Sunday, November 20, 2016

Morally I absolutely believe in Free Healthcare

It'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.

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 denomination of the U.S. can afford to provide Universal Healthcare to the entire Nation if they worked to-gather 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 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.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Song of Solomon, typology and symbolism

This 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 fit the Tree of Life, 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.

What I am going to do 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 grammatically Feminine.  And Church Missler thinks the Wisdom of Proverbs is Jesus even though that's consistently Feminine.  So The Holy Spirit does mix hings 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 I think 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.

When 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, 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 on this issues.  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 other who also didn't trust him he was the 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 your 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 exist.  But they do, I know a few in my family.  They are either unemployed, or employed but barely making enough to make it 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 before any Democrat starts calling 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.

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 people, 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 voting 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.

Friday, November 11, 2016

Islam 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 to-gather.  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.

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

I'm a Univeralist, an Evangelical Universalist to be exact

I've been hesitant till today (November 9th 2016, Central Time Zone) to go fully Public with this.  Because until I was a Universlaist 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 was 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.

Here is my message to Donald Trump

As 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.

Thursday, November 3, 2016

The Law of Moses and Christianity

There are two extremes on the issue of keeping the Law of Moses in the Church.  There is the "God never changes" so keeping the Law is just as Important as ever crowd.  Some may even argue it's stricter now.  And then there is the full on it is BAD for Christians to keep the Law, even the Holy Days.

The latter is absurd, to suggest it's bad to follow Jesus example by keeping the Feast of Tabernacles.  The only way it would ever become bad is if you try to force it on others.

The extremists of the former camp come in varieties.  I have said already about all I care to regarding those who want to reject Paul as a false Prophet.  Or anyone else who will deny Faith Alone and Eternal Security.

To those like Rob Skiba, who I greatly respect.  The key issue I want to ask is, did Paul mean what he said when he said "all things are lawful to be, but not all things are beneficial" in Corinthians?  All the issues you can point out about the health benefits of not eating Pork are relevant to the beneficial part of that statement, but they do not undermine the lawful part.

I believe in Eternal Security.  I believe there are different judgments for Believers and Unbelievers.  I believe only Believers will receive rewards and only Unbelievers will receive punishments.  But some Believers will get no rewards as the Bema account in Corinthians shows.  There are five different Crowns we can win, I don't want to go in depth on them here.  But the point here is that one is a reward for not sinning, maybe one or two others are also relevant to the law.

One of the arguments for suggesting the Law is now stricter for Christians is to say that because now all Believers are "Kings and Priests" that laws unique to the Priests and Kings in the Torah now apply to all Believers.

Leaving aside the issue that the Priesthood in question here is not the Aaronic one, but of Melchizedek (it may surprise you to learn that even Rabbis have taught that the Priesthood of Melchizedek in a sense includes all believers).  What the New Testament actually teaches is that we all have the opportunity to be Kings and Priests.

Apostates, as I have argued before, lose their citizenship in the Kingdom (but not their Salvation).  So they certainly won't become Kings of it.

I would hesitate to argue you are a King by winning any Crown, since there are two different Greek words for Crown used in the NT.  But I would advice that if you want to be a King in the Kingdom then it would help to follow the instructions God gave the King (which Solomon failed to follow) in Deuteronomy.  But that does not make it a Sin to not follow those instructions.

My point is keeping the Law is good, as long as you're not doing it thinking it contributes to your Salvation.  My objection to much of what I hear from the Torah observing community is only in my opposition to making other Christians feel obligated to do anything.

Rob Skiba complains about strawmen he's accused of.  But he's engaging in one when he says things like "I'm just saying it's a good idea to obey God".  I believe we should obey God, but I believe God's commands are different for each of us, we are to be lead by The Holy Spirit.  When Jesus said "Those who love Me obey My commandments" in John it's right before he talks abut sending the Comforter, that is not a coincidence.

I feel the most important command God has given me personally is to never tell other people what to do, and to politely and respectfully as I can oppose those who do tell others what to do.  That is why I spend so much time on the Homosexuality issue even though I'm mostly Straight myself, and why regardless of economic disagreements I tend to vote Libertarian.  But on the Homosexuality issue  I show it's not condemned in the Torah either, practicing Homosexuals can keep perfectly Kosher.

And yes I know Rob insists he's not telling anyone what to do.  But so much of the what he says in context easily comes off that way, intentionally or not.

I know it is popular now to suggest every use of the word Sin should be defined by 1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."  But I say perhaps the word "Law" should be defined by Galatians 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which I have a second witness for in how Jesus defined the two greatest commandments.