I tell you, with a title like that, this entry should get some traffic.  Actually, my first sentence is one of three items related to this subject.  I was thinking of tackling a couple of others and that one just poured out of the dendrites.  Anyways, if you are easily offended, need “safe zones” or other such nonsense present in our modern upper level education, there is a back button on your browser and you are free to leave.  I am married.  Happily, I might add.  I have previously mentioned that we have sex.  It is understood because we are married.  That is one of the privileges of the institution with Biblically based actions.  There are only two mentioned times when a married couple are not to have sex.  1.) when the female is on her period, 2.) for a period of fasting and prayer.  That’s it.  Otherwise, the bed is labeled as undefiled and whoremongers and adulterers God will judge, to quote Hebrews 13:4.  There are very few reasons to avoid the act – in marriage of course.  This places the realm of reproduction and raising progeny firmly in the association of a family.  The Bible also mentions other family designs, such as two females with a single male.  The fact that it exists in the Bible is utilized to say that God approves of such three-soms.  I don’t see approval.  I do see an acknowledgement of mankind’s behavior.  The Jews approached Jesus with the subject of divorce.  Jesus replied that by the hardness of their hearts, Moses allowed the practice, but it was not from the beginning.  (Mark 10:2-12)

There is only one area I can recall where a man was called upon to marry a second wife.  That is when a brother dies leaving no child.  The wife was to go to the next brother so that the family name would not perish.  There are several stories about this subject, both in the performing of it and the neglecting of it.  There is even a story of incest related to it – Moab.  If you are a visualizing individual, the stories are described in  Genesis and not for those who easily cringe.  (Gen 19:30-32; 38:9)  Note that the aura surrounding this action has nothing to do with the enjoyment of the individuals involved.  It has everything to do with formation of family lines.  There is a reason this action was to be placed in certain bounds.  Our present society is becoming an example of why removing those bounds is deadly.

Once one takes the boundaries away from an action, there is a period of time where the population responds according to what was previously taught and order is maintained- without the boundaries there.  Observers then tout the new show as reason the boundaries were not necessary in the beginning.  However, once there is a change in population to a group of individuals who have not obtained the training, no carry-over of behavior is then possible.  The new behaviors begin and society shows problems.  Cut a rose and it looks and smells beautiful for a period of time.  Once the nourishment has stopped, degeneration will occur.  As one can see in our society, once the spiritual nourishment was removed, degeneration occurred.  I have a memory.  I was around in the 60’s, though don’t have too many memories of that era.  I do remember going door-to-door during Halloween and receiving home-made cookies and popcorn balls.  Children of this present age cannot say the same.  There was degeneration in the culture and individuals started harming the children, which resulted in X-ray scans of the candy and requirement that everything be manufactured and wrapped.  For the youngsters reading here, it was not always like that.  There was a time when a neighbor would offer a cookie, and it was all right to eat it.

Back to sex.  (Since we are close to the candy time, I thought that memory fit.)  I was also in school when sex education was being pushed.  For myself, it happened in 6th grade.  The girls and boys were separated and put into different large rooms where a movie was shown.  (There was no video back then.)  (Yes, there was a time before DVD’s.  It was a fun time as well.)  Afterwards, we had a sex specific discussion, then went back to the regular classrooms where the usual mixed group had another session of instruction.  The presentation was basically what sex was, hygiene, and circumcision.  I remember my teacher making jokes about that last subject.  That was all.  Subject covered, and I knew enough to approach the action in marriage when it occurred.  Remember, we grew up in a Christian household and certain acts were to be performed only within certain bounds.  Culturally, however, the argument was being made that kids were “going to do it” and since it was going to happen anyways, teaching was required.  Let’s just jump to the bottom line.  If one wants more of something, either learn more about it, or buy more of it.  As I see the advent of sex ed, the purpose was not to educate the children, but to activate behavior.  This was to specifically thwart the training received at home.  Thomas Sowell noted that if presentation of facts was desired, 12 years of training was not needed.  That much training was only required if one was wanting to change the training received at home.

What has this country purchased with sex education?  Illegitimacy rates, poor family structure, and abortion rates all increasing.  Black family structure was destroyed.  Compare the black families in the ’50’s to presently.  Compare the black literacy rates between the same eras.  Once sex was removed from the boundaries of family, the action became self-focused and those involved were participating for their own reasons – using the other person.  The fall-out from such a mindset isn’t limited to the individual.  How many young men have a decent role-model male?  From where are they to learn how to direct their aggressive instincts to protective, rather than destructive violence?  Once sex was removed from the dedicated family, degeneration occurred.  It took a while to do so, allowing those proponents to say how good it was to have sex with anyone, whenever one chose, but the cultural rose is now wilted.

I am out of time, so will continue the subject later.


I have maintained for a long period of time that islam isn’t a religion, but rather a tribal totalitarian ideology with a whitewash of religion as one examines its behavior.  This author is a bit more generous:

The spiritual power of religion balances between violence and non-violence. Most religions believe that there is a time to fight, but only Islam believes in violence as the first and final religious solution

The reason violence is the base response is that it is a tribal response rooted in the 7th century.  I have been reading 2 Samuel as of late and it struck me how similar the behaviors were between the Old Testament peoples and modern islam.  Besides the designation of Jews as God’s people, what was the deciding factor in relations between peoples in the Old Testament?  Tribes.  If you are not one of us, we need to subdue you, kill you, etc as the mindset.  Look at this writing with that idea and their behavior makes sense.  Note that I mentioned sense, not agreement.  It’s like playing a game of chess and coming to the realization of the opponent’s strategy.  From that moment, formerly senseless moves take on meaning.  I apply this same reasoning to Zero.  If one looks at his behaviors as done from a vicious standpoint, they make sense.  That’s why it irritates me that commenters, pundits, etc provide cover by saying that Zero is incompetent, or inexperienced.  He is neither.  He is destructive.  The MSP, schools, and media are the only reasons he could survive.  I’m feeling a rant mode, so I’ll back away and close for now.  Go ahead and read the writing in Sultan Knish on religion.  It is a pretty good writeup – if one were actually speaking of religions.

I surfed some more and found this nugget on islam:

Ultimately, the distinction between “extremists” and “moderates” does not hold up to scrutiny. There are only Muslims, who can be divided into three groups: violent jihadists, stealth jihadists, and munafiqs. The latter may be peaceable and decent citizens, but as Roberts points out, marshaling reams of evidence from every quarter of the globe, when jihad comes to our part of town they cannot be relied on to oppose their barbarous co-religionists, to resist activation, to assemble in protests and demonstrations against the violence done in the name of their confession, to speak, write and march in solidarity with their targeted neighbors, or to reject outright the many passages in the Koran, Hadith and Sunnah that call for acts of blatant savagery. Time and time again, “the munafiqs acted on the side of jihad,” either by collaborating or by refusing to intervene. Such collusion seems plausible since, as Daniel Greenfield comments, “Jihad isn’t an act of violence; it’s an act of faith.”

I note that they place the concepts as “faith” whereas I consider them political philosophy. Show me a democrat who is willing to vote republican. I find it intriguing that he (Dennis Prager) uses religious beliefs as the basis for political voting being the flip side of my argument for the muslims. As an off hand thought, maybe politics and religious beliefs aren’t that separate.

I was in the office for a little bit and was talking with my manager about the current events – the bombing. The discussion went to end times, and I proposed the concept I have held for quite a while. I am a post tribulationist. That means, we don’t get to see God until after the worst period of human history. There are a couple of ideas I apply to come to that conclusion and they are as follows: One was the understanding that it was a new concept which is mentioned and discredited in this article. Secondly, is a more practical matter. There was a soldier coming back from Vietnam who I remember describing two characteristics of prisoners there. There were the ones looking for a particular time to leave, and there were those who believed they would endure. The first camp of individuals set a particular date, let’s say Thanksgiving as the day to look forward to for release. That day would come and go and no release was experienced. They would then look for Easter as the next date. That day would come, then go, and disappointment would become the natural reaction. Those in the date approaching style of thinking would die. The ones who hung on were those who admitted that conditions were horrid, and they could see it through. That style of thinking is what will sustain an individual through the tough times that are coming. One question: of which hardship were Christians supposed to be exempt? “In this world you will have trouble, but be of good cheer. I have overcome the world.”
(in looking for that soldier story, I found another interesting link)
When we have the mindset that will sustain through the horrendous times that are coming, we are then ready. Supposing we are wrong and the coming happens prior to the worst – wonderful surprise. To me, that seems a more practical mindset to adopt. What is cool is that I was having this conversation with my boss.

There are two branches of islam. There is the shia and the sunni. They formed from the relatives or followers of mohammad when he died and like the mafia style families they formed, behaved in like manner. That is why there are certain factions at war within islam – each is trying to be the top family. Sort of sounds like Chicago gangs/politics doesn’t it? I have argued over the years that there is no difference in the philosophy of totalitarianism and islam other than a religious whitewash of the latter. The application of ideology is the same – force and death. Several years ago, there was an article noting interesting ties of Zero to Saudi Arabia and I thought I’d just take a moment to examine a point of history.
Zero bows to the Saudi king.
There were several more bows, but it has been argued that they were to cover for the first. Remember that there were two factions of islam, and the two fight like, well, whatever you want to pick that likes to kill.
I looked up Indonesia as it was mentioned that Zero grew up in the capital. I find it interesting to note that his early training corresponds with the branch of islam practiced by Saudi Arabia.
Could it be that Zero is repaying Saudi Arabia as well as weakening the United States by no allowing production of oil or shipping from Canada? There are a couple of objectives met with a single focus, if you look at him not as incompetent, but rather as a smart operator trying to inflict injury in agreement with his upbringing and training.

There is a further consideration about the application of evolution – time. It has been proposed that there is plenty of time for evolution to occur – 3 billion years. This is done per carbon dating and other means. Just to stick with my problem on carbon dating, it assumes that carbon has degraded at the same rate for all of time, has a known value over that same period of time, and can accurately be calculated by molar concentrations, etc. Just the first of those is quite a stretch of imagination – that the same rate of degradation has occurred through the floods, volcanoes, heat, cold, etc. The idea that values calculated would remain constant through a billion years is an easy concept to dismiss. That is what I did. Until I read an article by a rabbi. I tried to find this article about 3 years after my initial reading and was unsuccessful. The site where it was posted was Anyways, the article went over the concept of time relative to Genesis – God’s time and man’s time. Noted was the lack of years applied to anything before “the fall.” Once man’s time was applied, years were noted. In other words, there are an unknown number of years between Genesis 1 and Genesis 3.
I also had several other considerations that I had maintained over the years related to Genesis. 1.) there were no females mentioned, 2.) Cain was not noted as the first son, 3.) once Cain killed his brother, he complained to God that anyone who finds me will kill me (Gen 4:14), 4.) there was an interesting reference to” sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose”, (Gen 6:2), 5.) in the curse of Eve, she is to have pain in childbirth – this was before the mention of Cain. How was she to know “normal” childbirth if Cain was her first, after the curse?
The picture that has evolved for me is one of a planet of individuals conceived originally, spreading out from the original Garden, and forming their societies. From my way of thinking, this would solve all of the problems previously mentioned. Eve would have known childbirth before Cain, societies would have existed in a number to threaten Cain who only had a family consisting of parents if the story is taken at face value. It would make his compliant valid to acknowledge a population of individuals present before the fall who could have sought revenge for the act he did. It would also allow a group of individuals born before “the fall” who were not responsible or related to the actions of Adam and Eve, and as such not subject to the results of those actions. They would be the “sons of God.” Not being subject to the curse of death per Adam, God decided to clean out the defiled population by a flood once their actions and thoughts were evil continuously (Gen 6:5). The fact that there was no death for these prior to “the fall” also means that there may be some validity to the present age testing, however flawed, and with how many presumptions the procedure might have.
This, of course, is just supposition on my part, but I note that it does answer many questions for me that have existed over the years.

I had a thought while on the exercise cycle this morning. After Peter denied Christ three times, there was a crucifixion and burial. Resurrection morning changed events and Jesus started to present Himself to various individuals. One of them was Peter, and the two had this exchange recorded here:

John 21:15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep.

Three times Peter was asked if he loved which corresponded to the three times he denied knowing Christ. We have been witness to one step further. There is now a political party which doesn’t deny knowing Christ, just has decided He should not be included. God can go elsewhere.

From here.
Is it any wonder that this is the party showing a serial philanderer as a chief speaker, someone who is here illegally – already breaking our laws, and someone who believes her sex life is so expensive that we should pick up the tab. Murdering babies is to be defended. Envy of anyone enjoying the results of their labor has been pushed for most of this campaign season. The pastor of 0 (zero) has famously cursed America as “not God bless America, but God d(*&^ America.” The end of this is simple. God cannot bless something or someone who won’t even acknowledge Him. The opposite position to God’s blessing is not a place I want to be.

Next Page »