"Pleasureman" (formerly "Udolpho") has some interesting thoughts on transgenderism and homosexuality as mental illnesses:
People who lack knowledge of how psychology and psychiatry work are usually unaware of how hit and miss the treatment of mental illness is, and so it is easy to sell them on the idea that treatment of homosexuals and transgenders--or attempting to "cure" them as the left derisively and misleadingly puts it--is farcical pseudo-science at best and demented religious superstition at worst. Needless to say, conservatives, being largely ignorant of how psychology and psychiatry work, are unprepared to tell them differently: that we simply haven't come that far in treatment of mental disorders, but that management of symptoms is within reach and that there is reason to hope that further work on these disorders will uncover new, more successful approaches. After all you didn't see liberals saying let's throw in the towel on an AIDS cure because someone's shark cartilage cure didn't work.
There is also the point made that organized psychiatry and psychology are rather politicized (i.e. that their attempts to redefine transgenderism and variant sexuality as "normal" rather than "disordered" are due more to politics than to actual objective science), which means that the use of the American Psychiatric Association's positions to refute traditional ideas about homosexual behavior suspect.
Of course, I will admit that a lot of the posters on the site seem to dabble in antisemitism and I would be wary of some of the things they say, but this seemed to me to be a good point that not enough people bring up.
That is all.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
When the Victim is White, Hate Justifies the Crime
News from London:
Somali women not given jail time for racial beating of white woman.
Ranting, however, is punishable by jail time if you are white - you get remanded to custody.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Somali women not given jail time for racial beating of white woman.
Ranting, however, is punishable by jail time if you are white - you get remanded to custody.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Lawrence Auster.
That is all.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Happy Thanksgiving
Despite all of the problems in the modern world, God will prevail in the end.
Let us remember to give thanks for everything and to trust in Him in all things.
That is all.
Let us remember to give thanks for everything and to trust in Him in all things.
That is all.
The Gay Issue
Reading this reminds me of the fact that our whole society is going down the tubes.
It used to be that we were urged to "tolerance," meaning essentially that we can have our beliefs but please don't force them on others.
Increasingly, though, we are being told that our beliefs are not worthy of tolerance. I remember a poster on Yglesias' blog (in what I think is a now defunct thread) saying that we are starting to understand that "homophobia is wrong" and that we will soon no longer tolerate it under the heading of religious beliefs, nor should we (in response to the foster couple who lost their right to foster because they refused to call homosexuality acceptable).
I have a feeling that a lot of people of the "Alas a Blog" ilk would not be willing to condemn the brick-throwing, or at least not without a lot of hemming and hawing. There is, I believe, a reluctance to consider that people who have traditional beliefs could ever be victims, as they are "official oppressors," and gays are "official victims." While I doubt that most people would directly say that throwing a brick through the window is a proper or legal way to behave, I think that most liberals of that ilk would find some way to assert that the people throwing the brick are less at fault then they would seem.
I've already seen them unwilling to admit that legal actions taken against people who publicly disapprove of homosexuality (in Canada, for example) are a violation of religious freedom. Not that they directly advocate the abridgment, mind you, but they rationalize each case ad hoc.
And let us not forget the "hate crimes" double standard.
We live in scary times.
That is all.
It used to be that we were urged to "tolerance," meaning essentially that we can have our beliefs but please don't force them on others.
Increasingly, though, we are being told that our beliefs are not worthy of tolerance. I remember a poster on Yglesias' blog (in what I think is a now defunct thread) saying that we are starting to understand that "homophobia is wrong" and that we will soon no longer tolerate it under the heading of religious beliefs, nor should we (in response to the foster couple who lost their right to foster because they refused to call homosexuality acceptable).
I have a feeling that a lot of people of the "Alas a Blog" ilk would not be willing to condemn the brick-throwing, or at least not without a lot of hemming and hawing. There is, I believe, a reluctance to consider that people who have traditional beliefs could ever be victims, as they are "official oppressors," and gays are "official victims." While I doubt that most people would directly say that throwing a brick through the window is a proper or legal way to behave, I think that most liberals of that ilk would find some way to assert that the people throwing the brick are less at fault then they would seem.
I've already seen them unwilling to admit that legal actions taken against people who publicly disapprove of homosexuality (in Canada, for example) are a violation of religious freedom. Not that they directly advocate the abridgment, mind you, but they rationalize each case ad hoc.
And let us not forget the "hate crimes" double standard.
We live in scary times.
That is all.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Posting Will Be Light
Not that I have put up a lot of posts the past few years...
But for those of you who did not see the comment I made at Steve Sailer's blog, my father passed away October 5. Which is poignant, as he did stained glass, and one of the things he made for me was a suncatcher with the multicolored "Apple" design.
Thank you to Steve, who sent condolences in the comments on the previous post.
That is all.
But for those of you who did not see the comment I made at Steve Sailer's blog, my father passed away October 5. Which is poignant, as he did stained glass, and one of the things he made for me was a suncatcher with the multicolored "Apple" design.
Thank you to Steve, who sent condolences in the comments on the previous post.
That is all.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
More on Galton Inequality
The Reluctant Apostate has improved on my design greatly.
I will probably be adding his version to my blog soon.
Rex May has posted on this as well and is selling merchandise.
That is all.
I will probably be adding his version to my blog soon.
Rex May has posted on this as well and is selling merchandise.
That is all.
Friday, September 30, 2011
Mephedrone and Methylenedioxypyrovalerone
The new designer drugs are called "mephedrone and methylenedioxypyrovalerone."
They are not "bath salts."
I am sick and tired of articles that talk about "bath salts" without ever using the drugs' actual names. It would be like an article on heroin that only uses the word "smack," or an article about "crank" instead of about "methamphetamines."
There is enough confusion about what actual bath salts are versus the drug "bath salts" that it is stupid to use only the slang term.
That is all.
They are not "bath salts."
I am sick and tired of articles that talk about "bath salts" without ever using the drugs' actual names. It would be like an article on heroin that only uses the word "smack," or an article about "crank" instead of about "methamphetamines."
There is enough confusion about what actual bath salts are versus the drug "bath salts" that it is stupid to use only the slang term.
That is all.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
My Little Pony: Biodiversity is Magic
Does anyone else here notice that My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic provides a template for what a multicultural multiracial race-realist society might look like?
There are three kinds of ponies (I assume they are races, but without knowing the herditary basis of pony-type, I cannot say for certain that the characteristics qualify as racial): earth ponies (normal), unicorn ponies (one horn in the middle of their head), and pegasi (winged ponies). Each has their own abilities: earth ponies tend to be more durable and have an easier time working the ground; unicorns can do magic, including telekinesis, with their horns; pegasi can fly, walk on clouds, and manipulate the weather.
What is interesting is that the three types of ponies have undeniable physical differences. You can't call the differences "social constructs" and no one tries to.
And yet, there is no resentment. Not a single time have I seen any of the ponies express jealousy or conflict based on these differences. Once one of the unicorns used magic to get wings, but it was to support her pegasus friend, not out of jealousy (although later she gets vain about her wings).
Interestingly enough, the show seems to posit that acknowledging biological differences between groups does not destroy unity or civilization.
An interesting, if unintentional, message from a kid's show.
Food for thought.
That is all.
There are three kinds of ponies (I assume they are races, but without knowing the herditary basis of pony-type, I cannot say for certain that the characteristics qualify as racial): earth ponies (normal), unicorn ponies (one horn in the middle of their head), and pegasi (winged ponies). Each has their own abilities: earth ponies tend to be more durable and have an easier time working the ground; unicorns can do magic, including telekinesis, with their horns; pegasi can fly, walk on clouds, and manipulate the weather.
What is interesting is that the three types of ponies have undeniable physical differences. You can't call the differences "social constructs" and no one tries to.
And yet, there is no resentment. Not a single time have I seen any of the ponies express jealousy or conflict based on these differences. Once one of the unicorns used magic to get wings, but it was to support her pegasus friend, not out of jealousy (although later she gets vain about her wings).
Interestingly enough, the show seems to posit that acknowledging biological differences between groups does not destroy unity or civilization.
An interesting, if unintentional, message from a kid's show.
Food for thought.
That is all.
Palin vs. Obama
Joseph Farah thinks that Sarah Palin should become a Democrat in order to challenge Obama in the primary. Supposedly, Republicans would join the Democratic Party in droves (where voting is partisan) in order to support her.
That's ridiculous. For someone to change parties and run like that just as a strategy to win, regardless of ideological agreement, she would have to be a huge attention whore. She would have to have no principles other than the desire for self-promotion, and could not really take any positions beyond minimal soundbites to excite the weak-minded.
Oh, wait. Yeah, she'd be perfect.
That is all.
That's ridiculous. For someone to change parties and run like that just as a strategy to win, regardless of ideological agreement, she would have to be a huge attention whore. She would have to have no principles other than the desire for self-promotion, and could not really take any positions beyond minimal soundbites to excite the weak-minded.
Oh, wait. Yeah, she'd be perfect.
That is all.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Thoughts on 9/11
I remember that on 9/11, I was just starting grad school. I had breakfast with the guy running the labs I would be TA-ing.
After that, I went to the computer lab and checked out my political sites - at the time I was checking Jewish World Review. As I only checked the editorials, which were usually refreshed around 4 am, I didn't read anything as the planes were crashing.
Whatever else I was doing, I didn't hear or see anything about the attacks. I then went to freshman biology, which I was shadowing to help me be a TA. I saw someone listening to the radio on headphones outside the classroom. I heard someone talking (rather than singing) in their headphones, and assumed that they were listening to a sports game (this was about 11 am, I think). Someone asked him what was going on, and they said that planes had crashed into the World Trade Centers and the buildings had collapsed. My first question was "are you serious?" or something like that. They either mentioned the Pentagon and the plane in Pennsylvania, or I heard about them later when the class was over (I stayed in the class and went through the whole class as if nothing were different - I think I was sort of shocked and decided to go through the class and the nsort out what had happened).
As I recall, we had a cookout day that day (we were still were doing the "initiation" events for new students) and I walked around eating some burgers that had been grilled. I emailed some friends about remaining calm and not assuming anything. The rest of the day I think I watched news reports, etc.
I recall hearing someone blaring "Born in the USA" from another dorm that evening (I lived in the graduate/non-trad dorm).
The most interesting thing about my experience, now that I think about it, is that I was spared a lot of the early confusion because all of the planes had crashed and the towers had collapsed by the time I knew of anything, so there were no more surprises.
More on this later.
That is all - for now.
After that, I went to the computer lab and checked out my political sites - at the time I was checking Jewish World Review. As I only checked the editorials, which were usually refreshed around 4 am, I didn't read anything as the planes were crashing.
Whatever else I was doing, I didn't hear or see anything about the attacks. I then went to freshman biology, which I was shadowing to help me be a TA. I saw someone listening to the radio on headphones outside the classroom. I heard someone talking (rather than singing) in their headphones, and assumed that they were listening to a sports game (this was about 11 am, I think). Someone asked him what was going on, and they said that planes had crashed into the World Trade Centers and the buildings had collapsed. My first question was "are you serious?" or something like that. They either mentioned the Pentagon and the plane in Pennsylvania, or I heard about them later when the class was over (I stayed in the class and went through the whole class as if nothing were different - I think I was sort of shocked and decided to go through the class and the nsort out what had happened).
As I recall, we had a cookout day that day (we were still were doing the "initiation" events for new students) and I walked around eating some burgers that had been grilled. I emailed some friends about remaining calm and not assuming anything. The rest of the day I think I watched news reports, etc.
I recall hearing someone blaring "Born in the USA" from another dorm that evening (I lived in the graduate/non-trad dorm).
The most interesting thing about my experience, now that I think about it, is that I was spared a lot of the early confusion because all of the planes had crashed and the towers had collapsed by the time I knew of anything, so there were no more surprises.
That is all - for now.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
PEOCompare
I recently received a request to link to the Professional Employer Organization Blog, and have decided to do so.
PEOs apparently deal with helping small businesses with HR issues.
Please check this blog out.
That is all.
PEOs apparently deal with helping small businesses with HR issues.
Please check this blog out.
That is all.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
The Galton "Inequality" Symbol
Inspired by the "Darwin fish," a variation on a common symbol; this time, I am attacking the (false) god of the age.
Feel free to take this graphic and distribute it.
That is all.
Feel free to take this graphic and distribute it.
That is all.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
The Tyranny of the "Queer"
The scariest thing about a lot of the "queer" individuals out there (I am using that as a catch-all term for non-heterosexuals, transgenders, and others) is how a lot of them seem to want to force everyone else not just to accept their behavior; but to approach life on their terms; it's not enough that a person who is biologically malebe considered female if he so chooses to identify. No, I must deny that my anatmoy has any impact on my maleness.
It is not enough to accept homosexual couples or to accept a couple that consists of a man and a "trans women" as heterosexual; no, if I do not want to have sex with a "woman" with a penis, that makes me not heterosexual but a bigot.
It has gone beyond demanding that we accept their exceptions to the rules to demanding that we formulate our rules in accordance with theirs.
In proof, I suggest you go to this post and look at all of the comments by myself and "Schala." I would not suggest commenting on the post (at least not unless you are being non-confrontational and polite), as my goal here is not to cause trouble for a blog that is decent on some issues and that has always been respectful (and because it is one of the commenters, not the people who run the blog that I am using as my example). I just want to see an example of how tyrannical sexual liberationism can get.
I will grant that Schala's position is likely not a common one at this time, but I offer it as something to look out for in the future, as it is a logical extension of egalitarian fundamentalism and sexual liberationism.
That is all.
It is not enough to accept homosexual couples or to accept a couple that consists of a man and a "trans women" as heterosexual; no, if I do not want to have sex with a "woman" with a penis, that makes me not heterosexual but a bigot.
It has gone beyond demanding that we accept their exceptions to the rules to demanding that we formulate our rules in accordance with theirs.
In proof, I suggest you go to this post and look at all of the comments by myself and "Schala." I would not suggest commenting on the post (at least not unless you are being non-confrontational and polite), as my goal here is not to cause trouble for a blog that is decent on some issues and that has always been respectful (and because it is one of the commenters, not the people who run the blog that I am using as my example). I just want to see an example of how tyrannical sexual liberationism can get.
I will grant that Schala's position is likely not a common one at this time, but I offer it as something to look out for in the future, as it is a logical extension of egalitarian fundamentalism and sexual liberationism.
That is all.
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Anders Behring Breivik is Tyler Durden
Does anyone else see a parallel between Tyler Durden of Fight Club and Anders Behring Breivik?
Basically, from their own viewpoint they are men who see the world as an anti-masculine, decadent, effete place, and have decided
to fight back.
From outside, perhaps we need to consider that the world has become an anti-masculine, decadent, effete place, and by suppressing and denying natural masculine tendencies, effeminizing the world, we have closed off the productive channels to which male energy is put and in so doing have pushed it all into destructive channels. Where masculine virtues are minimized, masculine vices try to fill in the empty space.
That is, the things that Breivik railed against are also the exact things that created him.
That is all.
Basically, from their own viewpoint they are men who see the world as an anti-masculine, decadent, effete place, and have decided
to fight back.
From outside, perhaps we need to consider that the world has become an anti-masculine, decadent, effete place, and by suppressing and denying natural masculine tendencies, effeminizing the world, we have closed off the productive channels to which male energy is put and in so doing have pushed it all into destructive channels. Where masculine virtues are minimized, masculine vices try to fill in the empty space.
That is, the things that Breivik railed against are also the exact things that created him.
That is all.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
The "Idi Amin's a Scotsman Fallacy"
A lot of people on the secular left seem to want to blame Anders Behring Breivik's massacre on Christianity, as he called himself a Christian and associated his massacre with rebuilding Christian Europe.
Now, some, such as Bill O'Reilly, have tried to deny Breivik's Christianity through the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, that is, the fact he killed so many people means he isn't a true Christian. Essnetially, "No True Scotsman" is a way of begging the question.
While that is a ridiculous argument to use, there is, however, a genuine question as to what Breivik's actual beliefs were. In his manifesto, at one point he says:
"If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."
In fact, he even refers to "Christian-agnostics" or "Christian-atheists."
Now, of course, some atheists are insisting that Breivik was a Christian, purely because he called himself one, and are defending their extremist nominalism by insisting that claiming that he wasn't is automatically the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Bollocks. Breivik is no Christian because he rejects Christian theology. Those who call him Christian simply because he identifies as one are engaging in extremist nominalism (that is, that words have no meaning other than denoting everything that is identified by that word - in other words, there is no definition of Christianity other than anyone who considers himself a Christian). I call this the "Idi Amin's a True Scotsman Fallacy," after Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who referred to himself as the "last king of Scotland."
The "Idi Amin's a True Scotsman Fallacy" (i.e. the nominalist fallacy) is that by identifying with a group, you can be said to represent the group. For example, someone says that polygamy is an acceptable practice among Scotsman because the Last King of Scotland, Idi Amin, practiced polygamy. This is, of course, ridiculous, Idi Amin is neither from Scotland nor is there any evidence of significant Scottish blood as far as I know. His only claim to Scottishness is his decision to name himself the King of Scotland, which title, as far as I know, has not been recognized.
To deny that Idi Amin is a true Scotsman is not "no true Scotsman," it is maintaining a reasonable definition of Scotsman.
I should also point out that I doubt that most of those people arguing for Breivik's Christianity on nominalist groudns probably would not use the same argument if someone claimed allegiance to a group that they actually cared about. If Roissy called himself a feminist, or if David Duke called himself an anti-racist, I have a feeling that these people would pretty quickly start insisting on more formal definitions of these terms being used.
That is all.
Now, some, such as Bill O'Reilly, have tried to deny Breivik's Christianity through the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, that is, the fact he killed so many people means he isn't a true Christian. Essnetially, "No True Scotsman" is a way of begging the question.
While that is a ridiculous argument to use, there is, however, a genuine question as to what Breivik's actual beliefs were. In his manifesto, at one point he says:
"If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."
In fact, he even refers to "Christian-agnostics" or "Christian-atheists."
Now, of course, some atheists are insisting that Breivik was a Christian, purely because he called himself one, and are defending their extremist nominalism by insisting that claiming that he wasn't is automatically the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
Bollocks. Breivik is no Christian because he rejects Christian theology. Those who call him Christian simply because he identifies as one are engaging in extremist nominalism (that is, that words have no meaning other than denoting everything that is identified by that word - in other words, there is no definition of Christianity other than anyone who considers himself a Christian). I call this the "Idi Amin's a True Scotsman Fallacy," after Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who referred to himself as the "last king of Scotland."
The "Idi Amin's a True Scotsman Fallacy" (i.e. the nominalist fallacy) is that by identifying with a group, you can be said to represent the group. For example, someone says that polygamy is an acceptable practice among Scotsman because the Last King of Scotland, Idi Amin, practiced polygamy. This is, of course, ridiculous, Idi Amin is neither from Scotland nor is there any evidence of significant Scottish blood as far as I know. His only claim to Scottishness is his decision to name himself the King of Scotland, which title, as far as I know, has not been recognized.
To deny that Idi Amin is a true Scotsman is not "no true Scotsman," it is maintaining a reasonable definition of Scotsman.
I should also point out that I doubt that most of those people arguing for Breivik's Christianity on nominalist groudns probably would not use the same argument if someone claimed allegiance to a group that they actually cared about. If Roissy called himself a feminist, or if David Duke called himself an anti-racist, I have a feeling that these people would pretty quickly start insisting on more formal definitions of these terms being used.
That is all.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Mark Stroman and Jerome Ersland
I'm glad they executed him. Maybe he is changed, and I'm not going to argue against personal forgiveness such as that which surviving victim Rais Bhuiyan has granted him.
But law is about more than just vengeance. It is about justice, and about setting standards for a society.
When someone kills a bunch of innocent people as retaliation for a terrorist act committed by someone else, they deserve execution.
This is as opposed to a case such as the Jerome Ersland case (which I first heard about from Lawrence Auster). While I think that Ersland's act in killing a would-be robber long after subduing him was, indeed, murder, I think that it would have been much more fair to have lowered the charges to second degree murder rather than first; even if the later shots were not justifiable, the fact that the victim was part of an armed robbery attempt should mitigate the charges somewhat.
That is all.
But law is about more than just vengeance. It is about justice, and about setting standards for a society.
When someone kills a bunch of innocent people as retaliation for a terrorist act committed by someone else, they deserve execution.
This is as opposed to a case such as the Jerome Ersland case (which I first heard about from Lawrence Auster). While I think that Ersland's act in killing a would-be robber long after subduing him was, indeed, murder, I think that it would have been much more fair to have lowered the charges to second degree murder rather than first; even if the later shots were not justifiable, the fact that the victim was part of an armed robbery attempt should mitigate the charges somewhat.
That is all.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Thought for the Day
This post from "lying eyes" ziel got me to thinking:
The not-entirely articulated fear of the (white) American Middle Class, particularly those heading toward retirement, is that the GOP wants to take away their Social Security and cut their Medicare in order to give it to the wealthy, and that the Democrats want to cut their Medicare and take away their private earnings and savings to give it to minorities.
That is all.
The not-entirely articulated fear of the (white) American Middle Class, particularly those heading toward retirement, is that the GOP wants to take away their Social Security and cut their Medicare in order to give it to the wealthy, and that the Democrats want to cut their Medicare and take away their private earnings and savings to give it to minorities.
That is all.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Minority Privilege
Appparently, the 14th amendment requires "Jim Snow" laws, according to a recent decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Just remember this the next time you are told about "white privilege."
That is all.
Just remember this the next time you are told about "white privilege."
That is all.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Thought for the Day
Life isn't short.
Life is long.
It just seems short because 90% of it consists of killing time doing something that doesn't matter waiting to do something that does matter.
That is all.
Life is long.
It just seems short because 90% of it consists of killing time doing something that doesn't matter waiting to do something that does matter.
That is all.
Sunday, May 01, 2011
Ding Dong the Witch is Dead
September 11 avenged.
Can we go home now?
Update: Yes, I am copying Steve Sailer, but really, the question asked is so perfect, what else can one say?
That is all.
Can we go home now?
Update: Yes, I am copying Steve Sailer, but really, the question asked is so perfect, what else can one say?
That is all.
Friday, April 01, 2011
More on the Asherah Issue
Dominic Holtz, O.P. at March 24, 2011 4:17 am says exactly what I was trying to say, but much more concisely.
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
They Didn't Read the Bible, Did They?
I don't know how many of you have read any of the recent news articles about Francesca Stavrakopoulou, who has claimed to have uncovered "new" evidence that the Bible has been heavily edited, and that originally, YHVH (Yahweh, Jehovah, generally considered the most intimate name for God) had a wife, Asherah.
She bases this on an inscription found on some pottery, and on other artifacts that apparently pair YHVH with Asherah. She also mentions that the Bible "admits" that Asherah was worshipped at the temple in Israel. We are also treated by Aaron Brody to the revelation that "The ancient Israelites were polytheists."
So this really shows how wrong the Bible was and disproves all of the Bible's statements that the Israelites only worshipped one God, huh?
Uh - no.
The Bible does not actually say that the Israelites only worshipped the One True God. The Bible says that they were supposed to, but it pretty clearly indicates that they tended to have a problem following the rules. That's why so many Old Testament passages refer to Israel as an adultress or a whore. It is completely consistent with the Bible to assume that a lot of Israelis may have syncretically "married" God to the pagan goddess Asherah.
As for the Biblical "admission" (I use scare quotes because the implication is that someone intended to cover this up but was not able to do so) that Asherah was worshipped in YHVH's temple? It's from 2 Kings 21:7:
[King Manasseh] took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which the LORD had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever.
Wow - the Bible endorses polytheism here, right?
Wrong. Read the preceding passages (2 Kings 21:1-6):
1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, following the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. 3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. 4 He built altars in the temple of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” 5 In the two courts of the temple of the LORD, he built altars to all the starry hosts. 6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
In other words, the presence of polytheism in Israel - even officially (humanly officially anyway) sanctioned polytheism, is firmly acknowledged in the Bible - even though it is condemned strongly.
Now you can argue over whether or not God is real and whether or not this condemnation of idolatry is really God's word or just the politico-theological writings of one of a number of factions (I believe in the former, by the way), but you really cannot argue that evidence of Israeli polytheism or of syncretic attempts to "Pantheonize" YHVH into one God out of many is in any way inconsistent with the Biblical account.
Even for a secularist, arguing that Asherah was "edited out" of the Old Testament is a little bit reaching - unless you have evidence that previous versions of the books of the Old Testament exist that mention Asherah or polytheism favorably, it would make far more sense to assume that the original Old Testament writings were by monotheists who were opposed to the polytheism around them. Saying that Asherah was "edited out" implies that the books comprising the Old Testament were originally written by people who were comfortable with polytheism. Even if you don't assume Biblical accuracy, it makes far more sense to assume that they were account written by polemical monotheists - Asherah-worshippers and polytheists were presented negatively from the outset, not "edited out."
The problem here is that too many people seem to think that somehow everyone mentioned in the Bible actually believed in the theology of the Bible. It is the same mindset that looks to the Bible to see passages describing wanton immorality and sin, and then determines that the Bible is an immoral book because everything it mentions it must condone, but in reverse - it assumes that whatever the Bible condemns, it denies the existence thereof.
In short, this story (not even a new one, the linked article itself mentions Raphael Patai coming up with this back in 1967) is a lot of noise with no real significance.
That is all.
She bases this on an inscription found on some pottery, and on other artifacts that apparently pair YHVH with Asherah. She also mentions that the Bible "admits" that Asherah was worshipped at the temple in Israel. We are also treated by Aaron Brody to the revelation that "The ancient Israelites were polytheists."
So this really shows how wrong the Bible was and disproves all of the Bible's statements that the Israelites only worshipped one God, huh?
Uh - no.
The Bible does not actually say that the Israelites only worshipped the One True God. The Bible says that they were supposed to, but it pretty clearly indicates that they tended to have a problem following the rules. That's why so many Old Testament passages refer to Israel as an adultress or a whore. It is completely consistent with the Bible to assume that a lot of Israelis may have syncretically "married" God to the pagan goddess Asherah.
As for the Biblical "admission" (I use scare quotes because the implication is that someone intended to cover this up but was not able to do so) that Asherah was worshipped in YHVH's temple? It's from 2 Kings 21:7:
[King Manasseh] took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple, of which the LORD had said to David and to his son Solomon, “In this temple and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my Name forever.
Wow - the Bible endorses polytheism here, right?
Wrong. Read the preceding passages (2 Kings 21:1-6):
1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-five years. His mother’s name was Hephzibah. 2 He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, following the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites. 3 He rebuilt the high places his father Hezekiah had destroyed; he also erected altars to Baal and made an Asherah pole, as Ahab king of Israel had done. He bowed down to all the starry hosts and worshiped them. 4 He built altars in the temple of the LORD, of which the LORD had said, “In Jerusalem I will put my Name.” 5 In the two courts of the temple of the LORD, he built altars to all the starry hosts. 6 He sacrificed his own son in the fire, practiced divination, sought omens, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD, arousing his anger.
In other words, the presence of polytheism in Israel - even officially (humanly officially anyway) sanctioned polytheism, is firmly acknowledged in the Bible - even though it is condemned strongly.
Now you can argue over whether or not God is real and whether or not this condemnation of idolatry is really God's word or just the politico-theological writings of one of a number of factions (I believe in the former, by the way), but you really cannot argue that evidence of Israeli polytheism or of syncretic attempts to "Pantheonize" YHVH into one God out of many is in any way inconsistent with the Biblical account.
Even for a secularist, arguing that Asherah was "edited out" of the Old Testament is a little bit reaching - unless you have evidence that previous versions of the books of the Old Testament exist that mention Asherah or polytheism favorably, it would make far more sense to assume that the original Old Testament writings were by monotheists who were opposed to the polytheism around them. Saying that Asherah was "edited out" implies that the books comprising the Old Testament were originally written by people who were comfortable with polytheism. Even if you don't assume Biblical accuracy, it makes far more sense to assume that they were account written by polemical monotheists - Asherah-worshippers and polytheists were presented negatively from the outset, not "edited out."
The problem here is that too many people seem to think that somehow everyone mentioned in the Bible actually believed in the theology of the Bible. It is the same mindset that looks to the Bible to see passages describing wanton immorality and sin, and then determines that the Bible is an immoral book because everything it mentions it must condone, but in reverse - it assumes that whatever the Bible condemns, it denies the existence thereof.
In short, this story (not even a new one, the linked article itself mentions Raphael Patai coming up with this back in 1967) is a lot of noise with no real significance.
That is all.
Friday, March 04, 2011
Atheocracy
Sean Gabb has an excellent article on Lewrockwell.com detailing the slide of the U.K. into a secular humanist theocracy.
This is why so many Christians now bristle at the idea of a "separation of church and state." It used to mean that the state left he church alone. Now it increasingly means the state actively imposing secular humanism on the masses.
That is all.
This is why so many Christians now bristle at the idea of a "separation of church and state." It used to mean that the state left he church alone. Now it increasingly means the state actively imposing secular humanism on the masses.
That is all.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Women in the Military
At the risk of becoming obsessed with Alas, let me point out how STUPID this post there is.
Apparently, being concerned about men would react to women in combat is "coddling" them.
Yet, apparently "the angry black woman" thinks that we need to accommodate pregnancies in the military, and has nothing to say about the lowered physical standards for women, or notices that if men treated women the same way they treat other men, they would likely be sued for harassment.
And of course, "A whole chunk of the DADT debate was shaped by this sense that men’s sensibilities are, apparently, just too damn delicate to deal with the possibility that Joe over there might like to look at penises now and then."
Of course, when women express similar concerns, we are supposed to have training sessions about sexual harassment, etc.. Of course women need to be coddled.
The hypocrisy here is astounding.
That is all.
Apparently, being concerned about men would react to women in combat is "coddling" them.
Yet, apparently "the angry black woman" thinks that we need to accommodate pregnancies in the military, and has nothing to say about the lowered physical standards for women, or notices that if men treated women the same way they treat other men, they would likely be sued for harassment.
And of course, "A whole chunk of the DADT debate was shaped by this sense that men’s sensibilities are, apparently, just too damn delicate to deal with the possibility that Joe over there might like to look at penises now and then."
Of course, when women express similar concerns, we are supposed to have training sessions about sexual harassment, etc.. Of course women need to be coddled.
The hypocrisy here is astounding.
That is all.
Steve Sailer's Best Piece of Advice for the GOP in 2012
If the GOP wants to make 2012 different from 2008, it must try to nominate a good candidate for a change.
The implied insult to the previous few GOP candidates is priceless.
That is all.
The implied insult to the previous few GOP candidates is priceless.
That is all.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Saturday, January 08, 2011
EPIPHANY!
And not the one that happened yesterday...
Kevin MacDonald:Jews::Rosisy:Women
Both MacDonald and Roissy take a few largely ignored facts about their preferred topic (in MacDonald's case, that a lot of Jewish behavior is driven by anti-white Gentile and anti-Christian animus; in Roissy's case that women have a secual attraction to destructive male traits) and proceed to center their entire view of the topic around those facts.
That is, MacDonald takes one particular issue that the modern Jewish community tends to have and expands it into its defining trait. Roissy treats women as if they were walking sex doll puzzles (arrange the colors in the right order to get laid), without much else of interest about them.
That is all.
Kevin MacDonald:Jews::Rosisy:Women
Both MacDonald and Roissy take a few largely ignored facts about their preferred topic (in MacDonald's case, that a lot of Jewish behavior is driven by anti-white Gentile and anti-Christian animus; in Roissy's case that women have a secual attraction to destructive male traits) and proceed to center their entire view of the topic around those facts.
That is, MacDonald takes one particular issue that the modern Jewish community tends to have and expands it into its defining trait. Roissy treats women as if they were walking sex doll puzzles (arrange the colors in the right order to get laid), without much else of interest about them.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)