12 Historical facts (Most critical scholars believe these twelve items) 

 

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.

2. He was buried.

3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.

4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).

5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).

6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.

7. The resurrection was the central message.

8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.

9. The Church was born and grew.

10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.

11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).

12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic).

 

http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/garyhabermas.htm

 

F.F. Bruce:

http://www.bible.ca/b-new-testament-documents-f-f-bruce.htm

 

An interesting debate on The Resurrection between Craig and Ehrman:

 

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

A week or so ago I had an exchange with Zerowing21 regarding the authenticity of The New Testament as a valid historical document. This exchange (in part) follows below for those who are interested enough to slog through it. I think it’s fitting that on the Eve of Christmas, Christians should be encouraged by the veracity of the thousands of New Testament fragments that have been uncovered over the past 2000 years. In fact this obscure Jewish carpenter has had more written attestations affirming his existence than does Napoleon Bonaparte. The documentation of his life, death and resurrection is far closer to the actual timeline of events than are the recorded events of Alexander The Great. Alexander’s two most noted biographers, Arian and Plutarch, wrote their biographies 400 years after his death and yet there is no question about the veracity of their records. 

 

I think once it’s understood the primary goal of the New Atheist is to create doubt in the minds of their readers and not to actually provide evidence for their criticisms it becomes obvious that their arguments are largely vacuous. They imagine themselves to be ferocious lions, but upon closer examination they are nothing more than virtual tigers. Unfortunately, many lay skeptics are satisfied with the scholarly credentials of the bestselling novelist Dan Brown and are happy to allow a piece of poorly written fiction to fill their intellectual void on the topic of textual criticism.

 

But there are a number of sincere skeptics who aren’t distracted by the din New Atheists create and remain unimpressed by the nonexistent credentials of popularizers like Brown, Harris and Hitchens. For these folks I would be glad to recommend a wealth of resources that exist beyond the tiny realm of this social networking system. More importantly, I’d like to encourage the Community of Christians to not allow the few insincere skeptics to steal their JOY during this glorious season of celebrating CHRIST as KING. Below is a small summary with links for those sincere seekers interested in the person of Christ.

 

The 2 most common objections to New Testament reliability is authorship and textual variants between manuscripts. 

 

1. Authorship:

The authorship question surrounds the Gospel accounts which would be regarded as eyewitness or contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. It is true that Mark and John do not credit themselves with authorship but it is widely accepted by even critical scholars that they were the original authors of their respective gospels. This commonly held belief is seen as early as the second century. The well known Church Father; apologist and martyr Irenaeus gives credence to what most scholars now affirm; namely the original authorship of all 4 gospels.  

 

2. Textual variations:

Given that there are over 5300 New Testament manuscripts or manuscript fragments, one might expect there to be some variation. The fact that we possess sooo many ancient texts is pretty impressive in and of itself. Textual critic Dr. Bart Ehrman makes quite a bit of hay over the 10,000 discrepancies found among the many manuscripts. On the surface that claim could certainly cause one to doubt the reliability of The New Testament as it is sold today. Perhaps his intention is to lay an ax at the root of all Christiandom hoping to fell the mighty oak. In reality he does nothing more than prune the twigs on a vibrant tree. His “10,000″ discrepancies include missing accent marks; misspelled words; entire phrases that are worded slightly different within the greek language but given the exact same meaning when translated. 

In the end, I think Dr. Ehrman does Christianity a favor in pointing out the minor discrepancies because it highlights the incredible agreement the manuscripts DO share. When listening to him debate it becomes apparent that what he intends to do is question inerrancy and NOT historical veracity. No one would argue that the men copying the texts were infallible.

 

But here are some points to consider when holding these ancient manuscripts to the light of reality.

 

1. When Erasmus translated the Latin Vulgate into greek in the early 1500′s, he had at his disposal only a fraction of what we’ve uncovered since. In spite of this, the agreement between his published work and the earliest manuscripts uncovered since then is within 98%. 

 

2. The earliest manuscripts we possess were written in the greek language. Interestingly enough when Jesus’s words are translated from the Greek into the language he spoke, Aramaic, the depth of meaning and significance increases. There are over 180 different times where Jesus’s words (in Aramaic) would have carried with them a pun or play on words. This not only lends credibility to original sourcing, but it also reveals that Jesus was a really clever guy.  :D

 

3. As to the question of the original manuscripts being written shortly after the actual events took place, the New Testament is affirmed.
It is widely agreed upon that the gospels and most epistles date earlier then A.D. 70. The Book of Acts ends at the point where Paul is under house arrest. An event as earth shattering as the Destruction of the Temple would have surely been mentioned in the original sources. This was an incredible prophetic “win” on the part of Christ:

 

@rey - Actually the earliest (valid historical) sources date back to the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not to mention the extra biblical gospel of Peter. These eyewitness accounts date to within 5 years of the resurrection of Jesus. A.T. Robinson of Cambridge University says “the burial of Jesus in the tomb is one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” The original copies are gone but the amazing agreement among the hundreds of fragments found lend credibility to this. 
 

         You’re welcome to allow your particular prejudice to obscure the majority opinion of both secular and Christian authorities, but on this you stand with the minority. 

@rey - @bakersdozen2 - The gospels are not considered historical documents.  Luke is the only one of them that claims to be writing history rather than in the allegorical style of the time.  Luke cites no sources and does not comport himself as a historian (first off, the book wasn’t written by Luke the apostles).
What’s more, Luke’s writing compares to allegorical literature.  Consider the approach to the empty tomb, where all the gospel writers focus on Mary, but all include their own take on it (in Luke’s, Mary is accompanied by Joanna and Mary the mother of James, but not in any of the others – compare to the book of John where Mary has a crap ton of people with her).
JT

 

@Zerowing21- @rey -  The Gospels represent legitimate chronicles of early eyewitness accounts. I’m not sure where either of you are going with the “legitimate historian” argument. Luke himself is believed to have been an incredibly thorough historical scribe by many secular textual critics. JT’s tactic here is much like Bart Ehrmann’s who tries to confuse the issue of inerrancy versus accuracy. 
There is no question that secular historians affirm the Gospels as legitimate sources for historical proofs.

         There are a number of ways in which the content of information is dissected from the thousands of fragments that have been uncovered(and continue to be discovered) to prove the veracity of the New Testament. No rational person would ague that there are zero mistakes in recording a past event. Given the incredible wealth of fragments that have been found most critics put the reliability of the manuscripts to within 97%. Again this does not address the issue of inerrancy but instead it addresses the issue of accuracy. 

 

@Carsonsmom2 -The whole counsel of Scripture is far more reliable than modern day bloggers. To put it simply, my money (my everything) is on Jesus…. not JT.  I think most historians would agree that the accuracy of scripture supercedes that of xangans any day which is what this really boils down to, quite frankly.  :)

 

@rey - @bakersdozen2 - No.  We don’t even know who wrote them, so how is it possible to verify their level of scholarship?  What’s more, all of them cite no sources.  BD2 is simply wrong.
JT

 

@Zerowing21 - Those are not the standards applied by legitimate textual critics of ancient manuscripts. They look for historical, geographical and cultural congruity. Agreement with contemporary sources of the time.  

JT, are you familiar with how the veracity of ancient manuscripts is determined? You aren’t going to find formal citations and bibliographies among fragments. I can point you to some sources that discuss how authenticity is established. 

 

@bakersdozen2 - I am familiar with that process, as a matter of fact.  But please point me to sources.  I’d like to see what you consider reliable on this.
JT

 

@Zerowing21 - There are many reliable sources. At the moment, I’m reading Robert H. Stein. He outlines the criteria for authenticity in this way: (some categories have been condensed for simplification)

 

Positive Criterion:

1. The Criterion of Multiple Attestation

2. The Criterion of Embarrassment

3. The Criterion of Dissimilarity

4. The Criterion of Aramaic Linguistic and palestinian Environmental Phenomena 

5. The Criterion of Tradition Contrary to Editorial Tendency

 

         Negative Criterion:

1. The Criterion of Contradiction of Authentic Sayings

2. The Criterion of Environmental Contradiction  

3. The Criterion of the Tendencies of the Developing Tradition

 

         I was thinking about this while I was out and decided that I will write a post on the general topic of Apologetics with emphasis on this in particular. I fly to Atlanta tomorrow to see my other son graduate from AIT so I won’t be able to address this until later this week. We’re trying to get ready for the trip out, but it seems that this topic needs attention. No doubt 98% of Xanga will find it a great cure for insomnia. Have a good week!

 

 @bakersdozen2 - Will wait up on those reliable sources.
JT

 

 @bakersdozen2 - *sigh*  Looked up Robert H. Stein.  From the cover of his book…
Robert H. Stein is senior professor of New Testament interpretation at 
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky. 
Not a historian.  Not operating within peer review on the subject of history.  Out to convince laymen.  Go back to my response to you and read the portion on sourcing.
JT

 

@Zerowing21 - Hmmm, yes. Most people have a hard time taking a PhD. from Princeton Theological Seminary seriously (?) 

         ”Robert H. Stein (PhD, Princeton Theological Seminary) was most recently senior professor of New Testament interpretation at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. He previously taught at Bethel Seminary. A world-renowned scholar of the Synoptic Gospels, Stein has published several books, including Luke, A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, and Jesus the Messiah.”

 

@bakersdozen2 - As someone to go tussling around with historians, yes, I do.  I would also think that degree would be useless for arguing with biologists or anything other than theology.

 

@Zerowing21 - He is a formost authority on the New Testament so, I think you’d find yourself standing alone in your criticism once again.

 

@bakersdozen2 - I’m sure you think that.  You’re wrong.  His degree in theology does not put him on the same playing field as historians on history any more than the biochemistry a biologist must learn puts him on level playing field with a chemist on the field of chemistry.
Tell you what, I’ll make you a bet.  I’ll do run an Academic Search Premier search that includes all relevant databases looking for peer review papers by Stein in the field of history.  I’m betting zero turn up.  I’m willing to wager an entry on my blog on this (and I expect the same if you accept the bet).
JT

 

@Zerowing21 - JT, in academia he is known as a premier scholar in New Testament interpretation and criticism. I would imagine that he would know just a little bit about the historical veracity of the New Testament. His specialty is the Gospel themselves and this discussion is about them specifically. 

         I honestly think you saw the words Southern Baptist and thought Hayseed preacher. Princeton Theological Seminary is not exactly a Community College. His area of expertise is the New Testament and we’re discussing The New Testament as a valid historical source.Just admit it when you’re wrong. 

         Anyway, I have to make dinner now. Angel hair pasta in a mascarpone cream sauce with pistachios

 

@bakersdozen2 - So take the bet.
JT

 

 

T It’s interesting to note that Robert H. Stein is a peer reviewed scholar on this very topic in fact. Here’s the link:  

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/gp/gp1_authenticity_stein.pdf

I don’t think peer review is as weighty a criteria especially given Dr. Steins distinguished credentials from Princeton. JT seems to believe that it alone is the benchmark for his certification of approval. 

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS, EVERYONE!!  

 

 

I’m headed off this morning to San Antonio Texas .

 

 

My son David is graduating from AIT. He’s been gone since the end of May. 

 

Yesterday we found out that he was accepted to The University of Virginia for Spring Semester 2011. He’ll be joining his three older sisters who are already there. 

I told the girls that we’re taking over the Institution. Erin was a little nervous for Dave because it was the only place he applied to. When she asked him why, he said that he didn’t want to go anywhere else. Mark had the privilege of telling his brother he was accepted. We had talked to him before David called. Mark will be graduating from AIT on the 15th of this month.  And once again, we’ll get on a plane to watch him graduate. His father is going to wear his uniform and pin his cord to his shoulder. It’s been a rough few months for the both of them. But we couldn’t be more proud of our boys!

 

Mark and me last month after he graduated from Boot Camp.

 

Congratulations Mark and David.  We’re all very proud of you both!

 

 

To those of you who think Christianity is dying, think again…… Did you notice how many people spontaneously joined in on this Glorious “planned surprise”?

 

 

Hallelujah indeed!!!  …. Merry christmas and Happy first of December, to all My Xanga friends!!!    

 

❤ Beth Ann

 

 

You grew up in the 70′s. Do any of you old Xangans (like me) remember collecting & trading these cards?

 

 

WACKY PACKAGES like “Pests ~Awful Bits cereal” and “Generally Moldy’s ~ Weakies cereal”

I know… very nerdy. 

But very popular. I found them in the check-out line at Wal-Mart this evening. They brought back fond memories of haggling with my brother over cynical and revolting cards…  

 

 

Siobhan is never one to miss a photo booth opportunity. She found this one particularly disgusting. YuCk!!

 

 

They’re now marketing new wacky cards like:   “Twitley Tea ~  Conspiracy theory blend”  (mmmmmm)

and “Play-Doze the conk out clay  ~ the ooze that’s a real snooze”

 

Ahhhh… good times!  

 

 

 

It was time for a haircut

 

Daddy watching in the background. 

 

 

 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

  

       

         

 

     

 

      

 

     

 

     

       

 

 

 

 

 

Just a few of the pictures from this weekends wedding shoot. Thanks to all who offered tips; advice; encouragement. It really meant a lot to me!  Thanks to Deb also for being my second shooter. You’re a treasure, Scoo!  

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

  

 

 

 

                

 

 

                     

 

 

 

                        

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                

 

 

 

 

 

                                

 

 

              

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                      

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I took over 2000 pictures this weekend. There are many more to be edited. If you’re interested, check out my Flickr page to see more pictures.

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/48285953@N08/

 

Any tips for wedding shoots any one??  Anyone at all??

 

Amanda shot the ones we’re in. 

 

                     

 

 

                  

 

 

 

 

            

 

 

 

 

 

             

 

                                                                                                           * Fish eye cropped *

 

At a public house last evening enjoying some dinner and the beer sampler…

 

 

 

 

These below were shot in Ashe Co. NC by me with Deborah’s Pentax

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Accidently running into my Father -in-law, Sister-in-law and my son, Mark at the Wal-Mart down town. 

 

 

 

Erin overexposed. There are mountains behind her. I like the look.

 

---

  

 

 

“Want to know how a daughter should be treated? A little girl should feel safe. She should feel that her mind, body and heart are all tucked in at night, with the door cracked just a little so it is not quite so dark, with the low murmur of voices trickling in from the living room telling her that mommy and daddy are still there.

   A little girl should feel wanted. She should make her parents smile, just because she walks upon the earth, and make their hearts glad- not because of what she does, but because of who she is. A little girl should have her needs met; she should thrive, and not be required to learn survival and fear as a constant way of life. A little girl should be encouraged, not broken. She should hunger for nothing… for bread, shoes or love. A little girl should be given room to breathe, not smothered by the old way. Not bound upon the old way. Not stifled, strangled, cast out into the open field.”  

~ Hillary McFarland  ”Quivering Daughters”

 

Friday afternoon, I took the kids up the road so I could get some practice in before a photo shoot I’ll be doing this coming weekend. The kids were informed to dress nicely, if they’d like, if not that’s o.k. too, but these pictures were not going to be deleted. The girls put some make up on and the boys came as they were. Siobhan asked Amanda if she would put some eye make up on her as well. She wanted to look like “a famous person too”.  I guess only famous people wear eye liner (?)  

 

          

 

Lately, I’ve been thinking about freedom. The type of freedom only Christ can provide. It’s a subject that seems to perpetually resurface in my life. The above quote is from an excellent book I’ve been reading lately. It’s a book I’d like my older sons and daughters to read. And my younger ones at some point. The quote, and the book, can apply to both little boys and little girls. It can serve as therapy for those who have suffered abuse, but it can also serve as a warning to those who haven’t. In my case, I was raised by wonderful parents and had a loving family, but I can see the type of abuse the book talks about all around me. I see various people and groups trying to exert this type of influence and control over other individuals. It isn’t just relegated to the Christian community, but unfortunately Christian’s, especially those in positions of authority, can call out a “bigger stick” than your average angry autonomist. 

At times, I feel like I’m caught between two world views. There’s the illogical, fluctuating and transient world view of the secularist where everything is determined by the individual and then ascribed to the collective moral conscience of “the community”; and then there is the “Christian” world view which is often hijacked by the loudest most forceful voices.  This is not to say the secularists can’t be loud and forceful. They can be all that in SPADES and derisive too, thank you very much!!  But they do all that without an overarching divinity.  

Quite frankly, Secularists can come off like a child having a temper tantrum and so are much more easily dismissed.  They can only threaten their own disapproval and perhaps those who are like minded.  In the end, that’s not terribly alarming. 

 

        

 

 

Christians and non christians have a way of distorting the TRUE meaning of freedom. Atheists and humanists believe that embracing complete autonomy is the only way to be truly liberated. Many Christians would readily admit that salvation is a free gift of God; but then…….

 

 

Too often the simplicity of the Gospel is contorted by adding man made rules and regulations as a way of determining whether or not a person is genuinely saved.  I can’t tell you how many sermons/lessons/lectures I’ve sat through that list 10.. 20… 30  ”ways” to know you’re truly saved. By the end of the sermon (usually designed to get a certain point, or more accurately, standard(s) across) you wonder if ANYone could EVER hope to be redeemed and at peace with God.  To be sure, Philippians exhorts us to “work out” our salvation with fear and trembling. But I don’t remember a detailed list of what we should eat; what we should wear; what parenting method to use; what music we should listen to; how weshould evangelize; or what denomination we should be affiliated with and on and on and on……. 

 

These are areas where true freedom lies …. areas where those who have a controlling spirit want to exercise authority over others.

An authority that they don’t have. On the surface, they may think they’re following God’s ways, but more often than not, they’re just creating bondage in individuals and division in the body of Christ. Unfortunately, there are those who may not be so benevolent in their motives.  

 

I see this far too often in the world I belong to.

Honestly, it can be discouraging; embarrassing and annoying but ultimately I have to resign myself to being a very integral part of the body of Christ. It isn’t as though I’m just shaking my head as I look at the church. I’m all too familiar with the short comings I see.  There is a long list of wrong thoughts, motives and actions that I deal with from MYself on a daily basis. Control may not be one of them (at the moment) but there are plenty of others. At any rate, I love my brothers and sisters in Christ. I’m very much like them.

 

Flawed and forgiven.

 

 

            

But when I think about my faith, I don’t think about my own flaws or the flaws of others. I think about Jesus Christ and how HE behaved; What HE said; who HE loved. He is my compass; He is my plumb line. 

He provides my guidance and direction not the “Christian” world and certainly not the secular world.

He is my Rock for stability. He is my comfort and my resting place. 

As Christians, we can not be robbed of who He is.

All authority ends with Him….. this is the case regardless of who is or isn’t happy with it.    :D

 

     

 

One of the points in the book that is continually made is that we should be free to BE who God made us to be. Some young ladies are creative some of us are less so but their are talents and skills that no one should repress. If they are not sin (as the scriptures define sin) they should be encouraged. A child’s heart; their likes and dislikes should be regarded. 

 

When my youngest was just a little thing, she began calling my husband and me what she thought our “collective” name was. She knew we were Mommy and Daddy, but in addition, she homogenized our first two names and we became “Jeff Ann”.  This name was interchangeable. When she called out “Jeff Ann”, we knew she meant either, and, or both. It wasn’t meant to be disrespectful. It was said with affection and we did not discourage her in the least; though we were warned it wasn’t a “wise” thing to allow. We never defined it as “disrespectful”, so she never embraced it that way. Btw, she stopped calling us that… and I do miss it. 

 

As Siobhan grew older, she developed a fascination with Spiderman. I don’t mean a mild interest. I mean 95% of her wardrobe had that worldly Super Hero emblazoned on it. There was some disapproval that we felt over her obsession (and it was an obsession) but we knew that she desired to imitate Spidey not out of a desire to be masculine but because he represented bravery, courage and a sense of adventure.  Can girls not appreciate those qualities and desire to imitate them? I think we can!!  She still loves him but that love has dwindled a bit.  She likes to play princess and she likes to play warrior. We’ve never defined her play for her or set “standards’ for what is feminine or what is masculine. It’s never about that to her it’s about adventure.

 

 

She cracks me up!! Siobhan wanted to do “crazy running” the other day. She kept saying, “Let’s do this thing” and then she would run screaming 

“YOU BETRAYEDED ME!!!”  Some unseen but glorious battle was taking place.

 

  

                

Amanda is very quiet. I have a couple of quiet kids. Manda is the quietest. I try and draw her out at times, and we’ll talk but she’s happy not being the one doing the talking. 

She is who she is and I love the way God made her. 

 

             

I was very surprised that Jennie and Samantha seemed agreeable to having their pictures taken. Normally when I point my camera in their direction they throw their hands up in protest.

I gave them some warning this time so they could prepare. But the next day, I was adjusting the settings on my camera and I pointed my camera in Jennie’s direction to test it and she threw her hands up in front of her face….. oh well.

Things will probably be different once they get their braces off.  They can’t wait!!

 

            

 

Ben is hilarious. I could take 100 consecutive pictures of this boy and 99 of them would look like this.

 

He isn’t a hyper kid at all and you would never notice how much he moves his face. Unless you took his picture. 

He has allergies so I think that’s why he’s twitchy.

Every once in a while I’ll get him to hold still. everything still… but I have to be quick.

 

 

This is what he looks like normally. ⬆  When you don’t try to freeze frame his face. 

 

        

 Ian wants to be a lawyer when he grows up. He told us that several years ago.

I suppose I can encourage that…  

 

                        

 

       

 

      

 

             

 

More thoughts and pictures to come….  soon  :)

 

 

 

 

This article, written by Joel McDurmon, makes some excellent observations. The most recent incident involving a deranged Eco-terrorist provides a great opportunity to examine a widely accepted yet dubious teaching. To be sure, one crazy man does not define an entire movement but this latest episode might be just the catalyst needed to encourage people to understand the philosophical underpinnings of the Environmental movement and Leftist philosophy.  

 

 

LEFTIST GUNMEN TAKE HOSTAGES, DISSOLVE CIVILIZATION

Written by Joel McDurmon on Sep 03, 2010 06:00 am

Enlightened by Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth as well as a novel about a talking gorilla, James Lee on Wednesday stormed the Discovery Channel building near Washington, D.C. with a gun and homemade (though he was homeless) bombs demanding the corporation change its programming according to his manifesto. The manifesto features themes of disarmament, population reduction, and environmentalist propaganda. Headlines followed.

A three-hour hostage stand-off with police ended with Lee shot dead and no one else hurt.

What can we take from this scenario other than a dead body?

First of all, since Lee’s document includes a diatribe against the show Future Weaponsfor its glamorization of firearms, let’s talk about disarmament for a moment. The situation Wednesday could very well have been over in three minutes instead of three hours if the State of Maryland had any respect for the Second Amendment. Judged byopencarry.org as one of the top five States where gun rights are most restricted, a private individual needs a permit to carry either open or concealed legally. But an average individual has virtually no chance of receiving a permit for self-defense as the State demands “documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses” before it will condescend to give permission.

Dear State of Maryland: Can you see the problem with this requirement now? Who in their right mind would make a law saying, “We may consider issuing you a permit, but only after the criminal has his way with you and you have a police report to prove you’ve been attacked.” Please also notice that some of the nation’s strictest gun laws still could not even prevent a mentally ill homeless person with a criminal record from obtaining a handgun with which to carry out this deranged crime.

However, thanks to James Lee, all 1,900 employees of Discovery Communications now have the documented evidence, police report, and plenty of witnesses required for a Personal Protection permit.

I hereby encourage all 1,900 employees of Discovery Communications, Silver Spring, Maryland, to exercise what little Second Amendment rights they have left and immediately apply for a Personal Protection Handgun Permit. At the very least you will swamp the State bureaucrats with what they do best: paperwork.

One also wonders why Lee himself—so opposed to proliferation of arms and war—would resort to guns and bombs as the means for implementing his agenda and steering a corporation to follow his manifesto. Of course, this is what all welfare-States do—mandate education and regulate business according to their own agendas under threat of gunpoint. Lee merely deprived his subjects of the illusion of freedom and democracy as he tried to play Messiah.

The blogs and comments are abuzz with associations of Lee’s actions with his radical leftism, but many have quickly pointed out that the right has its deranged killers as well. Agreed. I don’t wish to make any oversimplified associations. I wish, however, to make a couple of further comments about what we can learn from the situation.

There’s an issue here about how misleading extreme examples often can be. For example, I have spent several days now writing a study guide to the DVD debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, Collision. Near the end on the production, Hitchens proposes a scenario he intends to prove that all people naturally have “common moral properties” innately. (Even though largely true, this point says nothing about the origin of those properties, whether they derive from God or from godless evolution.) Nevertheless, he proposes the following scenario:

You see a woman thrown to the ground in the street by a man or two men and kicked hard in the stomach—kicked in the uterus. What is your instant reaction? Is it one of revulsion? Or not? Who is going to say they are indifferent? You are welcome to do so if you like. Do you need divine permission for this? I would say not. I would add another question. The woman is visibly pregnant. Does that make it seem more revolting to you? Is your revulsion thereby increased? Who would not say yes to that?

Hitchens almost whispers that last sentence with nearly sanctimonious concern. Wilson interjects into the rhetorical emotion. Who would dare not be revolted by an assault on a fetus?

“Planned Parenthood.”

Hitchens accuses him of being “flippant”—in this case, using an extreme example of crime as a parallel to the “accepted” medical practice of abortion. But Doug presses the point:

If it is a common moral property, then why? When you see a woman being kicked in that fashion, to be more consistent—and this is why I was emphatically not being flippant—people would run up and say to the kicker, do you have a license? Don’t you know that the place for that is down the street? And you have to advertise in the yellow pages and you have to get funding from Congress? What do you mean flippant?

The legitimate here is that while we would consider heinous and criminal certain acts were we to witness an individual imposing them upon another, large parts of society often smile upon nearly identical behaviors as long as they collectively believe in the ideals being imposed by force. So, it’s not OK for one man to tell a private businessmen how to run their businesses at gun point—unless that man has a license from the government. It’s not OK for someone to force their neighbor’s kids to attend indoctrination classes—unless, they have a license from the government. In the latter case, not only will society smile upon forced indoctrination, they will tax your property in order to fund the process and pay the licensed indoctrinator. It’s a boondoggle for a small army of would-be dictatresses “teaching” people’s kids that are compelled by law to attend classes.

And the great irony here is that most of the very ideals Lee wanted imposed are already imposed in public schools. This particular demand of Lee’s really strikes me: he wanted the station to hammer home programs that “Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!” What does he think public education is for?

He’s also very worried about population reduction: “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”

This has been a liberal goal for some time, though they rarely talk about it anymore. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger herself enthusiastically promoted the eugenics and racial-sterilization laws in American States which Hitler later used as a model for his. Forced sterilizations were carried out in America first—by the thousands every year—before Hitler ever signed his legislation.

Originally called the “American Birth Control League,” Sanger had to change the organization’s name to the more PC “Planned Parenthood” in 1942. Why 1942 one wonders? Once Hitler really popularized forced sterilization and eugenics laws, and the US entered WWII, the public outcry against the practice forced Sanger’s true sentiments underground.

But she could never erase what she had already published. We will always know that beneath talk of individual “planning” lies the true agenda of population reduction, especially for, as Sanger put it, the “ill favored… dysgenic races… Blacks, Hispanics, Amerinds, Fundamentalists, and Catholics.… [And also the] feeble minded, syphilitic, irresponsible, and defective” that are “bred unhindered.”[1]

And there is a direct tie from Darwinism to the Eugenics movement, as these people and their circle of peers amply demonstrated through their many publications. In fact, they were not content with shared theory, but enjoyed each other’s company. Sanger was Darwin’s Cousin’s Student’s lover. ((Grant, Killer Angel, 70.)

She really wished for a reduction of about 70 percent of the population.

That may sound drastic, but other bright humanists agree. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has recently stated that she thought Roe v. Wade was really a solution for overpopulations, specifically for stopping “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Famously now, scientist and deep sea-explorer Jacques Cousteau has been cited as saying we need to eliminate 350,000 people per day. Former Soviet leader Gorbachev—now masquerading Communism under the guise of environmentalism (like all environmentalists)—wants to cut the population by 90 percent. Apparently, Margaret Sanger is conservative by today’s liberals’ standard. But a 90 percent cut would still leave 600 million people, and that’s too much for some folks. Whoever funded and built the Georgia Guidestones monument—a very mysterious secret person—wants to impose a one-world language, government, and religion ruled by reason, and reduce the population to 500 million. Sounds reasonable enough, eh?

Some say Ted Turner actually funded the monument, but this is nonsense. 500 million is way too conservative for him. He wants a reduction to something more like 250-300 million, so it is said.

This is largely why Sanger began Planned Parenthood. She wanted to force sterilization and promote abortion. Ginsberg understood RvW to help secure the same goal. Enviro-Gunman Lee just wanted the Discovery Channel to further their message: “stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed.”

Perhaps Hitchens may want to rethink his “common moral property” argument in light of such expressions of anti-child hatred as “parasitic human infants” and “disgusting human babies.” There are indeed some people who find a pregnant woman more revolting than bludgeoning a fetus, and given a chance would enforce the latter.

Perhaps all of this can help you discern why there is not a huge media outcry over Lee’s actions. Yes, it made headlines, but details of his motivations are already dying from the news. Instead, mainstream news are finding character witnesses to tell how nice of a guy Lee really was. Judging from headlines, he was not a “radical environmentalist” or “left-wing pro-abortionist,” but merely a “gunman” and a “hostage-taker.” Consider the difference had someone with even the slightest TEA-party, abortion protest, or PRIDE rally opposition connections carried out such an act.

Nevertheless, the point is not to say that the media is biased—we all know. Rather, consider that the government in general imposes the exact same agenda as Lee, and in the exact same manner—via threat of gunpoint—and you can understand the media response. Even FOX has argued we should not trivialize the State’s sacred War on Terror by labeling this poor mentally-ill victim a “terrorist.”

Lee himself was the product of the very programming he wished to implement—Malthusianism and Darwinism force-fed throughout American education. But worse yet, his desired Discovery programming is already aired in public schools, universities, public radio and television, and in many, many other places, including United Nations propaganda, Bill Gates, etc.

I’d stick with the Discovery Channel myself, but heck, I don’t even subscribe to cable. And I educate my kids myself. Don’t let the leftist gunmen take youhostage.

Endnotes:

1. See George Grant’s short biography of Sanger, Killer Angel, 73.

 

 

 

errr uh, I mean,  CHURCH of the Ivory Tower has had some interesting discussions lately. Frankly, I worry about our Nation’s youth these days. They would sooner listen to screeds against “FauxNews and Glenn Beck” then to consider actual historical documents. 

 

 

Nice young man (he really is):  

“@bakersdozen2 - I didn’t say I believed everything about my last link, I just thought it was interesting.  Being a secularist doesn’t mean I deny our history, especially its ties to Christianity. I just agree with the separation of Church and State and hold to reason/evidence as the only correct means to create law.  Our country was largely established because of religious persecution, something our founders most assuredly wouldn’t want for our citizens today.  They also thought clearly on what our constitution was to uphold, rather than just entering Constitution: (See Bible)

The Bill of Rights was established quite early in our nation’s history (1791) with Thomas Jefferson supporting both it and the “wall of separation” it was (in part) meant to establish between church and state.
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – 1797 Treaty of Tripoli

The point is that no matter how Christian our population is/was/will be the purpose of the United States is not to promote theocracy or the causes of any religion, but to support its people with reason and respect.  With regards to the Texas School Board issue, I’m all for historical accuracy… but if we all were we wouldn’t let a school board decide the contents of our textbooks.”

 

 

My Reply to nice young man:   “Yes, that obscure treaty. Liberals wear this one out because it provides them their only refuge to the devastating arsenal of evidence directed at their argument.  

http://www.firstprinciplespress.org/American_History_Restoration_Project_Archive_files/Christian%20America%20and%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Tripoli,%201797.pdf

I’m glad to hear you say that we were not founded as a secular nation. I thought you had claimed differently early on in this discussion. I assume you know the context of the “Separation of Church and State” reference which has nothing to do with the Church interfering with the state but the other way ’round (Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists) 
But I emphatically agree that we were never a Theocracy. But I will reaffirm the fact that the US was founded on Biblical Principles. The number one champion of the Bill of Rights (he obnoxiously insisted upon them and made himself a royal pain in the ars to his colleagues) Patrick Henry stated:

“It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”

And, No, this is not a “fake” quote. Patrick Henry never wrote his speeches down. Historians record that he spoke extemporaneously. His speeches were recorded by others. His “Give me Liberty or give me death” speech was recorded by a member of the audience.  

I could continue with quotes in context… like the treaty to a muslim nation you refer to. Jefferson’s quotes are constantly taken out of context to make it appear as if he were completely hostile to religion when in fact much of what he was hostile to was perfectly legitimate. Like the Episcopal Church confiscating a “tithe” from all citizens of Va.  regardless of their religious affiliation. These are issues Christians would be furious with today.

But given our Founders perspective (original writings), don’t you think their intent for the Constitution (which they wrote, after all)  might be just a bit different than the ACLU’s. The First Amendment is upheld and capriciously applied by the ACLU. They treat it as if it were divinely inspired and they apply it to only those they feel are specially “ELECT”. In other words, they imbue an overarching authority to it; so much so that they turn a blinds eye to cases which naturally evoke a visceral sense of justice.  All in the name of upholding a clause that was never given the meaning that they inject into it.  They say that we can’t hold Pedophile’s legally accountable for what they purchase or distribute (or ultimately to the violence and abuse they incite, as in the Curley case) because we might bleed the First Amendment of a manufactured meaning……….    Really?

Shall I quote the Founders on Censorship?”

 

 

 

Pedophilia and The First Amendment was not what the original discussion was about, but that’s where it ended up.  If anyone is interested in the culture war (and make no mistake, this is a culture war) come on by. Be warned though. This is only the last two replies of a vvvvvvverrrryy long discussion. 

 

 

http://churchoftheivorytower.xanga.com/731959439/infertile-couple’s-vs-same-sex-couples-is-there-a-difference/?page=1#viewcomments