Sunday, 4 February 2018

Potiphar's Wife and False rape allegations

I have written a paper previously on the subject of false witnessing and what it is so check that article out first before you continue reading this one, as other passages have been covered and retroactively, the points also apply to what I am going to write here:

Sexual Abuse Allegations have been around for many years, it even existed in holy scripture, Joseph himself was subject to a false rape claim, namely by Potiphar's Wife in Genesis 39, to which we need the context:

"39 Now Joseph had been brought down to Egypt, and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, the captain of the guard, an Egyptian, had bought him from the Ishmaelites who had brought him down there. 2 The Lord was with Joseph, and he became a successful man, and he was in the house of his Egyptian master. 3 His master saw that the Lord was with him and that the Lord caused all that he did to succeed in his hands. 4 So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him, and he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had. 5 From the time that he made him overseer in his house and over all that he had, the Lord blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; the blessing of the Lord was on all that he had, in house and field. 6 So he left all that he had in Joseph's charge, and because of him he had no concern about anything but the food he ate."

Very clear here, Joseph through his hard work by the grace of God was so trustworthy and reliable that Potiphar put him in charge of his own household. This definitely speaks to Christians regarding work ethic but that's another issue.

Then we move on to Potiphar's wife herself.

"Now Joseph was handsome in form and appearance. 7 And after a time his master's wife cast her eyes on Joseph and said, “Lie with me.” 8 But he refused and said to his master's wife, “Behold, because of me my master has no concern about anything in the house, and he has put everything that he has in my charge. 9 He is not greater in this house than I am, nor has he kept back anything from me except you, because you are his wife. How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?” 10 And as she spoke to Joseph day after day, he would not listen to her, to lie beside her or to be with her.

11 But one day, when he went into the house to do his work and none of the men of the house was there in the house, 12 she caught him by his garment, saying, “Lie with me.” But he left his garment in her hand and fled and got out of the house. 13 And as soon as she saw that he had left his garment in her hand and had fled out of the house, 14 she called to the men of her household and said to them, “See, he has brought among us a Hebrew to laugh at us. He came in to me to lie with me, and I cried out with a loud voice. 15 And as soon as he heard that I lifted up my voice and cried out, he left his garment beside me and fled and got out of the house.” 16 Then she laid up his garment by her until his master came home, 17 and she told him the same story, saying, “The Hebrew servant, whom you have brought among us, came in to me to laugh at me. 18 But as soon as I lifted up my voice and cried, he left his garment beside me and fled out of the house.”

There is no denying she did fall in love (If you want to use that term), but that doesn't make it right. She advances on Joseph to which rightly he says "We are not married, your loyalty should be to your husband, I cannot do this, it's a sin against God and your master has trusted me with his household to run it, I cannot betray his trust like that". Of course she doesn't take that too well and tries to grab him, Joseph flees away and of course, she falsely accuses him of sexual assault, telling the story to the men of the household and her husband the same story.

"19 As soon as his master heard the words that his wife spoke to him, “This is the way your servant treated me,” his anger was kindled. 20 And Joseph's master took him and put him into the prison, the place where the king's prisoners were confined, and he was there in prison. 21 But the Lord was with Joseph and showed him steadfast love and gave him favor in the sight of the keeper of the prison. 22 And the keeper of the prison put Joseph in charge of all the prisoners who were in the prison. Whatever was done there, he was the one who did it. 23 The keeper of the prison paid no attention to anything that was in Joseph's charge, because the Lord was with him. And whatever he did, the Lord made it succeed."

The end result was Joseph was placed in prison. What God did to compell the keeper to put Joseph in charge of the prison, we don't know, but nevertheless we still get an insight into Joseph as a man of God.

Now let me be very clear, a sexual abuse allegation is a very serious charge. It is not to be made lightly and it's not be made out of spite. Accusing an innocent man (or even an innocent woman) of rape or sexual assualt or vile practice toward you or anyone else will ruin that person's life, whether it be through business termination, being placed on the sex offenders registry or in prison (both can happen), it is a wicked and vile thing to do.

Not only does it ruin the life of an innocent person, it also destroys true victims of sexual assault confidence that their testimony will be believed. How many are now afraid to speak out because of this? Countless.

False rape claims are one of the many problems in the West and men are rightly terrified by them because when one is on the sex offender registries (the countries that have those laws), they have restrictions placed on them and it's hard for them to get employment or retain their jobs or even their home and of course their families suffer abuse and scorn as a result and even after their removal from the registries, they carry this stigma with them for life. Thankfully there was a case some time back where a man was saved from prison by evidence on a recording device which had the woman who accused him convicted instead. There are cases where the innocent have been cleared and their accuser is the one imprisoned instead.

What makes this wicked and evil these false allegations is that as I have said before, there are feminists who actually defend this practice of deception regarding rape claims with the point "Well that case may have been proven false but it makes us aware of the issues of rape in our culture". I am not kidding, there are people who think this way.

The police are not going to take rape claims like that seriously if you keep using deception to falsely imprison innocent men and ruin their lives. It's wickedness like that which prevent real rape claimants from coming forward.

Rape is treated very seriously in western nations and is wicked in the sight of God. You devalue helping actual oppressed women with these lies about innocent men. Putting aside homosexuality being an abomination to God, even in those kinds of relationships, a false allegation is still bad.

I wouldn't be surprised if this actually encouraged people to rape and get away with it because there are no severe consequences for them to reap. If anything, feminists who use false rape claims are part of the problem they supposedly are trying to stop and making people aware of these issues, while also making claims that all men must be taught not to rape women because apparently all men are predators which is absurd and flat out misandry.

Now, having said all of this, there are genuine allegations out there. Harvey Weinstein of the Weinsten Company himself had allegations brought against him, we all know what happened after that and it was terrible what he did and other allegations were brought to light, some true and some false.

It is right to punish wicked individuals guilty of this kind of deviancy but that doesn't change the fact that if a person is innocent, They should tested before punishment and if there is evidence (not false evidence but true evidence) rather than a "he said, she said" account, proving them innocent of charges, they should go free (as long as they are actually not guilty of course), but if they are guilty after a thorough investigation, punishment may be enacted.

Everyone does have the right to a fair trial and believing the victim or supposed victim right away without considering the evidence is not how to conduct justice. We have to have Equal Weights and Even Measures, punishing the guilty and upholding the innocent.

Why didn't you say anything?
Lastly, I am sensitive to the fact that if an individual was subject to sexual assualt as a child or sensistive to the fear that even an adult has if they are going to speak out. We musn't underestimate a predator's power over an individual (or criminals power in general over the public).

That being said, some cases people come out 20-40 years later to bring their allegation. Why? Why wait that long?

Yes, celebrities or people in positions of power can be very powerful and abuse their status to ruin you or your life, but the police are there for protection. That is why they exist and why their ancient equivalents exist.

"First Romans 13:1-5.
"Romans 13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

And 1 Peter 2:13-17
"13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor."

Both these apostles, in accordance with Jesus' teaching exhorted obedience to governments, however the only time they should be disobeyed, which can be in the TANAKH, is if they tell you to do something against God's commands. Such an example is in Daniel 2 when Daniel's friends Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are thrown into the fiery furnace after refusing to bow to an idol created by Nebuchanezzar and of course the story of Daniel in the lion's den that needs no introduction."

But we also see that the police, governors and authorities were created by God principally to punish evildoers. That doesn't mean the government gets it right, or the police are 100% reliable or should be trusted 100% or the time, but what it does mean is if you are suffering injustice, you can go to the authorities to help you out and they will listen to your case.

In cases on television, namely the news, the victim's faces can be obscured as well as their voices if being interviewed. The police can provide protection from your attacker or someone else's attacker, they were designed to punish evil.

It's understandable if you were very young, but you should tell your parents or guardians to help you sort the issue out and get the abuser arrested. If you are a young adult, you should tell the authorities immidiately if someone is making unwanted sexual advances. Don't wait years later and say it then, you aren't doing yourself any favours, you won't get the proper justice you want and you will live a life of victimhood.

Yes, it's not easy to speak against someone doing evil to you, but your testimony early on will prevent more people suffering at the hands of that individual.

Sadly Hollywood to use one example of where a certain hypocrisy exists (of course immorality has existed in Hollywood for years, we shouldn't be surprised) where the female actresses wore black dresses because of the allegations (Harvey Weinstein and others) and yet some of these celebrities have defended people who themselves are also guilty of such allegations (Roman Polanski).

To Hollywood I say, Call out all the celebrities who have engaged in this evil I say, stop following your idolatry of Oscars, Baftas and your career and do something to stop it.

The point is, the fear of losing your job or any threat should not stop you (if you are telling the truth that is) from speaking out against the abuser. The main girl Casey in the film Split who was abused in the film and spoilers for the film is asked by a police officer whether she would like to return to her uncle, the one who did the deed to her.

Tell the police quickly, don't leave it too late and you can save others from being subject to the abuse you suffered.

False rape allegations themselves destroy actual cases of rape and using the excuse for the case of men "It makes people aware of rape issues in the culture" is nothing more than malicious and spiteful misandry, as well as destroying the credibility of those who actually are subject to rape or sexual assault or sexual abuse or have escaped from it.

Liam Allan, a law student, was cleared of allegations against him and it traumatised him when he was two years on bail. This is what a false sexual accusation or allegation does to a man. Even if he is cleared of all charges, will he trust another woman again? Hardly. That is destructive and selfish what was done to him and others like him. He could have been 12 years in prison and on the sex offenders registry for life. Can you imagine an innocent person going through that trauma? It's tragic.

May God expose falsehood and bring truth to light so more innocent people may be vindicated and the Potiphar's Wives of the world, be incarcerated, for the evil they have commited.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday, 28 January 2018

Zacchaeus: What can we learn?

 Let us take a look at Luke 19:1-10
"19 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming  that way.

5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.

7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

There are things we can draw from this part of the chapter.

There is something here to take from the story of Zacchaeus, himself a tax collector, that restitution has to be made, whether it's criminal, civil or other ways, some compensation or a lot has to be made, even if it's being punished for a crime accordingly or restoring a relationship. Sometimes however, it may not be possible to restore a broken relationship between two people or several, it may be too late, but it's worth giving a try.

This does very from sin to sin, whether it be something "small" as lying or "big" as murder or sexual misconduct, so the conditions of repentance may be different, what needs doing to put the situation right? In Zacchaeus case, he extorted people, hence he was wealthy. Is it possible he may have miscalculated? Maybe. The point is whether it was carelessness, negligence or actual delibrate fraud, Zacchaeus sought to repair the damage that had been done by his endeavours.

Don't judge by apperances
Luke describes Zacchaeus to use first and foremost as rich and also short. Why highlight such a thing? Why would Luke bring this to the readers attention, as well as mention he is a tax collector?I already mentioned his repentance above but the people in the context were quick to judge him and yet Zacchaeus offered not only to pay back all the people he defrauded, he also would be happy to give half of his possessions to the poor. It's possible the crowd themselves were not willing to give even a small amount of their possessions to the poor, yet this short tax collector went out of his way to pay his debt and also give to the poor simultaneously, how tremendous is that?

Despite this man's background, he came to Jesus and let him enter the house for a meal.

Worship of God and not money
Whether Zacchaeus was like the rich young ruler or not is disputable, we simply don't know his motive. Maybe he had a similiar attitude to the rich young ruler at a given point. Idolatry leads to immorality as David Pawson has stated so it could be (though not necesarily) that Zacchaeus' god was money and the way to aquire more money was to cheat others out of it.

Yet unlike the rich young ruler, Zacchaeus must have felt a conviction in his soul and when Jesus arrived, wanted to see who he was. See the article I wrote on the rich young ruler:

Perhaps after meeting Jesus, Zacchaeus turned from his idol, recognising his sins and giving money back to the poor and making restitution as mentioned above. Now he could have money but it was no longer his God anymore, God has now given Zacchaeus the means to restrain himself and not be greedy.

The Lordship of Christ
Jesus response not only highlights that Zacchaeus did what was right in his sight but also what our generosity and the fact our money, like everything else is owned by God and he has given it to us not to abuse but use for his glory. Having a hobby itself or going abroad is not wicked in and of itself, but really we should be asking "Do we need to go abroad?" or "Can't I save this hobby for later?". Money is not something given to us to spend on what we want all the time, we are stewards of that money and God will give us an account of what to do with that money. There's nothing wrong with vacation or a hobby but as stated before, they are not the highest calling. It's giving our time in the service to others and helping others less fortunate than we are. There is a talk by Matthew Swires-Hennessey which I recommend others listening to which you can find here:

How should we be doing in our lives, even if we are not in Zacchaeus' position. Are we willing to put God first, casting idols to the side and turning to him? Does something in your life merely need to be put into it's proper place or gotten rid of depending on what it is in question? How will we be empowered today to be a Son or Daughter of Abraham, the former which Jesus referred to Zacchaeus as? Let's look at our lives and see what needs to change.

Answering Judaism.

If there is anymore to add Lord Willing, I shall do so at a later date.

Sunday, 14 January 2018

MTV: Racists and Sexists in disguise

There was a video from 2016 which was mauled by many on the political spectrum that was posted by MTV, removed, then posted and finally removed but much like Josh Trank's tweet about Fant4stic, the internet has a way to preseve incriminating things people say.

Numerous people have responded to the video which essentially had a bunch of pretentious, self entitled, pharisaical, busybodies lecturing white males one what they can do in 2017 as new years resolutions.

Putting aside whether America is great or has been great or not in principle or practice, non-whites have enjoyed many oppotunities in the modern world and thus have not been oppressed. Racism exists on both sides but lefists don't want to admit this as this would destory their narratives that non-whites, blacks especially are oppressed and cannot arise out of their oppression (Despite the fact in Christianity Voddie Baucham has championed Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood with one of the early leaders of the church being a black man and possibly St Augustine and Tertullian being influential church fathers and in the case of the entertainment industry you have individuals such as James Earl Jones, Samuel L Jackson, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Idris Elba, John Boyega, Michael B Jordan, Zoe Saldana, Rosario Dawson, Kimberly Brooks, Kree Summer, Kevin Michael Richardson and others who have carved out for themselves good careers).

Saying All lives matter is not saying Black Lives don't matter. All in this context doesn't exclude black people, it includes them and yes it a serious problem when cops are blamed for being racist towards black people despite the fact that the black people who were proclaimed as innocent were by in large, actually criminals themselves (Which includes Michael Brown by the way) and many ignore the fact Black Lives Matter are a terrorist organisation.

Woke is also a weird term, not a bad term itself, just odd. Why tell others to stop saying woke? I would use woke is someone just woke from their sleep or if I woke up but to refer to someone being red pilled to certain issues? Ok? If you want to use the word, fine but I am not going to use it in that way.

We also have mansplaining ((of a man) explain (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.), a term simply used to dismiss what a man has to say. It's basically a satanic buzzword designed by the devil to prevent a woman from being rebuked by a man even when she is in the wrong.I am not saying condescending to anyone is right (there are exceptions) but why not accept the advice of a man? Advice from a man or a woman can be invaluable for a wide variety of reasons, as long as it is good advice and not bad.

There is of course one of the most famous statements in the video "Just because you have black friends, doesn't mean you are a racist, you can be racist with black friends". Let that sink for a moment, can you imagine a white person saying something similiar? Just replace the above statement with white as opposed to black, that person would be arrested, have their name dragged through the mud and be out of a job, yet the man in the cat t-shirt on MTV can get away with what he said.

Why are MTV allowed to put out racism like this and yet white males become an easy target when they don't intend to be racist. It is bile like the stuff MTV puts out as well as other liberal material that enabled Donald Trump to win and if he won the Presidential campaign of 2020, I wouldn't be surprised.

Answering Judaism.

Here are some videos responding to MTV's video: 
Ben Shapiro:
Paul Joseph Watson:
TJ Kirk: (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)
Arch Warhammer:
Dave Cullen:
Drunken Uncle: (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)
Scrunch Point:
Undoomed: (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)
Jim the Ape: (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)
Gavin McInnes: (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)

Sunday, 31 December 2017

Beautiful Idolatry?

When it comes to ancient cultures, we often become fascinated as humans with the traditions and customs that may be very attractive on the outside, including it's rich history and the religious practices. Maybe there are times where we have been to another country and the cultures put on a dancing show of some kind, based on some old ritual that has been passed down to them.

Idolatry is dangerous in the Bible, it is never looked on in a positive light in scripture, it's giving attention to an object that cannot save rather than giving worship and adoration to YHWH himself.

It is one thing for a work of fiction to use a false god as a means of telling a moral story, such as Hercules trying to discover where he belongs, Thor learning to humble himself and walk the road to being a better king as a result of his banishment from Asgard and Moana learning what her purpose in life is and the purpose of her people. All these messages we can challenge scripturally and see which parts of the films stand the biblical test or not.

However, it is quite another issue to worship a false god or appreciate a pagan custom. To quote the words of Voddie Baucham "Worship God without rivals, you have an idol in your home, you destory it and get rid of it". Have nothing to do idols.

Idolatry is luring for several reasons. It allows humanity to create it's own rules and moral standards rather than allowing God to be the one to make the decisions what is right for us. It allows us to submit to a being which we know in our hearts cannot truly destory or punish. Sure, nations have crime and punishment, as government was something that God put in place to restrain evil. Whether it be fines, restrictions or inprisonment, God created the justice system to punish evil doers.

Although many humans are willing to accept customs handed down to them, there is the ability for a human being to question those beliefs later down the road, sometimes for good, other times for evil but whatever the case, there is something in man that recognises, whether they admit it or not, the false god isn't really there and that YHWH himself is there as the true god.

Humans have a tendency to look at something on a surface level if the wrong level of emotion is in play. For example, Sometimes in film you see like Brockback Mountain and Carol (both films I haven't seen but aware of) portray a homosexual relationship as a positive wonderful thing to embrace, ignoring the fact that the characters in those films themselves have fallen in love with mirror images and even cause damage to existing relationships. People look to the emotional aspect saying "They love each other, what does it matter if they get together" and ignore the reality of the fact in the case of male homosexuals, sexual disease is rife and I am not going to go into detail why, there is no need and ignoring the fact two women cannot conceive a child.

We may think that a dance from an ancient culture may be beautiful, but we must be wary of the significance of that dance to that culture.

Even in video game franchises such as Final Fantasy and others, while the games themselves can potentially be played with a clear conscience and the person recognises they should behave differently, that doesn't change the fact that we must be wary of what the particular concept in the game takes inspiration from. Final Fantasy wiki as one example is honest where the name of Sephiroth comes from (10 Sephirot in Kabbalah), what inspiration from other religions for the Yevonite religion, be it Buddhism, Shintoism and Catholicism as well as Yuna's sending dance being based on a shinto dance called Kagura (God Entertainment) and other things.

Sometimes ancient religion is revived, whether it be Norse religion, Druid religion or whatever it maybe but nevertheless, YHWH is always present, leaving man without an excuse for their idolatry and immorality. Paul bears witness of this in Romans 1:

"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. 29 They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

We see also, that human beings know in their heart of hearts that God exists, he has written his existance into their conscience and they know that he is there, but refuse to acknowledge it. As a result of their unwillingness to turn from their iniquity and this ties in with the Old Testament with how God treated the Israelites when they rebelled against him in the Nev'im or the Prophets. He handed them over to their sinful desires because of their stubborn refusal to repent and of course, he will treat unrepentant Christians in exactly the same manner.

Furthermore, Some specific sins are listed, including "men commiting indecent acts with other men and women with women" which is not simply talking sexual acts connected with idols  but it lists homosexuality and other sins as well.

Paul is not advocating the death penalty, Christ took that away when he died upon the cross, after all, he is the telos or goal that the law was pointing to. When Paul is speaking of those who deserve death, he is not saying that they are to be put to death by Christians, he is saying they are doing evil in the sight of God that indeed is worthy of death, but the context doesn't suggest that a Christian, a follower of Jesus, should ever consider putting someone to death. There is nothing in the New Testament however that stops secular governments using the death penalty on criminals, but there is no licence in the New Testament for Christians to carry this out themselves.

Although there have been "Christian" governments who have done this, They did it contrary to the New Testament teaching. In fact, The idea of a state church is not even what the apostles had in mind, let alone a death penalty carried out by Christians. I am aware that certain sins warranted death in the Old Testament, but this was part of the Old Covenant which has been fulfilled in Christ, thus need not be carried out.

In any case, Paul taught the men and women of the Gentiles to repent, turn from idols to serve the living and await the return of Jesus, the acts of repentance he praised the Thessalonians for in his first letter to them (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10).

There is a danger with humans to look on the surface of something that may seem benign, but when you uncover it, it is truly sinister. We need to realise idolatry not matter how it looks it's a snare and people must be snatched from them before it's too late.

Answering Judaism.

Sunday, 10 December 2017

Voddie Baucham and The Proud Family

Once thing I didn't understand years ago and for a while even today up until a few months ago, I didn't know why in some shows and movies, the father character didn't let his daughter date or even let her pursue a man without his approval and even when the man meets the daughter's father, he would hold him to close scrutiny, seeing whether or not he is a suitable person for her to date or marry. That is until I saw Voddie Baucham's talks on Biblical Manhood and Biblical Womanhood.

One talk of his in particular certainly spoke to this issue (as well as refuting laziness and commenting on the primacy of the family.) of a man who is commited to God's law.

In a Disney program, called the Proud Family, specifically the episode called Rumours, Oscar Proud (the father of Penny Proud, the main character) in one episode, allowed Penny and her friends to have the house to themselves but with one rule which he repeated three times (Trudy Proud his wife mentioned other rules but Oscar recited in between Trudy's rules) the statement "No Boys".

Naturally Penny's friends didn't take this onboard and Penny caved in and they invited the boys round. Penny was left with one boy named Myron who was a a nerd to put it lightly and she was shut in the cupboard with him. Unfortunately Myron suffers from claustriphobia and falls unconcious, with Penny trying to resusitate him, which Oscar assumes he kissed her, a misunderstanding indeed.

That isn't the entire point of the episode but it does bring to light one thing that Voddie Baucham made very clear (even if the episode is not making a point about biblical manhood). Why give your daughter to a man who isn't commited to the law of God?

It is dangerous to give a woman over to a man who is not willing to take care of her and his children, as well as giving her to a man who will disrespect and hurt her.

Laziness also is a problem and an example came to mind today when listening to the talk on Biblical Manhood by Voddie Baucham again today when he mentioned that lazy people are not lazy in making excuses. This made me think of Onslow from the show Keeping Up Apperances, his house is an absolutely messy. Onslow has no job, he sits in front of the TV watching the horse races, he drinks beer and eats bacon sandwiches (Watching TV, drinking beer and eating bacon sandwiches are not sinful themselves just to clarify, laziness is sinful, not the three things I mentioned). It does have an impact on his wife Daisy as the two of them have not sort to keep their house in order. If a man doesn't work hard, that is going to rub off onto the woman too and also the kids if they were to have kids.

Who should godly men give their daughters to? Well it's obvious, a man who knows God and his law, Is hard working and diligent and also commited to the primacy of the family. Even if one isn't married, he still must be respectful and honour his family.

There is a dangerous risk of having a woman seeking out the wrong man (just as bad vice versa) so is it any wonder in the Proud Family, Oscar doesn't want his daughter dating and Is it an wonder that in Meet the Parents that Greg is under close scrutiny from Jack (albeit exagerrated)?

Men even outside a biblical context do have a right to be concerned and it is legitimate not to let anyone go near your daughter if they are not suitable, who may take advantage of your daughter.

A point that I didn't understand years ago, is something I finally know now.

Answering Judaism.

Thursday, 30 November 2017

Donald Trump and Britain First: My thoughts on the situation

Recently Donald Trump on Twitter shared 3 tweets from Britain First member Jayla Fransen, (one of which supposedly a mock tweet) but what has got people rolling their heads was Trump sharing the tweets from her anyway.

I direct you to a paper which does point out problems with Britain First as an organisation:

Theresa May disagreed with Donald Trump on posting the tweets from Britain First. But will Trump be banned from entering the United Kingdom.

Here's what I have to say on the matter.

Of all the groups Donald Trump could have picked to share on Twitter to warn about Radical Islam, why Britain First, specifically Jayla Fransen? There are surely better options like Milo Yiannopolis and Ben Shapiro who themselves don't lean toward Britain First whom the president could have shared videos or tweets of. The left is going to have a field day with Trump tweeting this from a vile organisation and lends credibility to the lie and false narrative that Trump is a white supremacist, something he himself is not (Neither is Britain First for that matter but they are white nationalists, which doesn't change how bad they are).

See Dave Cullen's video on 8 lies about Donald Trump:

Unlike the pretentious virtue signalling leftists (not all leftists), I'm going to give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt with his tweeting of Jayla Fransen. I don't think Trump shared the tweet with evil or malicious intent. His concern is about the radical Muslim terrorists who are causing trouble for other people in the UK. It's an issue that is close to home for him I think, especially the trouble his country have had to put up with. That doesn't excuse sharing the tweets of Fransen but it does go far in explaining why. I just wish Trump shared a tweet from someone else. I am hoping Trump may learn from this and retract the tweets.

Donald Trump is not a hateful bigot, careless sometimes and a bit abrasive but he is not hateful. I sense no malicious intent in sharing the tweets in question. As said before there are better right leaning individuals he could have shared. If Trump were to look into Britain First's background, I am sure he would be disgusted with their rhetoric. While Trump may not be a saint from a biblical standpoint, in comparison to former President of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe and North Korea's president Kim Jong Un, from a human standpoint Trump is a good guy.

Again, I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, I cannot get into his mind and tell you what he thinks and what I can infer is that it is this is well intentioned but very severely misguided act on his part.

Remember the travel ban on 7 Muslim countries in the Middle East (mentioned in Dave Cullen's video above), he only issued a 90 ban so that investigation into where the terrorist attacks were coming from. Does this mean Donald Trump hates Muslims? No, but certainly sharing a tweet from Britain First is going to put a dent in the point that he doesn't. Does Theresa May have a legitimate concern about Trump's tweets? Yes. Should we ban Donald Trump from the country because of what has happened, No, However, if Donald Trump knowingly is promoting hate speech, he should not be allowed into the country. If anyone should be banned from the country, it's Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri, not Robert Spencer and least of all, Donald Trump. Is this what we have come to? If Donald Trump made an honest mistake and won't admit it, that's one thing but if he is knowingly sharing hate speech, that is a problem and Trump needs to deal with that and retract the tweets.

Mr President, please if you are reading this, do not share any tweet from Britain First or anyone affiliated with them, you only damage your reputation and allow your detractors to smear you further, something you have condemned the left, including CNN for doing in the past. You are giving ammunition to your detractors to further incriminate you.

Answering Judaism.

Monday, 6 November 2017

Theory of the Planet of the Apes: A subtle refutation of Reverse Racism?

While I am not a fan of the anti-religious undertone of the original Planet of the Apes, there's no denying that it and it's 4 sequels, while varying in quality and the (in my opinion) superior Rupert Wyatt/Matt Reeves reboot trilogy, have been commentaries on racism, predjudice, fear, trust and revenge, hence why the franchise still has a following to this day and speaks to problems that are still relevant in our Western culture.

Background and Context

One consistent idea throughout the films presented is that racism is something that exists on both sides. There will be spoilers for the films themselves so watch before reading this article (unless you don't care for spoilers) and the time of writing, I have only seen reviews of the Tim Burton reimagining, not actually seen it properly.

In the first film, astronaut George Taylor with two of his co-workers (originally three but she died in stasis) are hunted by the apes with other humans after having their clothes stolen and seeing other humans, ones who cannot speak. Taylor, injured on his neck and rendered mute for a time, is then along with one of his co-workers captured while the other was shot dead. Taylor is recovered by Zira, one of the doctors and is amazed when Taylor understands what she is saying, much to her fiance Cornelius' surprise, with skepticism from Dr Zaius.

The humans in the film are forced to live in cages like cattle with Taylor eventually telling one of the apes to take their stinkin' paws him. This along with Taylor reading and writing is a threat to the religous establishment and to Dr Zaius who knows more than he is letting on and charges Cornelius and Zira with heresy.

Near the end of the film, an excavation site that Cornelius was involved in showed various aritifacts, including a doll that cried "Momma" much to their surprise, exposing Zaius' deception.

Taylor leaves the group but not before tying up Zaius against a rock, who warns Taylor "you may not like what you find", the excavation site is buried via explosions and thus one of the most famous plot twists in history is shown, Taylor was on Earth the whole time and he curses humanity for destorying the earth and we see The Statue of Liberty, decaying and buried in the sand.

It's sequel Beneath the Planet of the Apes, shows Brent, another astronaut who was sent to rescue Taylor, finds himself in a similiar situation to Taylor but escapes underground with Nova, a mute human given to Taylor in the first film as a mate and they find humans who not only have telepathic powers but speak English and hide their mutations with masks. Zaius eventually finds his way with an army behind him the hideout of the humans and a fight ensues, ending with Brent dying and Taylor destroying the world by igniting a nuclear bomb (which the mutant humans worshipped as God for some bizarre reason) but not before Zaius pointing how destructive humanity is.

Escape sees Dr Milo (who is killed early on), Cornelius and Zira use Taylor's ship to leave the earth and the blast from the bomb sends them back in time to 1973 where they are accepted by society and become celebrities but concerns about Zira correcting herself in court (she said disect but then changed her words.) leads Dr Otto Hasslein, the President and others to enquire what happens to the human race, learning of the ape uprising and seek to kill Zira's unborn baby and sterilise both apes.

The film ends with Cornelius and Zira dead as well as an infant that Zira swapped with another chimp, leaving her son alive in the care of circus master Senor Armando.

Conquest sees the apes being subject to slavery in response to the future the humans were told about in order to suppress it and a hunt for Caeser, the son of Cornelius and Zira. After nearly causing someone to find him, Armando and he seperate with Armando being captured and interrogated while Caesar goes into slavery, not revealing his true nature until the proper time and vows venegance after learning of Armando's death.

The uprising is successful and after persuasion by Malcolm MacDonald, himself a descendent of black slaves and the chief aide of Governor Breck and Lisa, Caesar spares Breck's life and declares it will be the Birth of the Planet of the Apes.

Battle sees the humans and the apes living together under Caeser's rule with tensions strained, especially since the humans are treated as lower class citizens. With his aide Virgil and assistant Bruce MacDonald, Caeser goes to a ruined city to learn the truth of his parents and what will happen in the future while Aldo, a gorilla general, rebels against Caeser and wants no peace between apes and humans, with his actions leading the humans to be imprisoned and Cornelius, the son of Caesar, dead.

A brief battle ensures between the humans of the forbidden city and the apes, with the apes winning the battle and a brief confrontation between Caesar and Aldo ends with Aldo's death and the humans and apes being allowed to live as equals and we cut to the Lawgiver, who is used as the framing device for the film, as he is regaling the tale of Caesar, with the future of both human and ape, being left ambiguous.

The reboot trilogy took cues from Conquest and Battle but made their own stories with similiar messages while new ones.

The reboot trilogy, from Rise to Dawn to War shows the story of Caeser, who in this continuity is an ape born of a test ape injected with ALZ-112, a virus designed to cure Alzheimers by repairing and creating cells in the brain. The original test ape is shot dead by mistake with Will Rodman, a scientist taking the young Caesar in and raising him, surprised by Caesar's remarkable intelligence from the virus, which compells him to give a dosage to his ailing father Charles, who suffers from Alzheimers himself.

The treatment works albeit temporarily due to the virus being destoryed by anti-bodies, leading to a stronger strain being created, ALZ-113, which Caesar steals after his escape from the sanctuary and uses it to increases the intelligence the other apes, after taking charge and earning the respect of his fellow apes.
Caesar is taken to a chimp sancturary after trying to protect Charles and starts resenting humans, including Will because of his misrtreatment in the sanctuary.

Caesar enables a rebellion, freeing apes as he and his army run to the Muir Woods, a forest that Caesar was taken to in his youth.

Caesar and Will reconcile and part ways but little does Caesar know that the ALZ-113 spread out of the Gen-Sys facility (thanks to a bonobo named Koba infecting one of the doctors by knocking his mask off while the virus was being administered.) and starts to kill the human population on the planet, leaving small groups of humans left, immune the effects of the virus.

10 years later, Caesar and the apes live alone in the forest and in the remains of San Francisco, humans are trying to survive. Malcolm and a team of humans from the San Francisco are spared by Caesar which compells Caesar to warn the humans to stay away from him and his family and try to live in peace with the humans, While Koba, due to his mistreatment by humans throughout his life, wants nothing more than the humans to be enslaved and destoryed.

Malcolm wins the trust of Caesar after the repair of the dam and after Caesar's wife Cornelia is given medical attention after suffering an infection.

Unfortunately, Koba killed three humans, shot Caesar and decieved the apes into following him, to lead them to kill and enslave the humans in San Francisco, imprisoning apes who refused to help him and Dreyfus, the leader of the humans in the area, called in the military to take out the apes.

With the help of his son Blue Eyes, Caeser recovers from his wounds and kills Koba for his rebellion and betrayal. Malcolm escapes with he and Caesar saying one last goodbye after Caesar tells him to escape while lamenting the loss of his once trusted friend and the fact that there is no chance of ape and humankind living in peace.

2 years later, Caesar and the apes are on the run and trying to survive facing against the renegade military division known as Alpha-Omega, let by Colonel Mccullough. The ALZ-113 virus, dubbed the Simian Flu since it's outbreak has evolved to render humans mute and reduce them to beasts. Caesar goes on a quest to find the Colonel after Blue Eyes and Cornelia are brutally murdered by him, with Maurice, Rocket and Luca accompanying Caesar on his quest, meeting Nova (this time a young girl infected with the Simian Flu and can't talk) and Bad Ape, a hermit ape who learned how to speak, along the way. Caesar's pursuit of revenge leads him down a dark path, killing a traitor called Winter by accident, with Maurice later comparing Caesar to Koba. Luca is killed and Caesar, Maurice and Rocket are kidnapped, while Big Ape and Nova escape.

Caesar to his horror while on his quest, finds his clan as well as his still living son, Cornelius, have been rounded up by the Colonel and is forced to watch his fellow apes in a concentration camp while he suffers being strung up in the cold, taunted by Koba in his dreams. The Colonel explains to Caesar why he does what he does, the Simian Flu is still afflicting the human race and he exterminated people, even his own son, who had even mild symptoms of the Simian Flu and believes he is doing it for the greater good.

Nova later finds Caesar in the facility giving him food, water and a rag doll that Maurice gave to her.

Once Caesar redeems himself in the eyes of his clan, the apes escape, the Colonel fails in his mission and is infected by Nova's doll which contained the virus, killing himself after Caesar refuses to kill him and while the military is successful in defeating Alpha-Omega, their victory is short lived when they are killed by an avalanche, leaving only the apes to survive the aftermath.

Caesar is mortally wounded in the battle and lives long enough to lead his clan to an oasis where they will be safe and Maurice to tell his friend that Cornelius, that he will be remembered for what he did, leaving Caesar to die in peace with the knowledge that his family will be, with or without him, together strong.

Myth of Reverse Racism?
One of the running themes through the Planet of the Apes. is the idea of racism and predjudice, a common problem that has existed for countless years. The movies, especially in the reboot films, don't present one side as good and one side as evil as there are both good and evil on both sides. There are ones who want peace and security on both sides and the two races to live in peace with each other while there are other individuals who do not desire reconcilation because of their circumstances.

Koba in particular hates humans because of his mistreatement at their hands and wants nothing more than to either kill or enslave whereas Caesar, having been raised by kind humans, sees the good in humanity and wants to give them a chance, as well as only killing humans who pose a threat to his family. Both are very similiar to Charles Xavier and Magneto from the X-Men Shared Universe, another franchise owned by 20th Century Fox (the film rights they possess, not the comic rights themselves.)

Dr Zaius has his own predjudice against humans, recognising their predisposition towards violence and that they will destory each other. He is a very cynical individual who refuses to see that man does have the capacity to seek peace and not be corrupt and destructive. Even in his final moments in Beneath the Planet of the Apes, he doesn't shift from this viewpoint. If Caesar was successful in uniting Apes in Battle for the Planet of the Apes, perhaps Dr Zaius would have a different view of humans, even welcoming them as fellow citizens, including Taylor and Brent, into his village, or Caesar may have failed, meaning that humanity and apes are doomed and the time loop in Escape from the Planet of the Apes really doesn't allow for possible change, meaning Zaius will remain the way he is.

Planet of the Apes, either intentionally or unintentionally destroys the leftist idea that all whites are inherently racist and that all ethnic minorities are oppressed. The franchise establishes there is hatred and love (or even indifference or tolerance) on both sides of the racial spectrum.

The films expose and bring light to the fact that no one race is inherently racist to another collectively, only individuals. Racism exists within all races, but not all of a particular race are racists. Racism can arise due to circumstances and what happens around us and sometimes can be something that a person develops without external forces or can be imbued subliminally.

The idea of being racist to white people and get away with it while if they are racist to those who are non-white, they are condemned, is an unjust balance, hypocritical and also unbiblical. See Proverbs 20:10

"10 Unequal[a] weights and unequal measures
    are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

Being consistent is key, either you condemn ALL racism, including against white people, or you condemn NONE of it.

Why can a person who isn't white be as racist and as dehumanising as possible yet if the white man says anything like that they are demonised. Leslie Jones, a famous actress noted for being in the incredibly average Ghostbusters reboot, has been made racist comments on Twitter yet cries foul when others are racist to her. Racism goes both ways as does sexism.

I hear the term whitewashing a lot in recent years when it comes to white leads in a given context in the movie industry or in animation.

Isn't that label racist in and of itself, or so you love some make believe world where you can get away with being racist to white people without repercussions?

I'm sorry, if you are to be slammed for being racists to someone who is black, or asian or latino or whatever race, why can't others be slammed for racism to white people.

Racism is a two way street, stop being inconsistent.

When the Planet of the Apes franchise can be used as a means of showing how racism can exist anywhere, in Hollywood of all places, there is absolutely no excuse to allow for racist hate and bigotry, regardless of your melanin count and facial appearance.

The left calls for diversity and tolerance yet people who disagree with them are labelled with the classic buzzwords I have mentioned in a previous paper:

 Jesus is not a racist, his command in the Great Commision in Matthew 28:19-20 was to "make disciples of all nations" referring to all ethnic groups:
"19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”"

 Paul stated in Galatians 3:27-29 the following with respect to salvation:
"27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."

Let us no also forget the following verses in the Old Testament, namely Exodus 22:21, Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34, Numbers 10:32, Deuteronomy 10:19 and 23:7

Reverse Racism which the Bible makes clear, is not a biblical concept and when even a Hollywood franchise like Planet of the Apes recognises this, there is a serious problem. Let us abandon racism and flee to the one who can save us from it, Jesus Christ, who like the Father has no favourites as James tells us in his letter in chapter 2, verses 1-13:

"2 My brothers,[a] show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

Answering Judaism.