Wednesday, September 20, 2017

The Sunni/Shia split was originally about Democracy vs Hereditary Monarchy

I've said before in my criticism of Neo-Con foreign policy that I feel it is inherently a mistake to try and force Western Democracy on the Islamic World.

But I do not want anyone thinking that means I think Democracy is incompatible with Islam.  In fact Democracy has been part of Islam from the beginning.

The split between the Sunnis and the Shiites was ORIGINALLY based on the Sunni view that a Caliph should be elected by the people and his ancestry doesn't matter.  As opposed to the Shia view that Ali ibn Abi Talib as a close relative and Son in Law of Muhammad inherited Muhammad's political Authority.

I've already done a post on The Bible's view of Monarchy.  So on this issue I feel inclined to prefer the Sunni position.

I say "Originally", because this got distorted over time.  With many Muslims identifying as Sunni or Shia based on where they live or their family rather then an actual opinion on the original dispute.  And also further complicated by various sub-sects emerging within each major sect.

So today we have Shia countries the seemingly value Democracy to some degree, like Iran.  And Sunni monarchs who claim descent from the exact same family the original Shias favored, the descendants of Ali and Fatimah.  Like the modern Jordanian Royal Family (for whom the claimed descent is pretty legit) and the leader of I.S.I.S. (who's claim is probably B.S.).

The Shia highly revere Ali, but the Sunni don't dislike Ali.  Ali and Uthman both engaged in the same fallacy as Justinian and many other Christian leaders.  They wanted "Unity" in their nations, and concluded the way to achieve that was to make everyone agree.  True Unity comes from accepting disagreements.

Democracy is not incompatible Islam, especially not Sunni Islam.

Monday, September 18, 2017

Anne Frank was attracked to Girls

The Diary of Anne Frank is the second highest selling Book of all time, topped only by The Bible.  I've always found it interested that both of the most popular books of all time were written by Jews.

Earlier today I say this interesting article about Anne Frank.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/09/07/anne-frank-was-attracted-to-girls/2/

Pretty cool I think.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

According to Ezekiel 16, Sodom will be restored.

This fact about Ezekiel 16 has been relevant to my Universalism argument in three prior posts on this Blog.  Words Translated Eternal, KJV only Universalism and My Evangelical Universalism does not contradict Free Will.  Typically also referencing Jude's use of the word Aionios in reference to the Fire that consumed Sodom.

The context is God scolding Judah, foretelling Judgment that will come upon Judah.  And He references both Samaria (The Northern Kingdom) and Sodom as earlier nations He judged.  Saying Samaria had less excuse then Sodom, and Judah has less excuse then Samaria.  But He also promises Judah will eventually be restored, just as Samaria and Sodom will be.

Genesis 18-19 clearly tells us Sodom and Gomorrah had no righteous people in them, and so they were completely destroyed with no Survivors.  Lot and his Family were taken out, but they were up to this very day still considered foreigners living among them by the Sodomites.  And Lot's descendants became their own nations living in a different geographical region, Moab and Ammon.

So Sodom's restoration can't be via bringing their descendants back, as we traditionally assume Judah and Samaria's restorations will be.  Sodom's restoration can only be via The Resurrection of the Dead.  And thanks to Ezekiel 37 I believe that is what Judah and Samaria's restorations are ultimately about as well.

So there is no way an aboslutly Literal interpretation of Ezekiel 16 can get around it's obvious Universalist implications.

And yet, the only valid typolocial or allegorical interpretation, is even more Universalist.  As that says the three nations in question here must somehow represent all of Humanity.

You can't argue that even Sodom represents a type of believer.  Because even going off only what this passage says about Sodom, they are clearly people who never had a relationship with Yahuah.

The only valid typological interpretation, is that Sodom represents people who never believed, Samaria people who believed and then fell away, and Judah people who remained believers, but still even the best of us have our failings.  And our knowledge of God's Word only makes us more accountable for our Sins.

Therefore the Universalist implications of Ezekiel 16 are unavoidable.

Tuesday, September 12, 2017

Freedom of Speech is meaningless if it's conditional

This post is going to be another online rant about how people of every political ideology tend to be hypocrites in their attitude towards Freedom of Speech, supporting it if they agree but opposing it if they disagree, and then making excuses for that hypocrisy.

But first, there is something I want to clarify.  because the words "Freedom of Speech" in America have a tendency to cause an assumption I'm citing something I did not actually cite.  So let me be clear.

I ultimately do NOT care what the First Article of Amendment to the United States Constitution says.  Freedom of Speech, like the other rights mentioned in that Amendment, is a concept that existed before then.  It is to me a moral value more so then a civil one.  So a Constitutional Lawyer's opinion on what this archaic document legally protects is irrelevant to my moral position on Freedom of Speech.

There was a time in the past when I was a Constitutionalist, but thankfully I am not anymore.  Frankly I think the Constitution is a wicked anti-democratic document.

So I get sick of seeing rants about how 'The First amendment only means the Government can't do something", to defend corporations and internet websites choosing to censor their users/employees.  Especially when it includes seeing Liberals making what is usually a conservative argument, the same argument conservatives will use to say the state shouldn't get involved when a bakery doesn't want to sell a cake to a Gay wedding, or a restaurant doesn't want to serve Black People.

But even if I wanted to make this rant Constitutionally.  The fact that the Constitution technically is only restricting Government goes for ALL of the rights that make up the Bill of Rights, including the parts that protect our privacy.

And the fact is originally the notion that it only restricts Government applied even more specifically to the Federal Government.  Before the Civil War many state laws that openly violated the Freedom of Religion clause by pretty much codifying The Ten Commandments were on the books, and were upheld by the courts because the Constitution only restricted the federal government.  Then after the Civil War the 13th through 15th Amendments were passed, and it came to be understood that the state also has a responsibility to protect people from others who would violate those rights. 

So when I see people okay with YouTube taking down controversial videos so long as they're videos they disagree with.  I see that as dangerous, I see it as dangerous to their own agenda in the long run because that same abuse of power they are setting a precedent for may be used against them later.

So I don't care how offensive it is, If you won't stand up for the Freedom of Speech of those you find offensive, you forfeit the moral right to cling to it it to protect your own speech.

Pewdipie is an idiot, he stupidly said the N word during a live stream.  A form of idiocy not uncommon now days.  Deciding because you find that word offensive to support people trying to use the DMCA to take his videos down sets a very dangerous precedent, because trust me lots of Liberal videos on YouTube could be threatened by the DMCA just as easily, like FeminsitFrequency.  (I could go on a separate rant about how I find Copyright law itself to be inherently wrong.)

I've had this rant in my head since long before this recent controversy even happened.  Via my awareness of more obscure incidents of YouTubers being taken down.  I don't generally find MumkeyJones funny, and I find his videos directed as Islam really ignorant.  But at the end of the day all shutting down stupid Islamphobic channels does is make a martyr out of them, and thus only further reinforces the worldviews they and their followers hold.

Meanwhile YouTube is also labeling videos as age restricted for simply talking about LGBT issues.  Or the user being openly LGBT.  And people on the right aren't getting involved on that issue because they think it won't hurt them.  Or when it does decide they don't mind their videos being for adults only.

All of this is a threat to Freedom of Speech.  Being selective on when you stand up for it will only weaken your credibility in standing up for it when you do.

Saturday, September 2, 2017

You can't have Private Property without Government.

There are people out there who consider themselves some form of Anarchist, particularly Anarchro-Capitalists, who also support the idea of Private Property.  These people tend to also consider themselves Libertarians of some sort.

How do you enforce Private Property without Government?  You can't, Private Property is a Government mandated monopoly.

I have a Playlist on YouTube of videos against Copyright and Intellectual Property Laws.  At the moment most videos on it, and they will probably always be the start of it, are from Libertarians arguing against it from a Libertarian POV.  I suspect they qualify as Anarchro-Capitalists as well.  On at least one of those videos there was a comment about how all these arguments against Intellectual Property can be used against Private Property period.

It is mainly Land Ownership I care about here.  I'm against having a government mandated monopoly over control of a portion of The Earth itself.

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 members of the Society of the Friends of Truth, founded by Nicholas Bonnevile 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 (and John Oswald).  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.

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

So I don't have an exact model of how I feel Libertarian-Communism should look.  But this is all stuff I feel Libertarians need to start rethinking our assumptions on.


Post Script:

This isn't the first post on this blog more about arguing a belief of mine from a Secular POV.  The people I'm talking to here might be put off by the very title of this blog.  Yet I don't feel like it would fit on any of my existing blogs.  Should I start a new one?

I've already argued for Libertarian-Comunisim from a Biblical Perspective in my post The Bible and Private Property.  Much of this was copied/pasted from there, but not the opening paragraphs.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Fighting for Statues is stupid

Let me be clear, even if Robert E. Lee had never done or been involved with anything a lot of people find morally offensive.  I think fighting for a statue of someone who died long before you were born is stupid.

Most of these people I'm pretty sure are Protestants or Evangelicals.  We're supposed to consider Statues Idolatry, we consider Statues of Jesus are Idolatry and that is someone we literally believe is God.  So I firmly believe Christians should never defend statues, and yes I'll apply that even to George Washington and Abraham Lincoln and the Statue of Liberty.  And even Eugema.

Now I don't particularly care about this issue enough to fight for tarring them down either.  But tarring down statues can be a very powerful symbol of liberation.  When they roe down Saddam Hussien's statues in 2003 I don't recall anyone arguing "Saddam Hussein was still an important part of Iraqi history, we shouldn't just erase history", nope, no one made that argument when it was a statue of a brown person being torn down.

So no I don't think all these protestors were openly racists, but I do think they're all stupid.  And no matter how much evidence you present to me that the other side got violent too, I still inherently sympathize more with them.

Monday, August 7, 2017

Early Christian Schisms on the Nature of Christ

This blog Post is partly my thoughts on Extra Credits series of YouTube videos on the Subject.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5A2WfrnfPglTL_ZCPDN_rDT

They made that series partly to provide background for their earliest series on Justinian and Theodora.  My own opinion on Justinian isn't nearly so positive as theirs.

They covered this subject from a Secular perspective, not really interested in which position in these disputes The Bible agrees with.  And that's fine, an outsider perspective on Christianity can be very useful.  So I'm going to take it on myself to provide my Biblically influenced personal perspective.  Though the issue central to the last episode, episode IV, is primarily what I'll be talking about.

The first three episodes are all about disputes where who won in the end I feel is pretty strongly agreed to be the Biblically supported position.  Most Christians speaking negatively of the Council of Nicea do so from not knowing what that Council actually debated.  Last month I did posts on The Council of Nicea and the Homoousion Doctrine partly in preparation for this post.

I feel they should have had another episode between the Council of Nicea episode and the Nestorian controversy episode (Episodes III and IV) on the Pelegian controversy.  The chief opponent of Pelagius was Augustine of Hippo, a man I have little fondness for.

Some people think what Pelagius taught has been misrepresented by his opponents.
Recent analysis of his thinking suggests that it was, in fact, highly orthodox, following in the tradition established by the early fathers and in keeping with the teaching of the church in both the East and the West. ... From what we are able to piece together from the few sources available... it seems that the Celtic monk held to an orthodox view of the prevenience of God's grace, and did not assert that individuals could achieve salvation purely by their own efforts...[ Bradley, Ian (1993) The Celtic Way. London: Darton, Longman and Todd; p. 62]
Free Will is definitely a Biblically supported Doctrine.  Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote "two tomes against him who asserts that sin is inherent in human nature." Which was no doubt an attack on Augustine of Hippo.

The controversy central to the final video of this series was a three way dispute about how Jesus Divine and Human natures relate to each other.

1. The Chalcedonian position, that Jesus had two different but unified or mixed natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.

2. The Nestorian position, that Jesus had two distinct and separate natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.

3.  The Monophysite position, that Jesus had one single Nature that was both Divine and Human.
   (Monophysite was often used broadly to include other groups that wouldn't have called themselves that.  I personally find the best form of Monophysitism to be Miaphysitism.)

All three agree that Jesus was both Divine and Human, and not in a Greek demigod half-god/half-man sense, but fully Divine and Fully Human.  I personally find the differences between these three views to be quite semantical and not a big deal.  Especially since I'm not sure what my own view is.  But it seems in Christianized Rome is was a pretty big deal.

Last month I expressed support for Traducianism on the issue of how most Human Soul/Spirits are created. Even that doesn't settle the issue.  While at fist glance it would seemingly help the Chalcedonian position, a Human Nature inherited from Mary mixed with a Divine Nature provided by the Holy Spirit.  But a Monophysite or Miaphysite would retort that we don't refer to most Humans as having two natures, a Paternal and Maternal one, but as having one.  Perhaps the Nestorian position would be the hardest to make compatible with Traducianism, but I don't think impossible.

Pretty much all major Christian denomination in the West are considered nominally Chalcedonian (Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, all major Protestants denomination as well as Baptists and Pentecostals).  Even though I don't think most average Christians or even Pastors in America have ever actually thought about what their position on this debate would be.

One reason why I think Protestants and Evangelicals should take a second look at this History is because of how much the inciting incident was Nestorius (and it seems even some Monophysites) objected to calling Mary "Theotokos" (God Bearer) a Title that definitely plays into her quasi-Deification.  And it seems Nestorius may have inherited this from his mentor Theodore of Mopsuestia.

As someone who likes to draw attention to overlooked Historically important Women, I wish the Extra Credits video on his controversy had talked about some of the Women who were important to these events.  Theodosius II's sister Pulcheria worked with Cyril of Alexandria strongly supporting the Chalceodnian position, and was a strong supporter of calling Mary Theotokos.  While his wife Aelia Eudocia was a Monophysite who opposed calling Mary Theotokos.

If the Chalcedonian position is correct, it's unfortunate it had such horrible representatives during this time period.  Cyril of Alexandria was very Anti-Semtic and generally in support of persecuting non-Believers.  However as I expressed before, I blame these negative traits more on his belief in Eternal Damnation.

So again I'm not entirely sure what my position is.  I'll stick with being Nominally Chalcedonian for the time being.  Nesotrianism can be the most interesting historically to look into, and I may definitely have more to say about that subject on this Blog in the future.