Wednesday, April 3, 2019
Is this the ancestor to the fourth beast of Daniel?
the EAF to be formed of Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda and South Sudan,
all of which have English as one of official languages or a major presence.
The beast in Revelation that is a chimera has the MOUTH of a lion. England is
symbolized by a lion. And the feet 9weapons) of a bear, Russian weaponry which
already flooded Africa after the USSR breakup during the interim time of chaos,
and the body (infrastructure, life support system) of a leopard. China, best
candidate to be the leopard of Daniel 7, has been building infrastructure in
Africa, and now has a military base or two.
Saturday, March 30, 2019
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
The Welfare State
http://watch-unto-prayer.org/lgbtq-evangelicals-global-goals.html
This is a very good article. however the presupposition of many conservative Christians,
who correctly spot and denounce the malignant creeping globalism and creeping
totalitarianism, whether of left or right, is that welfare is "socialism" which is A Bad
Thing.
Before I start, let me say that I am not a fan of big government, oppressive taxation, or
crippling regulation not to mention agenda driven (and career fear enforced) quack
science and so forth like man made global warming, which every decade for some
decades now is supposed to kill us all off in ten years.
Ice cores from Antarctica and other sources show that warming always precedes an
ice age, the original scare of an ice age in the 1960's is closer to the truth, but of course
is and was promoted with a view to an excuse for totalitarian and suchlike measures
including depopulation (measures for which include abortion and encouraging
homosexuality). Notice that the talk now is not so much global warming as "climate
change" which allows the purveyors, who by now realize that oncoming ice age is
more likely and that the public is noticing this, to cover their asses when their
predictive abilities as global warming activists get blown out of the water, er, snow.
Now let's unpack this.
"Half-Time is Buford’s brainchild to package the Great Society visions of its architect, John Gardner, (who served in the LBJ administration launching the largest progressive expansion of government and the welfare state in history at the time)."
LBJ was no racial egalitarian or lover of the poor, and in general was unchaste and a total
asshole. A good case is made he had a hand in the assassination of JFK. And being part
of that milieu, in that of MLK. So why did he promote The Great Society?
Probably because if welfare and giving discriminated against, seriously kept down
people a head start is tweaked "correctly" you can have effects that go against the
stated purpose, while you put up with such positive effects as you have to put up with.
Take affirmative action. This says essentially that there has to be a quota of a category
of people, hired, or taken into education or whatever, that is equivalent to their percentage
of the population at large, figuring reasonably enough, that if there wasn't an effort to
exclude them then their percentage in those fields would match their percentage in the
population at large.
however.
1. This isn't much different really from the discrimination that makes damn sure that
no more than that percentage or less get into those fields. (with or without violent measures
to enforce this.)
2. It can be misused to discriminate against qualified individuals who are of those
favored elements, because their inclusion would go above that quota, and of course
"right minded" (racist etc.) people can quietly make sure that the less capable are the
ones who get the slots, making the target group look bad. This also discourages
their own self image.
And it can be used to over represent (as a goal) the targeted (for help) group aiding
both take over revenge attitudes that will cause pushback, and even without such
attitudes unfairly excluding qualified persons of the majority group, who after a while
start comparing notes, getting together and engaging in pushback. Both situations
ultimately favor the previously discriminated in favor of white majority, and potentially
drive the supposedly helped elements down and out, possibly violently, exploiting the
presence of the revenge and take over minded ones.
3. It can be misused to disempower. If a neighborhood isn't safe to leave your kids
in, and laws grow that forbid having your older kids watch your younger kids calling
this child abandonment, and moving kids from your overburdened family to some
relative's family as used to be done generations ago, as child abandonment unless
done by a court proceeding, then you can't go to work safely and if you are a single
mother, either by whoredom (sleeping around, not just sex for money), seduction
and abandonment, seduction then realizing the man is only going to turn your child
into a sleazebag heartbreaker and/or criminal so get rid of him, or by divorce or
widowhood, you need that aid.
Here some will say it should be voluntary and from charities and churches. Later.
(Charity is not voluntary biblically, it was required in OT and in NT we are warned
against not engaging in it, we could end up damned. But if you don't live near
the poor except for a few wandering dopers and scammers but in modern huge
cities like nothing that existed in those days, it helps to have some agency do the
charity for you. of course, this doesn't have to be government. But then, how do
you define government? even the council of elders of several extended families
would qualify as government! get real.)
But the aid is too low to cover all expenses so its still a struggle and the cheap
food is often unhealthy and high carb promoting weight gain and so forth.
ALSO when "traditional" notions of man as provider are in play, and it his
responsibility and no one else's to provide, then when he can't provide you
have to hide him or divorce him whether you keep him around on the sly
or not. I understand this has been modified in recent decades.
Now, while welfare incl. other entitlements can be used to escape a bad family
situation or a horrible marriage, in which case the destructive force against
the family is those people making the family a hellhole, restrictions and so
forth can result in undermining the family.
And for a woman to feel free to sleep around and cheat because the government
will help support the kids, and feel free to divorce is a side issue, ignores that
such a view of marriage as for money is essentially a kind of veiled prostitution,
and that this freedom also means easier escape from an abusive cheating partner,
who isn't wealthy enough to support her and the kids in divorce, and probably
wouldn't much anyway in a cohabitation.
The Great Society and War on Poverty therefore had a hypocritical evil intent
angle, throw a bone to the people making a lot of noise but do so minimally
with as much restrictions in it as would help undermine the black family and
so forth.
One big problematic view of the idea of "undermining the black family" and
the family at large, is that if a woman is the head of the household, by practice
or by fact of being the only adult, this is not a real family. The actual problem
is what KIND of woman she is, same problem as what KIND of man a male
head of household is. In a defacto matriarchal system, a serious risk of
disgusting suffocating almost psychologically incestuous kind of devotion
to the mother and her not disciplining but considering the vile rapist murdering
punk who terrorizes the neighborhood until thank God he's killed or imprisoned
as her "child."
Both sexes can forget they do NOT create life. they are merely the tools God
used to create or continue His creation of life. But the visual effect of the
woman in charge can lead (without serious focus on God as the maker and
owner of all) easily to misviewing her (by herself and others) as the creator
of life. Feminists and even traditionalists talk like this, even Christians who
should know better. Eve knew better and said "I have gotten a man with
the help of [or from] YHWH" it is a bit harder to view the man as creator
or even sole player (though some think of life as from him and merely
incubated in the woman), because there are reproductive related cycles in the
woman time of fertility vs. menstruation, that eventually cease and make
her not impregnatable (most of the time) so a male focused or led or
patrilineal system is a bit harder to use to co opt God's role.
to beat the system, which undermines decency and right education and
tries to enforce vaccination loads at once on infants, that in earlier
generations would have been unthinkable, Christian parents talk of
"parental rights." really, its parental responsibilities. But its easy to slip
into a mode where you give lip service to kids belonging NOT to the
parents but to God, while at gut level your view is that they are your creations
and your property.
Continuing:
"The idea is taken from Gardner’s concept of “Repotting” oneself at mid-life and finding purpose, not in gaining, but in giving back, i.e. philanthropic social responsibility for individuals who have achieved success. The goal is to consider the greater good and disperse one’s wealth for the benefit of society and the “Common Good.” "
Now, there is nothing unbiblical about this at all. HOWEVER.....
"This mantra is now everywhere in the Church thanks to people like Buford (who was a great admirer of Soviet leader Lenin as “one of the two greatest thinkers of the last century”) and to pastors like Keller and Warren who have helped sell his ideology to the Church.""
Here is the big problem, along with an angle on the Great Society connection.
1. mindless acceptance and promotion of whatever governmental operation is supposedly
taking care of things,
2. mixing it all up in a seamless web with any godawful totalitarian regime's efforts to
forcibly redistribute wealth which usually has the goal of impoverishing everybody except
elites, and with a kind of light trance mental blurment of the followers of such and often
of talking heads and a general state encouraged by media and "faciliators" and other such
trash, and of course creeping heresy.
the new age notion of eliminating all differences all boundaries all distinctions including
and especially that of religion, unity at the expense of truth. and a focus more on the
self than on Christ (Who may be even redefined with some misapplication of biblical
terms as some cosmic whatnot instead of the particular individual man Who is God the
Second Person of the Holy Trinity Incarnate permanently, Who in days of Pontius Pilate
truly physically died for our sins, and truly physically permanently came back to life
ascended in His flesh into Heaven and will come back down from there someday to
rule forever (not just a thousand years, that's a first stage) and eventually overhaul
creation.
hypocrisy: fear of socialized medicine - doctors who used to take an oath (and using a
false god's name to do so which probably spiritually contaminated the whole thing)
that they would NOT take fees for service only such gifts as the patient felt like giving
or was able to give, make tons of money and despise the poor. Also, they complain
they are not allowed to treat their patients the way they want to.
in the case where a doctor is not allowed to separately contract with a patient for
the latter to pay out of pocket for the not covered treatment, which IS an issue
sometimes I understand, this is idiotic. Insurance companies have always excluded
some treatments and pre existing conditions anyway. THAT DOCTORS FELT
FREE TO HIKE THEIR RATES BECAUSE MOST COULD NOW AFFORD IT
IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.
Some years ago a group of doctors made an agreement to never work for a for profit
hospital or clinic. This got back to the AMA. Did they applaud these men? no.
They merely said they would not discipline or sanction them. WHAT?! that option
of negative action should never have even been on their minds. But they are all
now money grubbing scumbags.
"thou shalt not steal" is taken to apply to government by Christians who ignore rather
contrary to such application things in the Bible. God was God AND KING of Israel
and in BOTH roles dictated law, including that the third year's tithe was to go
to the poor and levites, and the producers of wealth who tithed made an accounting
in public that they had done so and kept nothing back. Obviously failure to comply
would result in sanctions, maybe flogging. Definitely the money or crops would
be simply taken from them and distributed by the relevant authorities.
Is this voluntarism? Also there were commands not suggestions, you let a slave
go in the seventh year you give him means to get by on for a while. you HAVE
to be charitable to the poor and buy back your relative who for poverty sold
himself into slavery. and so forth.
Churches and charities as only means of support for the poor - what did Paul
say? that charity begins at home and they should not dump their widows on the
church unless there really is no support that the churches be not burdened. Of
course once the churches had more money they opened hospitals (Christians
started this!) and so forth. But this is also a good excuse to exclude those
who are not Christian, or not of some approved lifestyle or whatever, which
makes some more dangerous and some more trapped and to exclude those
trying to escape the company of bad people, whether those bad people are
relatives or neighborhood or whatever and anyone with a criminal record.
Precisely this used to be done..
And a lot of "charities" merely fund efforts to propagandize globalism and
immorality and atheism either overtly or in stages.
The required tithe mentioned above is a precedent for welfarism from taxes.
The safety laws in OT are a precedent for OSHA etc. but NOT for crippling
regulations that accomplish nothing but make more pay for some who have
to make the changes (and more overhead for the smaller businesses that
have to have the changes made).
Is welfare and entitlements bankrupting the USA? No. the big costs are
because of wild spending on wildly built up costs of military industrial
complex stuff, subsidies and kickbacks and what is generally called
corporate welfare.
Is welfare unknown to Christian civilization before the advent of Marxism
or even a bit earlier the illuminist fueled revolutions screaming about the
poor?
no.
Alfred the Great a Christian king of England is famous for having the
plough tax be applied to help the poor. (it is disputed whether the plough
tax existed before him or not, but he was the one who ordered it be put
to use for the poor.)
Byzantine rulers subsidized Christian hospitals.
This is a very good article. however the presupposition of many conservative Christians,
who correctly spot and denounce the malignant creeping globalism and creeping
totalitarianism, whether of left or right, is that welfare is "socialism" which is A Bad
Thing.
Before I start, let me say that I am not a fan of big government, oppressive taxation, or
crippling regulation not to mention agenda driven (and career fear enforced) quack
science and so forth like man made global warming, which every decade for some
decades now is supposed to kill us all off in ten years.
Ice cores from Antarctica and other sources show that warming always precedes an
ice age, the original scare of an ice age in the 1960's is closer to the truth, but of course
is and was promoted with a view to an excuse for totalitarian and suchlike measures
including depopulation (measures for which include abortion and encouraging
homosexuality). Notice that the talk now is not so much global warming as "climate
change" which allows the purveyors, who by now realize that oncoming ice age is
more likely and that the public is noticing this, to cover their asses when their
predictive abilities as global warming activists get blown out of the water, er, snow.
Now let's unpack this.
"Half-Time is Buford’s brainchild to package the Great Society visions of its architect, John Gardner, (who served in the LBJ administration launching the largest progressive expansion of government and the welfare state in history at the time)."
LBJ was no racial egalitarian or lover of the poor, and in general was unchaste and a total
asshole. A good case is made he had a hand in the assassination of JFK. And being part
of that milieu, in that of MLK. So why did he promote The Great Society?
Probably because if welfare and giving discriminated against, seriously kept down
people a head start is tweaked "correctly" you can have effects that go against the
stated purpose, while you put up with such positive effects as you have to put up with.
Take affirmative action. This says essentially that there has to be a quota of a category
of people, hired, or taken into education or whatever, that is equivalent to their percentage
of the population at large, figuring reasonably enough, that if there wasn't an effort to
exclude them then their percentage in those fields would match their percentage in the
population at large.
however.
1. This isn't much different really from the discrimination that makes damn sure that
no more than that percentage or less get into those fields. (with or without violent measures
to enforce this.)
2. It can be misused to discriminate against qualified individuals who are of those
favored elements, because their inclusion would go above that quota, and of course
"right minded" (racist etc.) people can quietly make sure that the less capable are the
ones who get the slots, making the target group look bad. This also discourages
their own self image.
And it can be used to over represent (as a goal) the targeted (for help) group aiding
both take over revenge attitudes that will cause pushback, and even without such
attitudes unfairly excluding qualified persons of the majority group, who after a while
start comparing notes, getting together and engaging in pushback. Both situations
ultimately favor the previously discriminated in favor of white majority, and potentially
drive the supposedly helped elements down and out, possibly violently, exploiting the
presence of the revenge and take over minded ones.
3. It can be misused to disempower. If a neighborhood isn't safe to leave your kids
in, and laws grow that forbid having your older kids watch your younger kids calling
this child abandonment, and moving kids from your overburdened family to some
relative's family as used to be done generations ago, as child abandonment unless
done by a court proceeding, then you can't go to work safely and if you are a single
mother, either by whoredom (sleeping around, not just sex for money), seduction
and abandonment, seduction then realizing the man is only going to turn your child
into a sleazebag heartbreaker and/or criminal so get rid of him, or by divorce or
widowhood, you need that aid.
Here some will say it should be voluntary and from charities and churches. Later.
(Charity is not voluntary biblically, it was required in OT and in NT we are warned
against not engaging in it, we could end up damned. But if you don't live near
the poor except for a few wandering dopers and scammers but in modern huge
cities like nothing that existed in those days, it helps to have some agency do the
charity for you. of course, this doesn't have to be government. But then, how do
you define government? even the council of elders of several extended families
would qualify as government! get real.)
But the aid is too low to cover all expenses so its still a struggle and the cheap
food is often unhealthy and high carb promoting weight gain and so forth.
ALSO when "traditional" notions of man as provider are in play, and it his
responsibility and no one else's to provide, then when he can't provide you
have to hide him or divorce him whether you keep him around on the sly
or not. I understand this has been modified in recent decades.
Now, while welfare incl. other entitlements can be used to escape a bad family
situation or a horrible marriage, in which case the destructive force against
the family is those people making the family a hellhole, restrictions and so
forth can result in undermining the family.
And for a woman to feel free to sleep around and cheat because the government
will help support the kids, and feel free to divorce is a side issue, ignores that
such a view of marriage as for money is essentially a kind of veiled prostitution,
and that this freedom also means easier escape from an abusive cheating partner,
who isn't wealthy enough to support her and the kids in divorce, and probably
wouldn't much anyway in a cohabitation.
The Great Society and War on Poverty therefore had a hypocritical evil intent
angle, throw a bone to the people making a lot of noise but do so minimally
with as much restrictions in it as would help undermine the black family and
so forth.
One big problematic view of the idea of "undermining the black family" and
the family at large, is that if a woman is the head of the household, by practice
or by fact of being the only adult, this is not a real family. The actual problem
is what KIND of woman she is, same problem as what KIND of man a male
head of household is. In a defacto matriarchal system, a serious risk of
disgusting suffocating almost psychologically incestuous kind of devotion
to the mother and her not disciplining but considering the vile rapist murdering
punk who terrorizes the neighborhood until thank God he's killed or imprisoned
as her "child."
Both sexes can forget they do NOT create life. they are merely the tools God
used to create or continue His creation of life. But the visual effect of the
woman in charge can lead (without serious focus on God as the maker and
owner of all) easily to misviewing her (by herself and others) as the creator
of life. Feminists and even traditionalists talk like this, even Christians who
should know better. Eve knew better and said "I have gotten a man with
the help of [or from] YHWH" it is a bit harder to view the man as creator
or even sole player (though some think of life as from him and merely
incubated in the woman), because there are reproductive related cycles in the
woman time of fertility vs. menstruation, that eventually cease and make
her not impregnatable (most of the time) so a male focused or led or
patrilineal system is a bit harder to use to co opt God's role.
to beat the system, which undermines decency and right education and
tries to enforce vaccination loads at once on infants, that in earlier
generations would have been unthinkable, Christian parents talk of
"parental rights." really, its parental responsibilities. But its easy to slip
into a mode where you give lip service to kids belonging NOT to the
parents but to God, while at gut level your view is that they are your creations
and your property.
Continuing:
"The idea is taken from Gardner’s concept of “Repotting” oneself at mid-life and finding purpose, not in gaining, but in giving back, i.e. philanthropic social responsibility for individuals who have achieved success. The goal is to consider the greater good and disperse one’s wealth for the benefit of society and the “Common Good.” "
Now, there is nothing unbiblical about this at all. HOWEVER.....
"This mantra is now everywhere in the Church thanks to people like Buford (who was a great admirer of Soviet leader Lenin as “one of the two greatest thinkers of the last century”) and to pastors like Keller and Warren who have helped sell his ideology to the Church.""
Here is the big problem, along with an angle on the Great Society connection.
1. mindless acceptance and promotion of whatever governmental operation is supposedly
taking care of things,
2. mixing it all up in a seamless web with any godawful totalitarian regime's efforts to
forcibly redistribute wealth which usually has the goal of impoverishing everybody except
elites, and with a kind of light trance mental blurment of the followers of such and often
of talking heads and a general state encouraged by media and "faciliators" and other such
trash, and of course creeping heresy.
the new age notion of eliminating all differences all boundaries all distinctions including
and especially that of religion, unity at the expense of truth. and a focus more on the
self than on Christ (Who may be even redefined with some misapplication of biblical
terms as some cosmic whatnot instead of the particular individual man Who is God the
Second Person of the Holy Trinity Incarnate permanently, Who in days of Pontius Pilate
truly physically died for our sins, and truly physically permanently came back to life
ascended in His flesh into Heaven and will come back down from there someday to
rule forever (not just a thousand years, that's a first stage) and eventually overhaul
creation.
hypocrisy: fear of socialized medicine - doctors who used to take an oath (and using a
false god's name to do so which probably spiritually contaminated the whole thing)
that they would NOT take fees for service only such gifts as the patient felt like giving
or was able to give, make tons of money and despise the poor. Also, they complain
they are not allowed to treat their patients the way they want to.
in the case where a doctor is not allowed to separately contract with a patient for
the latter to pay out of pocket for the not covered treatment, which IS an issue
sometimes I understand, this is idiotic. Insurance companies have always excluded
some treatments and pre existing conditions anyway. THAT DOCTORS FELT
FREE TO HIKE THEIR RATES BECAUSE MOST COULD NOW AFFORD IT
IS A SERIOUS ISSUE.
Some years ago a group of doctors made an agreement to never work for a for profit
hospital or clinic. This got back to the AMA. Did they applaud these men? no.
They merely said they would not discipline or sanction them. WHAT?! that option
of negative action should never have even been on their minds. But they are all
now money grubbing scumbags.
"thou shalt not steal" is taken to apply to government by Christians who ignore rather
contrary to such application things in the Bible. God was God AND KING of Israel
and in BOTH roles dictated law, including that the third year's tithe was to go
to the poor and levites, and the producers of wealth who tithed made an accounting
in public that they had done so and kept nothing back. Obviously failure to comply
would result in sanctions, maybe flogging. Definitely the money or crops would
be simply taken from them and distributed by the relevant authorities.
Is this voluntarism? Also there were commands not suggestions, you let a slave
go in the seventh year you give him means to get by on for a while. you HAVE
to be charitable to the poor and buy back your relative who for poverty sold
himself into slavery. and so forth.
Churches and charities as only means of support for the poor - what did Paul
say? that charity begins at home and they should not dump their widows on the
church unless there really is no support that the churches be not burdened. Of
course once the churches had more money they opened hospitals (Christians
started this!) and so forth. But this is also a good excuse to exclude those
who are not Christian, or not of some approved lifestyle or whatever, which
makes some more dangerous and some more trapped and to exclude those
trying to escape the company of bad people, whether those bad people are
relatives or neighborhood or whatever and anyone with a criminal record.
Precisely this used to be done..
And a lot of "charities" merely fund efforts to propagandize globalism and
immorality and atheism either overtly or in stages.
The required tithe mentioned above is a precedent for welfarism from taxes.
The safety laws in OT are a precedent for OSHA etc. but NOT for crippling
regulations that accomplish nothing but make more pay for some who have
to make the changes (and more overhead for the smaller businesses that
have to have the changes made).
Is welfare and entitlements bankrupting the USA? No. the big costs are
because of wild spending on wildly built up costs of military industrial
complex stuff, subsidies and kickbacks and what is generally called
corporate welfare.
Is welfare unknown to Christian civilization before the advent of Marxism
or even a bit earlier the illuminist fueled revolutions screaming about the
poor?
no.
Alfred the Great a Christian king of England is famous for having the
plough tax be applied to help the poor. (it is disputed whether the plough
tax existed before him or not, but he was the one who ordered it be put
to use for the poor.)
Byzantine rulers subsidized Christian hospitals.
Saturday, March 2, 2019
Ben Carson Shatters Pro-Choice Narrative on Abortion: ‘I Can Guarantee You They Can Feel’
MARCH 2, 2019
By C. DOUGLAS GOLDEN
CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE
...Part of the debate regarding access to abortion is whether or not a fetus can feel pain and when it can. During an interview on Friday at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference, Housing and Urban Development Director Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon, talked about operating on babies still in the womb and born prematurely.
During the interview, Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, asked Carson when he believed life began.
“That’s a very good question because, with all the technology that we have acquired as human beings, we still don’t have the ability to create life,” Carson said. “God has orchestrated an incredible situation where the egg and sperm come together, and within a matter of ten to 12 weeks, you can see the little fingers and the little toes, the little nose, and the face.”
“The heart has started to beat,” he continued. “It’s absolutely amazing.”
He noted that at a certain point in fetal development, babies were “developing hundreds of thousands of neurons every single day.”
“I’ve had the privilege of being able to operate on very little babies that were 25, 26, 27, 28 weeks gestation,” Carson continued.
“And I can guarantee you they can feel. They can react.”
“You have to give them anesthesia if you’re going to cut them, believe me,” he continued. “But they can also respond to comfort and to warmth.”
“And for somebody to say that’s a meaningless bunch of cells, honestly, is just totally ignorant,” he added.
Carson continued to talk about the gruesome consequences of abortion.
“You have a baby who could live outside of the womb,” he said. “But some people feel that it’s OK to murder that baby.”
...
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ben-carson-shatters-pro-choice-narrative-abortion-can-guarantee-can-feel/
By C. DOUGLAS GOLDEN
CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE
...Part of the debate regarding access to abortion is whether or not a fetus can feel pain and when it can. During an interview on Friday at the 2019 Conservative Political Action Conference, Housing and Urban Development Director Dr. Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon, talked about operating on babies still in the womb and born prematurely.
During the interview, Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America, asked Carson when he believed life began.
“That’s a very good question because, with all the technology that we have acquired as human beings, we still don’t have the ability to create life,” Carson said. “God has orchestrated an incredible situation where the egg and sperm come together, and within a matter of ten to 12 weeks, you can see the little fingers and the little toes, the little nose, and the face.”
“The heart has started to beat,” he continued. “It’s absolutely amazing.”
He noted that at a certain point in fetal development, babies were “developing hundreds of thousands of neurons every single day.”
“I’ve had the privilege of being able to operate on very little babies that were 25, 26, 27, 28 weeks gestation,” Carson continued.
“And I can guarantee you they can feel. They can react.”
“You have to give them anesthesia if you’re going to cut them, believe me,” he continued. “But they can also respond to comfort and to warmth.”
“And for somebody to say that’s a meaningless bunch of cells, honestly, is just totally ignorant,” he added.
Carson continued to talk about the gruesome consequences of abortion.
“You have a baby who could live outside of the womb,” he said. “But some people feel that it’s OK to murder that baby.”
...
https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/ben-carson-shatters-pro-choice-narrative-abortion-can-guarantee-can-feel/
Friday, January 11, 2019
male DNA in women's brains the latest squabble in the manosphere
MGTOW or Men Going Their Own Way and the "manosphere" male oriented blogs, range from the monk mode, celibate to pick up artists or PUA both of whom (the latter hypocritically) denounce girls who are THOTs (that hoe aka whore over there) for different reasons, the former call the latter not
really MGTOW because still engaging with women instead of avoiding them altogether.
Among both you find concerns about women who have slept around ("ridden the cock carousel")
and no longer can bond with a man by way of emotions stirred by sex, actually more by petting
and affection and snuggling and THEN sex, and some of the men refer to bonding with women
the same way.
But among the apologists for the double standard are those who argue that evolutionary wiring
make the sexes radically different sexually, and that women respond to oxytocin and men don't
but to rational considerations to stay with a woman or two or three of them.
oxytocin is a chemical that plays a role in pleasure based pair bonding. this is a far more complex
thing than genetics or whatever. in experiments with voles, untreated males are monogamous,
but an oxytocin blocker injected will render the male promiscuous.
lately two different universities or a university and a lab did autopsies on aged women's brains,
and found that 63% of them had male DNA present. there are four ways this can happen, listed
below in the post I put on a youtube comments section part of a dispute with someone way too
sure of himself, justifying being a sleazebag. (or male slut.) there is a fifth way, chimerism
which can if the absorbed embryo was opposite sex to the absorbing embryo, result in intersex
or hermaphroditic conditions.
anyway, one way is absorption of male DNA through mucous membranes (vagina or mouth)
into the blood and into the brain. Nothing has established this affects behavior, bonding or
anything, but the slop job pseudoscientific armchair jumpers to conclusions argue that this is
the mechanism why women bond to a man, but a man doesn't bond to one woman, and that if
she has had several sex partners, well, the more she has had the less able she is to bond ergo
the more likely to cheat.
a nonsequitur if ever there was one.
Also ignores extensive evidence of male bonding to female back of regular exposure to her,
sexual and parasexual and emotional before touching even, and even in a prostitution
situation: I read somewhere that several times in Vietnam a soldier would go to a particular
prostitute he favored over others too often, and end up marrying her. she'd come home as a
war bride.
Also the penis mucous membranes inside would be just as permeable, and it is usually a few
minutes before ejaculate can come down the tube and flush things out. plenty of time for
absorption. And if this wasn't happening, there wouldn't be any STDs gotten by men from
women!
Another line of thought is that spines or other oddities on penises in animals, and the
coronal bulge at the tip of the human penis, are designed to scoop out semen of previous
males, thus arguing for inherent promiscuity of both sexes. IT NEVER CROSSES
THEIR MINDS THAT THESE ARE DESIGNED FOR THE FEMALE'S PLEASURE.
not to mention that it wouldn't scoop it all but even push some farther up into the womb,
and the time frame between matings with different males would render this effort
useless to prevent impregnation by the previous male.
of course the poster drags up fall of civilization being relatable to female infidelity.
a. you can't have female infidelity and promiscuity without male infidelity and promiscuity. b. talk about mixing lies with truth, and you can't be bothered to go search or don't want to so I will do the work for you. like I said, the male DNA in brains can be from male pregnancies also. on that basis, the more sons the less likely she is to remain faithful to their father by your logic. "Known as microchimerism [Mc], the presence of male cells in the bodies of females is not new and is usually caused by cells from a male fetus from a prior pregnancy.“The idea of two genetically distinct populations of cells, or their DNA, residing in one individual isn’t new. It’s called microchimerism,” PLOS ONE wrote in a blog post in 2012. “Medical chimerism arises after a transfusion or transplant, and it may follow pregnancy. Our microbiomes, the bacteria within us, are more like guests than body parts.”" https://globalnews.ca/news/3558598/no-women-do-not-absorb-and-retain-dna-from-every-man-they-have-sex-with/ though the article casts doubt on sex as the origin I don't doubt it, but pregnancies and fraternal twins are a source also, AND ONLY 63% of women had this " The study, which was focused on the female brain and genetics, found that 63% of women have brains that harbor DNA that originated from another individual,"
https://mtonews.com/shock-report-women-absorb-retain-dna-every-man-unprotected-sx-genetically-bonded-forever
"So according to the scientists, the possible sources of the male DNA cells living in the women’s brains are:1. An abortion the woman didn’t know about.2. A male twin that vanished.3. An older brother transferred by the maternal circulation.4. Sexual intercourse. " https://periscopeolawole.blogspot.com/2017/07/women-absorb-and-retain-dna-from-every.html sex is only one of four ways this can happen. some of this can happen due to blood transfusions
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/04/transplanttransfusion-donors-dna-get-integrated-new-host/
meanwhile the fact that unprotected sex can give a man an STD from a woman shows that the penis' mucous membranes inside the tip get exposure to and absorption of female mucous and fluid (the former for sure will have DNA in it) for several minutes before the ejaculation can clear anything out. I await results of similar DNA searches in male brain autopsies. bottom line, you are jumping to conclusions and so is anyone who associates this with bonding. you are ignoring the male reports of their bonding to women, the social and media heavy influence against male to female bonding and scorn towards love and clinging by either this mostly trained into men,
really MGTOW because still engaging with women instead of avoiding them altogether.
Among both you find concerns about women who have slept around ("ridden the cock carousel")
and no longer can bond with a man by way of emotions stirred by sex, actually more by petting
and affection and snuggling and THEN sex, and some of the men refer to bonding with women
the same way.
But among the apologists for the double standard are those who argue that evolutionary wiring
make the sexes radically different sexually, and that women respond to oxytocin and men don't
but to rational considerations to stay with a woman or two or three of them.
oxytocin is a chemical that plays a role in pleasure based pair bonding. this is a far more complex
thing than genetics or whatever. in experiments with voles, untreated males are monogamous,
but an oxytocin blocker injected will render the male promiscuous.
lately two different universities or a university and a lab did autopsies on aged women's brains,
and found that 63% of them had male DNA present. there are four ways this can happen, listed
below in the post I put on a youtube comments section part of a dispute with someone way too
sure of himself, justifying being a sleazebag. (or male slut.) there is a fifth way, chimerism
which can if the absorbed embryo was opposite sex to the absorbing embryo, result in intersex
or hermaphroditic conditions.
anyway, one way is absorption of male DNA through mucous membranes (vagina or mouth)
into the blood and into the brain. Nothing has established this affects behavior, bonding or
anything, but the slop job pseudoscientific armchair jumpers to conclusions argue that this is
the mechanism why women bond to a man, but a man doesn't bond to one woman, and that if
she has had several sex partners, well, the more she has had the less able she is to bond ergo
the more likely to cheat.
a nonsequitur if ever there was one.
Also ignores extensive evidence of male bonding to female back of regular exposure to her,
sexual and parasexual and emotional before touching even, and even in a prostitution
situation: I read somewhere that several times in Vietnam a soldier would go to a particular
prostitute he favored over others too often, and end up marrying her. she'd come home as a
war bride.
Also the penis mucous membranes inside would be just as permeable, and it is usually a few
minutes before ejaculate can come down the tube and flush things out. plenty of time for
absorption. And if this wasn't happening, there wouldn't be any STDs gotten by men from
women!
Another line of thought is that spines or other oddities on penises in animals, and the
coronal bulge at the tip of the human penis, are designed to scoop out semen of previous
males, thus arguing for inherent promiscuity of both sexes. IT NEVER CROSSES
THEIR MINDS THAT THESE ARE DESIGNED FOR THE FEMALE'S PLEASURE.
not to mention that it wouldn't scoop it all but even push some farther up into the womb,
and the time frame between matings with different males would render this effort
useless to prevent impregnation by the previous male.
of course the poster drags up fall of civilization being relatable to female infidelity.
a. you can't have female infidelity and promiscuity without male infidelity and promiscuity. b. talk about mixing lies with truth, and you can't be bothered to go search or don't want to so I will do the work for you. like I said, the male DNA in brains can be from male pregnancies also. on that basis, the more sons the less likely she is to remain faithful to their father by your logic. "Known as microchimerism [Mc], the presence of male cells in the bodies of females is not new and is usually caused by cells from a male fetus from a prior pregnancy.“The idea of two genetically distinct populations of cells, or their DNA, residing in one individual isn’t new. It’s called microchimerism,” PLOS ONE wrote in a blog post in 2012. “Medical chimerism arises after a transfusion or transplant, and it may follow pregnancy. Our microbiomes, the bacteria within us, are more like guests than body parts.”" https://globalnews.ca/news/3558598/no-women-do-not-absorb-and-retain-dna-from-every-man-they-have-sex-with/ though the article casts doubt on sex as the origin I don't doubt it, but pregnancies and fraternal twins are a source also, AND ONLY 63% of women had this " The study, which was focused on the female brain and genetics, found that 63% of women have brains that harbor DNA that originated from another individual,"
https://mtonews.com/shock-report-women-absorb-retain-dna-every-man-unprotected-sx-genetically-bonded-forever
"So according to the scientists, the possible sources of the male DNA cells living in the women’s brains are:1. An abortion the woman didn’t know about.2. A male twin that vanished.3. An older brother transferred by the maternal circulation.4. Sexual intercourse. " https://periscopeolawole.blogspot.com/2017/07/women-absorb-and-retain-dna-from-every.html sex is only one of four ways this can happen. some of this can happen due to blood transfusions
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/04/transplanttransfusion-donors-dna-get-integrated-new-host/
meanwhile the fact that unprotected sex can give a man an STD from a woman shows that the penis' mucous membranes inside the tip get exposure to and absorption of female mucous and fluid (the former for sure will have DNA in it) for several minutes before the ejaculation can clear anything out. I await results of similar DNA searches in male brain autopsies. bottom line, you are jumping to conclusions and so is anyone who associates this with bonding. you are ignoring the male reports of their bonding to women, the social and media heavy influence against male to female bonding and scorn towards love and clinging by either this mostly trained into men,
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
WHY CATHOLICS CELEBRATE CHRISTMAS ON DECEMBER 25?
[This is from Facebook I think I posted similar information from an Orthodox source,
this counting up of dates adding to Dec. 25 as Jesus' birthdate goes back of course to the
days before the Roman Catholic Church existed, and the pope was the ORthodox
Patriarch of Rome.]
.
Catholics traditionally celebrate Christmas every December 25 as the birth of our lord Jesus Christ. However, there are some cultic type religious groups like INC, SDA, JW, MCGI, and many cults who opposed and do not celebrate Christmas as they believe that December 25 is not really Jesus’ birthdate. Instead, they said that this month and date is invented, unbiblical tradition made by the pagan Catholic Church. How to respond to this accusation?
.
These anti-Catholic cults keep on asking to look in the bible for the literal word-for-word of the specific month & date of Jesus' birth. They failed to realize that the Bible is not a "Calendar" that contains all the dates. Ironically, these cult members who don't celebrate Christmas, are enjoying Christmas Holidays and even accepting Christmas bonuses. .
.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS
.
The fact that the date itself was found right there in the bible by computing the chronological events.
.
It had started with Zachariah, a Jewish priest who went inside into the temple to offer incense, as we can read in (Luke 1:9) it says ⏬
.
"When it fell to him by lot, as the priestly custom was, to enter the Lord's sanctuary and burn incense there." (Luke 1:9)
.
According to Jewish tradition, this burning incense inside the temple's inner sanctuary is traditionally done once a year, in the Jewish Month of "Tishrei 15" (which is equivalent to September 25 in Gregorian Calendar).
.
As Zachariah incensing the temple's inner sanctuary, an angel came to appear to his presence, and brought a message that he will have a son to his wife Elizabeth, which name “John”, and that the same date & same month of Tishrei (September 25), Zechariah’s wife, Elizabeth becomes pregnant, as we can read in (Luke 1:11,13) ⏬
.
"Then there appeared to him the angel of the Lord, standing on the right of the altar of incense.".. But the angel said to him, 'Zechariah, do not be afraid, for your prayer has been heard. YOUR WIFE ELIZABETH IS TO BEAR YOU A SON and you shall name him John." (Luke 1:11,13)
.
Thus, after having pregnant on (September 25) , we should count another 6 months ahead for another event - the annunciation of Mary.
.
Just because if we continue the reading until (Luke 1:24-27, and 30-31) we can see that when 6 months of Elizabeth's conception is another angel has been sent once again to a Virgin girl, Mary, bringing her a message that she will be having a baby: ⏬
.
"Some time later HIS WIFE ELIZABETH CONCEIVED and for five months she kept to herself, saying,... 'The Lord has done this for me, now that it has pleased him to take away the humiliation I suffered in public.' IN THE SIXTH MONTH the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David; and THE VIRGIN'S NAME WAS MARY. but the angel said to her, 'Mary, do not be afraid; you have won God's favour. Look! YOU ARE TO CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB AND BEAR A SON, and you must name him Jesus." (Luke 1:24-27, 30-31)
.
Thus, if we compute the chronological event of dates, a (December 25) Birthdate of Jesus will be derived: ⏬
.
TISHREI 15 (SEPTEMBER 25)
(Annunciation of Elizabeth, started to conceive baby John)
+
6 MONTHS (of Elizabeth's pregnancy )
_________________
= MARCH 25
(Annunciation of Mary & starting point of Mary's conception to baby Jesus)
.
MARCH 25 + (9 Months of Pregnancy) = DECEMBER 25
.
THEREFORE, (December 25) is the birthdate of Jesus, based on the scriptural events computed. Thus, the early church fathers never erred (mistaken) with their idea / theory / thoughts on Jesus birth, the fact that it supports scriptural analysis as a proof, and not invented as some anti-Catholic's allegations.
.
THE CELEBRATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE DATE
.
December 25 is not Catholic Church doctrine, nor written in the catechism of the Catholic Church. It is just a belief that came from tradition and computed chronological events in the bible.
.
Just because, the church do not ignore the fact that the actual date of Jesus may fall between 25, which is either 23, 24 or 26, 27. Thus, Catholic Church do not officially proclaim it as church doctrine, but a mere traditional belief that came from ancient Christians.
.
Hence, this belief comes out from scriptural theory, by computing chronological events in the bible which made more closer view to (December 25) as Jesus' birth. What's most important to Catholics is the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Saviour, and not the date itself.
.
Date is nothing more important than the celebration itself. You may be born on a leap year (Feb 29), yet you still want to celebrate your birthday on the following year either on Feb 28 or March 1, that does not fall on the actual date of Feb 29. Because what matters most is the celebration that you have added 1 more year of your age. Likewise, Dec 25 might not be accurate date of Christ's birth, but it will not matter for Christians since we only want to commemorate the birth of saviour Jesus Christ.
.
DECEMBER 25 IS THE BIRTH OF PAGAN GOD CALLED "SOL INVICTUS"?
.
Most of the anti-Catholic cults favorite allegation is that December 25 is of pagan roots and not really Jesus birth. They based it from some limited references quoted from unreliable history books.
.
As a matter of fact, long before the paganic declaration for the feast of the unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus) the (December 25) is already belief of the early Christians.
.
First thing we should know "WHEN" does paganic feast declared? Here let us have some references...
.
“ Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the official sun god of the later Roman Empire and a patron of soldiers. In 274 AD the Roman emperor Aurelian made it an official cult alongside the traditional Roman cults.” (Source: Wikipedia – Sol Invictus)
.
See? It is clear, (274 AD) is the year that pagan feast for the sun god was declared, called Sol Invictus.
.
On the other hand, the belief of Jesus birth in (December 25) is much earlier than paganic feast Sol Invictus, Here are the references about early church fathers identifies (December 25) as Jesus nativity.
.
St. Theophilus (circa 171-183 A.D) was the first to identify December 25 as the birth date of Christ, saying ...
.
“We ought to celebrate the birth day of our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen." (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de origin Festorum Christianorum)
.
St. Iranaeus (circa A.D 202) ⏬
.
“ In his work Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus (c. 130–202) identified the conception of Jesus as March 25 and linked it to the crucifixion at the time of the equinox, with the birth of Jesus nine months after on December 25 at the time of the solstice." (Link: Source: Wikipedia – Christmas – Choice of December 25)
.
St. Hippolytus (circa. 170-236 A.D)
due Speculation as to the time of Jesus’ birth dates back to the 3rd century, Hyppolytus believed that Jesus was born on December 25. He explains in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204) that the Lord’s birth was believed to have occurred on that day, he said... ⏬
.
" For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls."
.
Apostolic Constitutions (circa A.D. 70-250)
The Apostolic Constitutions are a compilation, whose material is derived from early sources differing in age AND different early writers during apostolic age. he said..⏬
.
" Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own Godhead,." (Apostolic Constitutions , Book V, Section 3, Chapter XIII)
.
Take Note: This ninth month counting from Nisan (April) is Casleu in the Jewish calendar. Transferred to our Roman calendar, this ninth month answers to December.
.
Now, let us compare and see the contradicting year interval between the two (Nativity of Jesus VS. Sol Invictus), in which didn't even meet nor coincided: ⏬
.
- Dec.25 "Jesus nativity" was first used (70–250 A.D) by early Christians
.
VERSUS
.
- Dec.25 "Sol Invictus" later declared (275 A.D) by pagan emperor
.
Here, we can see from the two, that early church fathers from (1st-2nd century A.D) is the earliest groups who believes & identifies (December.25) as Jesus nativity, While contrary to paganic feast of Sol Invictus which later declared in late 2nd century (275 A.D).
.
THEREFORE, long before the emperor's declaration of December 25 as the pagan feast of 'Sol Invictus' in (274 A.D), the (December 25th) was first identified by the early Christians as the Jesus’ birth
.
Take Note: early Christians, is the people who were closest from apostles time, thus, they much know something about Jesus and apostles life.
.
THEREFORE, THE "DECEMBER 25" CHRISTMAS IS DEFINITELY NOT ROOTED OF PAGANISM, BUT ROOTED FROM EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHTS BY OUR EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, IN WHICH ALSO SUPPORTED WITH CHRONOLOGICAL COMPUTATION FROM THE BIBLE.
this counting up of dates adding to Dec. 25 as Jesus' birthdate goes back of course to the
days before the Roman Catholic Church existed, and the pope was the ORthodox
Patriarch of Rome.]
.
Catholics traditionally celebrate Christmas every December 25 as the birth of our lord Jesus Christ. However, there are some cultic type religious groups like INC, SDA, JW, MCGI, and many cults who opposed and do not celebrate Christmas as they believe that December 25 is not really Jesus’ birthdate. Instead, they said that this month and date is invented, unbiblical tradition made by the pagan Catholic Church. How to respond to this accusation?
.
These anti-Catholic cults keep on asking to look in the bible for the literal word-for-word of the specific month & date of Jesus' birth. They failed to realize that the Bible is not a "Calendar" that contains all the dates. Ironically, these cult members who don't celebrate Christmas, are enjoying Christmas Holidays and even accepting Christmas bonuses. .
.
THE CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS
.
The fact that the date itself was found right there in the bible by computing the chronological events.
.
It had started with Zachariah, a Jewish priest who went inside into the temple to offer incense, as we can read in (Luke 1:9) it says ⏬
.
"When it fell to him by lot, as the priestly custom was, to enter the Lord's sanctuary and burn incense there." (Luke 1:9)
.
According to Jewish tradition, this burning incense inside the temple's inner sanctuary is traditionally done once a year, in the Jewish Month of "Tishrei 15" (which is equivalent to September 25 in Gregorian Calendar).
.
As Zachariah incensing the temple's inner sanctuary, an angel came to appear to his presence, and brought a message that he will have a son to his wife Elizabeth, which name “John”, and that the same date & same month of Tishrei (September 25), Zechariah’s wife, Elizabeth becomes pregnant, as we can read in (Luke 1:11,13) ⏬
.
"Then there appeared to him the angel of the Lord, standing on the right of the altar of incense.".. But the angel said to him, 'Zechariah, do not be afraid, for your prayer has been heard. YOUR WIFE ELIZABETH IS TO BEAR YOU A SON and you shall name him John." (Luke 1:11,13)
.
Thus, after having pregnant on (September 25) , we should count another 6 months ahead for another event - the annunciation of Mary.
.
Just because if we continue the reading until (Luke 1:24-27, and 30-31) we can see that when 6 months of Elizabeth's conception is another angel has been sent once again to a Virgin girl, Mary, bringing her a message that she will be having a baby: ⏬
.
"Some time later HIS WIFE ELIZABETH CONCEIVED and for five months she kept to herself, saying,... 'The Lord has done this for me, now that it has pleased him to take away the humiliation I suffered in public.' IN THE SIXTH MONTH the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David; and THE VIRGIN'S NAME WAS MARY. but the angel said to her, 'Mary, do not be afraid; you have won God's favour. Look! YOU ARE TO CONCEIVE IN YOUR WOMB AND BEAR A SON, and you must name him Jesus." (Luke 1:24-27, 30-31)
.
Thus, if we compute the chronological event of dates, a (December 25) Birthdate of Jesus will be derived: ⏬
.
TISHREI 15 (SEPTEMBER 25)
(Annunciation of Elizabeth, started to conceive baby John)
+
6 MONTHS (of Elizabeth's pregnancy )
_________________
= MARCH 25
(Annunciation of Mary & starting point of Mary's conception to baby Jesus)
.
MARCH 25 + (9 Months of Pregnancy) = DECEMBER 25
.
THEREFORE, (December 25) is the birthdate of Jesus, based on the scriptural events computed. Thus, the early church fathers never erred (mistaken) with their idea / theory / thoughts on Jesus birth, the fact that it supports scriptural analysis as a proof, and not invented as some anti-Catholic's allegations.
.
THE CELEBRATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE DATE
.
December 25 is not Catholic Church doctrine, nor written in the catechism of the Catholic Church. It is just a belief that came from tradition and computed chronological events in the bible.
.
Just because, the church do not ignore the fact that the actual date of Jesus may fall between 25, which is either 23, 24 or 26, 27. Thus, Catholic Church do not officially proclaim it as church doctrine, but a mere traditional belief that came from ancient Christians.
.
Hence, this belief comes out from scriptural theory, by computing chronological events in the bible which made more closer view to (December 25) as Jesus' birth. What's most important to Catholics is the celebration of the birth of our Lord and Saviour, and not the date itself.
.
Date is nothing more important than the celebration itself. You may be born on a leap year (Feb 29), yet you still want to celebrate your birthday on the following year either on Feb 28 or March 1, that does not fall on the actual date of Feb 29. Because what matters most is the celebration that you have added 1 more year of your age. Likewise, Dec 25 might not be accurate date of Christ's birth, but it will not matter for Christians since we only want to commemorate the birth of saviour Jesus Christ.
.
DECEMBER 25 IS THE BIRTH OF PAGAN GOD CALLED "SOL INVICTUS"?
.
Most of the anti-Catholic cults favorite allegation is that December 25 is of pagan roots and not really Jesus birth. They based it from some limited references quoted from unreliable history books.
.
As a matter of fact, long before the paganic declaration for the feast of the unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus) the (December 25) is already belief of the early Christians.
.
First thing we should know "WHEN" does paganic feast declared? Here let us have some references...
.
“ Sol Invictus ("Unconquered Sun") was the official sun god of the later Roman Empire and a patron of soldiers. In 274 AD the Roman emperor Aurelian made it an official cult alongside the traditional Roman cults.” (Source: Wikipedia – Sol Invictus)
.
See? It is clear, (274 AD) is the year that pagan feast for the sun god was declared, called Sol Invictus.
.
On the other hand, the belief of Jesus birth in (December 25) is much earlier than paganic feast Sol Invictus, Here are the references about early church fathers identifies (December 25) as Jesus nativity.
.
St. Theophilus (circa 171-183 A.D) was the first to identify December 25 as the birth date of Christ, saying ...
.
“We ought to celebrate the birth day of our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen." (Magdeburgenses, Cent. 2. c. 6. Hospinian, de origin Festorum Christianorum)
.
St. Iranaeus (circa A.D 202) ⏬
.
“ In his work Adversus Haereses, Irenaeus (c. 130–202) identified the conception of Jesus as March 25 and linked it to the crucifixion at the time of the equinox, with the birth of Jesus nine months after on December 25 at the time of the solstice." (Link: Source: Wikipedia – Christmas – Choice of December 25)
.
St. Hippolytus (circa. 170-236 A.D)
due Speculation as to the time of Jesus’ birth dates back to the 3rd century, Hyppolytus believed that Jesus was born on December 25. He explains in his Commentary on the book of Daniel (c. A.D. 204) that the Lord’s birth was believed to have occurred on that day, he said... ⏬
.
" For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls."
.
Apostolic Constitutions (circa A.D. 70-250)
The Apostolic Constitutions are a compilation, whose material is derived from early sources differing in age AND different early writers during apostolic age. he said..⏬
.
" Brethren, observe the festival days; and first of all the birthday which you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month; after which let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own Godhead,." (Apostolic Constitutions , Book V, Section 3, Chapter XIII)
.
Take Note: This ninth month counting from Nisan (April) is Casleu in the Jewish calendar. Transferred to our Roman calendar, this ninth month answers to December.
.
Now, let us compare and see the contradicting year interval between the two (Nativity of Jesus VS. Sol Invictus), in which didn't even meet nor coincided: ⏬
.
- Dec.25 "Jesus nativity" was first used (70–250 A.D) by early Christians
.
VERSUS
.
- Dec.25 "Sol Invictus" later declared (275 A.D) by pagan emperor
.
Here, we can see from the two, that early church fathers from (1st-2nd century A.D) is the earliest groups who believes & identifies (December.25) as Jesus nativity, While contrary to paganic feast of Sol Invictus which later declared in late 2nd century (275 A.D).
.
THEREFORE, long before the emperor's declaration of December 25 as the pagan feast of 'Sol Invictus' in (274 A.D), the (December 25th) was first identified by the early Christians as the Jesus’ birth
.
Take Note: early Christians, is the people who were closest from apostles time, thus, they much know something about Jesus and apostles life.
.
THEREFORE, THE "DECEMBER 25" CHRISTMAS IS DEFINITELY NOT ROOTED OF PAGANISM, BUT ROOTED FROM EARLY CHRISTIAN THOUGHTS BY OUR EARLY CHURCH FATHERS, IN WHICH ALSO SUPPORTED WITH CHRONOLOGICAL COMPUTATION FROM THE BIBLE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)