There were three texts brought to me by Sophiee Saguy in a brief conversation had on Rabbi Eli Cohen's Facebook page. I want to take a look at the texts and see what they say. Are they statements of evil excused by Christians or something else?
Matthew 23:33 You snakes, you generation of vipers, how can you escape the damnation of hell?
Jesus' words were a condemnation of the Pharisees. It was their responsiblity to lead the people of Israel in the right direction to worship God, but they not doing so. In fact, their efforts (not all Pharisees to clarify) were in vain and they were not leading the people properly. There is more to say about the context of Matthew 23 which can be found here: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-pharisees-look-at-woes-matthew-23.html
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I have come to send peace to the world. I come not to send peace, but the sword.
Here is what Jesus said for the full context said:
"34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]
37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it."
In the actual context of Matthew 10:34-39 and (same applies to Luke 12:49-53), Jesus is speaking about a metaphorical sword of division within families that will occur if someone chooses to follow him. He is saying in essence if you don't love me more than your family, don't follow me because by doing so you will have opposition from your family and your friends.
Even your co-workers in work or those who claim Jesus' name but don't obey him will also come after an individual should they continue their faith in Jesus.
John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life. But he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but shall suffer the everlasting wrath of God.
Let us take a look:
"John 3:31 The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all. 32 He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony. 33 Whoever has accepted it has certified that God is truthful. 34 For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God[i] gives the Spirit without limit. 35 The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands. 36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them."
The statement itself isn't evil, but a warning. That those who refuse the follow Jesus and believe in his testimony, whether they be Jew or Gentile, will not have eternal life.
None of the statements of the New Testament above are evil, nor excused as such.
Answering Judaism.
Sunday, 28 October 2018
Friday, 5 October 2018
Was Judas saved?
16th of June 2024: Disclaimer, Sam Shamoun no longer holds to Calvinism. Any argument he brings to show Calvinism should not be taken as what he teaches and believes now.
"The subject of Judas may need another paper. I would need to think on this topic. But I'll gladly comment on the verses below regarding him." http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/01/comments-on-romans-8-and-other-texts.html
The context was to look at certain texts that had been brought to me by Sam Shamoun. There was no malice involved from either party, just a look the texts presented. I gave my comments in the paper above but the point of Judas isn't a point I have dwelt on that much.
It's one elephant in the room that shouldn't really be ignored, was Judas saved? Was a born again believer that fell away or was he someone who merely gave intellectual assent to? Was Judas falling a way a failure on Jesus or the Father's part? (Obviously not on that particular point).
Obviously and admittedly, he wasn't born again.
Let's first look at John 12:1-8
"12:1 Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”"
We see here that Judas claimed that the money could have been given to the poor. What we have here is what we would call in the modern age a virtue signaller, saying something but not really having a proper conviction. Judas had no actual concern for the poor, this was merely a cover for the fact that Judas helped himself to the money. Jesus knew that Judas would do this, he knew what was in the hearts of men (John 2:24). John writing this as a historian and the fact he is listed on several occasions at "the disciple whom Jesus loved". The apostles didn't know one of them was going to betray Jesus, even wondering who it was going to be, the reveal taking place at The Lord's Supper.
Even before that, there is a clear indication that the devil prompted Judas to betray Jesus. We obviously know this happened as again, John is writing this as history, telling us what happened.
Could any one of the apostles betrayed Jesus, it is a possiblity. Obviously we are on the other side of the New Testament so we know who was going to betray Jesus but only he and the betrayer knew what was going to happen, the other disciples did not. They didn't know who would betray them in their midst, because anyone can talk the talk and not walk the walk.
As said in the article posted above, You can technically argue that those who left never believed to begin with but how do you deal with someone who has been in Christ for years, regenerated and born again and falls away? To say there is no possibility of falling away renders the warnings vacuous and pointless.
The case of Judas doesn't set a precedent that every single person who falls away was never saved to begin with. I am also aware you can have someone who is rich in theology but dead in works, they say the right things but never live it out. They could be pharisees covering their evil or even trying to live the best lives they can without even giving God honour, thanks or even love.
Again this would ignore the basic warnings of scripture telling us to stay firm and hold to Christ and if we choose to abandon him, we will be cut off, even if we say all the right things and do what is right.
Judas is one case of "Oh he was never saved to begin with" but that doesn't answer or address the warnings in the Bible directed to Christians, not unbelievers but Christians.
Paul knew the warnings he gave would apply to the congregations he addressed, like the Corinthians for instance:
"1 Corinthians 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.
6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7 Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: “The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.” 8 We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did—and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died. 9 We should not test Christ, as some of them did—and were killed by snakes. 10 And do not grumble, as some of them did—and were killed by the destroying angel.
11 These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. 12 So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! 13 No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."
Vigilance is something to always hold onto, taking care not to do the same evil things that the Israelites did in the Old Testament and sadly the church itself has repeated the same mistakes as Israel albeit in different ways to how we think.
Granted others can point out if you are truly saved, you'll persevere to the end (At least that perspective preaches holy living) but it is interesting to wonder how they would reconcile that with the warnings of scripture as mentioned above.
So was Judas saved? Short answer, no.
Answering Judaism.
Tuesday, 28 August 2018
The Pharisees: A look at the woes Matthew 23
The article shall be taking a look at the woes that Jesus calls upon the Pharisees and comment on them. Let us look. Matthew 23:1-12 shall not be looked at here extensively right now but will be quoted. Matthew 23:29-36 Lord Willing I need to look into those before making comments.
"23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
This sets the stage for what Jesus will say next as he tells his disciples to listen to the Pharisees, evening obeying them despite their actions speaking to the contrary.
"13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves."
A serious charge. The Pharisees themselves had a form of godliness but denied it's power, even (without realising) that they were shutting people off from the true God despite their introduction to them, even making them just as bad if not worse as they, legalistic and dead with no true relationship with YHWH cultivated.
"16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it."
You may remember from Matthew 5 what Jesus said about vows.
"33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]"
Jesus isn't prohibiting vows period, if he did, Paul would stand condemned for his Nazarite vows. What Jesus condemned was a lack of truthfulness. When he said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no", he was in effect saying to quote the words of David Pawson "Always mean what you say." Jesus is emphasising truthness period rather than using a vow to validate your words (which includes saying "Honestly" as well). The Pharisees claimed that certain vows were not binding depending on circumstances (only true if it's a father nulling the vow of his daughter when he hears of it on the same day as found in Numbers 30:5.) Jesus is saying regarding the vows "It's inconsequential what you swear by and regardless of it's location, every vow you make God expects you to be bound to it".
Every vow made in the sight of God is to be sacred, kept to the letter. See my article on vows and oaths for more information: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/04/vows-thoughts-and-reflections.html
"23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!"
Putting aside whether or not Gentiles are to tithe (Spoilers, they don't: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/10/are-christians-required-to-tithe.html), Jesus himself wasn't against the practice of tithing, if anything that was commendable that the Pharisees were diligent in that. This wasn't the problem, neglecting the more important pressing matters was the problem, namely not dispensing proper justice to the wicked, not granting mercy to the lowest people or even faithfulness, whether it be God, their spouse or the people. Yes of course their tithing was important but it was inconsequential when the needs of the many are neglected. It is easy to focus on the small details in our lives (What movies can we watch? What drinks can we drink? What clothes can we wear etc.) to the point where the large concerns are neglected (public school education, covetousess, abominations of the political far left and far right etc.). A proper balance is needed.
"25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean."
"27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."
These two go hand in hand as they address the same issue, namely being unclean on the inside. Again, like tithing, commendable to keep oneself clean on the outside, but what good is that if you are unclean, full of evil and wickedness of all kinds. Jesus had earlier in Matthew 15 condemned the Pharisees for binding the people to the traditions of man as God given commands (Traditions that were either harmless or contradictory to God's word).
"Matthew 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”
16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”"
The emphasis that the Pharisees placed both in Matthew 15 and in Matthew 23 was on the outward and external aspects of righteousness, neglecting the sanctification of the inward man, thoughts of purity was well as righteous actions and words. The whole man had to be involved with the worship of YHWH, complete inward submission to his word which was be reflected outwardly. Start and inward change first was the principle, then the outside of yourself will follow. Like the previous section, priority is the key. Keith Thompson (though he doesn't mention the Pharisees explicitly) made an interesting comment in his documentary on Paul that "it is a human tendency to want to appear moral good in religious settings". see position 13:46-15:18 for the context. His comment highlights a very important point, Paul recognised his need for grace to strive for holiness despite his exhortations, revealing a very different attitude to what the Pharisees had in comparison.
Are these inditements are an unfair assessment of the Pharisees? No, The New Testament does recognise that there were Pharisees who did have a love for God and earnestly sought to please him. Indeed, the first followers who were Jews did have Pharisees among them, as they played a part in the Acts 15 council in Jerusalem.
I have responded to an article on 1000 Verses pertaining to the Pharisees so there is more information on that: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/01/comments-on-pharisees.html
It is easy to get carried away with the idea that ALL the Pharisees were condemned whereas a matter of fact, there were some who repented, possibly Nicodemus and certainly Joseph of Arimathea.
Hope this article has been a blessing, thanks for reading.
Answering Judaism.
"23 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6 and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7 and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi[b] by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.[c] 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."
This sets the stage for what Jesus will say next as he tells his disciples to listen to the Pharisees, evening obeying them despite their actions speaking to the contrary.
"13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves."
A serious charge. The Pharisees themselves had a form of godliness but denied it's power, even (without realising) that they were shutting people off from the true God despite their introduction to them, even making them just as bad if not worse as they, legalistic and dead with no true relationship with YHWH cultivated.
"16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it."
You may remember from Matthew 5 what Jesus said about vows.
"33 “Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ 34 But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36 And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37 All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.[g]"
Jesus isn't prohibiting vows period, if he did, Paul would stand condemned for his Nazarite vows. What Jesus condemned was a lack of truthfulness. When he said "Let your yes be yes and your no be no", he was in effect saying to quote the words of David Pawson "Always mean what you say." Jesus is emphasising truthness period rather than using a vow to validate your words (which includes saying "Honestly" as well). The Pharisees claimed that certain vows were not binding depending on circumstances (only true if it's a father nulling the vow of his daughter when he hears of it on the same day as found in Numbers 30:5.) Jesus is saying regarding the vows "It's inconsequential what you swear by and regardless of it's location, every vow you make God expects you to be bound to it".
Every vow made in the sight of God is to be sacred, kept to the letter. See my article on vows and oaths for more information: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2015/04/vows-thoughts-and-reflections.html
"23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!"
Putting aside whether or not Gentiles are to tithe (Spoilers, they don't: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/10/are-christians-required-to-tithe.html), Jesus himself wasn't against the practice of tithing, if anything that was commendable that the Pharisees were diligent in that. This wasn't the problem, neglecting the more important pressing matters was the problem, namely not dispensing proper justice to the wicked, not granting mercy to the lowest people or even faithfulness, whether it be God, their spouse or the people. Yes of course their tithing was important but it was inconsequential when the needs of the many are neglected. It is easy to focus on the small details in our lives (What movies can we watch? What drinks can we drink? What clothes can we wear etc.) to the point where the large concerns are neglected (public school education, covetousess, abominations of the political far left and far right etc.). A proper balance is needed.
"25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean."
"27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."
These two go hand in hand as they address the same issue, namely being unclean on the inside. Again, like tithing, commendable to keep oneself clean on the outside, but what good is that if you are unclean, full of evil and wickedness of all kinds. Jesus had earlier in Matthew 15 condemned the Pharisees for binding the people to the traditions of man as God given commands (Traditions that were either harmless or contradictory to God's word).
"Matthew 15:10 Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen and understand. 11 What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them.”
12 Then the disciples came to him and asked, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this?”
13 He replied, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. 14 Leave them; they are blind guides.[d] If the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.”
15 Peter said, “Explain the parable to us.”
16 “Are you still so dull?” Jesus asked them. 17 “Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? 18 But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what defile a person; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile them.”"
The emphasis that the Pharisees placed both in Matthew 15 and in Matthew 23 was on the outward and external aspects of righteousness, neglecting the sanctification of the inward man, thoughts of purity was well as righteous actions and words. The whole man had to be involved with the worship of YHWH, complete inward submission to his word which was be reflected outwardly. Start and inward change first was the principle, then the outside of yourself will follow. Like the previous section, priority is the key. Keith Thompson (though he doesn't mention the Pharisees explicitly) made an interesting comment in his documentary on Paul that "it is a human tendency to want to appear moral good in religious settings". see position 13:46-15:18 for the context. His comment highlights a very important point, Paul recognised his need for grace to strive for holiness despite his exhortations, revealing a very different attitude to what the Pharisees had in comparison.
Are these inditements are an unfair assessment of the Pharisees? No, The New Testament does recognise that there were Pharisees who did have a love for God and earnestly sought to please him. Indeed, the first followers who were Jews did have Pharisees among them, as they played a part in the Acts 15 council in Jerusalem.
I have responded to an article on 1000 Verses pertaining to the Pharisees so there is more information on that: http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2014/01/comments-on-pharisees.html
It is easy to get carried away with the idea that ALL the Pharisees were condemned whereas a matter of fact, there were some who repented, possibly Nicodemus and certainly Joseph of Arimathea.
Hope this article has been a blessing, thanks for reading.
Answering Judaism.
Tuesday, 17 July 2018
God's Divine Judgement: Children slain.
I came across a Facebook post by a Muslim trying to condemn the Bible for the killing of children and say the Quran is more noble book because it condemns the killing of children and essentially condemning the Bible for child killing. Well, let's see what the Bible says.
Revelation 2:23 was quoted but let us see what the context is:
"18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets, ‘I will not impose any other burden on you, 25 except to hold on to what you have until I come.’
26 To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— 27 that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’[b]—just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give that one the morning star. 29 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
Whether this is a person called Jezebel or someone who carries the character of Jezebel is debatable. Regardless, the punishment is perfectly just here. What better way to punish a wicked woman than robbing her of her children? Especially when the deceiving of the church and bringing them into sexual immorality is something that Jesus finds this detestable.
"31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”
"3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
The Midianite women thanks to Balaam had enticed the Israelites into sin and wickedness but not all women were involved in the sexual enticement. As a result, when the Israelites attacked the Midianites, YHWH dispensed his grace to the Midianite women who did not entice the Israelites by sparing their lives.
"15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”"
This is just venegance on the Amalekites for their ruthless attack on the Israelites. A fair and just punishment on a wicked nation, deserved and right. Where's the problem?
"Ezekiel 9:5 As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple."
Reading the entire context and even going back to chapter 8, what you have are IDOLATERS who are rightly being slain, including children who won't have the incentive to repent of their sins because they will grow up learning the wickedness of their parents. God doesn't show an unrepentant sinner mercy and that would not exclude children who are unrepentant themselves.
"Genesis 19:24-25
New International Version
Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.; Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land.""
The same applies here to Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of those towns had no intention of repenting and the children, like in Exekiel 9, would have continued in the wickedness of their parents.
"Lamentations 2:21
“Young and old lie together
in the dust of the streets;
my young men and young women
have fallen by the sword.
You have slain them in the day of your anger;
you have slaughtered them without pity."
Once again a passage of judgement. It is describing what God has done to Israel in light of the fact that the people have not repented and returned to him. It's a horrific sight but God has done to the people exaclty what they deserve. Again, Where is the problem with God bringing his wrath upon them here? The children are suffering and dying because of the idolatry and immorality of Israel. Doesn't God have the right to bring judgement upong those who deserve it?
The same applies to the passages below, Hosea speaks about the Northern Kingdom of Israel, also known as Ephraim, specifically mentioning Samaria while Nahum is referring to the Assyrians.
"Hosea 13:16
King James Bible
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Nahum 3:5, 3:10
New International Version
5 "I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame.
10 Yet she was taken captive and went into exile. Her infants were dashed to pieces at every street corner. Lots were cast for her nobles, and all her great men were put in chains."
Again I ask, Doesn't God have the right to bring judgement upon those who deserve it?
"Ezekiel 5:9-10
New International Version
Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds."
An example in the Bible of God handing over individuals to wickedness and evil because of their unrepenant hearts. Cannabalism is one of the evils commited by individuals that have been given over to a reprobate mind. It is also desperation as the people are low on food and about to starve but rather than seek God and repent, they eat their children to survive. Horrid yes, but this is what happened.
"Genesis 19:24-25
New International Version
Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.; Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land."
A just act, the people were evil and immoral as explained before. God knew these people would repent so he destroyed them.
"Deuteronomy 32:25
New International Version
In the street the sword will make them childless; in their homes terror will reign. The young men and young women will perish, the infants and those with gray hair."
This is part of the song of Moses. Can you explain one explain what the problem is with the passage here? I am not seeing anything that is close to God murdering children (even though God has the right to take the life of the creation he has made.) Let's take a look back in the previous chapter to see why this song, including verse 25 is present:
"Deuteronomy 31:15 Then the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. 17 And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they will ask, ‘Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not with us?’ 18 And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.
19 “Now write down this song and teach it to the Israelites and have them sing it, so that it may be a witness for me against them. 20 When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their ancestors, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant. 21 And when many disasters and calamities come on them, this song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten by their descendants. I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised them on oath.” 22 So Moses wrote down this song that day and taught it to the Israelites."
In Chapter 31 of Deuteronomy, Moses is commanded to write the song as a witness against Israel, because God knows that when Israel settle in the land and get comfortable, they shall rebel, thus bringing disaster upon themselves. The Israelites will have no excuse in their rebellion.
"Joshua 10:32-35
New International Version
The LORD gave Lachish into Israel's hands, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish."
Putting aside the debate as to whether or not they are civilian towns or military strongholds, the judgement on children and their parents are perfectly justified, in light of what I had mentioned previously about Sodom and Gomorrah.
If they were military strongholds, any point of the Israelites killing all, young and old, women and children are merely points denoting a decisive war victory. It was common rhetoric used by Israel and pagans alike. The exact words may not be here the principle applies if these were military strongholds.
If however they were regular villages, it still doesn't condemn God for wiping out the children.
Joshua by God's mighty hand was eliminating five towns in particular and their kings. Just judgement being brought upon a wicked and rebellious people. Individuals namely who had forfeited their right to live the land.
"Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Kill the entire town (including women, infants and children) if one person worships another god"
The destruction of that town is perfectly justified, especially if the town allows the wickedness to flourish and the Israelites do nothing about it. If any person, including a relative leads people astray, the town is to be destroyed as the town itself has been corrupted by Israelites that have turned away from YHWH, telling people to follow the false gods of that nations.
Hope this article has been a help to you.
Answering Judaism.
Revelation 2:23 was quoted but let us see what the context is:
"18 “To the angel of the church in Thyatira write:
These are the words of the Son of God, whose eyes are like blazing fire and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first.
20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds.
24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets, ‘I will not impose any other burden on you, 25 except to hold on to what you have until I come.’
26 To the one who is victorious and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations— 27 that one ‘will rule them with an iron scepter and will dash them to pieces like pottery’[b]—just as I have received authority from my Father. 28 I will also give that one the morning star. 29 Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says to the churches."
Whether this is a person called Jezebel or someone who carries the character of Jezebel is debatable. Regardless, the punishment is perfectly just here. What better way to punish a wicked woman than robbing her of her children? Especially when the deceiving of the church and bringing them into sexual immorality is something that Jesus finds this detestable.
"31 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”
"3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them. 4 Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” 5 So twelve thousand men armed for battle, a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. 6 Moses sent them into battle, a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.
7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."
The Midianite women thanks to Balaam had enticed the Israelites into sin and wickedness but not all women were involved in the sexual enticement. As a result, when the Israelites attacked the Midianites, YHWH dispensed his grace to the Midianite women who did not entice the Israelites by sparing their lives.
"15 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”"
This is just venegance on the Amalekites for their ruthless attack on the Israelites. A fair and just punishment on a wicked nation, deserved and right. Where's the problem?
"Ezekiel 9:5 As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. 6 Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple."
Reading the entire context and even going back to chapter 8, what you have are IDOLATERS who are rightly being slain, including children who won't have the incentive to repent of their sins because they will grow up learning the wickedness of their parents. God doesn't show an unrepentant sinner mercy and that would not exclude children who are unrepentant themselves.
"Genesis 19:24-25
New International Version
Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.; Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land.""
The same applies here to Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of those towns had no intention of repenting and the children, like in Exekiel 9, would have continued in the wickedness of their parents.
"Lamentations 2:21
“Young and old lie together
in the dust of the streets;
my young men and young women
have fallen by the sword.
You have slain them in the day of your anger;
you have slaughtered them without pity."
Once again a passage of judgement. It is describing what God has done to Israel in light of the fact that the people have not repented and returned to him. It's a horrific sight but God has done to the people exaclty what they deserve. Again, Where is the problem with God bringing his wrath upon them here? The children are suffering and dying because of the idolatry and immorality of Israel. Doesn't God have the right to bring judgement upong those who deserve it?
The same applies to the passages below, Hosea speaks about the Northern Kingdom of Israel, also known as Ephraim, specifically mentioning Samaria while Nahum is referring to the Assyrians.
"Hosea 13:16
King James Bible
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Nahum 3:5, 3:10
New International Version
5 "I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty. "I will lift your skirts over your face. I will show the nations your nakedness and the kingdoms your shame.
10 Yet she was taken captive and went into exile. Her infants were dashed to pieces at every street corner. Lots were cast for her nobles, and all her great men were put in chains."
Again I ask, Doesn't God have the right to bring judgement upon those who deserve it?
"Ezekiel 5:9-10
New International Version
Because of all your detestable idols, I will do to you what I have never done before and will never do again. Therefore in your midst parents will eat their children, and children will eat their parents. I will inflict punishment on you and will scatter all your survivors to the winds."
An example in the Bible of God handing over individuals to wickedness and evil because of their unrepenant hearts. Cannabalism is one of the evils commited by individuals that have been given over to a reprobate mind. It is also desperation as the people are low on food and about to starve but rather than seek God and repent, they eat their children to survive. Horrid yes, but this is what happened.
"Genesis 19:24-25
New International Version
Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah--from the LORD out of the heavens.; Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, destroying all those living in the cities--and also the vegetation in the land."
A just act, the people were evil and immoral as explained before. God knew these people would repent so he destroyed them.
"Deuteronomy 32:25
New International Version
In the street the sword will make them childless; in their homes terror will reign. The young men and young women will perish, the infants and those with gray hair."
This is part of the song of Moses. Can you explain one explain what the problem is with the passage here? I am not seeing anything that is close to God murdering children (even though God has the right to take the life of the creation he has made.) Let's take a look back in the previous chapter to see why this song, including verse 25 is present:
"Deuteronomy 31:15 Then the Lord appeared at the tent in a pillar of cloud, and the cloud stood over the entrance to the tent. 16 And the Lord said to Moses: “You are going to rest with your ancestors, and these people will soon prostitute themselves to the foreign gods of the land they are entering. They will forsake me and break the covenant I made with them. 17 And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and calamities will come on them, and in that day they will ask, ‘Have not these disasters come on us because our God is not with us?’ 18 And I will certainly hide my face in that day because of all their wickedness in turning to other gods.
19 “Now write down this song and teach it to the Israelites and have them sing it, so that it may be a witness for me against them. 20 When I have brought them into the land flowing with milk and honey, the land I promised on oath to their ancestors, and when they eat their fill and thrive, they will turn to other gods and worship them, rejecting me and breaking my covenant. 21 And when many disasters and calamities come on them, this song will testify against them, because it will not be forgotten by their descendants. I know what they are disposed to do, even before I bring them into the land I promised them on oath.” 22 So Moses wrote down this song that day and taught it to the Israelites."
In Chapter 31 of Deuteronomy, Moses is commanded to write the song as a witness against Israel, because God knows that when Israel settle in the land and get comfortable, they shall rebel, thus bringing disaster upon themselves. The Israelites will have no excuse in their rebellion.
"Joshua 10:32-35
New International Version
The LORD gave Lachish into Israel's hands, and Joshua took it on the second day. The city and everyone in it he put to the sword, just as he had done to Libnah. 35 They captured it that same day and put it to the sword and totally destroyed everyone in it, just as they had done to Lachish."
Putting aside the debate as to whether or not they are civilian towns or military strongholds, the judgement on children and their parents are perfectly justified, in light of what I had mentioned previously about Sodom and Gomorrah.
If they were military strongholds, any point of the Israelites killing all, young and old, women and children are merely points denoting a decisive war victory. It was common rhetoric used by Israel and pagans alike. The exact words may not be here the principle applies if these were military strongholds.
If however they were regular villages, it still doesn't condemn God for wiping out the children.
Joshua by God's mighty hand was eliminating five towns in particular and their kings. Just judgement being brought upon a wicked and rebellious people. Individuals namely who had forfeited their right to live the land.
"Deuteronomy 13:13-19
Kill the entire town (including women, infants and children) if one person worships another god"
The destruction of that town is perfectly justified, especially if the town allows the wickedness to flourish and the Israelites do nothing about it. If any person, including a relative leads people astray, the town is to be destroyed as the town itself has been corrupted by Israelites that have turned away from YHWH, telling people to follow the false gods of that nations.
Hope this article has been a help to you.
Answering Judaism.
Sunday, 8 July 2018
Brainwashed Children 2: Drag Queens Kids?
I have commented on how vile brainwashing children into normalising sexual deviancy is so firstly read the comments I have made on the picture itself (Which no longer exists): http://answering-judaism.blogspot.com/2016/03/brainwashed-children-what-does-is-it.html
James Allsup, a YouTube commentator watched a video the SJW YouTube channel known as Mic and commented on how vile the video itself was, namely a young boy being allowed to dress as a drag queen and was in a video in 2015 dancing in the street.... Yes that happened. What Allsup had to say about the morally repugnant degenracy the child was allowed to engage in was very important and highlights why parents should not pander to their children to do what ever they want. Check his response here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmbbneeD5Hw&t=1s
It's actually cruel and manipulative that Mic would consider interviewing the child and using him as a liscence to say what he is doing is ok. It's a common tactic by the left to use children as a means of immunising themselves from criticism. Remember David Hogg, I remember Ben Shapiro pointing the survivors of the shooting, David Hogg included for the following:
"The MSNBC panel says that Laura Ingram is losing advertisers over her casual cruelty, right? MSNBC is jumping on this because MSNBC is a Fox News competitor. This is all political, to pretend this is not political is to ignore reality obviously. What the media have done and they have been doing this since the shooting and I object to it, what they've done is taken these kids who really don't know necessarily anything about gun control, they haven't evidenced tremendous knowledge about the issue and they are using them as stand ins for for their opinion and then if those kids opinions are attacked the media jumps out in front and says Hey, how dare you attack these kids." The video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k7IKnzZeK0
Not only this but Gavin Mcinnes commented on a video where a group of young Native Americans being interviewed. One of the things that they were commenting on was whether or not the term redskin was racist or not as one example (Mcinnes gives evidence that redskin is not racist). He even tells the liberals "Stop poisoning these children and trying to make them into your liberal pets." The video you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVT3oe9sXjY&t=791s
To use a child as a means of forwarding a political or ideological agenda in order to immunise yourself against criticism is flat out disingeniuous and despicable.
This is what you have with the child in the video Allsup responded to, a child who has clearly been manipulated by his mother into thinking that somehow being a drag queen is the right and good thing to do. It should upset you when a child is treated this way and it's better for the parents of the kid to have a milestone tied around their neck rather than go to hell for what they have done. Imprisonment is definitely an option for the parents who do something so vile like this, we should not be normalising sin for a child and parents must ensure that children to not behave this way.
Answering Judaism.
James Allsup, a YouTube commentator watched a video the SJW YouTube channel known as Mic and commented on how vile the video itself was, namely a young boy being allowed to dress as a drag queen and was in a video in 2015 dancing in the street.... Yes that happened. What Allsup had to say about the morally repugnant degenracy the child was allowed to engage in was very important and highlights why parents should not pander to their children to do what ever they want. Check his response here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmbbneeD5Hw&t=1s
It's actually cruel and manipulative that Mic would consider interviewing the child and using him as a liscence to say what he is doing is ok. It's a common tactic by the left to use children as a means of immunising themselves from criticism. Remember David Hogg, I remember Ben Shapiro pointing the survivors of the shooting, David Hogg included for the following:
"The MSNBC panel says that Laura Ingram is losing advertisers over her casual cruelty, right? MSNBC is jumping on this because MSNBC is a Fox News competitor. This is all political, to pretend this is not political is to ignore reality obviously. What the media have done and they have been doing this since the shooting and I object to it, what they've done is taken these kids who really don't know necessarily anything about gun control, they haven't evidenced tremendous knowledge about the issue and they are using them as stand ins for for their opinion and then if those kids opinions are attacked the media jumps out in front and says Hey, how dare you attack these kids." The video can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-k7IKnzZeK0
Not only this but Gavin Mcinnes commented on a video where a group of young Native Americans being interviewed. One of the things that they were commenting on was whether or not the term redskin was racist or not as one example (Mcinnes gives evidence that redskin is not racist). He even tells the liberals "Stop poisoning these children and trying to make them into your liberal pets." The video you can find here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVT3oe9sXjY&t=791s
To use a child as a means of forwarding a political or ideological agenda in order to immunise yourself against criticism is flat out disingeniuous and despicable.
This is what you have with the child in the video Allsup responded to, a child who has clearly been manipulated by his mother into thinking that somehow being a drag queen is the right and good thing to do. It should upset you when a child is treated this way and it's better for the parents of the kid to have a milestone tied around their neck rather than go to hell for what they have done. Imprisonment is definitely an option for the parents who do something so vile like this, we should not be normalising sin for a child and parents must ensure that children to not behave this way.
Answering Judaism.
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.
Diversity
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.
Conclusion
My advice for any Christian, watch Black Panther for yourself , make your own judgement and see if what I say holds merit.
Answering Judaism.
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.
Diversity
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.
Conclusion
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)