Tuesday, 10 April 2018

Black Panther: An SJW Nightmare?

Black Panther is a Marvel comic character created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in July of 1966, first appearing in Fantastic Four #52. Much like other Marvel films, Black Panther has been in development for quite some time and had been released in February 2018. A month has passed since it's release and it has grossed $1 billion worldwide and is in the number 5 spot of highest domestic opening weekend.

With Avengers: Infinity War just over the horizon, Black Panther is coming close to the end of it's run theatrically.

There have been politics surrounding the movie, however unlike Sony Pictures with Ghostbusters, neither Marvel Studios, nor Ryan Coogler even issued a political statement slamming detractors of the movie as far to my knowledge (If however I am wrong, I will correct that Lord Willing in this paper as an additional note).

I won't give my thoughts on the movie entirely here but I will say while not as good as Captain America: Civil War and Doctor Strange, Black Panther certainly is in the top three best Phase 3 moves of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

This article is more of a look at the identity politics surrounding it as well as the themes and points the movie actually makes.

No Whites Allowed Identity Politics
If you were to replace Whites with Blacks, people would be demanding that the person in question would be removed from their job and prosecuted, dragging their name through the dirt but for some reason, no outrage when racist individuals, tell white people to let people of colour see the movie first and then whites can see the movie afterwards.

This is obscene. The melanin (the stuff that determines your skin colour) in your skin doesn't have a deciding factor in whether or not to see the movie first. There are even white people who said that we should wait for people of colour to see it first. Can you imagine the backlash if people for Captain America: The First Avenger said No Blacks Allowed, there would be outraged protests but when people start saying the same thing regarding Black Panther, silence. Total hypocrisy and shows us the irony of leftists (not all) that they are the most racist and bigoted people of all.

I saw the movie on the 13th of Febuary 2018, which was the earliest screening for the UK, before the United States even saw a release. The fact Marvel Studios, specifically Kevin Feige, the architect of the MCU and head of Marvel Studios, and Ryan Coogler, the director and co-writer of Black Panther, have never issued a statement regarding the movie's detractors speaks volumes. I don't know their political stance but they seem quite tolerant, inclusive and the things the left go on about.

Sabotage of Rotten Tomatoes
For Christians not in the know, Rotten Tomatoes is a website that gathers reviews from critics and using those reviews, calculates a numerical rating, it goes up if a positive review is posted and goes down if a negative review is posted.

Individuals were deliberately trashing the movie to tamper with the Rotten Tomatoes rating days before the movie has been released and an individual had given rules for white people to sit in the theatre at the back, not to see it in the opening weekend letting people of colour see it first and post a positive review on Rotten Tomatoes before seeing the movie? (All said by a white man by the way).
What a cancerous atmosphere identity politics have created.

Kevin Feige's political stance I am not sure, it could be centre left but at least he isn't engaging in this silliness and attacking people for not praising his movies.

Ryan Coogler (himself black) doesn't seem to be criticising people for disliking or liking the movie.
Just watch Black Panther, regardless of ethnicity, it doesn't define what time you may go to the cinema for any movie, it's open to everyone and the same would also apply to home media.

Identifying with a particular character based on race
I understand the issues in Hollywood in the past, some have complained about blackface and yellowface which is understable, but it annoys me when individuals say they identify or are pleased when a child can identify with a character and not have to dress up as an Asian or Black version of that character (I honestly don't care as a youth leader I knew years ago dressed up as Rey 2 or 3 years ago and didn't make a statement about her being an Asian Rey, she just dressed up as Rey and that was it).

If you are talking about films in a time where there was anti-Asian sentiments, the points would hold weight, but that has passed.

Should a child identify with a character because of gender and race? Or should they identify with a character because of the struggles the individual goes through. I could understand the struggles of T'Challa, the Black Panther in the film and how he ticks and I don't have as high of a melanin count as he does. It's so superficial and it reminds me of people of the comments about Meghan Markle, that some people now have someone to identify with in the modern age (i.e, someone who is black). Maybe what one should be doing is focusing on her character and even her achievement. Who is she as an individual is what counts.

God is not interested in the melanin count of someone's skin, unlike us, he is not predjudiced and will judge man accordingly. Jesus is not going to say to an individual that due to their skin colour on Judgement Day that they shall be sent to hell or allowed to enter heaven, That isn't how he judges someone. Did Jesus condemn the Phonecian because she was not a Jew, or did he commend her for her faith? Did Philip say that black people were not entitled to the Gospel or did he like Jesus commanded, start making disciples of all nations, including the blacks?
The melanin count of a human is inconsequential to the merit of a human being in the sight of God, what matters is whether he is in Christ or not.

Is Black Panther an expose on the left?

Interpretation of a film is subjective, so I'd advise people to see Black Panther for themselves and come to their own conclusion on the matter. But the thing I believe I have noticed. I have seen Black Panther twice and I do think that there is a case you can make is that this movie actually destroys the left's false narratives. One point of theirs is a bit of a grey area but we'll get to that.

Firstly, T'Challa becomes the king of his native Wakanda, a nation that is highly advanced, with amazing technology through the usage of an metal from space called, vibranium (which is also what Captain America's shield is made of, but I digress). Vibranium has multiple usages, for medical purposes, fuel, electricity etc.

The film has an interesting contrast between blacks raised in Africa, specifically Wakanda and that of African Americans in the West.

Admittedly I still think Black Panther is a good movie but the politics surrounding it (no fault of Ryan Coogler or Marvel Studios) is cancer.

Just seeing a headlines title is enough to turn me off reading like "white people are the side kick in Black Panther and should shut up." It's ridiculous.

Here's the thing, The Wakandans have have been isolated in the film for years and it's a big deal when Everett Ross is brought into Wakanda and wonder if it is a good idea. W'Kabi even states if they let refugees in, they bring their problems with them.

They have a right to be concerned about their borders. How disastrous would it be if murderers, sex offenders, benefit scroungers etc were let into Wakanda potentially? Granted a place like Wakanda is unrealistic, it still raises a concern protecting one's borders, even if Wakanda is extreme in that regard. Still, even they seem to recognise open borders and letting any immigrant into the country can only lead to disaster.

Could it be a subtle condemnation of closing the border and we should be open? Possibly. Watch the film for yourself and make a judgement regarding the ending of the film.
Ross saves Nakia (T'Challa's ex-lover) from being killed by a grenade but gets hurt badly and has to be brought to Wakanda to be saved. Ross took a piece of shrapnel for Nakia... So much for the narrative all white people are racist.

In return, Shuri, T'Challa's sister fixes Ross's back and even allows him later on to use a Wakandan simulator to pilot a ship to stop the vibranium from being shipped out of the country.
No predjudice from either Ross nor the Wakandans is present toward each other. What does that tell you about them?

Then you have Erik Killmonger, himself a Wakandan raised in America believing himself to be oppressed. Even his final line of dialogue reflects this. He is a man who refuses to move past the trauma in his life and remain a victim.

He also sought to use the vibranium to conquer the earth and free who he sees as the oppressed, making Wakanda an empire to rule over others.

Killmonger hates T'Challa's bloodline because T'Chaka killed N'Jobu, who himself witnessed the drugs and crime in black neighborhoods believing that if they had weapons from Wakanda they could defend themselves against their oppressors, or so he claims. Judge the film for yourself.

And yet the SJW parasites say Stan Lee's cameo is racist? Ignoring the fact either due to ignorance or deception Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were themselves the creators of the Black Panther character.
I still like the movie despite the identity politics of the cancerous racist scum who seek to politise a movie that can be judged simply on the merits of Ryan Coogler's direction, his and Joe Robert Cole's writing and the cast's performances in the film, rather than making a political statement of leftist ideology that seeks to destroy and disunify people rather than build them up and bring them together.

The mere fact that Voddie Baucham exists as he does now, ie a great minister of Christ refutes the idea that black people cannot overcome problems because of systematic oppression of black people from whites, even though institutionalised racism and slavery were abolished years ago at two varying points in history. Despite his background, Jesus Christ in his mercy came to Voddie Baucham and used him mightly, even to this day.

When this word is used by the left, it doesn't mean diversity of thought, but diversity based on something irrelevant as race or sex.

Anyone who uses diversity as a code word or buzz word to mean anti-white which is not the most common definition these days, they are engaging in racism and bigotry. There is also the usage of the phrase "check your privilege" which is designed to shut down any meaningful conversation and it is not an argument and doesn't valid anyone's position more than mine.

Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Black Panther are films that have a predominantly Asian and Black casts, why? Because they are either the majority or entire population of their settings. So of course in most Hollywood films the cast are mostly white.

Yet Black Panther is called a win for diversity because 90% are black? How? I like the cast yes, they all do a great job but their skin colour has nothing to do with it. Same with Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Civil War.

It is also worth noting that James Earl Jones, known as the voice of Darth Vader and Mufasa respectively was not chosen because of his skin colour, a fact he made clear when he said Lucasfilm wanted a darker voice in terms of timbre, not ethnicity.

Avery Brooks of Deep Space Nine fame who was the character Captain Benjamin Sisko, has said that he didn't wake up to play a brown captain, just a captain and yet Star Trek Discovery highlights that their main character is a black woman named Michael (No I am not kidding and I prefer to call her Mikaela or Michelle.)

Not picking on any race just saying. There are talented actors like Idris Elba, Michael B Jordan, Daniel Kaluuya, Lupita Nyong'o, Zoe Saldana and many more I could list but I don't judge them good or bad actors or actresses based on race.

People just can't let a franchise be can they? There must always be an objection against a program because "RACIST!!!" Or "WHITEWASHING!!!" And praising something because there are no white males (except for gay white males because diversity).

All this talk of diversity is just a cover for subtle racism, sexism and bigotry with the most intelligence insulting double standards and disgusting comments.
Ironic how the ones who are against racism and sexism are the ones projecting their bigotry onto others.

My advice for any Christian, watch Black Panther for yourself , make your own judgement and see if what I say holds merit.

Answering Judaism.

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: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/false-witnessing-what-is-it.html

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 vary 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: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2017/09/the-rich-young-ruler-follow-jesus-to-end.html

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: https://www.stpetersfarnborough.org.uk/Media/Player.aspx?media_id=198874&file_id=211750

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkLWr2xuqbY
Paul Joseph Watson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIaWTSaoZ0M
TJ Kirk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNXMNDpqhvA (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)
Arch Warhammer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7tTjOF8E2o
Dave Cullen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR23bQ0uod0
Drunken Uncle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o98FiibPaAk (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)
Scrunch Point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrJY5Tjh9tU
Undoomed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn-_tfaz_ZM (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)
Jim the Ape: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvrZMea-0lA (Viewers discretion advised, contains swearing)
Gavin McInnes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCg9ztkQWf0 (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: http://costaconnected.com/what-it-really-means-when-you-like-or-share-content-from-britain-first/

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J13UBjmoPfs&t=203s

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.