In an unscientific poll, which was at least as scientific as any produced on this subject by CNN, FOX, Zogby, or the GOP, I have determined that the average age of the Ron Paul supporter is thirty-six and not twenty-two or seventy years as the MSM would variously have us believe.
Technorati Tags: ron paul
Robert Silverberg’s Roma Eterna is a collection of stories in an alternate history in which Rome never succumbed to the corrupting forces of decadence nor to barbarian hordes. It’s mostly a good book, but there are some very dull spots.
The primary point of divergence was 3500 years ago at the time of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt. Instead of crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites were driven into it by Pharaoh, drowning 10,000 of them and dooming the remnant to remain in Egypt. Of course, in reality, there probably never would have been a Roman Empire if the Israelites had not conquered Canaan. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were much more powerful than most of the individual Canaanite kingdoms they replaced. They served as a stablizing influence in the region and very likely set in motion a series of migrations that sparked the development of both the Greek and Roman peoples into true nations.
Despite that historical problem, Silverberg’s characters still tell a few significant truths:
Democracy in Iraq?
While discussing the possibility of bringing Arabia into the Empire, Nicomedes says, “…these Saracens are free men, free within themselves, which is a kind of freedom that you and I are simply not equipped to comprehend. They can’t be conquered because they can’t be governed. Trying to conquer them is like trying to conquer lions or tigers. You can whip a lion or even kill it, yes, but you can’t possibly impose your will on it even if you keep it in a cage for twenty years. These are a race of lions here. Government as we understand it is a concept that can never exist here.”
Nicomedes was wrong about the freedom of the Saracens, but he was right about the possibility of governing them. God said they would always be at war with their neighbors, and so that’s they way it will be. Attempting to bring democracy to Ishmael’s descendants is worse than a fool’s errand. It’s rebellion against God. Do we really think we can bring peace where God said there can be no peace?
Gen 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto [Haggar], Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Gen 16:12 And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him…
The Lowest Common Denominator
Later, a Roman in exile became a friend of Muhammad in the days before he had fully embraced his mission of Islam. He said to Muhammad, “We Romans are accustomed to regarding all creeds with tolerance, and if you ever visit our capital you will find temples of a hundred faiths standing side by side. But I do see the beauty of your teachings.”
Muhammad replied, “Beauty? I asked about truth. When you say you accept all faiths as equally true, what you are really saying is that you see no truth in any of them…” And he was absolutely correct. It borders on insanity to say that Hinduism and Voodoo are of equal truth with Christianity or Judaism. Most of the great religions are totally incompatible with each other. Either you believe Yeshua’s words or you believe Muhammad’s. If you say you believe them both, what you are actually saying is that you believe neither, and you make yourself look like a complete ignoramus.
Technorati Tags: robert silverberg, roma eterna, iraq, democracy
Dr. Stephen Baskerville at MensNewsDaily wrote that “…until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws.”
He’s right that divorce is a problem and that the divorce laws are a problem, but he is way off when he says they are the central problem. The divorce laws are terribly perverse, but that is only a symptom of a greater problem that really is cultural. Or maybe I should say spiritual. The central problem with marriage today is feminism, rebellion against God’s prescribed order. The absurdities of no fault divorce, mandatory and draconian spousal maintenance and child support payments, default child custody laws, homosexual marriage, et cetera, are the logical end of rejecting the common sense of created order. In that context, divorce is actually an oft-abused remedy that God has built into his Law.
Here’s my ideal solution (as of today–I might change my mind later):
Then I think we might be getting somewhere. 
Genesis 37:2
Jacob’s concubines, Bilhah and Zilpah, were also fully his wives. Of course, the Hebrew word used here can also simply mean “woman.” Moses may have been just calling Bilhah and Zilpah Jacob’s women, but it is the same word used in other passages to refer to Eve, Sarah, Hagar, Keturah, Rachel, Leah, and all of the other wives of the Bible. A concubine was not just a spare sex partner, but had rights and responsibilities in her husband’s house. She was a wife who also happened to be a slave. It certainly isn’t an ideal relationship, but it’s not the horrifying lot anti-patriarchs make it out to be.
Technorati Tags: vayeshev, torah, jacob, concubine, wife, polygamy
Check out A Commentary on Marriage in the Bible!
According to ABC News’ Match-O-Matic, Ron Paul is the presidential candidate whose views most closely match my own with 10 out of 11 points in common. Next is Fred Thompson with 4 out of 11 and Mike Gravel with 3 out of 11. That’s a pretty big gap between spots 1 and 2.
I’m not surprised.
Technorati Tags: ron paul
From the tail end of a discussion at Vox Day:
jay c, He denies the Fact that Salvation was nailed to the cross and says so here on a regular basisI’m not sure what that means. If you are saying that our salvation was enabled by the cross, then I agree with that, and I think Mark does too. Without the cross, there would be no salvation for anyone. I’m sure that Mark believes that “the handwriting of ordinances that were against us” were nailed to the cross, although I suspect he does not understand that the same way you do.I’m not sure what that means. If you are saying that our salvation was enabled by the cross, then I agree with that, and I think Mark does too. Without the cross, there would be no salvation for anyone. I’m sure that Mark believes that “the handwriting of ordinances that were against us” were nailed to the cross, although I suspect he does not understand that the same way you do.I love his cursing rants around Christmas and Easter
I’m not sure what that means. If you are saying that our salvation was enabled by the cross, then I agree with that, and I think Mark does too. Without the cross, there would be no salvation for anyone. I’m sure that Mark believes that “the handwriting of ordinances that were against us” were nailed to the cross, although I suspect he does not understand that the same way you do.God was pretty clear when he said, “Don’t do the things the pagans do, while saying you’re doing it to me.” I can see how you might think that doesn’t apply to you. A lot of very smart people agree with you, but I don’t, and Mark doesn’t. Since God also says that we are guilty if our neighbor sins because we didn’t warn him, can you really blame Mark for coming back to these same points again and again? Well, maybe you don’t think that applies to you either, I don’t know.
I asked him a direct question a couple of months ago , if you were Saved by Grace or Law he said neither, and started with his bloviating about he doesn’t like be asked Yes or No implying that it’s argumentally- worded ( big surprise )and an either/or question and he’s not gonna go there .
I don’t remember the specific instance, but based on what I’ve seen here, I can understand his response. You don’t seem to be very interested in what Mark has to say, but only in what you want Mark to be saying. You spend so much time trying to manipulate the rules and then you blame him for not wanting to play your game. These kinds of arguments always seem to follow the same pattern:
M: “God wants us to obey his laws.”
A: “You want us all to stone our children?”
M: “No. I think God wants us to obey his laws.”
A: “I knew it! You want us to kill our kids plus anyone who heals on the sabbath.”
I’m not interested in playing that game either. The wind doesn’t have ears.
I’ll tell you it’s God’s Sovereign Grace and it alone . I really don’t like when people who call themselves Christians ( or Messianics as you call yourselves ) deny the Cross of Christ Jesus and him crucified . And God doesn’t like it either , says so all over the New Testament.
I’ve met a few–and only a very few–Messianics who believe you have to obey the law completely in order to be saved. (We’ll leave exactly what “saved” means for another day.) Mark is certainly not one of those. I can’t tell you exactly what Mark believes, because I’m not Mark. Instead, I’ll tell you what I believe. I believe that there is no set of rules you can follow to be saved. There is no magic prayer, sounds, or belief either. Here it is, and it’s pretty simple: You have to acknowledge that you cannot save yourself no matter what you do, you have to appeal to God’s mercy, and you have to commit to obedience. (Note that commitment to a course of action does not imply a flawless or even moderately accurate execution.) Even then, none of that stuff actually saves you. Our salvation is solely at God’s discretion. Our only option is to throw ourselves on his mercy in faith that he keeps his promises.
And him emphatically promotes Known charlatans and cultists Like ex TWI cultists like Michael Rood , an absolute fraud and a damned to hell False Prophet .
I’ve never known Mark to emphatically promote anyone but Jesus. He has cited Rood among others, and he has defended Rood against attacks. That’s not the same as promotion. I’m not a big fan of Rood myself, but it does seem a little unfair to call someone a false prophet for getting a prediction wrong. Prophecy isn’t just telling the future. It’s conveying a direct message from God. If Rood claimed that God told him such and such would happen and then it didn’t, well, then I agree that he’s a false prophet. I’m not aware of that happening, and I’m not interested in hearing about it, either.
His meltdown is going on as we speak . You don’t give support or money to this guy, do you?
Mark or Rood? I’ve never known Mark to ask anyone for money, and I’ve never given any to Rood.
I appreciate you having a dialogue with me jayc, unlike your friend that will duck, weave, avoid answering questions when asked, ( which violate house rules here, just ask VD or Spacebunny ) or give long drawed out non-answer.
Well, you already know my thoughts on that. Sometimes Mark’s answers are deliberately indirect to get you thinking. That might be a hangover from his years as a radio talk show host. I know that gets kind of irritating sometimes, but at least he’s following the pattern of someone we all respect. If you asked an honestly direct question, then I don’t doubt Mark would give you a more direct answer. I’m not saying that you are being deliberately dishonest, but I think you have already made up your mind what Mark’s answers are supposed to be, and you won’t believe anything else he says. Given that premise, Mark can’t win no matter what he says, so he wisely chooses to play a different game.
I really want you to know I don’t anything against you , or Mark, rory or Crystal , but I do have a problem with bad or abberant teaching . Like I said , this is serious business , and your eternal life depends on it . Shalom, and may God richly bless you and yours.
Fred X | 11.21.07 – 8:34 pm | #
I appreciate that, but, no, my eternal life does not depend on it. This appears to be an argument about how to walk out our salvation, not about how to obtain it. Maybe that’s the root of the misunderstanding.
Genesis 32:7-8
…he divided the people…and the flocks… Jacob divided his camp into two companies. In one company went all of his livestock, and in the other went his family and other possessions. (We can know the general manner of division because verses 22 and 23 say that all four women and eleven sons were still with him after he had sent off his livestock.) He sent the former ahead so that, if they encountered bandits (or an angry, estranged brother), he might still be able to save the latter. Contrary to popularly accepted propoganda, the patriarchs did not consider their wives and children to be mere chattel. He was willing to sacrifice all his wealth before risking even one of the concubines.
Well, that was no fun at all, but it’s been kind of nice having my mom here cooking for me. 
We had our Thanksgiving dinner on Monday, because my son is spending the rest of the week with his mom.
Yipee.
It means I’m going to miss a judo tournament tomorrow morning and the UFC tomorrow night. 
Sheboygan, Wisconsin. The city that doesn’t want anyone to link to their web site.
Technorati Tags: authoritarianism, civil disobedience