Monday, October 13, 2014
Friday, October 10, 2014
For those who think modern feminism is the only kind there ever was
On October 10, 1866, the pro-life founder of the women's movement, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, declared herself a candidate for Congress from the 8th Congressional District of New York, even though women did not yet have the right to vote. As a mother and a feminist, Stanton reported "four hundred murders annually produced by abortion in [one] county alone," Condemning the "murder of children, either before or after birth," Stanton "pointed to the only remedy, the education and enfranchisement of woman...."
http://www.feministsforlife.org
NOTE: Stanton did make the error of focussing on "anti woman" stuff in the Bible and denouncing The Bible therefore whether at the same time or later, these points however taken in the overall picture show that it was an allowing not a demanding and the created order was nothing of the kind,
all male rule came as part of the curse after the Fall, and the mechanism was the default of the woman "your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you." mitigation of curses on Adam was never called a sin (labor saving inventions like the plow and harnessing animals to do work) so why should mitigation of the curse on women be a sin? But it has to include changing her attitude and helping women develop what in Stanton's time was called "a man's mind." Paul warned women can be deceived, and refers to a woman being in subjection "as says the law." Now the Torah never dictated subjection except that one point, the curse, all other subjection was moderating an existing situation that was coming into play noticeably in Laban's time.
Jacob's wives complained of behavior that was normal later on, "he has treated us like strangers," devoured their inheritance and sold them. Clearly this wasn't the way it was in their childhood memory or they would not have thought it bad or strange.
So it would seem Paul is arguing (unless talking about local and Roman law in which case it was a matter of public relations only) that if a woman insists on having Eve's flaws she can keep her curse. The converse is implied of course.
male supremacy hinged on the bride price, and theoretically if a savvy girl were to save or beg money and buy herself from her father, she could start her own lineage, marrying only a man who would abandon his own lineage and adopt hers. bilateral or even revived matrilineal. No indication anyone did that. But shifts in inheritance based on adoption existed, I Chronicles lists a man of Judah who had no sons, so married his daughter to his Egyptian slave and raised the child to his own name, and it was in the rolls of Judah. Because this adoption erased legally the Egyptian blood, the rule in Deuteronomy that required three generations from an Egyptian ancestor before the child could be counted as Israelite did not apply. Effectively, the bride price compensated for loss of the labor of the girl as a field hand, and transferred the produce of her womb from her father's lineage to that of her husband's father.
The neo matriarchist crew argue women are pacifist by nature and men rebelled and slavery developed from first enslaving women, but I think a more credible scenario is this: matrilineal amazonian tribes or extended family groups were short of women because of wars, and bought women from other groups. These were of course in subjection to the matriarch through her sons and nephews, so children grew up seeing their mothers bossed by their fathers, which set a pattern in their minds. Slavery in general started as war captives, and probably predated this, but once YHWH was forgotten, and one did not credit her children as Eve did to YHWH but to themselves, then with this attitude, whether it be father or mother in charge, the child is an object, the produce of your body ergo your property to sell or kill (or abort) at will. This laid the groundwork for other forms of chattel slavery.
oddly enough, the sentimental icky notion of oneness between mother and child, a total falsehood since it begins as free floating non attached conceptus which then implants and feeds off her like a parasite for a while until it is ready to be born, this notion, while it may support the child's survival if the notion motivates care for the child, is also at the root of abortion - that the child is just an extension or part of the mother, and she can therefore do as she please with it, incl. abort. In ancient times, it was usually after birth that the child's life was on the line, if it was sickly or deformed it might likely be killed or abandoned.
A quiver full of children was a collection of future workers and warriors, useful. Of course God prohibited extreme manifestations of this attitude, killing the child for any reason but it being evil and both parents had to agree and get the town elders' permission. In the absence of God's Law however, the utilitarian view of human life incl. that of your children prevailed.
http://www.feministsforlife.org
NOTE: Stanton did make the error of focussing on "anti woman" stuff in the Bible and denouncing The Bible therefore whether at the same time or later, these points however taken in the overall picture show that it was an allowing not a demanding and the created order was nothing of the kind,
all male rule came as part of the curse after the Fall, and the mechanism was the default of the woman "your desire will be to your husband and he will rule over you." mitigation of curses on Adam was never called a sin (labor saving inventions like the plow and harnessing animals to do work) so why should mitigation of the curse on women be a sin? But it has to include changing her attitude and helping women develop what in Stanton's time was called "a man's mind." Paul warned women can be deceived, and refers to a woman being in subjection "as says the law." Now the Torah never dictated subjection except that one point, the curse, all other subjection was moderating an existing situation that was coming into play noticeably in Laban's time.
Jacob's wives complained of behavior that was normal later on, "he has treated us like strangers," devoured their inheritance and sold them. Clearly this wasn't the way it was in their childhood memory or they would not have thought it bad or strange.
So it would seem Paul is arguing (unless talking about local and Roman law in which case it was a matter of public relations only) that if a woman insists on having Eve's flaws she can keep her curse. The converse is implied of course.
male supremacy hinged on the bride price, and theoretically if a savvy girl were to save or beg money and buy herself from her father, she could start her own lineage, marrying only a man who would abandon his own lineage and adopt hers. bilateral or even revived matrilineal. No indication anyone did that. But shifts in inheritance based on adoption existed, I Chronicles lists a man of Judah who had no sons, so married his daughter to his Egyptian slave and raised the child to his own name, and it was in the rolls of Judah. Because this adoption erased legally the Egyptian blood, the rule in Deuteronomy that required three generations from an Egyptian ancestor before the child could be counted as Israelite did not apply. Effectively, the bride price compensated for loss of the labor of the girl as a field hand, and transferred the produce of her womb from her father's lineage to that of her husband's father.
The neo matriarchist crew argue women are pacifist by nature and men rebelled and slavery developed from first enslaving women, but I think a more credible scenario is this: matrilineal amazonian tribes or extended family groups were short of women because of wars, and bought women from other groups. These were of course in subjection to the matriarch through her sons and nephews, so children grew up seeing their mothers bossed by their fathers, which set a pattern in their minds. Slavery in general started as war captives, and probably predated this, but once YHWH was forgotten, and one did not credit her children as Eve did to YHWH but to themselves, then with this attitude, whether it be father or mother in charge, the child is an object, the produce of your body ergo your property to sell or kill (or abort) at will. This laid the groundwork for other forms of chattel slavery.
oddly enough, the sentimental icky notion of oneness between mother and child, a total falsehood since it begins as free floating non attached conceptus which then implants and feeds off her like a parasite for a while until it is ready to be born, this notion, while it may support the child's survival if the notion motivates care for the child, is also at the root of abortion - that the child is just an extension or part of the mother, and she can therefore do as she please with it, incl. abort. In ancient times, it was usually after birth that the child's life was on the line, if it was sickly or deformed it might likely be killed or abandoned.
A quiver full of children was a collection of future workers and warriors, useful. Of course God prohibited extreme manifestations of this attitude, killing the child for any reason but it being evil and both parents had to agree and get the town elders' permission. In the absence of God's Law however, the utilitarian view of human life incl. that of your children prevailed.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Welfare predates socialism
http://www.missouri-mule.com/alfredthegreat.html Alfred the Great was possibly continuing what his father started, Aethevulf "provided systems of poor relief."
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10627/10627-h/10627-h.htm
"In regard to the financial resources of Alfred we know but little. Probably they were great, considering the extent and population of the little kingdom over which he ruled, but inconsiderable in comparison with the revenues of England at the present day. To build fortresses, construct a navy, and keep in pay a considerable military force,--to say nothing of his own private expenditure and the expense of his court, his public improvements, the endowment of churches, the support of schools, THE RELIEF OF THE POOR, and keeping the highways and bridges in repair,--required a large income. This was derived from the public revenues, crown lands, and private property. The public revenue was raised chiefly by customs, tolls, and fines. The crown lands were very extensive, as well as the private property of the sovereign, as he had large estates in every county of his kingdom.
But whatever his income, he set apart ... one-eighth for the poor, besides a considerable sum for foreigners, whom he liberally patronized."
http://books.google.com/books?id=WaAzAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22king+alfred%22+support+of+the+poor+plough+tax+penny&source=bl&ots=R4-LhJ-vS3&sig=fMhs3sCmPuG24eugU6uGVsPx2G8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IZU0VPuHJ4beoATd2oL4Dw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
the church support of the poor as well as of itself was from money collected by taxes and given by the king to the Church, normal routine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Poor_Laws doesn't go back as far as King Alfred, but it shows also that wage restrictions were in play to prevent exploitation by the few laborers after the plague. Obviously the concept of govt. intervention in the economy predated "socialism."
Though it refers to charity as voluntary, the tax like required support of the church, or church getting a cut of taxes, some of which was used to support the poor, is not mentioned but clearly is not entirely "voluntary." It is an enforcement of Biblical standards of morality, which go beyond sexual issues into economic ones. This included in the medieval times, PROHIBITION OF LENDING AT ANY DEGREE OF INTEREST.
The conniving Venetians persuaded the pope eventually to redefine "usury" from ANY interest to excessive interest. Calvin did the same for the protestant scene, and Venetian influence was involved in creating the Reformation AND the counter reformation! This of course insured wars and so forth that would require borrowing money from the Venetians....
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10627/10627-h/10627-h.htm
"In regard to the financial resources of Alfred we know but little. Probably they were great, considering the extent and population of the little kingdom over which he ruled, but inconsiderable in comparison with the revenues of England at the present day. To build fortresses, construct a navy, and keep in pay a considerable military force,--to say nothing of his own private expenditure and the expense of his court, his public improvements, the endowment of churches, the support of schools, THE RELIEF OF THE POOR, and keeping the highways and bridges in repair,--required a large income. This was derived from the public revenues, crown lands, and private property. The public revenue was raised chiefly by customs, tolls, and fines. The crown lands were very extensive, as well as the private property of the sovereign, as he had large estates in every county of his kingdom.
But whatever his income, he set apart ... one-eighth for the poor, besides a considerable sum for foreigners, whom he liberally patronized."
http://books.google.com/books?id=WaAzAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22king+alfred%22+support+of+the+poor+plough+tax+penny&source=bl&ots=R4-LhJ-vS3&sig=fMhs3sCmPuG24eugU6uGVsPx2G8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IZU0VPuHJ4beoATd2oL4Dw&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
the church support of the poor as well as of itself was from money collected by taxes and given by the king to the Church, normal routine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Poor_Laws doesn't go back as far as King Alfred, but it shows also that wage restrictions were in play to prevent exploitation by the few laborers after the plague. Obviously the concept of govt. intervention in the economy predated "socialism."
Though it refers to charity as voluntary, the tax like required support of the church, or church getting a cut of taxes, some of which was used to support the poor, is not mentioned but clearly is not entirely "voluntary." It is an enforcement of Biblical standards of morality, which go beyond sexual issues into economic ones. This included in the medieval times, PROHIBITION OF LENDING AT ANY DEGREE OF INTEREST.
The conniving Venetians persuaded the pope eventually to redefine "usury" from ANY interest to excessive interest. Calvin did the same for the protestant scene, and Venetian influence was involved in creating the Reformation AND the counter reformation! This of course insured wars and so forth that would require borrowing money from the Venetians....
http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/programs/poor-laws/ discusses the scene in AD 1601 et seq, notice the interference in families and restriction on travel way predate "socialism" after all the family as basic unit of society is not supreme, but the foundation and producer of society which the govt. is to direct to make sure society runs right so the family can be an object of direction also.
The Constitution clause about freedom of travel is not about driver's licenses, or toll bridges, but about the old feudal holdover rules that required passports and permits for travel within the king's realm. This was also present in Russia and other lands. you had to explain yourself.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/KingsandQueensofEngland/TheAnglo-Saxonkings/AlfredtheGreat.aspx
scroll down for King Alfred's efforts at public education, and his writing on the necessity of individuals being in shape to do their duties if the king is to rule the land effectively download pdf. Bear in mind that all royal efforts at anything came from taxes.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SmMNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq=england+poor+support+%22king+alfred%22&source=bl&ots=SZ1nvvGE63&sig=6XKwztMAWv55C3ewQvsYeV1fa1o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nZg0VLW1NY6sogSKt4JI&ved=0CGAQ6AEwCQ#v=snippet&q=poor&f=false
references to support efforts for the poor click on each page segment shown for entire page.
plough taxes later became excessive and were opposed, they had to do with other things than the poor, so cost more.
Biblical basis for compulsory charity, in addition to charity done as individuals. THIS IS NOT PART OF THE RITUAL CODE WHICH IS WHAT PAUL SAYS IS SUPERCEDED IN THEREFORE ABROGATED BY CHRIST, but consistent with the rest of the moral code which he reiterates.
Deuteronomy 26:12, 13 third year tithe to go to the levite, the poor, the stranger, the orphan, the widow, and notice a PUBLIC REPORT so A PUBLIC EXAMINATION is made to be sure this was done.
Tithing applied only to people who were producing a lot farmers and so forth, high income earners now maybe, it is not supposed to be required of the underprivileged like churches demand poor members fork over (and support rich ministers), it is a tenth OF YOUR INCREASE, in other words, a capital gains tax.
12"When you have finished paying all the tithe of your increase in the third year, the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan and to the widow, that they may eat in your towns and be satisfied. 13"You shall say before the LORD your God, 'I have removed the sacred portion from my house, and also have given it to the Levite and the alien, the orphan and the widow, according to all Your commandments which You have commanded me; I have not transgressed or forgotten any of Your commandments.…"
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
aborted fetal cells in vaccines cause autism
http://www.lifenews.com/2014/09/09/study-links-autism-to-vaccines-made-with-cells-from-aborted-babies/
apparently the sources cited have removed the file with the report, both links show no file.
apparently the sources cited have removed the file with the report, both links show no file.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
vengeance is mine saith the Lord gets misapplied a lot
Friday, September 5, 2014
Atlantis here and there
People are always looking for Atlantis, all kinds of theories
about its location and so forth exist, usually with some
archaeological or legend from locals information to back it
up.
Every time some new underwater city ruin is found it is
said to be Atlantis (except maybe for those off Japan or in
the Pacific islands).
Maybe none of these are Atlantis, they are just underwater
city ruins.
about its location and so forth exist, usually with some
archaeological or legend from locals information to back it
up.
Every time some new underwater city ruin is found it is
said to be Atlantis (except maybe for those off Japan or in
the Pacific islands).
Maybe none of these are Atlantis, they are just underwater
city ruins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)