Heath Ledger and Nick Drake

I saw one interview with Heath regarding his untimely (and perhaps suicidal) death. He states he is obsessed with the Music and life of Nick Drake, who is of course one of my favorite artists of all time. I have bought and given away more complete compilations of Nick Drake's work that I can count. I suppose I will continue to do it.

Nick died alone in bed. So did Heath. Nick did not leave a note and those close to him claim he was not suicidal though he was chronically depressed. I don't know if Heath had problems with depression but he didn't sleep much from what I've heard. Near the end of his life Nick said he was having great trouble with words and one of the speculations about his death is expressed by his friend and producer, Joe Boyd: "listening to his lyrics… he may have planned it all this way.” I concur.

Nick may have felt there was nothing left to say, so he didn't leave a note and took his own life. Those that knew him best would have all they needed to know about his life since it was now over. If Heath was the kind of fan he said he was, and if this was suicide, he may have chosen to do the same thing. His warning about all of this would have been his expressed interest in Nick's life and music.

Of course a conclusive autopsy result may remove all doubt as to cause and make this idle speculation. I don't normally post publicly about the life and times of actors. I wasn't planning to say anything just as I don't say anything about actors and actresses as a general rule, but Heath mentioned Nick Drake, and he's a favorite. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Pharisee's Super Bowl Hopes.

Not having something heavy to say this AM, I shall turn to my fleshly interest in the NFL.

I am a Miami Dolphins fan so I don't have an iron in the SuperBowl fire.

I'm hoping for a Green Bay-San Diego matchup. I'm leaning San Diego for the winner. I expect a New England - Green Bay pairing and I expect New England will win. Hopes and Dreams, what can I say? My Dolphins weren't the first NFL team to complete a perfect NFL regular season, if I get my wish they will still be the only team to complete the entire season perfect. We will see.

I'm rooting for a San Diego win. I have been a Norv Turner fan off and on ever since I thought he didn't get a fair shake at Washington. I have admired the offenses he has put together, I like the way he handles developing quarterbacks. He has made poor selections when it comes to where to work, but this time he did not. In addition while all the teams still in the SuperBowl tourney are veterans of prior bowls, only one team has never won one, da Bolts.

Green Bay was a close second for a favorite in the final four. I was never a Brett Favre fan and thought he was overrated though he has shown remarkable tenacity for a man that even Green Bay thought would play about 4-5 years in the NFL. I don't know what ever became of his "Bad Hip" issue but it hasn't stopped Brett from starting every NFL regular season game since he replaced Green Bay QB and then poster boy "Magic Man Don Majkowski" when he went down. I know every Green Bay fan thought the season was over. I know I did. I know the resident Green Bay female fan who had a Fat Boy sized Don Majkowski on her office wall thought they were done. Boy did they forget.

This season Brett won a special place in my heart even though he was destroying Dan Marino's last claims to fame in the record books. An old guy, playing well beyond any projected prime is playing like he is in his prime. Good on you Brett. You go boy. Win won for my late father in law, but I'll be rooting against you all the same, but this time, I'll be admiring you.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The futility of Green.

Once in a while I post on non religious topics. Politics interest me of course, and the environment is part of the larger political debate in this country and other developed countries similar to ours, but in developing countries? Green? Environment? You can choke on it as far as they are concerned.

I have my most interesting political discussions with my daughters. One is a bit green, the other is inclined to be anti Israel and pro Palestinian. I've covered the middle east in one post as a result of a discussion with one daughter, and now, the green one.

While we're hand wringing over emissions, safety, "bio diesel" and whatnot, the rest of the world is getting on with digging themselves out the basic issues of survival and moving rapidly towards (as Douglas Adams put it) "where shall we do lunch?" To get there you need a car and India is revolutionizing the car industry. India. Tata is an Indian car maker and they've just finished developing and putting into production, the "Nano," which costs all of $2500.00, so it's going to sell. But all is not well, because this upsets the Greens, of which there are very few in India. Once everyone has a car, they might get green, but right now they want a car instead of wanting to hoof it, yet the Greens complain:

"Green campaigners point to India’s terrible road system and rising pollution levels. 'Even if they claim it will be fuel efficient, the sheer numbers will undermine this,' Vivek Chattopadhyaya, an air pollution specialist at the Centre for Science and Environment in Delhi, said. 'India’s infrastructure doesn’t have the capacity.' The centre estimates that the five million vehicles on Delhi roads today meet only a fifth of the capital’s transport needs. Most people travel by bus but could be convinced to buy a car at such a low price. Delhi, where air pollution levels are more than twice the safe limit, is already registering 1,000 new vehicles a day. As more cars hit the road, the average speed at peak times has fallen to 7mph, which should at least ease concerns about safety in case of accidents."

It's only going to get worse with the new Nano. So while we hand wring over making the world a better place, the 1.12 billion people of India want what we have. Wheels, and they're going to get them. They have their own definition of making the world a better place, and it doesn't include paying $10,000.00 for a car that is green. We're trying to stem the tide of world wide pollution by pretending that when we clean up our act, the world is a better place. I've just discussed India here, the second most populous country in the world. Need I mention China?

Read the article in the "UK Times." I'm wondering, will a leftist Greenie government in our country decide to use our military to take out Tata's plant and save the world? More →

Sphere: Related Content

Bad Blogger.

I am one. I am trying to figure out how bloggers link one to another and have been wildly unsuccesful at seeing what is probably right under my nose or at the tip of my fingers. My "tech elasticity" is being challenged in my old age. For instance, I don't know how they get those nice lists on the margins of their blogs for other blogs they like. I want people to know I read Iowahawk and Six Meat Buffet.

I'm going to contact a few guys I know, and I'm open to suggestion as to how to go about this. I'm sure I'll never be a "Little Green Footballs" type blog, but I could be better at what I do, since I'm now concentrating more on blogging than live debating. I've done live debating. My opponents aren't alive. If there is a living man who wishes to take me on, I'm down for the struggle and will pretty much meet them anytime or anyplace, but so far, no.

So I need some help in being a Good Blogger, because I'm a bad one. With your help, I can be a better one. More →

Sphere: Related Content

More Popular in Death than in Life at the "Fighting Fundamental Forums."

I am a veteran of many bannings at many essentially "Fundamental" or "Bible Believing" Christian forums so getting banned again involves less pain than most hangnails. This one even took me by surprise though, and I don't speak of the "unexpected" nature of the occurrence, I speak of the way it happened. I'd been expecting that axe to fall since about the first month I posted there. There was a certain "what took you so long" quality to it and a "You gotta be Kidding me, THAT's what you're doing this for?" I get the impression that since I'd reached a low "reputation" total, it was now acceptable to ban me. This is not to say that I stirred the FFF up for the purpose of the fun of a fight. Nor is it to say that I took insincere rhetorical doctrinal stances for the "sake of discussion." I did not, with a few possible exceptions that I believe I clearly labeled that way.

A number of wild "fish stories" are getting perpetuated by the now 3 or 4 day old discussion about my GETTING banned. At last checked the thread on my "banning" started by my friend Trina was ranking in the top 5 pages of views in the "fighting forum" and top 6 of replies. That's a historical ranking, since the forum began, and that's just one of the four threads I could find on the subject. If you combine that with the seperate thread on the same subject by Pastor Marty Braemer, it ranks even higher. The discussion may have finally died, but I'll believe that when I see it. Usually there's a day of piling on and that's it. This has been going on for a while now.

Let me address the myths that have grown out of this episode so that any of you who bother to look here and find my answers, can at least, find my answers.

I'm not coming back as a sock puppet, nor do I have one at FFF. I have only pelted one board with sock puppet ID's in all my time on the Internet. To name that board would be to revive a now settled conflict so I won't bother. I had come to the conclusion several years ago that I should be exactly who I am at all times, and not pose under some name. I started signing almost all my posts after that and subsequent board memberships were always under my real, legal, given name. A sock puppet would violate that principle. I suppose the FFF could recant on my banning and I suppose I could come back but that's theoretical. I'm not lobbying them for reinstatement. I don't think they're considering it.

With regards to claims that I "harassed" the Hawaiians. I tried for some time to steer clear of them as I regarded them to be unstable and undisciplined. For a long time I didn't even know they were related. The whole "Invictus" issue is what started the intense round of "competition" as it were and it involved them confessing their hatred for another poster without any prompting. Writing a thread about the sickness involved in kicking a Cyber Corpse is not a personal attack, but the guilt level of the three was so profound they identified themselves and then set about claiming that I attacked them personally. I had no idea.

What has been termed a "rep war" was in fact my concern about tone, which some of you will find odd since you blame me for the downward tone. Setting that blame aside for a moment, the concern I had was that it hardly matters we are in cyberspace when we say hateful things out of the purest forms of hatred, it only matters that we say those things. With varying degrees of intensity I have been attacked as brutally as one can be attacked via various pathways of private messaging while at the FFF and I made it a policy to "out" those people and ask why such open and concealed behaviors were acceptable. Having won my battle on my pet topic, truly the only subject I had left was that of tone. I will never regret doing so because it made friends out of two enemies, James Knox and myself. We don't agree on many many things, except that we are brothers in Christ and ought to act that way on this earth. James, I love you.

With regard to Scott McClare, aka "Ransom". This "man" is the embodiment of the problem at the FFF. Don't read this paragraph if you don't like graphic language, because it is graphic. Scott declared me to be an unbeliever, which if anything condemns not me, but him. He also took the time to send me a private note which he has acknowledged publicly at the FFF that he did send. In that note he asked me to "Go bugger my goat" which is, paraphrased, a vile invitation for me to have sexual intercourse with a goat by me inserting my sexual apparatus into that goat's anus. He acknowledges he sent this message. That is vile, that is wrong, that is without excuse.

In a related public insult, "DeepSix", the "man" who claims to be parent to the two Hawaiian girls, I am named in a "pederast/catamite" relationship with another poster. This is of course, not true, but the claim was only deleted, and never retracted. No apology was ever offered for that either. Calling someone a name they merit in some real or allegorical way is not out of bounds in my view, but I am not a homosexual and the type of wickedness that "DeepSix" proposed I was involved in was that of an adult male (supposedly me) preying sexually on a juvenile male by engaging in homosexual anal relations with that young boy. That's pretty awful as well. In all the Hawaiian three engaged in their own very bizarre version of what love amounted to and the explanation of why anyone would show favoritism to another. Apparently, from what I could gather, the only reason to treat someone well was that you were having sex with them. I don't think they realize how sick a view of love that ends up being. I make absolutely no claims that they realize that "love" in any way, but it's very twisted.

There is also the issue of justifying relations with younger women or girls that keeps getting brought up. Sorry, that's not going to work. I merely pointed out that scripture does not define or describe the crime known as "Pedophilia." Heterosexual pedophilia has an entirely legal description and it is only wrong from a scriptural standpoint to the extent that we are told to stay legal in our behavior. The only way you can have sexual relations with a young girl is for there to be parental and sometimes judicial permission as well, to marry that girl. The shocker to many people is there are plenty of places where that can be done, thus you can marry girls as young as 13, which means you can then have sex with them legally and it is not pedophilia. You can jump and scream all you want, but this simply remains true no matter what. Since there is no scriptural prohibition, decide what you want, but you are only a pedophile in the legal sense, not in a moral one and all the same things a heterosexual pedophile wants to do and does do, can be done legally, in the context of marriage and are thus not pedophilia. You might want to re read that paragraph a thousand times prior to commenting about this, because it's simply true. I am not going to do anything along these lines because it's not possible for me to legally marry a 13 year old, since I am legally married already. I suppose I can form a set of conditions in my mind where I might consider the act, from a theoretical point of view, namely, marrying such a girl, but I don't want to and right now I couldn't anyway and besides that, I like my wife a lot and she'll probably survive me.

There continues to be this sort of sly spinning as exemplified by a poster named "T-Bone." "How ever we preceived this has ended...I really believe the overview should be seen. Hugh had long standing battles with all Bible believers on this forum..." As with most of the way he phrases things, T-Bone creates an impression of something that is not the case. Yes, I had battles with "Bible Believers", but "Bible Believers" have battles among themselves. He subtly tries to place me outside that camp, and I am not. This is not unlike his spin that I injected bestiality spontaneously into the forum discussion, which also had not occured.

Last, for now, unless I think of something new to add to this list and edit into it, there is the misunderstanding of how I left. It is believed that I ignored "repeated warnings" to lay off my discussion of Ransom's unsavory insult. I did not. For me to ignore a warning, I'd have to know it was a warning. In retrospect I do know it was NOW, but hardly then. "debbiet" is staff at the FFF. She sent me a message in pleading and distressed language for me to lay off the discussion about what Scott McClare acknowledges he said. All I saw was a message from a poster, and I was getting a LOT of messages, that indicated someone was distressed and disturbed, and they had made no posts in the forum. Knowing that "Webmaster" had a "gray dot" next to his name I assumed that all staff of the FFF had no reputation value and debbiet had a "green dot". I assumed that this meant she was a regular poster. I sent back a polite reply to her and I deleted her message and went on.

Now, I've had my threads "messed with" before, with no communication or response from the admins of the FFF, several of them occupy the trash file at the FFF right now. In my memory they disappeared first, and then several days or hours later, appeared in the "round file." As far as I knew, this was happening again, and from what the scuttlebutt is around the forum, there are posters with "more than average" power of board manipulation and I thought this was happening again. I got two more messages from debbiet. Here is one of them, which remains on the FFF as long as I don't clear the cookies involved:

"You have been banned for the following reason: I (debbiet?) asked you to not discuss this on the forum and you have gone ahead and done it anyway, therefore you are banned.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never"

There was also a pop up window that said I had a private message from her, which I have never read, because I can't access private messages after I am banned. Fine and dandy. However, if it was merely the content that offended, it's still on the board, in other threads. If there are legal concerns over the content, I can assure you what's being said right now at the FFF is potentially more dangerous to those involved than anything I said. This is hardly a threat. I don't expect to get to a point with the FFF where legal action would be necessary or considered. I'm pointing out their flagrant hypocrisy. More →

Sphere: Related Content

New Year Goals

Of course, they would not be restricted to happening in 2008, though I doubt there is enough time left in 2007. Oh me of little faith.

I don't think I can put God on the clock, I can only tell you what he has placed in front of me. As always, I pray that I am a vessel for sacred use in all that I do, not a vessel of profane use. God has use for me always. I fit perfectly into his plan. Even Peter did when Jesus said to him, "Get thee behind me Satan".

There is a need for a New Denomination. It is still possible that an existing one can be revived. As I have maintained, the reformation stalled shortly after it started and clung to vestiges of Romanism that it should have discarded.

The Reformation largely embraces unsupportable doctrines such as the tithe, infant baptism and marriage as monogamy only and Sunday Sabbath observance. The error seems really the same one. If one doubts whether or not to tithe, isn't it safe to do so? Well yes, but to teach others to do so? The error is primarily that of playing it safe.

If there is doubt that Polygyny should still be an extant practice, and if it offends the world, isn't it safe to be monogamous? Yes, personally that would be a safe choice. There is no need even to be married, much less married to more than one. There is however no mandate to refrain from marriage and in fact Paul teaches it is wrong to teach that, yet we have taught for many centuries that one form of marriage which was never condemned, is in fact wrong. Is it safe to teach the "safe path" as the only path?

Where is it that scripture teaches Sunday Sabbath observance? I know of no place yet we have only the documentation of scripture that the followers met on the first day of the week in Solomon's portico. We do not have the claim this is a new Sabbath, to be observed. Again, is it safe to meet on Sunday? Certainly, I would imagine that early believers met on all days of the week as was possible for them. The notion that early Rome allowed them all a day off so they could observe their Sabbath is silly. Just as today, I'm sure there were some then that couldn't make it on Sundays. Do we think they were barred from fellowship as a result. Surely, for safety that comes with early examples of worship it is good to meet on the first day of the week, but should we teach this as the "New Sabbath"? Should we even TEACH Sabbath observance of any kind?

And the tithe. Certainly giving is good, and asked of believers in the New Testament. But tithing? This is an entitlement to the priesthood of Israel, given out of an entitlement of Land given to Israel by God. An entitlement he said they did not work for, that he took from unbelievers to give to his chosen people. Who can show me the deed to their land, given by God as part of a Covenant? Who can then show me who God has chosen as priests to then give the tithe to as an obligation, out of an inheritance? Is it good to tithe to our Churches because it is safe to do so? Certainly. It is good to teach this as an obligation? No, that would be evil.

There is a need to defend marriage in the public sector. For this I propose marriage contracts. We have given ground to the state so much in the arena of marriage that we now have them supposing they may define what marriage is. We need to be able to formulate agreements that are based on our religious freedoms. Agreements that are not "egalitarian" in nature, but Godly. We then need to be able to register them with the state, and use them in the unfortunate case of divorce. If we marry with no contract, and the stay together, there is no problem. Even God's people though were given provision for divorce because marital destruction does occur. Today, I could father children in a marriage and live my life before God, and my wife (no matter how Godly and the outset) could still stray from me, take from me the children we have together and plunder my estate thereby impoverishing other children and wives I might have.

To create a legal context for marriage contracts we need to have a legislative agenda. To do that we need to elect someone or several someones to office. To do that we need a base. For that reason this new denomination needs a home. A place where many of us claim legal residence, for the purpose of voting, for the purpose of electing officials, for the purpose of advancing a legislative agenda.

I have found such a place, and I am sure there are many other great locations that I have not thought of. I will be trying over the next several months to buy land in a rather remote area. If I accomplish that, provided God is willing, I will then ask those of like mind to establish legal residence if not actual residence in that area. I am certainly open to other suggestions for an ideal spot but Montana and a few other states have the low overall population necessary for a few people to have the greatest impact. Other states would be Alaska, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. It is easier to get elected to state office in Wyoming or Montana than California or South Carolina.

I am an amateur in all these things, and I am not by any stretch, a wealthy man. Anyone reading my rather obscure blog, and seeing the same things I see is welcome to contact me, and welcome to propose their help. Right now I could use the help of a real lawyer or two. A wealthy man, and a strong theologian with a reformation background who sees the need for continuing reformation, not compromise with the world, or with the religious errors of the past.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Hank Hanegraaff doesn't handle a Polygyny question.

On Hank Hanegraaff’s program, “The Bible Answerman” on December 10th, 2007 a caller introduces the subject of “eisegesis” which turns out to be his way of segueing into a discussion of what he calls “poly-GUY-nee”, this being his mispronunciation of polygyny which is actually pronounced “puh-LIJ-uh-nee”.

The caller then poses the problem that discussing polygyny VS “monogamy only” for the Christian, seems to be uncomfortably like eisegesis when it comes to deriving the value of “monogamy only” for the laity. The first assertion is that for deacons and elders and Kings, it seems to him that monogamy is indeed imposed, but that he has a friend who believes in polygyny as a valid form of marriage who simply points out that he is none of those things. I have cleaned out a few “ums”, “uhs” and meaningless interjections.

Hank: “If you look at the passage, 1st Timothy Chapter 3, the passage is about overseers and deacons.

Caller: “I was thinking about that as well as the one in the Old Testament about Kings. And because Kings were forbidden to have more than one wife and then in the 1st Timothy passage you’re talking about, you also have the deacons and the overseers and the pastors.”

Hank: “Right, the principle is the same though isn’t it? In this particular context though, 1st Timothy Chapter 3 and Deuteronomy 17:17…if you look at 1st Timothy Chapter 3, Paul here is writing about deacons, who are to be men, like overseers” (and then he quotes, paraphrasing a bit, apparently from the NIV):

“8 Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.”

Caller: “Yes, so the passage when taken does forbid those four occupations from polygyny…”

Hank: (interrupting) “You’re talking about polygamy, right?”

Caller: “Well, we always know that polyandry is forbidden, I was just talking about polygyny where (there are) multiple wives, not multiple husbands. The thing that I’m saying is I took him to where it says, for example, “Let every man have his own wife” (1st Corinthians 7:2) and he says ‘If I had multiple wives, isn’t each of them my own, not somebody elses'?"

Hank: (laughing skeptically) “I think the point here though is a prohibition against promiscuity in context, as well as polygamy in the sense that man’s affection has to be for his wife alone, and that’s the point.”

Caller: “I tried that too but his argument was ‘Well, if I’m married to them, then it’s not adultery and it’s not fornication’.”

Hank: “But you have to interpret scripture in light of scripture and the whole of scripture teaches us that we should be the husband of one wife. We leave all others and cling to one another and the two become ‘one flesh’.”

Caller: “So where would you take somebody who wants that literally said?”

Hank: “I would take them throughout the scriptures to all the passages in which you have a strong prohibition against polygamy.”

Caller: “But when I do that he says ‘It doesn’t actually say that and therefore it’s eisegesis’.”

Hank: “I don’t think that’s the case, I think that polygamy is something that is very clearly talked about in a lot of different ways.”

Caller: “I can’t find the passage where it actually says so straightforwardly so it’s not talking about one of those four occupations. So I wasn’t able to give him a literal verse about somebody who is not a King, overseer, pastor or deacon. I couldn’t find any passage that is clearly applying to the laity.”

Hank: “I think what you need to do is point out that polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament but was never commended by God and in the New Testament you want to look first at the authority of Jesus Christ who makes it clear that a man leaves his father and mother and is united to wife, not wives, and the two, not three or more, become ‘one flesh’. Jesus even refers to Genesis chapter 2:24 in making his point. In fact, when Jesus says “anyone who divorces except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman, he commits adultery” (Matthew 19)

Caller: “If you have some passages I’d really…”

Hank: “Let me give you a couple off the top of my head, we’ve mentioned the Deuteronomy 17:17 where a man must not be polygamous by marrying multiple wives and in 1st Kings chapter, I think it’s 11, you have Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines and as a result of that he runs into all kinds of problems.

In 1st Corinthians Chapter 7, Paul picks up the same kind of theme that is used by Jesus by saying each man should have his own wife, not wives and each woman her own husband, again, not husbands. That’s 1st Corinthians Chapter 7. And then you have ‘a wife must not separate from her husband, again, not husbands, and if she does she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband’, again, singular and “a husband must not divorce his wife’ again, not wives, plural. If you got to 1st Timothy Chapter 3, the passage that we talked about earlier, again, I think that pretty compelling, even though you had some discussion on that, Titus 1:6 also points out that an elder must be the husband of one wife, again, much more could be said, thank you for your question…"

My comments are as follows: Hank either is a novice to this discussion or he's trying to intimidate the caller to back him off. Hank is wrong. The caller, while not being able to pronounce the word "polygyny" correctly, is nonetheless careful enough to use the right word and contrast it with the larger meaning of polygamy and the practice of polyandry which is part of that larger meaning. No one of the three words appear in scripture, so we must use their secular definitions. Only polygyny is practiced in scripture, that which we would call polyandry is always defined as sexual sin in scripture and scripture makes absolutely no apologies for being what we in our society would call "sexist". The argument, "what's sauce for the goose" does not fly in the Bible. Polygamy is simply too broad a category as it is inclusive of polyandry. Hank later employs the sort of equivocation he sets up by with the insistence on the word polygamy later by blurring passages intended only for men, or only for women to apply to both men and women, just as he uses polygamy instead of polygyny.

Next, the caller, Hank, and our third party polygyny advocate (apparently) see 4 categories of forbidding which Pastor, Elder, Deacon, and King. It is notable that this is what is known as "inclusionary" language. Inclusionary language is used whenever a writer of a contract wants to focus only on those included, not those which are not spoken of. The caller and Hank employ a kind of misdirection. By making the list extra long, they try to imply it's a good idea since there are so many people included and by spreading the tent as many places as they do, that this really seems like the scriptures meant everybody. In reality though, when writers in all cultures and languages and lawyers who write contracts list categories specifically, that is all they wish to include. Thus the friend of the caller is correct. He's laity, it doesn't apply to him.

Additionally, the list is shorter. Kings are not on it. Kings are not to "multiply" or have "many" wives depending on the translation of the Hebrew word "rabah". The meaning of "rabah" is made clear by the preceding verse, Deuteronomy 17:16 in which a king is not to have "rabah" horses. It's quite simple, either a King is to have one wife, and this behavior is to be a moral right and example to all and he is also to have one horse with the same moral and behavioral compulsions for the laity. The idea that each Israelite could only have one horse, is, ridiculous.

Hank then employs the idea that it's "obvious" several times and cites the "whole of scripture" and uses phrases like "scripture interprets scripture" and the meaning of all of those phrases is pretty simple. "Don't be a dummy, agree with me, it's obvious, and if you can't see it, you're a dummy." Hank is very polite, but this is what he is saying.

Hank also cites 1st Corinthians 7:2 without pointing out the entirely different word for "own" in the Greek in each case which make the meanings of "own wife" and "own husband" potentially VERY different. The English is simply not specific in this case, and allows for that dramatic potential difference in meaning, the Greek in fact, makes the meanings contrasting, not identical. The only question is, how different?

Hank dodges the fact that as the caller clearly states, there is no specific prohibition against polygyny. Hank also falsely states that God does not "commend" polygyny, when in fact God must do so since he employs it as a regular feature of the inheritance solution and compulsion found in "levirate law" in Deuteronomy 25.

Hank also employs a definition of "one flesh" that is essentially a construing of "one flesh" as a synonym for "monogamy" which is also a synonym in his lexicon for "marriage". They are not all the same thing. Monogamy is in fact marriage, but if polygyny advocates are correct, so is polygyny. Thus monogamy would be a kind of marriage, but not the extent of what marriage is. Neither the practice of polygyny or monogamy would speak to all of what would be contained in the word marriage. Got himself says two marriages can exist at the same time to one man later in his law. If God says that, then if you are married to two, and you are "one flesh" with those to whom you are married, it's simple. You're "one flesh" with both wives. Nothing in the Biblical concept of "one flesh" says "One wife, One Husband ONLY."

This would lead us to our next error on Mr. Hanegraaff's part. The equivocation of polygyny and promiscuity. At best, if he is correct, this is redundant. If polygyny is not marriage but sexual sin, then all the injunctions against promiscuity apply. Otherwise, they do not, for as Hebrews teaches, the marriage bed is undefiled. If in fact marriage exists in the case of polygyny, then none of the injunctions against promiscuity and fornication apply.

Mr. Hanegraaff then does what most monogamy only proponents do. After having laid a groundwork of equivocation, they simply begin to lie. In fairness, a lot of the lies are unconscious and depend on the groundwork of eisegesis they have already laid. Hank says that Solomon's problems were due to his wives when scripture never does, and in fact lays that problem squarely at the feet of WHO his wives were. It was not the plurality of Solomon's wives that were the problem, it was that some of them (thus wives) were foreigners and unbelievers. Strange women. This is clearly stated as wrong in the law, that admonition being repeated throughout the Old Testament, and later in Nehemiah 13, it is scripture itself that pronounces Solomon's sin to be his foreign, unbelieving or "strange" wives. His believing wives, are not a problem. He also lies by misquoting the scriptures, saying that Deuteronomy 17:17 is a simple prohibition of polygyny in general. Whatever it prohibits, it prohibits only to Kings.

Hank also drags the dead cat of divorce into the proceeding. Monogamy only advocates do this frequently so as to equate the two because they both involve the subject of marriage. A man who is polygynous need never get a divorce, for any reason. He could, but more than the monogamy only advocate, he is averse to divorce. Divorce has no place in this discussion. It's simply a Trojan Horse to bring the categories of "God's displeasure" and his "reluctant or permissive will" into play. Whatever God says about divorce, is about divorce. Not about polygyny.

I could go into greater detail, but I already have elsewhere. I've touched on the failings of Hank's arguments. If anyone cares to comment or is unfamiliar with my work, I would be glad to expand on them.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

144,000? Nostalgia or Real Christianity.

After becoming a Polygyny advocate, it wasn't terribly long before my version of what is known as "Calvinism" ratcheted up to the level of "Hyper" or "High" Calvinist. As with all labels there are problems with Calvinism and with all versions of it, I've settled on calling myself a Hyper Calvinist, as it is closest to what I believe. What, you might ask, led me from a position of "Mushy" Calvinism to hard core hyper "God Predestines Some To Hell" Calvinism? It is the observation that no matter how much I nailed down the doctrine of acceptable Polygyny, virtually no one would switch. About the most they will do is approach me behind the scenes and say "yeah, but it's not really wise, is it?" A more cirucular argument I have never seen. People just want to stay where they are, and never progress to something other than the Cultural Christianity they are comfortable with.

144,000? There are days when I think the number is literal. Those Biblically literate will know this is a number that some cults latch onto as the literal number of the saved or at least, those that will be saved at the second coming. Faced with the stubborness of 99% of Christianity which will do NOTHING to live anything other than a Nostalgic version of it, frankly there are days that I would be amazed if there WERE 144,000.

How does Christianity change us? All I see is people looking into the past, much as the people of Israel longed for the EGYPT of their slavery. Is there a point we are willing to say Christianity was PERFECT? I can't see that place or time. Better than at other times? That I'm willing to believe. Perfect? It's never going to happen. What are we to do? "Work out our salvation with fear and trembling" and get as close as we can. To most of us that means find someone else who got close and emulate them.

I've asked this question of my reformation bretheren many times. "What have we reformed lately?" No one can ever name anything. If our "tradition" is a better tradition than that of the Catholics but a tradition (of men) nonetheless, God is no more pleased with us than any segment of Christianity. Where are the Bereans, constantly searching the scriptures, reconciling beliefs to the word of God? I am told by those who in a self congratulatory way consider themselves "real" reformers that we are to be "always reforming", "never reformed". Yet these are the same people who cannot answer the question "what have we reformed lately?"

Thus sometimes I actively wonder, "How many Christians are there, really?" There are days when I'm not sure than answer is a large number. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Non existent "Church Discipline"

I have completed my latest unsatisfactory encounter with "Church Discipline". I am reminded of the "Emergency Stop" lever in SpaceBalls that has a warning attached to it that it never be used.

I won't go into detail but finally resolved that since no action would come anywhere on any front, that I would simply take matters into my own hands. I wanted to avoid lawsuits so I sought a legal means to apply pressure outside church channels, and proceeded to apply it. I applied it. It worked. I'm happy with the result. I'm comfortable with my ethical position and relieved I didn't have to use lawyers.

Several times in my life I have tried to use the avenue of Church Disciplinary procedure as outlined in Matthew 18 and 1st Corinthians 6 to resolve problems that inevitably crop up with other believers. I have even gone to such organizations as "Peacemakers" in attempts to resolve issues that countless numbers of churches, local administrators and even denominations would not confront. Peacemakers was ineffective. They wanted money. They kept me on a mailing list for a long time. They seem to be good at selling merchandise. A visit to their web page shows some very nice coffee cups.

This last time around every church that was involved demurred. They vigorously sought reasons to "not get involved" and I am reminded of those in the parable of the Good Samaritan that crossed on the other side. Every conceivable excuse was employed, just as the one that ended up coming before Peacmakers, it was clear that nice tidy Sunday appearances were desired but "no mud please, we're Holy".

The good news this time around was that all the combatants got back together and found a way to agree and the dispute was resolved. I want to commend EVERYONE involved in the resolution, particularly the go between we used. You all know who you are. Despite the fact that I'm probably never going to be intimate friends with some of the adversaries I had (I emphasize HAD), I am more greatly impressed with them and their behavior than I am of the Church Establishment and the various "ministries" that have grown up around that establishment.

The bad news is that I have never to this day seen or participated in a remotely Christian problem resolution process that involved a Church or Church body themselves. For me to wish this to occur, I would have to get into another "unresolved conflict", something I never hope to do again. God willing, I won't. More →

Sphere: Related Content

So Much for Double Dog Dares

I'm not much of an expert on "Christian Radio". I know there are talk shows out there with a conservative Christian bent. I know there are "internet radio" sites that "broadcast" to who knows how many or how few people. I've put one offer out there to one show that I know about, and I got nothing. Not even a polite demur.

I say this in regard to my offer to debate Polygyny in a Christian framework, namely the aforementioned conservative Christian framework. I'm going to have to start beating the brush out there to see if I can find a venue willing to put me on and take me on. Suggestions are welcome.

Hugh More →

Sphere: Related Content

The First Shot in the "New Crusades"?

Rush Limbaugh opened his show today with a statement I have never heard him make before. Since I don't listen to all of his programs all of the time, he could have made it before, I heard it today. I of course in my finite "wisdom" have said this before. You'd only have to interview my son, who is serving overseas to know this. IT'S A RELIGIOUS WAR. It's not a war on terrorism, it's not a war on Arabs, it's a RELIGIOUS WAR. Antagonists in a Religious war do not back down. They must be defeated, or they will come back over and over and over and over again attempting to enforce their religious point of view.

Fundamentalism governs all forms of religious expression. There is the core and originalist position in all religion. The Torah is God's law given directly by him to his People, Israel. Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, son of David, King forever, Messiah. There is only one God, Allah, and Muhammad is his prophet. These are core belief in Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Those that do not subscribe to the core beliefs of each religion eventually fall away. To say for instance as theological "liberals" and the "neo orthodox" do in Christianity that MAYBE some of the core beliefs are not true may draw a large crowd, may draw the faithful away from the core doctrines and may get great play, but the denominations that subscribe to such modified views are not growing. People don't convert to the IDEA of Christ, they convert to following Christ. Likewise people follow Muhammad or the Law of God as given to and through Moses.

Let's look at the three religions and their "warlike natures". Christianity has been used as justification for "Holy War" but no requirement exists in the core beliefs of Christianity to go on Holy Wars. We are to obey our government and are told so and Paul goes so far as to tell us that Governments bear the sword (power of death for order) as ministers of God. That means they are put in place by him and if they are not religious in a way that satisfies us, so be it, God uses all men, good or evil for his purposes. We are to obey them insofar as it is possible while remaining moral. This does not give us the right to go about conquering and rebelling because of our religious beliefs. I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail with whomever.

Judaism has a "Promised Land", the portion of this earth, quite small as a matter of fact that God has declared to be his, and given to his people Israel to inhabit. They are given permission to be quite militant in their borders, but not outside them. Solomon's temple dedication presents a quite benign version of evangelism, with Israel setting an example, people seeing that example, and coming to God and worshipping as a result. This is not a violent world conquest religion.

Islam believes in Holy War. I know some of you say this is not so, but history shows the largest area and largest number of people subjected to military conquest in conjunction with evangelism at the point of the sword, were subjected to Islam. It's a fundamental belief of that religion. As long as that religion persists, it's most fervent adherents will believe that weaponized evangelism and preaching is the way to go. So if we are in a Religious War, and the opponent is Islam. How do we win as people not wanting to be Islamic? It is only by the DEFEAT of that religion because they will persist in trying to win through warfare. Not all of them of course, but enough of them. If our governments want to survive, they're going to have to go to war with a BELIEF. More →

Sphere: Related Content

Polygamy & Polygyny, No One Left?

Since 2004 I have been engaged in a very public debate about Polygamy. As an extremely fundamentalist Christian I have come to understand that the western notion of Monogamy being marriage is incorrect. The form of marriage in the Bible included what we now call Polygyny and what we now call Monogamy to the extent that the concept of Monogamy didn't even exist in the Hebrew tongue.

Somewhere in the early to mid 90's it began to dawn on me that there was probably nothing wrong with the practice of having one or more wives as a man. The more scripture I read, the more convinced I became. In 2004 I began to "debug" my ideas in public debate and have become even more sure. I am now the leading "Internet Debater of Christian Polygyny in the English speaking world".

That's a highly qualified title. It leaves open the possibility that someone debates in public venues more so than I. It leaves open the possibility that there is a more spirited debate occurring in Korean or Spanish. It recognizes the real possibility that the Polygyny debate rages more in LDS circles or Islamic ones. As this blog title suggests, I love to phrase things in ways that pique interest and spark discussion. Thus this seemly large title I bestow on myself could be the equivalent of saying I'm the last small fish of an undiscovered species, and I will die in that obscurity with no one really noticing. I am of course, the leading authority in the world at any given time, on the subject of when I last had lunch.

Having conquered my obscure domain, "English Speaking Internet Debate of Polygyny", I'm ready to rumble with ANYBODY in the Christian establishment. I will confine myself to inviting those who operate from a conservative theological framework. I really wouldn't care to debate anyone who does not see the Bible as God's word. I absolutely double dog dare anyone to take me on in debate. I'm right on this topic, if you don't agree with me you're wrong.* How's that for starters? I am guessing that I'll get no takers. On that I am not quite as confident of my infallibility.

Hugh McBryde

*Another statement for piquing interest and sparking debate. By saying "I'm Right", I believe only that I have listened to God through his word and in doing so, I am right, because he has caused me to agree with him. More →

Sphere: Related Content

How the invisible hand works.

A lot of information is snuggled into this picture. Other owners of Ford Super Duty Pickups know that they barely perceptible characters "RBO" and "Si" in the lefthand portion of the image mean I have a turbocharger and that's only available on a Diesel.

The next bit of info is that I'm cruising down the highway at a speed in excess of 50 MPH because you can't see any of the speedometer needle. Also, this is a fairly new pickup truck, there are only 6227 miles on it. I've just barely broken it in. I'm heading north and you can see a portion of my face reflected neatly in the image. The MPG average dates back to my last fill up in Bonner MT and is mostly based on highway miles. The last 300+ miles on my pickup truck have been back and forth between where I live on I90, a Sunday afternoon drive along SR 200 to Ovando, and a jaunt from there down to Avon. The balance of it has been back and forth from work to wherever I have business in Butte and has included me "standing on it" to merge into traffic a few times.

Diesel fuel in my area has topped $3.05 a gallon, and may have gone up a bit since my last fillup over the weekend. I hate spending money on fuel as much as any of you do so my behavior has changed. I have lowered my speed. I admit to occasionally drafting "Big Rigs" to lower the drag of my 4x4 high profile moving brick that I call a truck. I move sedately and serenely through life instead of applying all that horsepower and torque.

Something I noticed this morning on the way to work. I pulled away from the house (my RV) and a car rather quickly closed the gap between me and it, I got onto the Interstate and expected an impatient motorist to quickly whip over and pass me at the first available opportunity. You see, I've been driving like this for a while being the cheapo that I am. The car didn't pass me. In fact, I was lumbering along the rural stretch of I90 (most of the stretches of road in Montana are rural) and he continued to not pass me. In fact, there were a line of vehicles stretching out for about a mile behind both of us, not passing each other. Once in a while someone would whip by at 70-80 MPH, but there were at least as many or more vehicles lumbering along the I90 at the same speed I was traveling, 58 MPH.

Later I kicked it up to about 70, catching the occasional draft as I headed for work. By then the engine was warm, all the fluids up to operating temperature and I was in the optimum operating mode for my truck. It's still at 20 MPG. As long as there is a reasonable amount of fuel being distributed at "market prices" we really don't need to worry. For the bulk of us, the invisible hand of the free market economy alters our behavior to fit circumstance. The whole point of this post is just that. When it was under $2.00, I tended to drive a little faster, and "stand on it" more often and I didn't monitor my fuel economy quite like I do now. Problem? None really, not now, not yet. More →

Sphere: Related Content

The Authority of Parents, and primarily of Fathers.

To start with, don't even get started with me. If it's in the Bible, I believe it. I consider it historically accurate. With that in mind unless I post about the veracity of something in scripture in general then I'm not inviting you to comment on whether or not it's believable. That's going to be the policy from here on out. It's a given in this blog that I rely on scripture completely and at this time I'm not opening the floor to debate.

I'm reading Job right now. Another disclaimer. By "reading" I usually mean "listening". At this time I am going through the ESV for about the second or third time and I'm in the book of Job. Right away this stood out at me. Job 1:9-11:

"Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? Thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face."

Satan declares to God that Job will crumble if all that he HAS (that which he owns, that which is his) is taken from him. God responds with this permission in Job 1:12:

"And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD."

And then Satan does destroy much of what Job has, including his children. Job 1:18 & 19:

"While he was yet speaking, there came also another, and said, Thy sons and thy daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother's house: And, behold, there came a great wind from the wilderness, and smote the four corners of the house, and it fell upon the young men, and they are dead; and I only am escaped alone to tell thee."

Great truths of scripture are revealed in sidebars. The primary point of the first chapter of Job is to record the preamble, rationale for and testing of Job. Snuggled in with that though is God declaring what Satan may touch, those things that are JOB's. As evidenced by the destruction of his children, and the fact that Satan cannot exceed the bounds of his mandate from God, Job's children are his. They are his possessions.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Using Country as a concept. Lebanon is NOT big.

This is a letter to my daughter, slightly modified. I realized after I had written it that it's a somewhat useful observation for us all.

As the crow flies, the "Shaba Farms" area of northern Israel is about 40 miles from Beirut. For some perspective, my wife drives twice that distance one way to work every day. Overall, Lebanon is about the size of Connecticut. The notion that is conveyed in the media that Hezbollah is in "Southern Lebanon" is a bit misleading since on a clear day you can easily see mountains that are 40 miles away and given the right road conditions you can drive that distance in less than half an hour. Fighter aircraft cross that distance in the blink of an eye.
Being able to see that distance also means that radar support facilities for missile launches can be controlled and evidently ARE being controlled from Beirut.

Propagandists would like you to think that Hezbollah is confined to Southern Lebanon, but that's a myth built in part on your notion of what a country is. Some countries are no bigger than Connecticut, the third smallest state in the United States, only Rhode Island and Delaware are smaller. Having lived in larger towns (some of you will say "duh" at this point) metro areas can also stretch for 40 miles or so.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Why I choose THAT name.

Ok, ok, it's partly an attention getting device. Here's the logic behind it. In their day it was the Pharisees that believed in the Resurrection. They were the most "Theologically Correct" adherents to the faith of the Hebrews commonly known today as Judaism.

Most don't know it but the only sect that is mentioned as carrying over into early "Christianity" (which wasn't known as Christianity until it spread to the gentiles) were the Pharisees. Paul continued to claim long after his conversion not that he used to be a Pharisee, but that he was a Pharisee.

With that in mind it would make sense that if we truly reformed, we'd end up being most like the Pharisees theologically. Obviously there were excesses and hypocrisies among them. I most certainly don't advocate returning to their micro managing interpretive rules.

I've started this Blog in part to promote my own forum. Expect to find what is discussed here, also discussed there.

Hugh McBryde

More →

Sphere: Related Content