Black Lives Matter is underpinned by a radical, racial supremacy ideology not dissimilar to the Ku Klux Klan. Just a reminder, Sargon is an atheist, so there is rough language. MOONBATTERY has this about the following:
Remember, Sargon is an atheist (just a memo):
The bottom line seems to be that white-people are not welcomed at Drexel University — OR — not have white alumni donate money:
THE DAILY CALLER discusses the above Tweet by George Ciccariello-Maher, an associate professor of politics and global studies at Drexel University in Philadelphia,
Speaking of “Class Warfare,” e.g., cultural Marxism…
Just so you know — for clarity sake — Sargon is an atheist. 3-Parts (will load automatically):
Neo-Progressivism has gone unchallenged for too long and has metastasized into an authoritarian cancer that is consuming the Left…and liberals are silent.
- See also
Sargon of Akkad is an atheist. So a CAUTION about language is in order:
Hillary Clinton represents all that is bad in the American political system. The powers that be have aligned in support of her and against the average person. This is not how it is meant to work.
Caution, STRONG LANGUAGE!
Two groups of people believe in white genocide: white supremacists and black supremacists.
A collection of the most outlandish things I’ve ever heard from feminists.
Christian Hoff Sommers
Sargon of Akkad – so – Rough Language, FYI:
I was listening to Steven Crowder and “Sargon of Akkad” talk about various subjects… and then it got onto the Bible.
Typical things like presuppositions about miracles being impossible stated BEFORE saying the miraculous life of Jesus is impossible… but before getting into more of the miraculous and Mithra’ism, I want to deal with an issue of Sargon’s name and his affinity to Zeitgeist. Sargon of Akkad is said to be a story that many years later the Story of Moses in Exodus 2:1-10, which reads:
This story is referenced in many atheist rejections of Scripture. Here is one post at Debunking Atheism that deal with the topic:
Take note as well that Exodus is written well before the first accounts of this story that is supposedly plagiarized:
- The date of the Biblical exodus-conquest is clear. 1 Kgs 6:1 and 1 Chr 6:33–37 converge on a date of 1446 BC for the exodus and the Jubilees data and Judg 11:26 independently converge on a date of 1406 BC for the beginning of the conquest. The 1406 BC date is further confirmed by archaeological data from Jericho, Ai (Kh. el-Maqatir) and Hazor. In the end, Hoffmeier’s response has served to reinforce my earlier conclusion that “there is no valid evidence, Biblical or extra-Biblical, to sustain it.” The theory is a scholarly construct popularized by William F. Albright in the mid-20th century. It is not supported by Biblical or extra-Biblical texts and has lost its presumed archaeological underpinnings, thus has no place in contemporary Biblical scholarship.
Here is another fine article about the dating of Exodus. Whereas the first known reference to Akkad’s story is found in fragments in the Library of Ashurbanipal from the 7th century BC. So much like you will see below with Mithra’ism… the legend POST-DATES the Biblical record and thus it is VERY possible that the plagiarism is the other way around.
Onto Miracles and other positions taken explicetly or implicetly by Sargon.
Miracles and Bias
This commitment to materialism is referenced in one of the best books about the Jesus Seminar:
Another small point made (Mithraism is stated specifically later in convo) was about mythical religions being the source of much of Christianity. This is the “Zeitgeist” Effect, and is easily disproved… which I have posted a rebuttal of here. But to correct Sargon’s use of Mitrhaic religion… it post dates Christianity. Here is a good short refutation showing that there is no historical evidence to prove Mithraism as Sargon postulates PRE-DATES Christianity:
In the link leading to my post on this stuff I have pages from a book showing the dates of the VERY popular reliefs used by skeptics to show that Christianity stole from Mithraism… the only proble? The POST-DATE Christianity:
If one reads that scholarly chapter they will come away with a changed position via historical evidences and not the slush found on skeptical websites. However, I just wanted to note Sargon’s reference to Second Kings 18:13 by having professor Archer lay out the issue referenced:
BEFORE I go any further… I want to point out how minor this mistake (and subsequent correction) is. It does not do anything to the integrity of the Bible, its message, or it’s historical soundness. Even someone who is seen as dealing the biggest blow to textual studies as of late, Bart Ehrman, even he acknowledges nothing he has written deterioates the main theisis and message of Christianity or the Bible:
Again, many skeptics do not get Bart’s work in total (see: Agnostic -Bart Erhman- Debates Atheist About Jesus’ Existence).. that aside, let’s explore a simple explanation. Here Dr. Geisler explains:
If a skeptic thinks this interferes with inerrancy… they are sadly mistaken. And of course Crowder is correct to point to the discoveries from archaeology that support the Bible… this set of verses are not excluded from this either. Much like my other examples of challenges… they fall woefully short of the simple beginning bias/presuppositions of those like Sargon’s — a presupposition not unlike Dr. Lewontin’s: