Sunday, March 5, 2017

The French Revolutionary roots of modern Feminism

It'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 Women

Friday, March 3, 2017

Broader Sexual Morality can't be ignored when affirming Homosexuality

On 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.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

I 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.  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.  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.

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.

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.  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.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Trump signed an executive order sinking the TPP

Given 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.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Complex history of the Word Sodomite

This 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.
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]
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.
 “ ‘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.

Friday, January 27, 2017

The Flood in the Days of Moses

Today, 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.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

I'm a Continuationist, but most Pentacostals and Charismatics are wrong on what the Gift of Tongues is

Acts 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.