China - J.Goldberg

I regularly read Jonah Goldberg who writes for National Review Online. He wrote something this week that I have linked to the title below. I have been waiting for something like this since the evidence clearly points in that direction. Mr. Goldberg says it like no one else can:

Why We Need Not Envy China 
Would we honestly trade our problems for theirs?

Immanuel Velikovsky

While attending Wycliffe Theological College in Toronto, Ontario my pastor mentioned the name Velikovsky in passing. I hadn’t heard of him before so began a bit of an investigation into what he’s about. In the end I purchased a number of his works (Ages in Chaos, Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval) and read them front to back. If the work had not been of interest I wouldn’t have got past the first few pages. I won’t usually read anything that is clearly flawed unless it was necessary to a part of my formal education.

What Velikovsky proposed didn’t seem to be that big of a deal to me. Of course I had grown up with little vested interest in history per se or much concern for the movement of the planets (outside their normal orbits) as I held most of this to be speculation. The work of Clark Pinnock in Set Forth Your Case gave me a swift kick to the side of the head as well as the heart which caused history to begin to matter. I was still in the early stages of integrating this reality (although I’m pretty quick about these things) when Velikovsky’s reordered chronologies entered my thinking.

Basically Velikovsky believed that there were catastrophic events on earth from near misses by Venus and Mars which would not have the orbits they currently enjoy. Venus was a recent planet that was an offshoot from Jupiter. It’s near passing of earth was related to the events accounted for in the plagues prior to the exodus. He had gathered a number of records from ancient cultures around the globe that describe in a somewhat similar fashion what they saw and experience from the heavens. Based on this he realigned history to have this major catastrophic event be the lynch pin linking the historic timeline together.

In most cases does this really matter or better put, who cares? Well one of the key realignments was between Israel and Egypt. There were stories in Egyptian history that referenced similar events as described by the Old Testament during the plagues. When these are aligned the matching time period in Egyptian history is not the universally accepted 1250 BC but rather 1650 BC. On a bit of a lark I pulled out my course text book on Egypt called The Culture of Ancient Egypt by John A. Wilson. I flipped though until I found the time period under discussion. In the opening paragraph it was discussing the fall of the middle kingdom and the fact that it was virtually unknown how this occurred. Now this was the greatest era in one of the greatest civilizations in the history of man (gave us the pyramids), yet there was no evidence to determine how it came to an abrupt end????

Perhaps I read more into this than I should but I was blown away. This made way more sense than trying to jam it into 1250 BC where the Pharaohs don’t really line up or fit Israel’s timeline. Also, I had read this before while I was taking the class and this never stood out. Now it looked like the proverbial sore thumb. For the first time I was actually interested in history. I mean if these chronologies were lined up properly then there should be a serious windfall of matching corroborative evidence for both cultures including the Old Testament. Well that’s what Velikovsky did. He basically took some of the key events in the Old Testament and matched them to the same occurrences in Ancient Egypt. This read like a real history book. Not what I was used to which was basically a story with no evidence to support it. There were constant references back to this or that document. I especially remember the information on who was the Queen of Sheba. A comparison followed between the offering she brought to Solomon and a very similar listing from Egyptian documents of what was loaded onto a barge for the same purposes.

I also had to do a paper called “Who destroyed Shilo?” This was for a different course in a different college. Well I just added the 400 years and went back to Wilson’s Culture and low and behold found there were campaigns of plundering by the Egyptians into Mesopotamia at the time and Shilo was one of the cities that were listed by name. This was a bit freaky since these books had nothing to do with one another.

So I was pretty excited thinking this would open the door to endless corroboration of the Old Testament. It seemed to me there were relatively scant evidence and a whole lot of criticism. In my zeal I went to my Old Testament Professor to see if he’d heard of Velikovsky and the potential goldmine he’d unearthed. My meeting with R.K. Harrison was brief. He had taught at Richmond College when I was there and I had him again at Wycliffe. He was renowned for his tomb Introduction to the Old Testament which was a standard for anyone going through these doors. Sure enough Mr. Harrison had heard of Immanuel Velikovsky but gave zero credence to his postulations. The conversation did not last long and I left a little disheartened. I didn’t know why he was so convinced that Velikovsky was wrong but I sure knew that’s what he thought.

Only later did I discover that this was merely the tip of the tip of the iceberg. The entire scientific community was up in arms at Velikovsky’s suggested theories, to the point of extreme absurdity. Of course the bulk of Mr. Harrison’s work would require complete revision if he were to be correct.

I continue to ponder the Exodus. It made so much sense, if the Old Testament were accurate. At one point Pharaoh was concerned with how many Jews there were because they outnumbered their own people. They were slaves so clearly an enormous workforce. And you’d need a very large army to keep them in check. Also, they’d been at it for 400 years. It makes sense why Pharaoh would not want to let them go because the entire infrastructure of Egypt lay in the balance. Even after he agrees to release them he comes to his senses and goes after them. In the end Pharaoh and all his army are destroyed in the collapse of the Red Sea (Harrison called this the “Reed” sea) and over half the population of Egypt (the work force) is gone. This makes perfect sense as to why Middle Kingdom fell. Also, it is logical to assume the Jews actually built the pyramids which remain a wonder of the world.

Velikovsky’s work created an enormous divide in the scientific community. The majority opposed but some were open to new ideas and scientific query into the truth of the matter. I noted the unbridled vitriolic displayed by many (Shapely, Sagan) which are the sure signs of children with their toys removed from their possession. These men were supposed to be scientists not Hollywood rags working by slander and innuendo. The fact that such a nerve was touch pointed more to the potential validity of the theory rather than against it.

As one pro-Velikovskian person put it so many years later:

I mean that should one reasonably and incredulously ask: ‘Is there nowhere an anti-Velikovsky treatise of serious consequence?’ the answer, regrettably, is still ‘no.’ Not in general nor even in a special discipline such as astrophysics or archaeology. Thousands of scientists and scholars have impugned his work. A few have stepped up to bat against him or one of his team: they put on airs; they dance about; they come up unprepared; they take blundering swipes at the ball; they strike out. When all is done, they say that it was not a real professional ballgame.- Alfred de Grazia The Velikovsky Affair

The Religion of Islam

Nothing, that is not readily available in a Google search, will be said here. I’m joining a number of voices that have gone before, albeit with my own thrust on things. The issue of angst is the constant barrage that anything that is socially unpalatable, that is associated to Islam, is immediately qualified as not Islam. I read only yesterday that 99% of all Muslims would not consider Osama Bin Laden a Muslim. I’m sure he would beg to differ but that discussion can no longer take place.
Muslims who are involved in murder and violence are “extremists” and don’t represent the moderate, more prevalent, more properly ‘Muslim’, believers. A great example was Whoopi Goldberg’s meltdown on the View when Bill O’Reilly didn’t qualify the perpetrators of 9/11 as extremists, just Muslims. You’d think he shot her mother. Both her an Joy Behar walked off the show rather than discuss the issue.
Yet, a Muslim in Tulsa was kicked out of his Mosque for “criticizing Islam in front of non-believers”. He received numerous violent advances and had to take out a restraining order to deal with death threats. Basically the moderates are not allowed to criticize the extremists. Why? I recently watched Dennis Miller rant about the same thing. If these ‘extremists’ aren’t representing Islam, then why the huge silence? Moderates need to kick these guys out or straighten them out, but they’re not doing either. (that was Miller’s point)

While that’s not really what I’m here to address it is an evidentiary offshoot. Anders Nygren once said there are no contradictions. If you think there are then you simply haven’t dug deep enough. Love that.
My point is that I think the so called extremists are accurately representing the religion of Islam. Where do I get such a preposterous concept? Well from the Qur’an and the spiritual logic that follows. Believe me, it isn’t a stretch. My real rant in this whole dog fight is the gross ignorance of the implications of what is recorded in the Qur’an. And this isn’t just a gospel or a letter written by an apostle, these are the very words of God.
There are many but I only need site a few.

They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. 5:72 (Yusufali)
...Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity"... 4:171 (Yusufali)
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- 4:157-56 (Yusufali)
O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. Sura 5:51 (Yusufali)
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. Sura 4:89 (Shakir)


According to Muslim’s these are the very words of God. I don’t make a distinction here between extremists, moderates or whatever other political types there might be. That the Qur’an is God’s direct words to Mohammed is the fundamental defining feature of the religion of Islam. If someone classifies themselves as a Muslim, it means they accept the Qur’an as the unimpeachable source of God’s directions in all their doings.
From the 5 direct Qur’an quotes above what can we take to be God’s true view of reality?

1) It is blaspheme to consider Christ the son of Mary as God. If you do so, you will end up in Hell.
2) Jesus Christ was a messenger of God, but not God. Therefore don’t use the word Trinity.
3) Jesus was neither crucified nor killed. It was all staged. For sure, he was never killed.
4) Don’t be friends with Jews or Christians.
5) Killing them is a good idea. (Jews/Christians)


If you’d like further evidence of the views Muslims must conform to, feel free to read the Qur’an and you will only be further convinced. The level of violence towards infidels is bottomless. I’m not a big linker but this site is focused on the Qur’an and what it says and means regarding Islamic behavior. www.religionofpeace.com 
So what’s my point? Just this: So called Muslim extremists are actually the norm. They are carrying out the directives that God has laid before them. The moderates are the anomalies and will have their heads handed to them if they don’t watch out. Their most holy of books makes this crystal clear. Thus when innocents (infidels) are slaughtered by the thousands (women/children, doesn’t matter) nothing is denounced or even mentioned. But the most (relatively) minor things they find irrationally offensive, book burning or cartoon drawing, the prescription is death to any and all, whether they’re related to the actual offenders or not.

Most of the civilized world is still protecting this seething evil as it spreads its shadow around the globe. They all scream that this is not a representation of a true Muslim. All the while the core message of the Qur’an is not mentioned or brought into the conversation. The first question to a moderate is “Do you hold that the Qur’an, in its entirety, is God’s word to man”? Then the relevant passages that support, encourage and demand the murderous activity should be quoted. This simply doesn’t happen. No one wants a clear definition of the religion of Islam because the “world community” would have to agree that it is no religion at all, let alone the true religion.
And what should Christian believer’s view of this alternate belief system be. The view of Islam is that Christianity is a lie and a sham. They pander to us by stating Jesus was a prophet but deny the heart of reality that he is God become man and was crucified and resurrected for us. As to him being a prophet this makes no sense at all. Do prophets go around claiming to be God? What’s the evidence that he did not die? There is none, just something made up 600 yrs later with no eye witness accounts to refute the primary evidence.
C.S. Lewis answers this feigned respect for Christ to which I’ve never heard a rebuttal:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.”
It’s even worse to call him a prophet as any prophet would clearly know the distinction between himself and the God that he is prophesying about. But rather than draw conclusions from the historical evidence that has been left behind, the Qur’an has its own story that everything must align with. And since there’s no real evidence to support their view it turns into blind fanaticism. It’s not about apologetics or logic or reason; there is no room left for dialogue. Those who pander to these wolves in sheep clothing need to have a hard look at the Qur’an then check the premises of their beliefs. This truly is a jihad (holy war) and it’s always the same two sides. The enemy’s best weapon is to blur the differences.

True Grit

I was watching a little Joel Osteen on the weekend. I don’t particularly like his overall spiel but he’s better than many. He’s very positive and upbeat and reminds me of a number of preachers I’ve heard. After a few times though my teeth start to ache because of the sweetness. I haven’t thought much about the doctrinal differences that would cause such a variance probably because I don’t see any necessity. But what did perk me up during my most recent listening adventure was the supposedly endless and bottomless forgiveness of God.

I think that is part of the sweetness that shortly wears thin to my taste. It paints Jesus as sort of a Candy man although I’m sure Joel would disagree with that interpretation. Nevertheless, he continually talks about forgiving one another, loving your enemies, doing good to those who hate you and how can you argue this, it’s the heart of the gospel; well apparently I can.

Fundamentally I don’t think God forgives. He can’t. It’s not in his nature to mix evil with good. Thus if your children are continually disobedient you take them out of the village and have them stoned to death. I don’t need to go through all of Leviticus to remind one of the many activities that are met with the death prescription. Not that different from the Flood which killed everyone save Noah or marching the Israelites around the desert for 40 years until everyone who left Egypt died (save Joshua and Moses?). What about Ananias and Sapphira or the rift between Paul and Barnabas or Paul and Peter? Why can’t we all just “forgive” and “get along”, as we hear so often in the current media, and “love one another”.

First, the world has no place in advising Christians on anything about love. When John Lennon says “all you need is love” it’s in a context that has nothing to do with Christianity. And if Christianity isn’t the heart of it, then it isn’t love. God is love. Jesus is God. And I don’t mean this like an axiomatic formula. I mean that if you want to find out what love really is, look to Jesus and therefore the Gospels. (ie. whatever the Holy Spirit has written on your heart as to who Jesus is, which should be consistent with the New Testament)

So are we really forgiven? Yes, but not without sacrifice. There is no carte blanche forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22 ‘without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness’) There was a trade involved. This is consistent with the Old Testament priestly rituals. Animals were killed and their life blood was offered in place of the penalties for sin. (which is also death) So they died in the place of those who received the ‘forgiveness’. And while I’m sure Mr. Osteen is well versed in this scenario he doesn’t transfer this well to the Christian walk. It’s like we should dole out forgiveness as though it’s water from Niagara. Really? Is that what Jesus did? Is that what he wants us to do?

I’ve read some commentary regarding Jesus’ statement to his disciples, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:23) The response by most is a frantic rush to inform us that this doesn’t mean what one would plainly take it to mean. On the other hand the Roman Catholics take this to mean their priests have the power to determine the length of your stay in purgatory and you better hook up with one before you kick because you need him to administer your final forgiveness. Two divergently opposite views and neither of which I adhere to. The Catholic view is plainly contrary to some fundamental information from Jesus and the disciples. Not really even worthy of challenge. The other view is a little more interesting and highlights my primary variance to Joel. How much of Christ’s mantle should we aspire to or make our own. If Paul’s words are to be taken at face value and/or John’s then it’s pretty much 100%. We become the righteousness of God through Christ’s work on the cross. We are the salt of this earth and we should be able to judge rightly since we will judge the angels. Are everyone’s sins forgiven? Clearly not. It would be better if Judas had not been born. And the Pharisees weren’t looking too good during the confrontations with God. Jesus told them they would die in their sins.

Now the forgiveness is available, but on the condition you accept the terms. The terms are agreeing that the blood of Christ is the means by which you are forgiven. If you don’t buy into Christ then you don’t buy into his sacrifice then you shouldn’t be talking about forgiveness in any, way, shape or form. Again, the world uses the word forgiveness but they’ve simply borrowed it from Christianity and it has no real meaning in their world of sin.

As Jesus has said they will treat you like they treated him. So if you’re representing Christ in your life and you are hated for it, that should be the norm. Are sins not being forgiven as a result? Absolutely. Those who hate you hate Jesus. When you’re in a confrontation in that context, your opponents are unknowingly opposing Jesus. There is judgment going on. Do you forgive those who do such things? Maybe, but what does that really mean? Do you pretend that they don’t hate you? That they’ll do whatever they can to thwart your progress? Sin doesn’t just pussy foot around. It’s a war, spirit lusting against sin and sin lusting against spirit. The world and the kingdom are at severe odds. And that manifests itself in our daily relationships. So when your question whether your forgiving someone, someone who is clearly your enemy, don’t get all hot and bothered. I don’t think we’re required to forgive them. We stand, we fight,(internally) we testify. And that’s what I think Jesus means by whatever you don’t forgive, won’t be forgiven. Those people will be called to account for how they treated you.

If they repent and ask for forgiveness it's a no brainer. That’s a different deal and a completely different context; even if they killed your wife, husband or children. Jesus came to call sinners, not the righteous. Brothers and sisters should live in forgiveness for one another. But your enemies are just that. And that’s where I think Joel and I part ways. In daily relationships he’s really advocating to treat enemies as friends. And while Jesus called Judas friend it was not because he forgot for one iota who he was and what he was about. Neither should Christians. We are called to be as wise as the serpent. And that’s really the only way to be as harmless as doves.

So I don’t forgive everyone. I’m not all hung up about it either. Vengeance is God’s, he will repay. I love my enemies but I don’t throw my pearls before swine. I don’t treat them the way they treat me, I can't, but neither do I treat them as I treat friends. Jesus says to give them a few chances to change their ways and if they don't "treat them as a pagan or a tax collector". (Matthew 18:15-17) And in Luke 17:3-4 he says to forgive but only in the context of their repentance.

I recently saw Joel and his wife being interviewed on 'Piers Morgan Tonight' and he was just as I expected. The man has lost his salt, if he indeed ever had it. And you know what Jesus says about that condition. I watched True Grit on the weekend and that’s what Joel needs.