Tuesday, July 31, 2012

The Simple Answer for "Romney's Tax Returns"

It's one sentence long.

If there was anything criminal being concealed in Romney's tax returns, the IRS would be on it already.

That's the 1040EZ answer. The long form answer is that you better believe in a world of Joe the Plumber, those who want to know what's in them, already know what's in them. If there was anything criminal in them the investigation would have been started from outside the IRS by another Government agency, acting as a proxy for the Obama Campaign.

All that is contained in Romney's tax returns is information that can be characterized in a way that places Romney in a poor light with the electorate. It stands to reason that if these things are spoken of in public by Obama's campaign, or leaked, it will be fairly obvious that the point of origin of the information, was his Tax Returns. It will be fairly evident that the Conduit from the IRS to the Electorate (General Public) will be an inquiring Government official, who gives the information to the Press.

This of course is another reason you do not want the Government in Health care, since that unsightly lesion you have in thus and so a region, can become the topic of political speculation.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, July 29, 2012

You Have to Decide

With regard to my previous two posts:

So as not to get lost in the details, what I've been saying in part is that this issue isn't a fence sitting issue. It's fine that you need time to decide, but you do have to decide. Sexual relations have always been the province of religion, and even if you don't have a Priest or Pastor or Minister or Bishop or Elder or Shaman sitting in your bedroom with you, religion is in your bedroom and it should be there. Lest anybody make the mistake of proposing that I am in favor of a Theocracy, and the state putting a webcam in your bedroom, be clear that I'm not. The bedroom remains private but you have a confessional duty to disclose sin you have there, at least those sins with which you have an ongoing problem.

So we have the following problem which now seems to be settled by a lack of response to the position expressed by our small denomination of Christianity.

Since scripture makes few regulatory statements with regard to female bisexuals or lesbian relationships can we take a "live and let live" attitude toward disclosed attitudes or practices in that arena? Here are the consequences of that position:

1.) The marriage covenant (there is no specific word for marriage in scripture, it is a sort of covenant) binds all spouses to one another. As Dr. Keith "Allen" contended to me in person, polygyny marries all to one another. This is an exceedingly dangerous position to take.

Dr. "Allen" did contend to me that it ratifies sexual relations between women. Why? Because they are married to one another. Keith did not say it very clearly, but the idea is that the man has to be present or command it to initiate the relationship. He becomes a woman's husband, and by that act, makes them wives to one another.

So if one of them dies, is the marriage over? Marriage is to be sundered only by death or divorce. In the latter case, only for sufficient cause. If all are married to one another, the marriage lurches on without a man in the case of his death as a a lesbian marriage (thus scripture ratifies one form of same sex marriage) or it's ended when one woman dies. We can show this to be refuted by the death of Rachel. Leah stays on as wife as do the two concubines Bilhah and Zilpah. Since all are bound to one another, as Keith states, then only death ought to separate, but here it does not.

Reason says that once a spouse relationship starts, that shouldn't be sundered until death, that it continues, well, until death. This would not make a widow a widow if she was part of a plural marriage. The discussion of Abishag says that she was indeed, a widow. It was inappropriate due to the complexities of inheritance and succession, for Adonijah to have her. Neither Solomon (wiser than all of us combined) nor his mother suppose that Adonijah was trying to simultaneously wed all of David's wives, which included Bathsheba, Solomon's mother, who carried Adonijah's proposal to the King. Solomon rightly complains Adonijah is trying to steal the throne, not Solomon's mother Bathsheba.

Also if wives are part of the marriage, we know wives also don't divorce another wife, in a divorce, as they would necessarily have to do, if they were all in the marriage together. Deuteronomy says they don't.

We can rightly conclude as a result that marriage does not bind all spouses to one another, only wives to their husband. Marriage cannot cover what goes on between wives in a bed together, they're not married to one another.

Please combine the above with there being absolutely zero example of same sex play in scripture in the affirmative apart from Dr. "Allen's" personal assertion to me that the Hebrew masculine noun "rā'·ah" (רֵעַ rea`) was used to refer to other wives in Song of Songs 5:1. I conducted an extensive survey of the Hebrew word, and then I looked at the actual classification of the word in "Strong's." It's a masculine noun. Keith is guilty of the "word wrangling" forbidden in Timothy.

It no longer surprises me that a man who loudly proclaimed his status as "Resident Bible Scholar" (a claim once used in a forum he no longer frequents) or to be author of "Scholarly Teaching Articles" actually does work too poor to merit being seen as a "Bible Scholar" or writing "Scholarly" articles. The only two explanations for this (beyond being stupid) are that he isn't scholarly regardless of credential, or he's been rendered dishonest because of a personal agenda. It's as if he equates "to," "too" and "two" as being the same words in the previous sentence. I prefer he simply admits to an agenda, and then approaches his work with more objectivity. Barring that explanation he's a deceiver or stupid. I guess my I hope then is that he's stupid since the only alternative left after "stupid" or "agenda," is deceiver. I think I'd rather know someone stupid if those are the choices.

2.) The next consequence of Keith's assertions to me and his public work are that there are forms of sexual behavior that are not restricted to persons in wedlock and in the event that you agree with me on the prior point, that's where we're left. The lack of forbidding of sexually tinged behavior, behavior that intentionally excites or ends up fulfilling excitement or desire, is that it means we can engage in all forms of play that are sexual in nature as long as they don't involve penetration by a man with his phallus, below the navel or above the knee. This in truth is what Dr. "Allen" argues for. Must I again tell you how wide the door opens at this point? Since it's merely sex play, and not sexual "knowing" (yada), it's not spoken to in the Law of God as given to Moses. We therefore have no guidelines as to participants in such play, we only have the boundary lines of where a man can use his genitalia in a sort of twisted "Tropic of Cancer" Henry Miller sense. No restrictions exist for females except for the use of phallic substitutes between the "tropics" (navel and knees). Use your imagination as far as you're willing to go with that one, and then go about two steps further, and see if that's where you think we are, morally.

I don't know of a third choice on the Polyamory affirmative, agnostic or winking side of the street. The third choice is only as we in our church have defined it.

Females are for males, and only for her male, namely her husband. Scripture doesn't discuss what acts are acceptable between husband and a wife, only that it be between them. Scripture declares the marriage bed to be "undefiled." This is the simplicity of Deuteronomy 30, that truth really isn't hard stuff, and too far away or up or down to go get. Knowing and believing the word makes you wise as stated by Psalm 119.

Sexual behavior is the province of religion as I stated at the outset. Again, I have no intention of delving into the sex lives of those Christians I know. If you have been convicted of sin in that area, and if you haven't appropriately repented of it (to God and to those you sinned against and you have stopped doing it), you need to confess it. If you confess it in the affirmative (I'm right and I'm not going to stop) you should be eventually anathemized. If you repent, there is some variation of "70 x 7" that applies. In the latter case, you clearly state you are wrong.

Because of it's central and vital nature, we're not free to cop out as teachers in the area of sexual behavior. For that reason, all who purport to be teachers who endorse even a sort of "agnostic" or "live and let live" position with acknowledged behavior in this area are anathemized. I agree that a short period of debate is appropriate, but failure to repent is alienating. I cannot for instance, throw John Whitten or Keith "Allen" out of my church, they're not part of it, but I can proclaim them false prophets or teachers, and I have an absolute duty to do so. Both men need to absolutely declare it is wrong for women to engage in sex play with one another and all the consequences such behavior ratifies by corollary. No middle position is allowable. To take a middle position is to choose for permissiveness in a sinful way.

When it comes to non leaders in the church (those not elders, deacons, pastors or teachers or proclaiming to be such) I make the following ruling: If you are a member of our church and have unresolved questions in this area, practice nothing but heterosexual relations between you and your opposite sex spouse. Don't teach tolerance, refer to the teaching of our church in the matter. You are free to disagree but not practice in accordance with your disagreement. If you cannot abide by this, and are a member of our church, you're going to go out the door pretty soon. This is in fact the standard I used when being cast out of my own church in 2009/2010. You will also be shunned by us, teacher and congregant alike, regardless of church, if you can't abide by this standard.

I declare affirmatively "that as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." This is a tremendously frightening thing to do, as it seems to isolate us from the majority of the Christian Polygyny side of the marriage question, and sets us up as the righteous practitioners, and them as the odd men out. We're down to somewhere between being Samson, and Gideon, but much closer to Samson in number. I dislike the idea of being Elijah in the Cave or the Remnant. If right, that's a hard row to hoe. If wrong, that's the stuff cults are made of. I'm sure outside of our group, that word has already been used.

(I've made a number of changes to grammar, tense and forms of words as of about 11pm mountain time the date of this post. I was interrupted frequently in writing this and I can't keep track under those circumstances. It's what you get with an old man. :p. It's also what you get when you dare to use the word "stupid" with reference to another person.)
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 23, 2012

Yada, Yada, Yada (Polyamory Part 2)

A really easy Hebrew word study. (As a sidebar, is that where "Yada, Yada, Yada REALLY comes from?)
In the continuing discussion of what amounts to "Can we have GROUP sex?" at "A Biblical Family (etc)." "Dr. Allen" continues to defend the positions, acts and situations a woman can involve herself in, provided she is married and married with another woman, to the same man. It's getting into the ditch quickly, and I confess to intentionally driving the discussion to that point. It belongs in the ditch. This discussion amounts to several subcategories.

Can we form a triangle? (A variation of the "69" sexual position question.)

I can't get it up but can I watch until I can? (You two girls go at it and I'll join in, my Viagra's not working yet.) This may be a variation of "you're two lesbians and I think that's hot," you want to go to church, and act like it's all normal so I'll marry you.

Will you do me while I do her?

Why don't we spread the Visqueen (plastic sheet), I'll get the Mazola oil, we'll turn out the light (or leave it on, much hotter) and see what happens.

Do all of the above to the Randy Newman song, "You Can Leave Your Hat on."

Many other variations follow, I think you get the point.

"Sola" at "A Biblical(?)" makes some excellent points, you should look.

I've made the argument, and Sola does too, that Scripture states women are for men, created for men, out of men, and essentially (and properly) seek to return to a man's Lordship and headship in a righteous Christian context.

Sex is for the "Husband/Wife" relationship and therefore to be between them.

Scripture (when it comes to human beings) only discusses WHO you should have sex with, not how you should go about it. Some contend it discusses sex acts, but I contend that this is only with regard to animals (a death penalty offense) and doesn't go into the bureaucratic micro managing regulation phone book writing descriptions of what you can and cannot do. Once you go there, you have gone there, and have to write up a description of everything you can and can't do. This got the Pharisees into the tithing of the mint, anise and cummin.

Christ said such micro inspection caused the Pharisees to omit "the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Clearly this sort of micro inquiry is a last place waste of time compared with other matters, at best. The Pharisees (at their worst) tried to add to the law (a thing I have remarked is abhorrent to God) to clarify it. I am accused of trying to add to it in this discussion, but again, it really depends on whether or not God is saying which humans you can have sex with, or what kind of sex you can have.

Again, even if you mix the two you've still go the "what kind of sex" question, and you have the bureaucratic phone book of regulations and while Christ did say the question of tithing spices had weight, he said it didn't have much. He then went on to say "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel," for the Pharisees attention to that small matter. So, the Bible is written to direct you to the big picture, and leaves us to work out our salvation in that light.

This is what I contend is actually happening with the two rapidly separating factions in this debate. One group is trying to write a phone book, only pay attention to about 10 pages of it, and use it to ratify same sex relations between women in a marriage and the other is saying "do whatever, but only do it between a wife and a husband."

One view is much simpler than the other, fitting in with the ideas in Deuteronomy 30 and Psalm 119 that truth isn't that tough after all, it involves just knowing and staying in the word of God. "With whom may I have sex" is covered by "working out your salvation with fear and trembling" before God, and by the injunctions to refrain from things you personally think are sin, if you doubt. Namely, if you doubt a thing is righteous, then just don't do it.

One of the difficulties with the "what you can do" position is as the aforementioned "Sola" points out. It deteriorates into a discussion of what constitutes sex and what doesn't, and you're left with: "can your unmarried sons and daughters have oral sex" and other heavy petting questions. To go further, you have to ask if they can do so with each other, and whether or not it's a good idea for mothers and fathers to instruct (with participation) their sons and daughters in such activities. It's endless.


Well let's go back to Leviticus 18:22:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Now Romans 1:27:

"And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

Which refers to Romans 1:26, where the same Greek word for "natural" is used:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:"

Key here is that Paul in writing this letter is making sure you know he's comparing verse 27, that which is about men, to verse 26, that which is about women. He's saying the injunction is the same.

Keith ("Dr. Allen") and his supporters contend what is "unnatural" is only anal sex.

Leviticus 18 is a general injunction, not using the Hebrew word "yada`" (ידע) that is used to denote penetrating penile sexual relations between husband and wife. So it's broader in it's injunction in my view. The text supports that view.

But Keith (and now John Whitten) say Paul in Romans goes on to not make a broad injunction, instead choosing only to slap at anal sex with men in Romans as a way of telling you not to "butt hump" your wife, or men for that matter.

Paul, the star scholar of Judaism for that time, omits the broad injunction so as to let us know that you can go down on your wife, but you can't sodomize her, confining himself to the previously unknown distinction (or imprecisely defined in Hebrew) of anal sex.

We then descend into micromanaging descriptions of what constitutes sex or sensuality, whether or not women are married to one another (Keith says they are, through their husband) and that sensuality is confined to the marriage bed, and so women can be "sensual" with one another, and so on. Since sensuality and penetration are different, and penetration with a penis is the key element to prohibited sexual relations, women can do whatever with one another in a marriage since they have no penis.

We've separated sex from sensuality at this point, and no guide in scripture is present to tell us that we can't be sensual outside the husband wife relationship and Keith in fact simply says the covering of male authority permits sensuality between women. I don't really know where he can justify this "covering" thought in scripture. All the arguments are massively weak. One depends on taking a word almost universally applied to men (I haven't surveyed all uses of the word yet) and making it mean "wives" in Song of Songs 5.

This uncorks the bottle and lets the Genie out. It's Pandora's box. The permutations regarding sexual behavior are nearly infinite, as long as there's no penetration. Richard Pryor once made crude reference to this, contending in a comic routine to his supposed wife, that he wasn't having sex with the naked girl he was also in bed with naked, because certain parts weren't joined. So did Former President Clinton.

Or there's my definition and I would contend, God's: It's who you have sex with, scripture argues affirmatively to have sex with only your husband, if you are a female, and only a wife, if you are a male. Thus no phone book is required, or no lengthy dissertation such as Keith writes in ABF.

There are many other avenues of discussion, some of which I allude to in my previous post. This discussion could go on forever, but you've got a choice, the simple or the complex, and God's word, as I said many times before, declares it's not really a regulatory nightmare, it's simple. Simplicity is embodied in the concept of with whom you may have sensual or sexual activity. Complexity is describing what parts of the body may connect with one another.

Are you really buying the idea that in the heat of passion, you slip up and slip it to the wife via the rear entrance, and you're subject to the death penalty or are you going with "the marriage bed is undefiled?"

Marriage, even for the plural guy, is to each woman individually, and as for me and the rest of our church, we're going with the marriage bed being undefiled, in that one on one context. The rest of you are playing with fire, and if you're a church leader, or purport to be one, I'm going to say you should recant, or be an anathema, both you and your unholy teaching. Professing to be wise, you have become fools.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Polygyny morphing to Polyamory


"Dr. Keith Allen" (A "nom de plume") and I sat down for coffee two weeks ago. We've had our agreements and our disagreements (sadly, mostly disagreements). In an effort to find or produce unity, I stay in touch with a few congregational sorts hoping that they might change, or that I might. I don't really care who changes as long as the one who changes, changes from what isn't true, to what is. That hope is fading fast.

"Dr. Allen" at least countenances bisexuality as a matter of Christian conscience, and I will have none of it.

We will start here:

Ecclesiastes 5:7 - "For when dreams increase and words grow many, there is vanity; but God is the one you must fear."

Ecclesiastes 12:11-13 - "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man." (KJV)

"Dr. Allen" is fond of many books and many names, pouring both out like a busted dam. We spent four hours July 8th, talking over a matter that really shouldn't even be named among us, but there is at least a glimmer of a question that he raised, so I agreed to think about it.

The great difficulty with "Dr. Allen's" approach? It needs way too many words. Words about a topic to which God devoted very little time. But in fairness, that's also Keith's best argument.

Contrast though, what Keith devotes all this time, and all his words (both spoken and written), to what God says:

Deuteronomy 30:12-15 & 19(b) -
"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it. See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; (snip) therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live..."

Then there is Ockham's razor (lex parsimoniae, or parsimony or succinctness): Which is to "select from among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions."

Then there's always "KISS:" "Keep it simple, stupid."

Or as Festus said (albeit to the wrong guy): "Thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad."

Keith writes an article (to which I linked above) that is a reply to our conversation of the 8th, that is longer than "Song of Songs" (from which he derives his only positive proofs), or longer than the letters of James (the brief), Peter, John, and Jude combined. Solomon, God, Moses and Christ's brother all beat Brother Ockham to the punch, indeed, "There is nothing new, under the Sun."

Lest I multiply words myself, there is a difficult question here, but only if you ask the wrong one. You see, if the answer is "42," you really need to know what the question is.

So, having been too wordy myself in an effort to deal with Keith's question, I will downshift to the punch line:

It's really a question of whether or not The LORD says who you can have sex with or who you can't or which sex acts you can perform, and which sex acts you cannot.

We're a marvelously and dangerously inventive people, being rebellious as we are. Naming everything you can (and contrarily what you can't) do sexually is called the "Kama Sutra." God wanted to write the Bible, not "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex (but Were Afraid to Ask)." Once we start naming sex acts as unacceptable or acceptable, you've got a section of the Library.

Our problem is a legitimate question at least in Western society: The whole of the Old Testament says nothing specifically about Lesbian/Bisexual behavior among women. We don't get to that until we get to Romans 1:26 & 27:
"God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."
Without going into too much detail (and information), Keith states that "Unnatural" in this context is anal sex, and his immediate justification was that there was no lubrication in the anus, so it's "unnatural" and "Sodomy." Hard to justify since to begin with, "Sodomy" is not a word in the original text, but a word for which variations are used in some translations.

We're out on a ledge here, so let's crawl back quickly to the original jumping off point in our discussion of what God permits sexually, and does not. It's either who you have sex with, or what you do as a sex act, or some combination of the two (the last being nearly as complex as the second).

I contend that scripture tells us you can only have sex in the "Husband - Wife" relationship. I say it this way because "Concubinage" is a legitimate form of that relationship, but not exactly "Marriage."

Keith says scripture gets into what you can do sexually, and since it doesn't say you can't (as a wife) "go down" on your "Sister Wife," you can. Particularly if the Husband who has "Headship" over the wife, asks or tells them to do so.

Fair enough, let's take that for a test drive:

Keith also appeals to Leviticus 18:22. If "unnatural" is anal sex, and that is what "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" means, then is it alright to give your neighbor (mano a mano now), a "blow job?"

We can extend this:

Is it alright for your two sons to do so?

Your sons and daughters? Your daughters to "play" with one another? You to school your kids sexually, as long as no one "shoves their show" into a place without lubrication or a vagina?

You see, once we define "unnatural" so narrowly, and start taking it out for a test drive, we've opened Pandora's box, and we're in the "Sex Reference" wing of the bookstore. The last time I looked, "Masters and Johnson's" sex manual at least weighed more than the Bible did.

You might be able to take me out on one of the above speculations as to who you can "play" with under Keith's rules, but please remember that first of all, they're not my rules. I don't think they're God's rules either (to put it mildly). I'm in the "who you can have sex with" camp, and to me it's "husband and wife." Women are for the man scripture tells us, from the beginning, and I only need to cite one sex act that isn't prohibited, for the door to be so open, that we won't need to speculate what Sodom and Gomorrah looked like, we'll be able to see it in our living room.

Keith also says that wives are "one flesh" with one another and that a polygyny is in essence a marriage to all the parties involved for all the parties involved. That leaves us with a Lesbian marriage if in the polygyny, the husband dies. That also means you can't marry other men if your husband dies, you all have to marry the same man, provided you want another man. He made extensions to kinship that I don't think work too well with other family members. I'm not sure he realized the problems he created.

This is why we need Ecclesiastical authority, a denomination. An over arching group to block the "reign of error" of an individual. After all, Paul submitted to James and to Peter.

Keith and his teaching are anathema, for any who listen to me, or see themselves under my authority, until he recants entirely and repents of this error. For what it's worth, I really hated writing this, but Nehemiah kicked butt and Paul wished (in illustration) that people would get their business hacked off. I still hated doing this and writing about such topics in such detail.
More →

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

Then we don't need him either (It's Nihilism, Stupid)

Essentially he's telling us we don't need him either. He's President? Somebody else did that. He has legislative "accomplishments?" Somebody else did that. He's not necessary, he's just the lucky schlub someone picked to head the ticket. Joe Biden could do the job. He's not so special after all.

Obama is a Black Joe Biden I guess.

You didn't do anything. He didn't do anything. No one accomplishes anything and in 100 years we'll all be dead, right?

If you buy Obama's crap, you're about to get screwed.
More →

Sphere: Related Content