Regarding the recent AHA ads that display quotes from religious texts and then popular humanist-centric quotes. There is then a prompt to readers to; “Consider humanism”. How deliberately dishonest of an ad campaign because they fail at proper interpretation of the Bible and they fail at appropriately defining humanism as well with their bad interpretive principles. The correct reading of 1 Timothy 2:11-12 as I have already shown in the previous posts actually derives not just from it and Galatians context but there is even more context that remains consistent with the interpretation I laid out and yet again throws inconsistency at the face of AHA with their interpretation. I would like them to justify their implicit stance of the Bible being evil, and opposing woman as their website implies as well.
The other context is from Ephesians 5:28-39;
28So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30because we are members of His body.
Consider making up your own morals as a humanist in society? Or, let the framework of time tested, common sense religious text based ethics that demand high conduct stand? The choice is obvious to me.
The American Humanist Association has an expensive ad campaign to combat, not what Scriptures actually say through critical exegesis, but rather their own false ideas (eisegesis) read into Scripture. It is to show that humanist values are mainstream while religious fundamentalists that read the Bible are not. But don’t worry many are fighting back, like on Ricochet by being… depressed!? Don’t just sit there, report on the story and claim depression. This isn’t how the Bible reads and furthering lack of proper reading by not pointing out the clear fallacies is telling. It is dishonest work by the AHA as their interpretation gleaned from the passages quoted CLEARLY lack any context and thus critical exegesis. Typical of Christian critics they remain dishonest in their approach of reading the Bible.
The main AHA biblical quotes are; 1 Timothy 2 and Hosea 13:16. They juxtapose those Scriptural fragments with quotes of prominent scientists and the like and use their words to contradict the false interpretation that AHA has presented. So instead of being depressed and crying about it, this blog will actually analyze these pieces of Scripture to determine if indeed they represent exactly the notions that are implied by the AHA. If the Scriptural exegesis I present is not the same as the AHA, then one of us has a dishonest agenda. I would hope the eisegetical nature of AHA would sharply show which is the guilty party.
1 Timothy 2:11-12 (NASB):
11A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.12But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.
To think that the writer of 1 Timothy was bashing woman verbally is wishful neo-liberal feminist thinking (feminazi for those in Rio Linda). What in fact is happening is that the writer is addressing the women of his time and how Christian woman act. The writer was not attempting to use religion to mold future subjugation of woman by man but rather conveying certain characteristics of Christian woman. Namely you should not talk if receiving instruction, much like anybody shouldn’t talk while receiving instruction. Thus, the writer specifies that it is wrong for a woman to exorcise authority over the man if at that time the man was trying to instruct the woman. Modesty and that the true nature of woman is to help man and to give birth to life were highlighted. This is taking into consideration the context of Galatians 3:28 (which the AHA didn’t do because it would of cost them more money to be honest as they had to purchase space to write it) in which clearly favoritism by gender is rejected through equality inherent in biblical Christianity. Check here for more as well.
Galatians 3:28 (NASB);
28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The AHA opposition to the exegesis of Scripture I have laid out would mean that they don’t endorse respect to a teacher, but rather I guess endorse nonsensical outbursts by woman within the teacher-student setting. Good anti-learning values AHA, really feminist of you. Next up on the laughable AHA quote mining (lack of context) list is Hosea 13:16 (NASB), it states;
16Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.
For insightful commentary that does not let you read into the text what you want by leaving out context, read John Calvins’ commentary here. I say to you, what is so depressing about dishonest representation of the biblical text Ricochet? Nothing, when you can use your standing on a high-traffic site to rebut such laughable uncritical organizations like AHA, of which their little ad campaign clearly shows. The fact that space is required to write down the context and fully understand the texts in question, essentially means that the amount of truth allowed by the AHA ad campaign is determined by the amount of money they spend, how ridiculous.
Here is video of President Obama speaking on Islam after being asked a question about jihad and what he thinks about it. The answer is stunning and vastly ignorant. Just like much of the establishment political, media and academic elite.
What about Muhammad directly participating in war to further Islam? Why is there never logic connecting that to Muslims warring today? Why does he invoke Ghandi’s name? Ghandi has absolutely nothing to do with Islam or Jihad. It is Obama’s wishful thinking that somehow Islam’s enemies, Muslims who are violent, need to be isolated from the the Ghandi Muslims. Muslims are not going to care about Ghandi, it is Muhammad they follow and are loyal to. They will follow his mold principally rather then Ghandi, no matter how much Obama thinks they should do otherwise because Islam is a religion of peace.
What should have taken place after 9/11 or prior to be perfectly honest, is that Islam should of been singled out by the intellectuals and politicians as a violent religion that preaches Muhammad, who directly participated in war, is the Muslims mirror for his/her pattern of conduct. Obama you are a piece of work, and cannot intelligently deal with topics because your political investment swings counter to the truth.
Dow Jones Industrial Average is up 200 points. Why? Republican fiscal policy and certainty promised. That is why.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) rocketed more than 200 points skyward earlier today, blowing past the 11,400 level to hit its highest point since Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 15, 2008.
Of course the line in the lamestream media will be that Bernanke is responsible… Essentially this;
The blue chip barometer continues to draw strength from the Fed’s second round of quantitative easing, or QE2, in which the central bank has pledged to buy $600 billion in government bonds.
Another debate at Liberal Forum, this time dealing with the religion of Islam and its history. Click HERE to view it and enjoy!