evidence as negatively for Islam as possible. And he seems to be a Trump supporter. So it's important not to simply take his word for it on anything.

But sometimes even he acknowledges that the Koran verses used by Jihadis to support Terrorist attacks on Western Nations, state that they're justified because Western Nations are doing Mischief in Muslim lands. Like in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfa7KkDQPvg

So in other words, completely agreeing with what Ron Paul was saying about Blow Back.

So that makes the Islamic teaching different from the Christian one, as we are supposed to turn the other Cheek. But not seemingly too different from the Old Testament though, where how Samson went out is quite indistinguishable from a Suicide Bombing.

You can debate the above paragraph if you want. But point is it's not that unreasonable for a religious text to encourage fighting back against an oppressor. After all the Founding Fathers were Terrorists to the British. And the Maccabees were to the Greeks.

The thing is that regardless of how much their religious texts do or don't support it, the current situation the Islamic World is in encourages violent rebellion. They spent centuries oppressed by the Ottoman Turks and then had their maps stupidly redrawn by the English and French after World War 1.

Under the Caliphs the Islamic World was pretty peaceful and prosperous and civilized compared to Europe at the same time. The Islamic World is what it is now because of what Europe has done to it.

JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-25974641050395611652017-03-05T21:26:00.000-06:002017-03-05T21:31:48.979-06:00The French Revolutionary roots of modern FeminismIt's Women's History month. And as someone interested in the French Revolution, I figure I should mention some of the Feminist who were involved.

My last French Revolution relevant post on this blog talked about The Society of the Friends of Truth, and how to some degree it's philosophy is generally similar to mine. Not everyone in it was a Feminist, some were pretty Sexist in-spite of their Progressive views.

But those notable women and feminists of the Revolution I'm aware of, mainly seem to be from that camp.

Known Society of the Friends of Truth Members

Olympe de Gouges who wrote Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female_Citizen
Sophie de Condorcet who's salon quests included Mary Wollstonecraft when she visited France

Others affiliated with the Girdonions

Madame Roland
Charlotte Corday

 One I'm not as sure on the political affiliation of.

Etta Palm d'Aelders

 Some groups that were specifically for Women.

Fraternal Society of Patriots of Both Sexes
Society of Revolutionary Republican WomenJaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-39747591622848510932017-03-03T13:11:00.003-06:002017-03-07T00:12:18.812-06:00Broader Sexual Morality can't be ignored when affirming HomosexualityOn the main Page of this Blog for my The Bible does not condemn Homosexuality dissertation. I provide links to other posts relevant to the issue. But also to posts about morality in general that may mention the Homosexuality or Transgender issues briefly if at all. Why do I do that?

Because one's broader view of Morality does effect how open one will be to the Homosexuality issue. I think to many traditionalists that partly justifies their not even listening to the argument.

Because even without the Clobber Passages, viewing it as totally okay to be a practicing Homosexual or Bisexual requires at least one of two major assumptions about Biblical Morality to be wrong. 1. That all Sex outside Marriage is a Sin. 2. That Marriage is only between Men and Women.

I have argued on this Blog quite strongly that The Bible does not Condemn all Sex outside Marriage, and that the word Fornication refers to Prostitution. And the origins of condemning Sex outside Marriage lie with Plato. It help to understand my Ye Hath God Said study before reading those, to open one's mind to rejecting the assumption that of course God is super strict and question that is clearly a tactic of Satan.

While I would be very open to equally rejecting the common assumption about Marriage. My studies of it for The Old Testament on Polygamy and New Testament on Marriage posts leads me to conclude The Bible defines it as a between Men and Women.

Now I do not want Biblical Marriage to define Legal Marriage. I'd prefer the Government didn't give out Marriage Licenses at all. But as long as they do I want all alternative forms of Marriage to be legal, Gay Marriage, Polygamy, Polyandry, Polyamory, Group Marriages ect. As long as everyone involved is consenting and an adult, the State should not be allowed to restrict it.

And I feel Christians should refuse to get Marriage Licenses from the Government regardless, for the same reasons I support the House Church movement and rejecting the 501c3 status. As I explain in The State, The Church and Marriage, There is no Marriage Ritual Ordained in The Bible and Marriage License vs Marriage Covenant.

Some Gay Affirming Christians take the opposite approach. I understand why.

1. They don't want their love to be viewed as different from Male-Female love. Marriage should not be necessary to achieve that, David's greatest love was Johnathon, regardless of only being married to women.

2. Some want to stick as close as they can to an Augustinian Sexual morality to avoid the stereotype that Gays and Bisexuals are deviants and perverts, that condoning them inevitably leads to anything goes. But I feel history shows the greatest gateway drug to perversion is being too sexually prudish. When you tell people they're sinning anytime they don't wait for a long term commitment, and shame them for it, it frequently leads to them questioning ant restrictions, even the basic idea of consent. That is again one of the points of my "Ye Hath God Said" study.

Allowing Sex Outside Marriage does not automatically lead to no morals. As long as people try to stick to the Golden Rule, and Christians always seek the guidance of The Holy Spirit. The right decisions can be made without needing to bind people to the minutia of a rule book.

However, since I believe we are not under The Law, I will never condemn or shame any Gay Christians for practicing a Gay Marriage. We are under The Law of Liberty now, which is flexible.

My point here, is that in trying to open peoples mind on this Subject. I think it's often necessary to begin with Broader issues. Then once that is achieved it may be easier for them to accept that what they thought they knew about the Clobber Passages is wrong.JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-29386990537433814302017-02-23T06:42:00.000-06:002017-04-19T18:52:53.706-05:00I want to propose an interesting theory on the origins of Islam.
Waraka ibn Nawfal was a sort of mentor to Muhammad, but he died before the taking of Medina. Everyone agrees he was a Christian monk of some sort, but what sect is not agreed on. A certain Jesuit Conspiracy theory says he was a Roman Catholic but that is the most obviously wrong, Catholicism as we know it kinda still didn't exist yet, the Bishop of Rome wasn't really trying to assert any influence over the East. Wikipedia used to say he was an Ebonite, but then changed it to Nestorian last I checked. Ebonite makes far more sense to explain the nature of Islam, as shall be made clear.

He was also said to have made Arabic translations of The Torah, the Psalms and a Gospel. Because technically the references to this say "The Gospel" everyone assumes this and the Koranic references to "The Gospel" mean the entire New Testament. However the potential Ebonite context causes me to doubt that.

The Ebonites were one of a few, often confused with each other, sects of early Jewish Christians who believed Jesus was The Messiah but not God, (another were the Nazarenes, though it may be sometimes all Jewish Christians were called that, even fully orthodox ones). That makes them very similar to the Islamic view of Jesus. Mostly these kinds of sects also rejected the Virgin Birth making them quite unlike the Koran. But I recall reading at least one reference to a Heretic being condemned by one of the Early Church Fathers for teaching the Virgin Birth and yet denying the Deity of Christ.

I also agree with those who say it's a misreading of the Koran that makes people think it says Jesus didn't die on The Cross, the intent of the Sura cited is to say he died by Allah's will not the Jews.

Sects like the Ebonites often only used one Gospel, a Hebrew translation of the Gospel of Matthew that removed any direct references to Jesus Divinity or the Virgin Birth, which would likely include the entire Nativity narrative. But it may be possible a similar sect that decided later to accept the Virgin Birth may have restored the Nativity Narrative, but perhaps not in a complete form.

Also since Jews calling Rome Edom can be traced as far back as the DSS, maybe it's possible one of these edited Hebrew Gospels replaced all references to Rome with Edom. And may the name of Caesar could have been replaced with Seir, since both mean Hairy and have a phonetic similarity.

Everyone knows that Mariam the mother of Jesus is the only woman mentioned by name in the Koran. But it is also the most notorious historical anachronism of the Koran that Mariam is referred to as the daughter of Amram (Imram) and sister of Aaron (Haroon), and is thus made the same person as Mariam the sister of Moses. Muslim apologists try to explain this away, but it's obvious what the Koran says, a Sura about her is titled the Family of Imram. Well based on the above observation I have a theory on why this mistake was more plausible to make than it at first seems.

So imagine if Muhammad's (and perhaps many other Arabs of the period) only knowledge of The Bible was via flawed Arabic translations of The Torah, some or all of the Psalms, and an Ebonite version of Matthew. (Being illiterate Muhammad couldn't even have read that directly) And generally lacked direct knowledge of the grander historical context.

The Torah ends with a Yehoshua or Yeshua being set up to succeed Moses. And then the next historical book they have revolves around a person named Yehoshua or Yeshua. It would be easy to imagine that those were the same person and the Gospel narrative directly followed The Torah's narrative.

A Hebrew version of Matthew would probably use Almah in its quotation of Isaiah 7:14. In my post on the word Almah I paid great attention to how The Torah also called the sister of Moses an Almah, and even tie a Psalm into that.

If it was an altered version of Matthew with the nativity only partly restored, it could easily have lacked Jesus genealogy. But also perhaps him being called a son of Joseph would be taken to verify him being of the Tribe of Joseph like Joshua was. Some Muslims have misused Matthew 22:42-45 to argue Jesus was saying he was not a Son of David.

Most Old Testament figures not in The Torah who the Koran alludes to are mentioned somewhere in Matthew. David, Elijah, Jonah, and also Matthew's reference to Solomon includes the Queen of Sheba who has Islamic legends about her.

The Koran sometimes refers to those who followed Allah in some sense already before Muhammad as three groups rather than two. In one it's Christians, Jews and Sabeans. There I think the Sabeans are probably Yemanite Jews (and maybe also Christians) while the Jews are primarily the Jews of Medina/Yathrib.

Other references though divide the People of The Book into three Books. The Torah, The Psalms, and The Gospel, and it associates the Psalms with David. The Jews of Himyar in Yemen are speculated to have actually been a revival of the Sadducees, while the Jews in Medina would have been Rabbinic Pharisees, it's via them that the Koran seems to once quote the Mishna in Sura 5:32.

What's interesting is that Matthew 22 has Jesus deal with the Sadducees by quoting The Torah, because as Josephus tells us they considered only The Torah canon. But He deals with The Pharisees by quoting a Psalm of David, Psalm 110. Is it possible that influenced by this the Koran meant Sadducees by people of the Torah and Pharisees by people of the Psalms?

The Eschatology of The Koran shows no clear evidence of being influenced by Revelation. The Mahdi might have been partly based on the White Horseman of Revelation 6 and/or 19, but that tradition came later heavily influenced by 7th and 8th centuries Eastern Christian traditions about the Last Roman Emperor. In fact the most compelling evidence that the Koran's eschatology has no knowledge of Revelation is choosing a Spear rather than a Sword to be the weapon Isa/Jesus will wield when he returns.

Where would this Spear idea have come from? The Spear of Longinus tradition comes from a reference in John, and that's not a weapon Jesus himself wields anyway. Joshua has a spear in Joshua 8, but my theory is Muhammad probably wouldn't have had access to that book.

Well Psalm 35, a Davidic Psalm, in verse 2 uses a word for Spear, and also uses the word Yeshuah, translated Salvation, the noun that the names of Joshua and Jesus both come from. So perhaps that Psalm influenced the Islamic idea of Jesus having a Spear?

So, that is my interesting theory on why the Koran makes its most notorious anachronism.

What's interesting is that Ahmed Osman is a modern Muslim fringe historian who tries to argue that the Gospels were just a corrupt allegorical retelling of the story of Joshua. So others before have sorta noticed this connection. JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-22800914249869442042017-01-31T10:58:00.000-06:002017-01-31T10:59:37.907-06:00Trump signed an executive order sinking the TPPGiven the post I made after Trump was elected it would be remiss of me not to mention this. Especially since I criticized TYT for acting like they never predicted Trump would pass it.

Still, as long as NAFTA and CAFTA still stand I'm not truly impressed yet. And there is always the risk he may try to re-brand the TPP under a different name.

But of course none of that would take away everything Trump is doing that is horrible. Continuing Drone Strikes that kill civilians in Syria and Yemen. The Ban on letting people come to America from Muslim countries his company hasn't done business with. And he seems to be going through with building the Wall.

So in-spite of doing one thing I like Trump is still getting a big fat F- from me.JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-61077005114785012472017-01-30T00:48:00.000-06:002017-01-30T00:48:30.373-06:00Complex history of the Word SodomiteThis is my third post specifically on the Sin of Sodom being Inhospitality (Or Trumpism as I now like to call it).

What prompted this post was an interaction I had on IMDB. SO this is mainly my archiving those sources here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Many cognates in other languages, such as French sodomie (verb sodomiser), Spanish sodomía (verb sodomizar), and Portuguese sodomia (verb sodomizar), are used exclusively for penetrative anal sex, at least since the early nineteenth century. In those languages, the term is also often current vernacular (not just legal, unlike in other cultures) and a formal way of referring to any practice of anal penetration; the word sex is commonly associated with consent and pleasure with regard to all involved parties and often avoids directly mentioning two common aspects of social taboo—human sexuality and the anus—without a shunning or archaic connotation to its use.

In modern German, the word Sodomie has no connotation of anal or oral sex and specifically refers to bestiality.[11] The same goes for the Polish sodomia. The Norwegian word sodomi carries both senses. In Danish, sodomi is rendered as "unnatural carnal knowledge with someone of the same sex or (now) with animals".[12]
https://nwanglicanblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/sodomy-a-biblical-word-study-that-might-surprise-you/

Roman Catholic scholar, Mark Jordan in his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (1997) shows that the term "sodomy" originated in the eleventh century as a new classification of certain 'clerical sins'. While early church fathers such as St. Ambrose and Origen clearly associate sodomy with inhospitality, by the time of St. Augustine, cultural associations around the word, communicated through secular poetry and legend shifted both its denotative and connotative meanings.
http://www.banap.net/spip.php?article122

 " 'Sodomy' as defined by religion and law included a range of condemned practices, 'a way to encompass a multiple of sins with a minimum of signs' as one critic has cleverly expressed it." (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 61)

Despite the term's enduring flexibility, from the twelfth century sodomy was increasingly associated with sex acts between men. (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 62)

...

In the older sense, sodomy surpassed all other crimes; in its sinfulness it also included all of them: from blasphemy, sedition, and witchcraft, to the demonic. It was, as many extracts declare, the crime without a name; language was incapable of sufficiently expressing the horror of it. The category was a repository for many items, yet in the eighteenth century a highly specific portrait of an individual, and of a group, was increasingly displacing an undiscriminating, demonic generalization.(McCormick editor, Secret Sexualities A Sourcebook of 17th and 18th Century Writing, p. 118)

...

Sodomy surpassed all other crimes. In its sinfulness it also included all of them, blasphemy, sedition, witchcraft, the demonic: it is yet without a Name: What shall it then be called? There are not Words in our Language to expressive enough of the Horror of it. The foregoing suggests, however, a degree of insecurity about the range of the activity, and what it ought to be called. It was terrible in its sublimity, but unnamed in its sublimation. What was changing was that a specific kind of portrait of an individual was taking over from a theological category of generalized evil. (McCormick, editor Sexual Outcasts 1750-1850 Volume II Sodomy, p. 5)

...

"Clearly when we come across a writer using the words 'sodomy' or 'buggery' in relation to homosexuality we do the words less than justice if we simply disregard their other meanings. The one word was used because the one concept was intended, and this was a broader concept than simply homosexuality. The notion underlying these passages was not homosexuality but a more general notion: debauchery; and debauchery was a temptation to which all, in principle at least were subject." (Bray, Homosexuality in Renaissance England, p. 16

...

"On the one hand, historians confirmed sodomy's capaciousness: it means masturbation, several of forms of same-sex sexual behavior, bestiality, non-procreative sex (oral or anal most commonly) between a and a woman, or any form of sex in which conception was impossible." (Crawford, The Sexual Culture of the French Renaissance, p. 4)

...

"Initially, sodomy was a theological construct, serving only intermittently to refer to a clear variety of sexual activity or to bring into focus the behaviour of a particular kind of person." (Mills, "Male-Male Love and Sex in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500", p. 14 in A Gay History of Britain Love and Sex Between Men Since the Middle Ages editor Matt Cook)

...

"In the early modern phase (here roughly before 1688), the term sodomy covered any activity that challenged the 'Nature' of the church-state authority. The logic of sodomy's deviation from the feudal order was precise but the category covered a wide range of transgressive acts: witchcraft, usury, political dissent, nonconformity, any kind of nonreproductive, non-matrimonial sexuality, and exogamous social relations, for example with Jews or Muslims (Bredbeck, pp. 2-23). By the late eighteen –century, 'sodomy', more or less, narrowed to mean a male-male erotics typified by anal penetration (buggery)." (Shapiro, "Of Mollies: Class and same-Sex Sexualities in the Eighteen Century", p. 159 in In a Queer Place Sexuality and Belonging in British and European Contexts, editors Kate Chedgzoy, Emma Francis, and Murray Pratt.)
So I hope this information is helpful to many. JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-49402288647959631162017-01-27T05:51:00.000-06:002017-02-23T12:27:33.940-06:00The Flood in the Days of MosesToday, I want to talk about a common criticism of The Koran I consider unfair. I'm not an Islamic Apologist, I'm working on a study where I will address an anachronism in The Koran that is best explained by Muhammad having very limited knowledge of The Bible and this showing it did not have a supernatural origin.

But I find it very unfair to suggest it's an anachronism when The Koran refers to a Flood in the time of Moses. Every Islamic Apologist agrees those references are to the drowning of Pharaoh's Army in The Red Sea. Yet I keep seeing Christians act like that's a stupid excuse and clearly the mere presence of the word Flood proves Muhammad thought the Global Flood happened in the days of Moses, or that there was more then one Global Flood.

Obviously, an army being drowned on land that was just previously dry can qualify as a flood. It's not a normal flood, but neither was the Flood of Noah, since they usually aren't Global and don't normally involve Gates in Heaven or Fountains of the Great Deep being opened.

The KJV of Exodus 15:8 uses the word Flood (though it's Plural) in describing the Red Sea incident. In The Hebrew this isn't the word for Flood used most of the time, so I am overall making little note of this verse. But I mention it for the KJV onliers, if your insist that the KJV is a perfect translation, then you've already lost all right to say it's wrong for the KJV to call this incident a Flood.

Amos 9:5 also uses Flood in the KJV in reference to Egypt, though in The Hebrew that word is the usual word used to refer to The Nile.

Joshua 24 as well uses Flood in the KJV in a way that is confusing. In the Hebrew it's actually the word for River and probably refers to the Euphrates. But a KJV only Absolutist has no choice but to argue that Flood refers to the Red Sea incident.

The Hebrew word for Flood (Yabul) used in Genesis 6-10 is used pretty rarely, outside those Chapters only in Psalm 29:10. So yeah if you want to limit the idea of flooding to only that Hebrew word there is no Biblical basis for applying it to the Red Sea incident. But other Hebrew words become Flood in English, and so if Arabic likewise used words for Flood to translate those words, there is plenty of basis for applying it to the drowning of Pharaoh's army.

Revelation 12:15-16 uses the word Flood in a context commonly seen as being an Echo of when Israel was lead by God to the Wilderness. This Flood is often interpreted as representing an Army. One basis for that is Daniel's usage of the Hebrew word Sheteph in 9:26 and 11:22.JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-69216862157553292642017-01-24T01:51:00.003-06:002017-03-05T17:52:13.760-06:00I'm a Continuationist, but most Pentacostals and Charismatics are wrong on what the Gift of Tongues isActs 2 clearly spells out for us what it is. It involves people in the crowd hearing The Gospel preached in their native Tongue, even though that Tongue was not known to the ones preaching it.

Tongue is being used here as a synonym for language, the same word is used in contexts that are not supernatural.

Almost everyone has it in their heads now that somehow Paul in 1 Corinthians was talking about something completely different, some cryptic mystery language. He was not.

The problem with them seeming incompatible is that what happened in Acts 2 may not be how we usually picture it. I don't think each listening was hearing everything in their own language regardless, like a Star Trek universal translator. But rather different Apostles were given different Tongues to Supernaturally speak. And that fits the imagery better, of each being given a single flaming Tongue.

And so I think the confusion at Corinth came from some believers showing off their Tongue in church, even though no one listening there could understand it. And so Paul says if someone is going to speak in Tongues in church there should be an interpreter to translate it. An unknown Tongue simply means no one there knows it, not that no Human anywhere knows it.

And that would be simply rude behavior even in a non Supernatural context. Like an American Otaku who's actually learned Japanese speaking it constantly at a small Anime convention where no one else there can understand it without subtitles. It just makes him look like a pretentious show off.

1 Corinthians 13:1 however is what people cling to for their "Angelic Language" doctrine. Paul is saying in this verse he has spoken in Tongues, plural, of both Men and Angels. That verse does not at all prove the Supernatural Tongues are only the Angels. I'm actually starting to wonder if Paul didn't know Greek at all, but he spoke in the Greek Tongue to stenographers like Barnabas who could write in it. But perhaps this is even more true of Peter and John, and the brothers James and Jude, who's background doesn't make sense for them to know Greek at all, and this is constantly used against The Bible by skeptics.

I personally feel it's pretty obvious that the Angels speak Hebrew as their native Tongue. The only two who are named have Hebrew names. There is no mystery Angelic Language, that idea is where Occult concepts like John Dee's Enochian Language comes from, but even he knew he should logically start with Hebrew in constructing his made up Angelic language. The Angels may very well speak a more pure and un corrupted dialect, but it's most certainly Hebrew.

The many people out there thinking they're speaking an Angelic Language may just be misinformed. They don't know what they're speaking.

But do not forget that I am a Continuationist, this Supernatural ability is one I believe Christians can still use. It may be less common now since in the modern world more people are naturally multilingual, and The Bible is available in every major language. But in a situation where a Christian may need it, I believe The Holy Spirit can still provide it.JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-74428393779936902402017-01-23T12:46:00.001-06:002017-01-23T12:54:35.393-06:00The Gospel According to JaredMithrandir OlorinJaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-12375194228226386112017-01-19T23:56:00.001-06:002017-02-27T13:39:43.546-06:00Words translated EternalAionion, Aionios, Aioniou, are different forms of Strong Number 166. It is often translated in Latin, English and other translations as Eternal or Everlasting in many key verses. And ultimately the enemies of Universalism are entirely dependent on that translation being accurate.

I don't want to get too deep into the linguistic arguments others have made, starting with how they come from Aion which means Age (Eon comes from Aion), which makes the use of it's Hebrew equivalent Olam in Daniel 12 the same issue.

No, the point today is to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, to show two places, two confirming witnesses, where Scripture uses this word in a way that in context totally contradicts it meaning eternal. Naturally these verses aren't the occurrences of the word used to build the doctrine of Eternal punishment.

Romans 16:25 in the KJV.

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
In the Greek the last two words are Aionion and a word that means "kept secret". Aionion is translated "since the world began". There are other places where Aion is translated world rather then Age, like "My Kingdom is not of this World", and Paul calling Satan the "God of this World", it should be Age not World there as we know in the future Jesus will take ruler-ship of the Kosmos from Satan. The very next verse says "but now is made manifest". Proving that it can refer to a time period that will expire.

The other key verse is Jude verse 7.

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
"Eternal fire" there is Aioniou fire. There it is used in the exact same form it is in Mark 3:29, John 6:68, Hebrews 6:2, and Romans 16:26 referring to the "Everlasting God".

Obviously the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah isn't still raging north of the Dead Sea.

But also important is that Ezekiel 16:53 says that Sodom will be restored just as Samaria and Jerusalem are promised to be restored. Sodom had no survivors, they considered Lot a foreigner living among them even on their last day, and Lot's descendants became their own nations, Moab and Amon. And no one was a believer who perished in Sodom's destruction. Sodom can only be restored if eventually Jesus shed Blood redeems even the Sodomites.

In Revelation 22, those who were cast into the Lake of Fire are now just outside New Jerusalem.

And in in the Sheeps and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25, people overlook that neither the Sheeps or Goats were those who believed in Jesus in this life. We are the brethren. Chuck Missler likes to say they are the Jews here (and argue this isn't the same judgment as the White Throne judgment). But earlier in Matthew Jesus had effectively disowned His mother, brothers and sisters and said His real Brethren are those who believe in Him.

Luke 3:6 says that all mankind will see God's Salvation. Romans 5:18-19 says that as by one Man's Sin all are condemned, so by one Man's righteousness all men are Justified. Romans 11:32 says all Men are bound to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on ALL men. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says as in Adam all die so in Christ ALL shall be made alive. And Peter tells us it is God's preference that none shall perish.JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-45148442044912101842017-01-18T18:00:00.000-06:002017-03-28T23:02:22.048-05:00Lex Meyer's book Immortal advocates for Soul Sleep and AnnihilationismI've watched his two part interview with Rob Skiba on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-ufMPwt_Co
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c37lN0yDtc

I agree in the sense that contemporary Heaven is not what we are looking forward to. And while I disagree with Soul Sleep, rejecting The Resurrection, or arguing it is not a liberal Bodily Resurrection is far worse of a false doctrine. And I agree with him that being Born Again refers to the Resurrection. And I can agree with him on where to put the comma when Jesus says to the thief on the Cross "I tell you this day, you shall be with me in Paradise".

Much of what he says is stuff I already addressed in The Soul and Spirit Biblically. And I will be doing a separate post on the Prophecy Blog about what he has to say regarding Enoch and Elijah. But that spins off from what I've already argued regarding them. And I agree with him over Rob Skiba about The Book of Enoch and Jasher being bad sources.

I can also agree with his take on the Witch of Endor and Samuel, in fact he convinced me of that, it does go against how I've mentioned it before. And I agree on the Rich Man and Lazursus of Luke 16 being a Parable and not something to build doctrine on. And his take on the point of what Jesus said to the Sadducees in Matthew 22 is also valid.

And I agree there is no pre-existence, the Soul is created when The Body is given Life at first Breath.

But he doesn't address the references to Sheol/Hades in 1 Peter 3 and 4, or Ezekiel 32, or other passages considered relevant to the Harrowing of Hell. Zechariah 9 also refers to souls in prison. And verses in the Torah that refer to Abraham joining his father when he died, and Moses joining Aaron, though they were buried far apart. And Jesus promises His believers they would Never Die in John 11:26.

Meanwhile it is dangerous to build doctrine on Ecclesiastes, that book is partly Solomon describing things how they seem to mortal eyes, to proclaim all that wrong at the end. Christians absolutely do believe in something New under the Sun, the New Testament.

My biggest issue is his writing off the Matthew 27:52-53 Resurrections as temporary Resurrections like Lazarus. I believe firmly this verse is tied directly to Daniel 12, only other time the Resurrection is refereed to where Many rather then All are raised. This ties in directly to the Harrowing of Hell, Jesus lead the Dead out of Sheol on the 15th of Nisan, same day Moses lead Israel out of Egypt.

He's a Post-Tribber, so he unlike me thinks Revelation is not Chronological. The "First Resurrection" is a classification rather then a chronological sequence. Probably NONE were Resurrected in that chapter, they are simply refereed to, they followed Jesus in Revelation 19.

Also he responds to using that the Beast and False Prophet were still there 1000 years later against Annihilationism by saying they were Angelic beings not Humans. That happens to be another major annoyance of mine, whenever someone for whatever agenda tries to deny the Humanity of The Beast. Revelation 13 at the end clearly calls him a Man, and the word for Man used is Anthropos. As I've laid out elsewhere, Anthropos means Human, it never means male gender, and Angels probably wouldn't have Genders anyway. If it was in Hebrew the word used here would probably have been Adam or maybe Enosh, but not Zakar or Ish.

The argument for him being not a Human comes down to him ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and from that arguing he is Apollyon of Revelation 9, who is called an Angel. The word Angel is used to describe humans sometimes, in fact in the same form of it used of Apollyon Jesus used it of John The Baptist. IF Apollyon is the same entity as one of the Beasts, then he was a Human being sent there at some point. Maybe Judas Iscariot who went to "his own place".

In fact twice Angels in Revelation clearly identify themselves as having once been normal Humans. That I consider further poor some OT saints are already Resurrected. The Angels of the Seven Churches in Revelation 1-3 I think are believers in those congregations who held the office of Prophet. And the Angels with the Seven Trumpets I've heard argued are seven OT Prophets who foretold corresponding Prophecies. I think that's interesting.

Meyer makes an argument similar to Universalists, questioning how the New Creation can be so Happy if people are being tormenting forever. But he thinks Annihilationism is sufficiently more merciful. But here is my question, why bother Resurrecting the Un-Beleivers only to immediately kill them? That seems unduly cruel to me. Where Meyer slips on the Importance of the Resurrection is that it's only our Sin being paid for by Jesus Shed Blood that allows the Resurrection to be possible at all. If you're Resurrected you have been Saved, and since everyone gets Resurrected......

I also agree that Plato is the source of much bad doctrine. But my problems with Plato are more in how he broke with the usual views of the Pagan Greeks before him. The Pagan Greek view of the After Life was no more or less wrong then what the Pagan Canaanites believed which it was pretty much based on. And The Hebrew Bible condemns a lot about the Pagan Canaanites but never the gist of their view of the after life. The issue is they were the opposite of Universalism, they believed in no hope of escape from Sheol/Hades for anyone.

Also the assumed After Life view of casual Christianity which I find just as annoying as he does, comes from Zoroastrianism rather then Gnosticism. If any Gnostics believed an After Life view similar to the Zoroastrians it was the Persia based Manicheans who Augustine came out of. But generally the Gnostics believed all Souls were part of one original Soul, that they seek to return to. Sometimes it's Sophia as The World Soul, sometimes it's the Pleroma. We see a similar idea expressed in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith, when Yoda says that the dead become one with The Force, and the closing Yoda arch episodes of Clone Wars elaborated on that concept. We also see this when some modern New Agey type people say so and so "merges with the Infinite" when they die.

And this is another aspect of Gnosticism that can be traced back to Ancient Egypt. Everything in existence was said to be one of the kas of Atum the creator god, who originally contained all things within himself, according to Wilkinson, Richard H. (2003). The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson. p. 99

We also see in Acts 23:8-9 that the Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection, they also denied the existence of Spirits and Angels. From what can learn outside The Bible they also seem to have believed in an ancient form of Deism, a belief that a Creator God exists but that he is uninterested in interfering in Human affairs. Deism seems to have arguably began with Aristotle and his Unmoving Mover idea. And Aristotle also rejected Plato's doctrine of an immortal Soul. So denying the immortal Soul also comes from Greek philosophy.JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-69951811573542325682017-01-17T14:05:00.001-06:002017-01-17T14:05:56.752-06:00Yea, Hath God SaidJaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-90416487996603297042017-01-16T19:46:00.002-06:002017-03-19T21:32:46.320-05:00Pre-Islamic Arabs were an important part of Early Church HistoryThe history of Arabia and Christianity I think ultimately begins with the theory I proposed last year that The Magi came from Yemen rather then Persia.

Acts 2:11 confirms Jews of Arabia were at Pentecost.

Perhaps the first Arab Christian was Agabus, the Prophet mentioned in Acts 11. Some have argued his name is neither Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek but makes most sense as being Arabic. Since I agree with Bill Cooper in After The Flood that the Idumeans were from Ishmael's son Dumah rather then Edom, and given the influence of the Nabatean Kingdom of Petra at this time, that certainly seems plausible.

Paul in Galatians says he traveled to Mt Sinai in Arabia. But that doesn't quite tell us anything about Arabs who were early Christians.

In the New Testament itself the Arabian presence in The Church is small. But in the coming centuries their influence will be quite important. But constantly overlooked because of the Greek and Roman biases in how Early Church history was recorded and is still studied.

The Petra based Kingdom wasn't the only Nabatean Kingdom. The people of Osroene were also Nabateans. The Nabateans came from Nebojath/Neboiath the Firstborn Son of Ishmael. Many historians doubt the traditions of Abgar V becoming a Christian, and on that they may be right. But there is little doubt that either Abgar VIII and/or Abgar IX was a Christian. And I'm inclined to believe the theory that Lucius of Britain of the Liber Pontificals was actually a scribal error for Lucius Abgarus of Birtha or Birecik.

Philip The Arabian was a Roman Emperor of the first half of the Third Century. He was born in Arabia. There is a controversial belief that I have become convinced of that he was actually the first Roman Emperor to be a Christian, even before Constantine.

Eusebius refers to both Abgar and Philip as Christians but neglects to mention that they were both Arabs.

I personally have a theory that Helena, the mother of Constantine, born about 250 AD, may have been a descendant of an Abgar of Edessa. But that may be for another post some day.

The Ghassamid and Lakhmid kingdoms both formed around the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, and both became Christian kingdoms pretty early on. The former mainly in modern Jordan, but included the Golan Heights and a little bit of Syria. The latter in part of modern Iraq west of the Euphrates river. They and the Tanukhids were among many Joktanite tribes of Yemen who had migrated north following the destruction of the Ma'arib Damn and the conquests of the Himyar Kingdom.

From the Tanukhids came Queen Mavia, who reigned from 375-425 AD. There is disagreement over whether she was raised a Christian or converted. She long before Muhammad had a dream of creating a united Arab Kingdom. But she was betrayed by Theodosius, the same Roman Emperor who first officially made Christianity the State Religion. Under her a Bishop named Moses was appointed the first Arab Bishop of the Arabs.

The Lakhmid Kingdom would exist until just before the birth of Islam as I'll discus below. The Ghassamid Kingdom lasted a little longer and was eventually conquered by the Muslims.

I want to mention the Encyclopedia of Pleasure which is a collection of Arabic stories involving Lesbianism that have been preserved. One of the stories is set before Islam, during the lifetime of Muhammad but before he had his first "vision" at age 40 in 610 AD. Because at least one of the two women in the story would have been a Christian.

One of the stories told in the book is a story about the first Arab lesbian Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah, known as al-Zarqa', and her love to a Christian woman Hind Bint al-Nu`man, who was the daughter of the last Lakhmid king of Hira in the 17th century. When Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah died, her faithful lover "cropped her hair, wore black clothes, rejected worldly pleasures, vowed to God that she would lead an ascetic life until she passed away…" She even built a monastery to commemorate her love to al-Zarqa'

  Sahar Amer (2 May 2009). "Medieval Arab Lesbians and Lesbian-Like Women' Journal of the History of Sexuality
The Lakhmid king in question is al-Nu'man Ill ibn al-Mundhir. From what we know historically he did have a daughter who's name isn't mentioned.

Nevertheless, according to creditable historical accounts, when Khosrau II demanded Nu'man's Christian daughter as part of his extensive harem, he refused the Shah's demand. In response, Khosrau II had him crushed by elephants; however, according to a Syriac chronicle, Khosrau invited Nu'man to a feast where he was dishonored and trapped;

 Philip De Souza and John France, War and peace in ancient and medieval history, p. 139; Khuzistan Chronicle 9
Interesting that he was so determined not to marry his daughter off in a back then perfectly normal political marriage. And we have a completely different tradition that his daughter was a very Monogamous Lesbian. I suspect the story may well be historical.

Some historians have even speculated that a larger percentage of the family Muhammad came form then is usually assumed was either Christian or Jewish. As is his family is known to have included at least one Christian, who I mention at the start of this study.JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-15055217198409997802017-01-16T14:45:00.002-06:002017-04-28T02:11:46.894-05:00The Feminism of Ancient ArabiaI reject the typical Islamaphobia of the modern Western Church. I would never convert to Islam because of it's Theology, Soterology and Christology. But I believe the violence of the modern Arab world is mainly the result of being politically occupied for centuries by first Ottomans and then European colonialism. They didn't have this problem under the Caliphs of their Golden Age. And on the Ishmael tag of my Prophecy blog I've spent time talking about potential common ground.

However one major area where the claims of Islamic Apologists seem awfully hard for me to buy is when they want to make Muhammad seem like an ancient proto-Feminist. Because Sura 4 is pretty irredeemably Misogynist, and Sura 33 is problematic too. The Huffington Post article claiming Muhammad was a Feminist provides not one single quote from The Koran.

Muslims can be Feminists in-spite of what The Koran says. But that doesn't change what the Koran says.

Now if someone wants to go "The Bible is sexist too" that's a fair direction to take the conversion. But the thing is I have actually cited Scripture in my arguments that The Bible is more Feminist then most people realize. And I will never deny that parts of it certainly reflect being the product of a Patriarchal Culture. But The Bible never says that how the world is is how it should be, it says the opposite. Nor will I deny mainstream Christianity has been guilty of a lot of the world's misogyny for the last 1700 years.

But the thing I have observed that others talking about the Sexism of Muhammad have not. Is how I don't feel it can even entirely be blamed on being a product of his time. I've seen a lot of evidence that leads me to conclude Pre-Islamic Arabia was quite shockingly Feminist, maybe even matriarchal, compared to the then contemporary Greco-Roman world at least, including sadly most Christians and Jews living within it.

The evidence of this starts contemporary with Muhammad, before he had his first "vision" at age 40 in 610 AD. He was married to an older woman, who was a very wealthy and successful business woman, Khadija bint Khuwaylid. Muhammad's early success in spreading his religion was dependent on her support, and other key relatives of her's. But she died in 620 AD, and a few of those key relatives of her's died around the same time. It wasn't until after she died that Muhammad started practicing Polygamy. And it wasn't till after those deaths he finally conquered Medina and then started giving the Median Suras, the latest Suras to be given. Suras 2, 4 and 33 and 65 were all Median Suras. From those came all of the most undeniably Sexist of the Koran's verses.

I can't help but wonder if Muhammad was insecure about being supported by a wealthier woman for so long. But regardless, the fact remains that perhaps if he had died before Khadija Islam's record on Women's rights would be much different. Of course gender isn't the only thing Muhammad started changing his tune on around this time, from 610-624 Jerusalem not Mecca was the location Muhammad taught to pray towards. It was also a Median Sura (Sura 2, the first Median Sura) that introduced the doctrine of Abrogation. Sura 9 was the second to last Sura given.

I could talk about the Queen of Sheba and some Extra-Biblical Arabic traditions related to her implying that the Kingdom of Sheba was ruled by women for 60 straight Queens. But for here I want to stick to recorded history.

From 750-675 BC the Qedarites, the same tribe that Muhammad's family would eventually come from. Were ruled by five successive ruling Queens.

Zabibe (ruled c. 750–735 BC)

Samsi (ruled c. 735–710 BC)

Yatie (ruled c. 710–695 BC)

Te'elkhunu (ruled c. 695–690 BC)

Tabua (ruled c. 678–675 BC)

And that is pretty much the beginning of Arabs entering recorded History. Besides an Arab leader being present as the Battle of Qarqar, who's gender we can't be certain of since the Assyrian who wrote the record probably never met them.

Later the Nabatean Kingdom based in Petra often seemed to have the Queens literally Co-Ruleing with the Kings.

Chuldu (ruled 9 BC–40 AD), she ruled jointly with her husband Aretas IV Philopatris

Shaqilath (ruled 40–70/71), she ruled jointly with her husband-brother Malichus II; after his death she was regent for her son Rabbel II Soter

Gamilath (ruled 70/71–106), she ruled jointly with her brother Rabbel II Soter

Queen Zenoobia is sometimes classified as an Arab. But her ancestry is a bit controversial as she claimed descent from Hannibal and Anthony & Cleopatra through the marriage of their daughter Cleopatra Selene to Juba of Mauritania.

And one of my personal favorite overlooked figures of History was Queen Mavia, an Arabic Christian Queen who reigned about 375-425 AD. I'll be talking about her more in the future.

It seems Muhammad's influence didn't change Arabia over night, given the power and influence Aisha and maybe Fatima were able to wield in the years following his death. But it still seems clear looking at History that Arabia has been a lot worse for Women since Muhammad then it was before.

It shouldn't surprise us that follows of Muhammad aren't keen on Female Rulers. As the Hadiths relate.

"Narrated Abu Bakra: ... When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."" - Sahih Bukhari 9:88:219
So thus we haven't often seen female rulers in Islamic Arabia.

Also Sahih Bukkari records.

`Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.".
JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-53124234200684256762017-01-13T11:38:00.002-06:002017-04-19T18:56:50.806-05:00The Koran says Israel belongs to the IsraelitesThe Koran and early Hadiths contain many declarations that the Land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel, just as much as the Land of Arabia belongs to the Arabs.

This argument is made by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi The Qur'an and the Land of Israel.

You can also read The Quran is a Zionist Book.

There is also no support from the Quran for the alleged holiness of the Dome of the Rock. It supports only Mecca as being a Holy Site for Muslims. Regardless in the context of where I believe The Temple was it can be rebuilt without needing to damage either The Dome or the Al Aqsa Mosque. Others meanwhile think it wasn't on what we now call The Temple Mount at all but in the City of David near the Gihon Spring. That is where I think David's Tabernacle was, so could also be a valid spot to build The Temple. [Update: I have become more open to that theory but for different reasons.]

Islamic Eschatology foretells Israel's return to Her Land.

Qur'an 17:104 : And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter (wa3'dul akhirati) cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.

Qur'an 59:2 : He it is Who caused those who disbelieved of the followers of the Book (Jews) to go forth from their homes (leave their exile) till the first gathering (Li awalil hashr) you did not think that they would go forth, while they were certain that their fortresses would defend them against Allah; but Allah came to them whence they did not expect, and cast terror into their hearts; they demolished their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers; therefore take a lesson, O you who have eyes!

Qur'an 17:4 : And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture: Ye verily will experience corruption (exile) in the earth twice, but Ye will then after (thumma) ascend (ta'lunna) to a great height (or station).

Other Quran verses on Israel belonging to Israel.

O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. [Qur'an, sura 2:40]

Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations (for My Message). [Qur'an, sura 2:47]

And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah." [Qur'an, sura 2:63]

"We [Allah] made a covenant with you [Children of Israel] and raised the Mount [Sinai] above you, saying: 'Grasp fervently [the Torah] what We [Allah] have given you, and bear in minds its precepts, that you may guard yourselves against evil'". [Qur'an, sura 2:65]

And remember We [Allah] made a covenant with the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now). [Qur'an, sura 2:83]

After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.[Qur'an, sura 2:85]

We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! [Qur'an, sura 2:87]

Those to whom We [Allah] have sent the Book [Torah] study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: [Qur'an, sura 2:121]

O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others nations (for My Message).[Qur'an, sura 2:122]

"When God made a covenant with those [the Children of Israel] to whom the Scriptures were given He said: 'Proclaim these to mankind and do not suppress them'". [Qur'an, sura 3:187, "The 'Imrans"]
"God made a covenant with the Israelites and raised among them twelve chieftains [the princes of the twelve tribes of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel]". [Qur'an, sura 5:12, "The Table"]

"Bear in mind the words of Moses to his people [the Children of Israel]. He said: 'Remember, my people, the favour which God has bestowed upon you. He [Allah] has raised up prophets among you, made you kings, and given you that [the Torah and the Land of Israel] which He has given to no other nation. Enter, my people, the holy land [of Israel] which God has assigned for you. Do not turn back, and thus lose all'". [Qur'an, sura 5:20, "The Table"]

"We [Allah] made a covenant with the Israelites and sent forth apostles among them". [Qur'an, sura 5:70, "The Table"]

"We [Allah] divided them [the Children of Israel] into twelve tribes, each a whole community". [Qur'an, sura 7:159, "The Heights"]

"We [Allah] sent forth Moses with Our signs, saying: 'Lead your people [the Children of Israel] out of the darkness into the light, and remind them of God's favours'. Surely in this there are signs for every steadfast, thankful man. Moses said to his people [the Children of Israel]: 'Remember God's goodness to you when He delivered you from Pharoah's nation, who had oppressed you cruelly, slaughtering your sons and sparing only your daughters. Surely that was a grevious trial by your Lord. For He had declared: 'If you give thanks, I will bestow abundance upon you: but if you deny My favours, My punishment is terrible indeed'". [Qur'an, sura 14:6-7, "Abraham"]

"But it was Our [Allah's] will to favour those [the Children of Israel] who were oppressed in the land [of Egypt] and to make them leaders among men, to bestow on them a noble heritage and to give them power in the land [of Egypt]; and to inflict on Pharoah, Haman and their warriors the very scourge they [the Egyptians] dreaded".[Qur'an, sura 28:3, "The Story"]

"We [Allah] gave the Book [Torah] to Moses (never doubt that you will meet him) and made it a guide for the Israelites. And when they grew steadfast and firmly believed in Our revelations, We appointed leaders from among them who gave guidance at Our bidding. On the Day of Resurrection your Lord will resolve their differences for them". [Qur'an, sura 32:22, "Adoration"]

"We [Allah] gave the Book [Torah] to the Israelites and bestowed on them wisdom and prophethood. We provided them with wholesome things and exalted them above the nations".[Qur'an, sura 45:17, "Kneeling"]

"We sent forth Noah and Abraham and bestowed on their offspring [the Children of Israel] prophethood and the Scriptures [Torah]". [Qur'an, sura 57:26, "Iron"]

To those can be added Sura 5:32 which quotes the Mishna and gives Israel authority over the land of Israel.

The verses cited from the Quran to support Anti-Semitism and/or make it look Anti-Semitic use the term "Jews" not Israel. And I think all are really more about specific Jewish groups as they existed in Muhammad's time. Mainly I think the Jews of Medina/Yathrib and Khyabar, (but perhaps also Jews of Yeman particularly Himyar, though they may instead be who were meant by the Sabeans). And the Prophetic passages linking a Sect of Jews to Dajjal were about Jews of Mesopotamia at the time, when the Exilarchs still existed, and one had only a century earlier attempted to revolt against Persia. Also early Caliphs resettled the Jews of Khaybar in Iraq.

Sura 9, which was the last major Sura and the basis for laws like demanding Jews and Christian pay a Tax, the Jizya. Was only about Jews and Christians living in Arabia, Muhammad's political goal was only the Unification of Arabia (a definition of Arabia that probably includes Jordan, the Golan Heights, and much of Syria and Iraq west of the Euphrates River).

The Bible also on the other hand gives little support for Israel taking anything East of the Jordan River (that Includes the Golan Heights). The land that equates to modern Jordan, the Golan Heights, and most if not all of Syria west of the Euphrates is given to Ishmael, Abraham's Firstborn. Prophecies of the future Messianic Kingdom clearly refer to Kedar and Nabojoth, (Ishmael's first two sons and the ones Muhammad is variantly claimed to descend from) still existing in this region, Isaiah 60:7.

What I consider to be the accurate Maps of the Tribal Allotments of Ezekiel give the 12 Tribes of Israel nothing East of The Jordan River or Sea of Galilee.

In ancient Israel three Tribes settled East of the Jordan early on, Half of Manasseh, Gad and Reuben. But if you read Numbers 32 where the origin of this arrangement is laid out, it's clearly presented as not what God wanted for them originally, and eventually they were the first carried into exile by Assyria. Dan also would wind up being affiliated with parts of Syria (and the Golan Heights), and that too is linked to Dan's disobedience, and where Jeroboam set up one of his Idols.

"What about Abraham being promised everything to the Euphrates River?" I'll bet you're asking. Well I have argued that his Firstborn Ishmael was not cut off as we often assume, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah, were given the lands between the Jordan and Euphrates, and also Arabia.

David also ruled all the way to the Euphrates. But the nations beyond the Tribal Allotments were ruled as Tributaries, he ruled like Jesus will in the future as a King of Kings. The Gentile Nations he conquered kept independent self governance.

Even in terms of Lebanon, we clearly see God was fine with Tyre's independence during the reigns of David and Solomon. It was only a problem when Israelites worshiped their gods.

If I were in charge of modern Israel, I would either give the Golan Heights to Jordan, or let the Druze (who descend form Ishmael's son Jether through the Greco-Roman era Iturians) self govern themselves there.

Originally the British were going to give all of modern Israel and Jordan to the Jews, but Jordan was wisely pealed off to be a nation for the Arabs of the region. The "Palestinians" already have a state. And to this day over 80% of the population of Jordan are Palestinians, including the current Queen and mother of their future King.

The Theology of the Koran I would never agree with. But it is in fact compatible with The Bible in terms of what land belongs to Israel and what land belongs to Ishmael. It's modern politicians of various camps that want to create a conflict. JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-29922798283522212042017-01-10T15:52:00.003-06:002017-01-10T15:52:39.542-06:00Plato, Augustine and Traditional Christianity (On YouTube)

The original article on my Blog.
http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2015/03/plato-augustine-and-traditional.html

This was my first time actually editing it first. Still not perfect.

From there you can easily get to my main dissertation on Homosexuality in The Bible.

For something teaching something similar to my view of Romans 1 I recommend Unclobbering Romans by Colby Martin. But his take on the other Clobber Passages don't agree with mine as much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZygH8d0XL0JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-26003260032311293232017-01-08T07:41:00.002-06:002017-01-08T12:38:42.972-06:00Alexander Hamilton did not believe "all men are created equal"Sadly none of the Founding Fathers held views on "Race" that are acceptable to modern standards. However they did not all hold the same views either.

It is a fact that pretty much all of the notable Founding Fathers opposed Slavery. The Wallbuilders website does a good Job documenting quotes on this subject. But they are a website with a Dominionist agenda, ignoring plenty of the context of all of that. I am also someone well aware that opposing Slavery was not in itself proof of not being a Racist, many Whites opposed Slavery because they wanted Africans gone form the country entirely. There was often a genuine outrage at how Slaves were treated, but that was often little more significant then being outraged by Animal Cruelty.

I've seen it claimed a few times that George Washington freed his slaves when the Revolutionary War ended, but Thomas Jefferson did not. Out of an agenda to try and make Jefferson seem the worst of all of them on this issue. This is false, Washington didn't free his slaves then, I know this because there are quotes of him explaining why he didn't. The State laws in Virginia pretty much made it impossible for a Freed Slave to remain Free. Thomas Jefferson also lived in Virginia and provided the exact same explanation. You can morally question handling the situation that way if you want, I don't know what I would have done if it were me, but you can't just ignore it and deny that there was a reason for people who opposed slavery to continue owning slaves regardless. Thomas Jefferson included a condemnation of slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, it was the Southern delegates who had that part removed.

Depending on what you choose to emphasize, it can be easy to make Alexander Hamilton's views on Slavery seem preferable to Thomas Jefferson's. That is unfortunate to me as on nearly every other issue I certainly see Alexander Hamilton as the villain of the Founding Fathers. And thus I lament the fact that a popular Musical praised by my fellow SJWs for it's Ethnic casting has made Hamilton suddenly the most popular of the Founding Fathers.

Alexander Hamilton was anti-immigration. "the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities." Quoted Grant and Davison, The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens, p. 52.

Hamilton also once said. "All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well born, the others the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second." Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin's Press. New York. 1977. p.51.

So Hamilton may or may not have believed poor uneducated lower class white people were equal to Negreos. But he certainly did not believe "All Men are Crated Equal". It shows that that quote came from Jefferson not Hamilton, doubt it's sincerity all you want.

When people say things like the Electoral Collage exist because the Founding Fathers didn't think the common man could be trusted to make decisions. What they really mean are the Hamiltonians.

Alexander Hamilton wanted to make the Presidency a life time appointment, and same with Senators. If he'd had his way the President would be a King in all but name. There was prior precedent in Human History for a King being democratically elected, chiefly Pre-Republic Rome.

Speaking of Rome. Hamilton once told Jefferson that Julius Caesar was the greatest man who ever lived.

Alexander Hamilton actually liked the from of Government Britain had at that time, he viewed it as the ideal form of Government. He supported Revolution only because he felt the Colonies should have their own Parliament and not be Subject to one across an Ocean. (Men like Hamilton saw themselves revolting against Parliament far more so then The King.) Parliament did not represent the entire population of Britain back then, only the Nobility and wealthy land owners.

That is why I find Webster Tarpley's praising of Hamilton hilarious, he clearly does not know what he's talking about.

People will sometimes use Thomas Jefferson's support for the French Revolution to say he approved of The Terror. This is done taking things way out of context. His last strong statement of support for the French Jacobins was in 1793 before he had learned that King Louis XVI had been executed, because news didn't travel as fast back then. The full Reign of Terror started even later then that. Jefferson did once that had happened condemn Robespierre.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/french-revolution

Alexander Hamilton however condemned the French Revolution from the start, in 1789 long before any of why it's viewed so darkly today happened. Hamilton supported our Revolution based on geographical independence, the Peasantry of France wanting basic Human Rights was not something he could bring himself to Support.

That Hamilton had at least one quote specifically condemning Robespierre I find ironic. Because in many ways though not all Robespierre was the Hamiltonian of the French Revolution. He too wanted a Strong Authoritarian Central Government with a strong leader. He too wanted a Republic that was a Monarchy in all but name.

In Conspiracy Theory circles, the chief disagreement between Hamilton and Jefferson talked about tends to be the Bank. Depending on one's agenda each gets accused of being the pawn of Rich Bankers while the other is painted as their enemy. However the problem with Webster Tarpley's pro-Hamilton narrative is that even non Conspiracy Theorists like Wikipedia admit that the Bank of The United States was partly owned by Foreign Bankers. So his claim that it was a protection against British manipulation of our Economy is just plain wrong. Tarpley constantly talks about the British system being the ultimate Oligarchy, but he ignores the Bank of England so he can praise Hamilton while avoiding that the Bank of The United States was directly molded after the Bank of England. Now I mostly agree with Tarpley on Donald Trump.JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-36011103652899960222016-12-20T14:53:00.001-06:002017-04-16T00:27:44.627-05:00The Bible and Private PropertyConservatives/Republicans, and Christians who advocate an Anachro-Captialist form of Libertarianism. Like to claim The Bible is firmly for the concept of Private Property.

I would agree that the Bible is against Government owning all Property, and hence against Socialism. Simply taking moral commands to give to the Poor as calling for Socialism is basically asking the Government to enforce Morality.

However I am among many who reject the idea that Communism is compatible with Socialism, because true Communism is Anarchistic. If I have a political ideology at all it is a form of Libertarian-Communism or Anarchist-Communism. To us Socialism is not an alternative to Capitalism, Socialism is Capitalism where the State is the Capitalist,, that goes for the USSR, China, North Korea and Cuba.

Many Libertarian Communists make a distinction between Private Property and Personal Property. But the key issue is we believe that the means of production should be shared.

The Bible depicts the ultimate owner of all Land as God who Created everything. But He gave the Earth to Adam, to Mankind as a whole. Then later He specifically gave the Near East to Abraham, and Israel to Jacob. But it is for the Israeli people as a collective, not just for those rich enough to be able to buy everything.

Yes there is much emphasis on Inheritance for Families. But the Torah includes many regulations for that, some of which were linked to The Jubilee. But most importantly is the right of the Poor to glean what they need to live off Farm Land regardless of who owned it. That is utterly incompatible with a modern Conservative or Anachro-Captialist understanding of Private Property.

Much has been said about how the Early Church in Acts practiced a form of Communism. I've seen many Conservative Christians say this was the Jerusalem Church and why that Church failed. I would say there is plenty of evidence all the Churches Paul founded and wrote to were doing the same thing. And I see no evidence the Jerusalem Church failed, it existed at least until the Bar-Kockhba revolt.

A notable Christian who's views on politics may be similar to mine was Gerrard Winstanley. He's been called both one of the first Communists and one of the first Christian Anarchists. He was contemporary with the English Civil War of the mid 17th Century. He cited Samuel's speech against Monarchy in I Samuel after Israel called for a King as being against the idea of Government in general. He interprets Israel's system under the Judges as being a form of Anarchism, and emphasized the Communism practiced by the Early Church.

Other contemporaries of his that are of interest were John Liburne, who was similar but less Radical, Henry Vane and Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island and true innovator of American Religious Freedom. Vane was allied with Cromwell at first but quickly came into conflict with him when Cromwell started showing his true Proto-Fascist colors.

During the French Revolution, many people were descendants of the above men's Political views, but not men I'd agree with Spiritually being mostly Atheists and Deists. They were members of the Society of the Friends of Truth, founded by Nicholas Bonnevile who had previously been in England (where he was friends with John Oswald). And included men like Condorcet and his wife Sophie, Sylvian Marchel, Francois "Gracchus" Babeuf, and Olympe de Gouges. Their contemporary kin in the English speaking world included Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. But in Germany strangely enough included some members of the controversial Bavarian Illuminati, chiefly Kingge. I'm still a conspiracy theorist, but one who's come largely to view the hype around the Bavarian Illuminati as a distraction.

Marco di Luchetti has made an English Translation of one of Bonneville's books. And in the introduction talks at length about the ideology and politics of the group. on things like Property and Taxation. He is wrong in how he massively overstates Bonneville's connection to the Illuminati, and in confusing Iluminism with the Illuminati, Terry Melanson is a better historian on The Illuminati. Bonneville like Jefferson publicly defended the Illuminati but there is no evidence he was a member, if he'd been recruited by Bode it would be mentioned in Bode's memoirs of his trip to France which we still have. But he's very good at describing the different political factions of the Revolution. And it talks about how Kingge even though not a Believer modeled his Communist Utopia after the Judges system in The Bible.

Upon reading Marco di Luchetti's book, I definitely still have areas of disagreement with Bonneville and Brissiot, chiefly their pro War policy.

Robespierre was a Demagogue and a Statist. In truth he was more a Monarchist then the Royalists, but wanted himself to be the Dictator. The unholy marriage of Communism and Socialism began with Buonarroti. He was a follower of Robespierre, and has also been claimed to be an Illuminati member though there is no documentation that he was. He wrote a biography of Babeuf which misrepresented him as a follower of Robespierre, and misinformed many for generations to come including Nesta Webster in her World Revolutions book. He was an important figure in the history of the Carbonari and Italian Freemasonry. Mazzini then carried on his mantle in a more militant and Nationalist form leading to Italian Fascism. And at the same time Bounarroti influenced Karl Marx and Engels.

Larken Rose is also an Unbeliever, and follows a somewhat Anachro-Captialist form of Libertarianism. But he has this video which I find good to cross reference with my posts about Patriotic Idolatry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0

So I don't have an exact model of how I feel Libertarian-Communism should look. But this is all stuff I feel Christians need to start rethinking our assumptions on.JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-55527500091664958822016-11-20T03:58:00.000-06:002016-12-20T13:54:56.208-06:00Morally I absolutely believe in Free HealthcareIt's just that I believe it should be provided by The Church not The State.

In The New Testament believers are instructed to care for the sick and the poor. And there is no qualification that it applies only to fellow believers. We see this in Acts 5:15-16.

There is a reason many Hospitals are named the same way Catholic Churches are. Because in medieval Times the Churches were the Hospitals. The Hospital the Knights Hospilitar were named after was a Hospital in Jerusalem that was also a Church, all those Crusader orders were linked to specific Churches in their founding. The Knights of Lazarus were also linked to a Hospital.

Now in the first Century we were not yet numerous or wealthy enough to succeed in caring for all the sick and injured of the entire world.

But today the Roman Catholic Church is wealthy enough to provide universal Healthcare to every Nation where they are the majority and/or the state religion. Plus help a great deal in caring for the sick and poor of the U.S. and Japan where they have a significant presence. It'd be nice if the modern descendants of the Knights Hospiliatars, the Knights of Malta, spent less money funding Islamaphobia and Neo-Con foreign polices and more money funding Hospitals.

The Anglican Church can likewise afford to do the same for every Common Wealth Nation, plus help in the U.S. where many American Christians still favor Anglican style Protestantism.

But even without the help of Rome or London, the Mega Churches and largest home grown denominations of the U.S. can afford to provide Universal Healthcare to the entire Nation if they worked together to do so.

Now many Churches are making an effort to still follow this mandate. But the wealthiest ones aren't doing nearly enough. Some Hospitals are still technically run by Catholics, I think it's shameful that any Catholic Hospital has to charge money to provide healthcare.

Since I'm an English Speaker who was raised Catholic, I'm going to limit my comments on the moral responsibility of well known churches to just the Catholic and English Speaking denominations.

This is perhaps also a good time for me to address those sects that teach seeking secular Medical help is somehow a lack of Faith in God. That you should Pray for a miraculous healing and nothing else. By misusing passages like James 5:14-15.

One of the human authors of the New Testament was a physician, in fact it's said besides maybe Paul, Luke wrote more of it then any other author. And no this was not his job only before being Saved, he was Saved already when Paul met him at Troy. He served as Paul's personal physician.

In 1 Timothy 5:23 Paul gives Medical advice, alluding to the Health benefits that Wine can sometimes have.

The Bible even acknowledges the existence of Mental Illness, contrary to popular assumption. Matthew 4:24 clearly refers to the Demon possessed and "those which were lunatic" as separate, not the same thing. But demons may sometimes take advantage of mental illnesses hence Luke 17:15-18. Today Lunatic is not the politically correct term, but it was a proper medical term back then.

The strongest Biblical argument advocates of this dangerous doctrine have is the KJV rendering of 1 Chronicles 16:12.

"And Asa in the thirty and ninth year of his reign was diseased in his feet, until his disease was exceeding great: yet in his disease he sought not to the LORD, but to the physicians."
Which is clearly a negative tone.

The word translated "physicians" here should more literally be translated "healers". And given the words this word is related to (like Rapha and Raphaim) I think it's clear it sometimes refers to occult healers. In fact I think this situation is meant to parallel Ahaziah in 2 Kings 1 seeking after Baalzebub when he was sick. The condemnation here is turning to a god other then Yahuah.

Going back to the initial topic. My view is The Church should be providing Free Healthcare itself, if The State has to do it then The Church is failing. JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-88612964169015715582016-11-19T11:50:00.003-06:002017-01-22T16:50:57.181-06:00Song of Solomon, typology and symbolismThis is a follow up of sorts to Song of Solomon, Who's Who.

I argued that The Beloved isn't Solomon, and that Shulamith, the female lead of the story, is Shelomith, Rheoboam's daughter and Solomon's Granddaughter.

It has occurred to me since that some might see Chapter 3 Verses 6 through 11 as evidence against that argument. Solomon is definitely in view there, and that section is often chapter titled "The Wedding Procession". But I feel that can fit with Solomon being in the role of the father of the Bride, "giving her away" in modern wedding terminology.

An interesting side note is how this section saying Solomon built a Royal Chariot could lend further support to the idea that Salmoneus of Greek mythology was a corrupted memory of Solomon. In the Septuagint Solomon is spelled Salomon, as opposed to how The New Testament spelled the name.

Another Greek myth that may be a corrupt memory of a Biblical Truth is the Garden of the Hesperides possibly reflecting the Garden of Eden. In fact this possible connection is the reason it became popular to view the Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge as an Apple even though The Bible never says that. I agree with the argument for that fruit actually being something Grape like, and may post on that in the future.

What I noticed recently though is how what is attributed to the Apples of the Hesperides actually fits the Tree of Life not of Knowledge, it gives eternal life. I decided then to check for every reference to Apples in the King James Bible. And it is mainly the references in the Song of Solomon that I felt could give poetic typological support to the Fruit of Life being represented as Apples. Though verses calling Jerusalem the Apple of God's eye would be fitting if you think Zion is where the Garden was. And Proverbs 25:11 could be the source of the Apples being depicted as Golden.

What I mainly want to talk about this post however is the typology.

Again, I'm not against a typological interpretation, only against using that as an excuse to dismiss how it positively portrays pre-martial non reproductive sexual intimacy. Even if you think the narrative is a Parable or work of fiction and not events that actually happened, it's still absurd to think the book wasn't written consistent with the sexual morality of it's author. And we believe The Bible's ultimate Author is God. When an Author depicts sex he disapproves of, it has negative consequences, the sex in the Song of Songs does not.

What I am going to do here is question the traditional typological interpretation. Not fully rejecting it, just considering another possibility.

Traditionally, The Beloved is Jesus/Yahuah and Shulamith is The Church and/or Israel. Even others before me who separated Solomon from The Beloved see it that way. Those making Solomon a villain of the narrative say he's a type of The Antichrist, while my suggestion could fit making him the Father of the Bride role, which is Laban's in Genesis 24, and I often see as ultimately representing Adam.

While the majority of the time Jesus is Masculine and The Church is Feminine. I have shown that The Church is the Man-Child of Revelation 12. And noted how The Desire of Nations of Haggai is a feminine noun. And Yeshua used as a word for Salvation is often in it's feminine form, Yeshuah. And the Shekinah is also grammatically Feminine. Chuck Missler thinks the Wisdom of Proverbs is Jesus even though that's consistently Feminine, in both pronouns and the grammar of the Hebrew words translated Wisdom. So The Holy Spirit does mix things up in terms of the gender representation sometimes.

The word Beloved is used a lot in the New Testament of The Church, and of presumably Jerusalem in Revelation 20:9. Thrice Daniel is called Beloved. Deuteronomy 33 uses Beloved this way talking about Benjamin. Jeremiah also used it of Jerusalem.

Shulamith actually is the much more central and active character of the Song's narrative then the Beloved is. That fascinates me as a Christian Feminist. But given how I define The Gospel it makes me uncomfortable with seeing her as The Church.

She not the male is more then once described as having Hair like Goat's hair. That can fit Jesus description in Revelation 1, and how The Goats of Yom Kippur represent Jesus.

But the smoking gun to this controversial suggestion that the Woman not the Man of the Song is the Type of Christ is Chapter 5 Verse 7, which in context is clearly The Bride talking. I think this may well be the most overlooked detail of the book.

"The watchmen that went about the city found me, they smote me, they wounded me; the keepers of the walls took away my veil from me."
Tell me, in Christian Theology, does this happen to The Church or to Jesus?

In this context, Solomon becomes a Type of God The Father, like Abraham in Genesis 22&24.JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-62696271604407630072016-11-19T06:18:00.002-06:002016-12-18T18:42:31.614-06:00When did it become Liberal to Hate people?Much of this blog has been dedicated to me arguing that The Bible supports Liberal views over Conservative ones far more often then most Conservatives are willing to face.

However lately my greatest obstacle to showing that The Bible is a Liberal book hasn't been one of the issues you might expect. But rather it has become that a very loud portion of the American Left has decided to reject the most unambiguously Liberal thing Jesus said "Love your Enemies".

I've been noticing this problem for awhile. In how it used to be conservatives who complained about sympathetic villains in movies and TV, and so on. But now many Feminist websites view redemption for a male villain as problematic.

However it is the reaction to Trump's election that has really boiled this over. I didn't vote for Trump or for Clinton, I don't want to say whether it was Johnson or Stein I voted for because I don't enthusiastically support either.

I've seen lately TheMarySue and various Tumblr blogs get all outraged at John Stewart and Jennifer Lawrence for saying we shouldn't condemn all Trump voters as Racists.

The people talking about the Popular vote count love to keep saying he got less votes then Romney, clearly so they can convince themselves they aren't condemning anyone who helped elect Obama when they say all Trump voters are irredeemable. However it's clear to me Trump's deficit compared to Romney's votes is far smaller then the Romney votes he didn't get, considering how Romney himself was one of his harshest critics. That Utah independent probably only got Romney voters, Johnson I'm sure got many. And I know at least one person in my family who voted Republican in both Obama's elections but for Clinton this time.

90% of the the Bigots who voted for Trump were gonna vote Republican no matter what, they were just more enthusiastic about Trump then past ones. And almost none were ever eligible Democratic voters, they would have not voted or gone Third Party. The very few that will vote Democrat no matter how illogical that is to their views, didn't change this time, one random KKK leader did endorse Clinton, and with far less qualifications then David Duke's Trump support had.

Trump's victories in Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania. And maybe to a lesser extend North Carolina and Florida. Was dependent on a huge segment of the Urban poor, who voted solely on Trump's promise to end Free Trade Agreements and financially punish those who ship factory Jobs overseas. At least half of these people voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries, and probably for Obama back when neither major candidate addressed that issue.

I personally voted Sanders in the primary based on this issue. But it wasn't gonna make me vote for Trump since I suspect he's gonna betray those who voted on that. But regardless to many others who also didn't trust him he was the only option even paying them lip service.

Saying "whether or not they voted because of Racism it's still Racist that they didn't consider that a disqualifying factor" is easy to say when you're financially fortunate enough to even have Internet access.

I don't deny White Privilege or Male Privilege, or Straight Privilege of Cis Privilege. But those aren't the only privileges, and there are plenty of White people financially unfortunate enough to make them less privileged then many non-whites.

I suppose most of us engaging in Social Media are blind to the fact that people poor enough to not even have regular access to the internet still exist. But they do, I know a few in my family. They are either unemployed, or employed but barely making enough to get buy. Some who are struggling to even feed their children. Some who wanted to be retired by the time they reached their current age but weren't able to. And other pressured to retire before they were fully prepared.

And before any Democrat starts calling poor people who voted based on their own persona financial interests Selfish. I should remind you that in every past election the perception has been that the Poor people voting solely on their personal financial interests were voting Democrat, because they support Welfare and Food Stamps and Obama Care. And for that Conservatives called them Selfish constantly.

I know many people who had consistently voted Democrat in every Election in my lifetime except maybe this one since I haven't generally been asking people. Even though they are Anti-Gun Control, and Pro-Life and pretty annoyingly Conservative on Social and Foreign policy issues. Who's view of Black Lives Matter has resembled Giuliani's more then Obama's. Heck the most Liberal state in the country just voted again to keep the damn Death Penalty.

Every past Democratic victory in my lifetime including Gore getting the Popular vote in 2000 has been dependent on the poor, many but not all of whom were minorities, who voted Democrat on financial issues only. So every Social Justice Warrior calling those people Selfish now have become exactly what they hate.

That's the only thing truly different about this Election. Trump had more support from the Poor then any past Republican in my lifetime. And that is why my sympathy for Trump voters is actually greater then my sympathy for Bush voters.

And yes I'd have a similar message to people who'd have been outraged if Trump lost. Most Trump voters can't possibly understand the situation of the people most hostile to voting for Trump. This goes both ways.

And while most of the Trump voters I'm talking about may were White, they did include African Americans and Mexican Americans and Muslims. In fact I remember reports on how Trump did better then expected among Hispanics and Millennials.JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-44907979571967947062016-11-11T11:11:00.001-06:002016-12-18T18:44:14.556-06:00Islam and Socialism Can my fellow Liberals please stop making encouraging Bigoted assumption when attacking Bigotry

What I mean today is mainly sarcastically calling Obama a "Muslim Socialist" as if those two things can't go together. Obama is not a Muslim (he wouldn't be bragging about his Hamuman Idol if he was). His ideology is a form of Socalism, but to mild to satisfy members of the actual Socialist party or even most Bernie Sanders diehards. But regardless of what Obama isn't the two can and do go to gather.

Islamic Socialism on Wikipedia.

Islamic socialism is a term coined by various Muslim leaders to describe a more spiritual form of socialism. Muslim socialists believe that the teachings of the Qur'an and Muhammad—especially zakāt—are compatible with principles of economic and social equality. They draw inspiration from the early Medinan welfare state established by Muhammad. Muslim socialists found their roots in anti-imperialism. Muslim socialist leaders believe in democracy and the derivation of legitimacy from the public.
I actually think their interpretation of the Koran is pretty solid. I feel now that the main political difference between The Bible and The Koran is that The Koran is Socialist while The Bible is Communist. As usual The Bible is the side I take, but Biblical Communism I shall address more in the future.JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-89440232168729338742016-11-09T23:12:00.002-06:002017-01-18T17:19:36.520-06:00I'm a Univeralist, an Evangelical Universalist to be exactI've been hesitant till today (November 9th 2016, Central Time Zone) to go fully Public with this. Because until I was a Universalist I had no view you could label Theologically Liberal, I was a Theologically Conservative Social Liberal and Political Libertarian with Communist leanings.

The most important project on this Blog to me has been advocating for rethinking the traditional views on Sexual Morality especially Homosexuality. And in the sense that that message is for Christians skeptical of the idea I was afraid of someone going "He's a Univeralist so of course he says anything goes", even though the main dissertation and the vital post on Plato and Augustine were all made before I became a Universalist.

However, I have decided that in terms of it as a message for LGBT people. I decided it helps the Gospel to open with that you are not going to Burn for Eternity. Regardless of if you agree with my theology or not. I'm just asking that if you are open to being a Christian and an assumption about what The Bible says about Homosexuality is one of the main things holding you back. To give my dissertation a read, others have made the argument before, but my argument is different, I never result to not taking The Bible literally.

I will be making more posts on the subject of Unviersalism. Talking about ways my own take on it may differ from others.

I shall chronicle all posts relevant to this topic on the Universalism page.JaredMithrandirhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-184244725033558886.post-65762876416446139082016-11-09T11:25:00.002-06:002016-11-09T11:29:24.375-06:00Here is my message to Donald TrumpAs someone who didn't vote for you but is from the region chiefly responsible for your victory (Racine Wisconsin to be specific) my message is this.

If you are only going to keep only one of your campaign promises. It better be ending the Free Trade Agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA and the TPP, and stuff directly related to that. Your strong turn out in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota was chiefly because of people who voted for Bernie in the Primary (I voted for Bernie) and you in the general because they voted chiefly on that issue. Because we are the most hurt the ramifications of those agreements.

They don't care if you build the Wall or even necessarily want that. Or about your Muslim Ban, or defeating ISIS. And certainly not any of the typical Republican positions you espoused.

I was unwilling to vote for because I didn't trust you on this, given how your businesses have themselves benefited from those agreements. And because I was offended by the Xenophobia you appealed to.

IF however you actually do keep this promise, and the fears Mexicans and Muslims have of your turns out to be unfounded. You might, just maybe might win my vote for 2020.

But if not, you don't keep that promise, you will lose the people who chiefly gave this victory and have no hope of reelection.

The second promise I personally care about (in the sense of would like you to keep it) is legalizing Marijuana. But for that I see no evidence many people voted on that.JaredMithrandirhttp://email@example.com


text:
Pinterest でおしゃれアイデアをまとめましょう!
this tux or suit is very classy as well , he is dresses is gloss black dress shoes and a purple tux with a white under shirt, he has a little black bow tie with goes perfect with the classy look
Galaxy Bow Tie- on etsy. If Mike wants to wear a bowtie, he should totally wear this one!!
efedra: Audrey Marnay photographed by Paolo Roversi
Tell the world you're destined to be an exploding star with this Super Nova catsuit by Pokosha Clothing. Buy it now at www.pokosha.com or follow us + repin one post and we'll send you a 10% off discount code for our etsy shop. These galaxy tights are perfect for dancing night after night at music festivals and flying high at acro yoga jams... they are a high performance garment for having a really really good time in, so please enjoy irresponsibly!
Kate Rohdes - Psychedelic Jelly Crystal necklace
(79) Lace Tier Hot Pants Lace Tier Hot Pants
Hydra Crop Legging - Black
bienenkiste: Alex Sandor by Eric Nehr

subset: commoncrawl