Author: Papa Giorgio

Comedian Jeff Allen Shares His Testimony (Must Listen To)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I thought Jeff Allen’s testimony was so precious, I wanted to isolate it and make it available for others to share.

These stand-up broadcasts are old, but Jeff’s testimony is very powerful! Bananas Family Comedy: was a broadcast-friendly, comedy television series produced by Guardian Studios and is taped before a live audience. The show features a different nationally recognized comedian each week and is hosted by L.A. comic, Thor Ramsey.

Here are Jeff’s two stand-ups I have watched. The first one is where this clip came from:

The HOUND of HEAVEN ~ Francis Thompson (1890)

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;

I fled Him, down the arches of the years;

I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways

Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears

I hid from Him, and under running laughter.

Up vistaed hopes I sped;

And shot, precipitated,

Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,

From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.

But with unhurrying chase,

And unperturbèd pace,

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

They beat—and a Voice beat

More instant than the Feet—

‘All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.’

I pleaded, outlaw-wise,

By many a hearted casement, curtained red,

Trellised with intertwining charities;

(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,

Yet was I sore adread

Lest having Him, I must have naught beside).

But, if one little casement parted wide,

The gust of His approach would clash it to.

Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.

Across the margent of the world I fled,

And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,

Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars;

Fretted to dulcet jars

And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon.

I said to Dawn: Be sudden—to Eve: Be soon;

With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over

From this tremendous Lover—

Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!

I tempted all His servitors, but to find

My own betrayal in their constancy,

In faith to Him their fickleness to me,

Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.

To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;

Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.

But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,

The long savannahs of the blue;

Or whether, Thunder-driven,

They clanged his chariot ’thwart a heaven,

Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their

feet:—

Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.

Still with unhurrying chase,

And unperturbèd pace,

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

Came on the following Feet,

And a Voice above their beat—

‘Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.’

I sought no more that after which I strayed

In face of man or maid;

But still within the little children’s eyes

Seems something, something that replies;

They at least are for me, surely for me!

I turned me to them very wistfully;

But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair

With dawning answers there,

Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.

‘Come then, ye other children, Nature’s—share

With me’ (said I) ‘your delicate fellowship;

Let me greet you lip to lip,

Let me twine with you caresses,

Wantoning

With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses,

Banqueting

With her in her wind-walled palace,

Underneath her azured daïs,

Quaffing, as your taintless way is,

From a chalice

Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.’

So it was done:

I in their delicate fellowship was one—

Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies.

I knew all the swift importings

On the wilful face of skies;

I knew how the clouds arise

Spumèd of the wild sea-snortings;

All that’s born or dies

Rose and drooped with; made them shapers

Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine;

With them joyed and was bereaven.

I was heavy with the even,

When she lit her glimmering tapers

Round the day’s dead sanctities.

I laughed in the morning’s eyes.

I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,

Heaven and I wept together,

And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;

Against the red throb of its sunset-heart

I laid my own to beat,

And share commingling heat;

But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.

In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s gray cheek.

For ah! we know not what each other says,

These things and I; in sound I speak—

Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.

Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;

Let her, if she would owe me,

Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me

The breasts o’ her tenderness:

Never did any milk of hers once bless

My thirsting mouth.

Nigh and nigh draws the chase,

With unperturbèd pace,

Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;

And past those noisèd Feet

A voice comes yet more fleet—

‘Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st

not Me.’

Naked I wait Thy love’s uplifted stroke!

My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,

And smitten me to my knee;

I am defenceless utterly.

I slept, methinks, and woke,

And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.

In the rash lustihead of my young powers,

I shook the pillaring hours

And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,

I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years—

My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.

My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,

Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.

Yea, faileth now even dream

The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist;

Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist

I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,

Are yielding; cords of all too weak account

For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.

Ah! is Thy love indeed

A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed,

Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?

Ah! must—

Designer infinite!—

Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou canst limn

with it?

My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust;

And now my heart is as a broken fount,

Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever

From the dank thoughts that shiver

Upon the sighful branches of my mind.

Such is; what is to be?

The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?

I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds;

Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds

From the hid battlements of Eternity;

Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then

Round the half-glimpsèd turrets slowly wash again.

But not ere him who summoneth

I first have seen, enwound

With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned;

His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.

Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields

Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields

Be dunged with rotten death?

Now of that long pursuit

Comes on at hand the bruit;

That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:

‘And is thy earth so marred,

Shattered in shard on shard?

Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!

Strange, piteous, futile thing!

Wherefore should any set thee love apart?

Seeing none but I makes much of naught’ (He said),

‘And human love needs human meriting:

How hast thou merited—

Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?

Alack, thou knowest not

How little worthy of any love thou art!

Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,

Save Me, save only Me?

All which I took from thee I did but take,

Not for thy harms,

But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.

All which thy child’s mistake

Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:

Rise, clasp My hand, and come!’

Halts by me that footfall:

Is my gloom, after all,

Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?

‘Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,

I am He Whom thou seekest!

Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.’

Updated To My: “Introduction – Technology Junkies” Chapter

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally posted JANUARY 2012, just updated layout today)

I added some portions from Thomas Sowell’s book, A CONFLICT OF VISIONS:

Christianity is closely tied to the success of capitalism,[22] as it is the only possible ethic behind such an enterprise. How can such a thing be said? The famed economist/sociologist/historian of our day, Thomas Sowell, speaks to this in his book A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles. He whittles down the many economic views into just two categories, the constrained view and the unconstrained view.

The constrained vision is a tragic vision of the human condition. The unconstrained vision is a moral vision of human intentions, which are viewed as ultimately decisive. The unconstrained vision promotes pursuit of the highest ideals and the best solutions. By contrast, the constrained vision sees the best as the enemy of the good— a vain attempt to reach the unattainable being seen as not only futile but often counterproductive, while the same efforts could have produced a more viable and beneficial trade-off. Adam Smith applied this reasoning not only to economics but also to morality and politics: The prudent reformer, according to Smith, will respect “the confirmed habits and prejudices of the people,” and when he cannot establish what is right, “he will not disdain to ameliorate the wrong.” His goal is not to create the ideal but to “establish the best that the people can bear.”[23]

Dr. Sowell goes on to point out that while not “all social thinkers fit this schematic dichotomy…. the conflict of visions is no less real because everyone has not chosen sides or irrevocably committed themselves.” Continuing he points out:

Despite necessary caveats, it remains an important and remarkable phenomenon that how human nature is conceived at the outset is highly correlated with the whole conception of knowledge, morality, power, time, rationality, war, freedom, and law which defines a social vision…. The dichotomy between constrained and unconstrained visions is based on whether or not inherent limitations of man are among the key elements included in the vision.[24]

The contribution of the nature of man by the Judeo-Christian ethic is key in this respect. One can almost say, then, that the Christian worldview demands a particular position to be taken in the socio-economic realm.* You can almost liken the constrained view of man in economics and conservatism as the Calvinist position. Pulitzer prize winning political commentator, Walter Lippmann (1889-1974), makes the above point well:

At the core of every moral code there is a picture of human nature, a map of the universe, and a version of history. To human nature (of the sort conceived), in a universe (of the kind imagined), after a history (so understood), the rules of the code apply.[25]

A free market, then, is typically viewed through the lenses of the Christian worldview with its concrete view of the reality of man balanced with love for your neighbor;

[22] See for instance: R.H. Tawney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2000 [originally 1926]); Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2003 [originally 1904]); Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (New York, NY: Random House, 2005); Thomas E. Woods, Jr., How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2005).

[23] Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York, NY: basic Books, 2007), 27.

[24] Ibid., 33, 34.

[25] Walter lippmann, Public Opinion (New York, NY: Freee Press, 1965), 80.

A Short History of Slavery | Candace Owens

Published by Papa Giorgio

Slavery didn’t start in 1492 when Columbus came to the New World. And it didn’t start in 1619 when the first slaves landed in Jamestown. It’s not a white phenomenon. The real story of slavery is long and complex. Candace Owens explains.

This map has probably changed — drastically — with Biden’s border policies. I mean drastically! I also wish to note that as a percentage, slavery has increased in the European countries due to the influx of “refugees” from countries dominated by Islam. (And the U.S. is driving sex-slavery in a myriad of ways.)

  • Today, an estimated 529,000 to 869,000 black men, women and children are still slaves. They are bought, owned, sold, and traded by Arab and Muslim masters in five African countries. This statistic estimates those enslaved in Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, and Sudan. It excludes Nigeria, for which there are no tangible estimates. (ISRAEL NATIONAL NEWS)
  • As the world marks 400 years since the first recorded African slaves arrived in North America, slavery remains a modern-day scourge. [….] Africa has the highest prevalence of slavery, with more than seven victims for every 1,000 people, according to a 2017 report by human rights group Walk Free Foundation and the International Labour Office. The report defines slavery as “situations of exploitation that a person cannot refuse or leave because of threats, violence, coercion, deception, and/or abuse of power.” Trafficking of sex workers, many of them tricked into thinking they will get employment doing something else, is one of the most widespread and abusive forms of modern-day slavery. (REUTERS)

Conceived In Rape | Survivors Speak to the “Rape Clause”

Published by Papa Giorgio

THIS TOPIC IS ALL WITH GRATITUDE TO REBECCA KIESSLING
–originally posted January 2013–

Rebecca Kiessling in a very focused way, explains how the “rape clause” is the foot in the door for abortion through all 9-months. Uploaded for the 40th of Roe v Wade. Rebecca deals with some myths as well. For instance, a higher percentage of rape victims decide to keep their baby than the general population of women having abortions.

Stories and affirmation of the preciousness of life!

What about children conceived in rape or incest? What about fetal deformity? What about threats to the life or health of the mother? These are the abortion exceptions.

From video description:

How Trans Activists Conquered American Life | Christopher Rufo

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is an upload from RUFO’S TWITTER. A new, powerful, concise video by investigative journalist Christopher Rufo exposes the monied interests, activist intellectuals and influential doctors behind the aggressive “trans” revolution in America. Rufo’s SUBSTACK IS HERE.

 

Director Wray’s Arse Whoopin 2

Published by Papa Giorgio

? Jim Jordan’s Opening Statement in FBI Director Christopher Wray’s Oversight Hearing Testimony ?

Gets FBI Director To Admit That Weekly Meetings With Social Media Companies Continued Until Judge Issued Injunction

  • HAGEMAN: “Does the FBI intend to continue to have such meetings leading up to the 2024 election to police election related speech?”
  • WRAY: “I do not agree with that description.”

FBI Director Confirms Biden Is Under Criminal Investigation Then BACKTRACKS

  • Christopher Wray: “I’m not going to confirm or speak to who is or isn’t under investigation.”

Shellenberger: Exposing the Censorship Industrial Complex | SpectatorTV

Published by Papa Giorgio

TWO SHORTS FIRST:

Michael Shellenberger Rips Zuckerberg’s Threads Censorship

  • “There is no democracy without freedom of speech. Everybody knows this, and yet they’re trying to curtail freedom of speech in the name of democracy. It’s creepy. It’s totalitarian. I never thought I would see it in my own country in my lifetime. And yet that’s exactly what’s happening at this very moment”

Over ONE MILLION FISA queries were conducted ILLEGALLY under FBI Director Wray’s watch. No one has been held responsible or accountable.

Spectator-TV

Michael Shellenberger, Twitter Files journalist and founder of Public is in London to discuss the international censorship industrial complex. He explains to Winston how the complex web of government, big tech, intelligence and media collude to suppress speech in the UK, America and beyond.

FBI Director Christopher Wray Getting His Arse Whooped!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Republican Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson rattled off several scandals by the FBI to his face during a Weaponization Committee hearing Wednesday.

Matt Gaetz questions Wray on FBI Cover-up

Here is the Internet Responding to the FBI Director (and THIS IS the questioning that Rep Gaetz was talking about):

Thomas Massie: Gun purchases and Pipe Bomber

Rep. Andy Biggs: “How many agents or human resources were present at the Capitol Complex Facility on January 6th?”

TIMCAST

FBI GETS DUPED By Russians Pretending To Be Ukrainian, Fulfilled False Censorship Requests

J-Dub Apologist Willfully Distorts Christian Scholars on John 1:1

Published by Papa Giorgio

JOHN 1:1-3

  • 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. 2. This one was in the beginning with God. 3. All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existence. (NEW WORLD TRANSLATION)

  • 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2. He was with God in the beginning. 3. All things were created through him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. (CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE, CSB)

I chose three excerpts below from a longer video to show how this Jehovah Witness (J-Dub) apologist rips peoples thoughts from their larger context. (LINK TO THE FULL VIDEO.) BTW, his videos are numerous and can keep the apologist busy in counter-cult responses. Also, it is worth pointing out as I watched the guy pick up and read from THE NET BIBLE, front pages, noting the contributors and scholastic notes. Something the NWT is missing. He sorta shot himself in the foot a bit with that as his inflection on the description was to give some weight or authority to it.

This should be paired with my:

THE NET BIBLE

This J-DUB Apologist misquotes, or, quotes out of context, not allowing the Bibles wonderful notes to speak for themselves:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. [1]

tn Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266–69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

sn And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.[2]

[1] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019), Jn 1:1,

[2] IBID.

So, the full context of the notes in the NET BIBLE show that the end result refutes the New World Translations rendering of John 1:1. Come on, give it up for the NET saying John 1:1c should read:

  • TO WIT: what God was the Word was, or, the Word was fully God… rather, it [John 1:1] affirms that the Word and God are one in essence.

As well as the NET throwing Moffat and other translations under the short bus a tad.

JAMES R. WHITE

I really do hope curious Jehovah’s Witnesses see the video and go get these books to “disprove” Trinitarians. The free thinking J-Dubs may be blessed in a real sense by these “refutations”.

INDEFINITE, DEFINITE, QUALITATIVE, OR WHAT?

Before leaving John 1:1, we need to wrestle with the controversy that surrounds how to translate the final phrase. We’ve touched a bit on it above, but it would be good to lay out the possibilities. Without going into all the issues, the possible renderings fall into three categories:

Indefinite: hence, “a god.”
Definite: hence, “God.”
Qualitative: hence, “in nature God.”

Arguments abound about how to translate an “anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative,” and most people get lost fairly quickly when you start throwing terms like those around. Basically, the question we have to ask is this: how does John intend us to take the word θεός in the last clause? Does he wish us to understand it as indefinite, so that no particular “god” is in mind, but instead, that Jesus is a god, one of at least two, or even more? Or is θεός definite, so that the God is in view? Or does the position of the word (before the verb, adding emphasis), coupled with the lack of the article, indicate that John is directing us to a quality when he says the Word is θεός? That is, is John describing the nature of the Word, saying the Word is deity?

In reference to the first possibility, we can dismiss it almost immediately. The reasons are as follows:

Monotheism in the Bible—certainly it cannot be argued that John would use the very word he always uses of the one true God, θεός, of one who is simply a “godlike” one or a lesser “god.” The Scriptures do not teach that there exists a whole host of intermediate beings that can truly be called “gods.” That is gnosticism.

The anarthrous θεός—If one is to dogmatically assert that any anarthrous noun must be indefinite and translated with an indefinite article, one must be able to do the same with the 282 other times θεός appears anarthrously. For an example of the chaos that would create, try translating the anarthrous θεός at 2 Corinthians 5:19 (i.e., “a god was in Christ …”). What is more, θεός appears many times in the prologue of John anarthrously, yet no one argues that in these instances it should be translated “a god.” Note verses 6, 12, 13, and 18. There is simply no warrant in the language to do this.

No room for alternate understanding—It ignores a basic tenet of translation: if you are going to insist on a translation, you must be prepared to defend it in such a way so as to provide a way for the author to have expressed the alternate translation. In other words, if θεός ἦν ὁ λόγος is “the Word was a god,” how could John have said “the Word was God?” We have already seen that if John had employed the article before θεός, he would have made the terms θεός and λόγος interchangeable, amounting to modalism.

Ignores the context—The translation tears the phrase from the immediately preceding context, leaving it alone and useless. Can He who is eternal (first clause) and who has always been with God (second clause), and who created all things (verse 3), be “a god”?

F.F. Bruce sums up the truth pretty well:

It is nowhere more sadly true than in the acquisition of Greek that “a little learning is a dangerous thing.” The uses of the Greek article, the functions of Greek prepositions, and the fine distinctions between Greek tenses are confidently expounded in public at times by men who find considerable difficulty in using these parts of speech accurately in their native tongue.

A footnote appears after the comment on the article, and it says:

Those people who emphasize that the true rendering of the last clause of John 1:1 is “the word was a god,” prove nothing thereby save their ignorance of Greek grammar.

So our decision, then, must be between the definite understanding of the word and the qualitative. If we take θεός as definite, we are hard-pressed to avoid the same conclusion that we would reach if the word had the article; that is, if we wish to say the God in the same way as if the word had the article, we are making θεός and λόγος interchangeable. Yet the vast majority of translations render the phrase “the Word was God.” Is this not the definite translation? Not necessarily.

The last clause of John 1:1 tells us about the nature of the Word. The translation should be qualitative. We have already seen in the words of F. F. Bruce that John is telling us that the Word “shared the nature and being of God.” The New English Bible renders the phrase “what God was, the Word was.” Kenneth Wuest puts it, “And the Word was as to His essence absolute deity.” Yet Daniel Wallace is quite right when he notes:

Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, “and the Word was God.” It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Father.

Here we encounter another instance where the English translation is not quite up to the Greek original. We must go beyond a basic translation and ask what John himself meant.

In summary, then, what do we find in John 1:1? In a matter of only seventeen short Greek words, John communicates the following truths:

The Word is eternal—He has always existed and did not come into existence at a point in time.
The Word is personal—He is not a force, but a person, and that eternally. He has always been in communion with the Father.
The Word is deity—The Word is God as to His nature.

We would all do well to communicate so much in so few words! But he did not stop at verse 1. This is but the first verse of an entire composition. We move on to examine the rest.[1]

[1] James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 55–58.

This next quote I really couldn’t believe, have read through large swaths of this book during my seminary years.

DANIEL B. WALLACE

I have a link to a reference Doc Wallace uses that takes you directly to the source in the excerpt.

Application of Colwell’s Construction to John 1:1

John 1:1 states: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. In the last part of the verse, the clause καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (John 1:1c), θεός is the PN. It is anarthrous and comes before the verb. Therefore, it fits Colwell’s construction, though it might not fit the rule (for the rule states that definiteness is determined or indicated by the context, not by the grammar). Whether it is indefinite, qualitative, or definite is the issue at hand.

  1. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Indefinite?

If θεός were indefinite, we would translate it “a god” (as is done in the New World Translation [NWT]). If so, the theological implication would be some form of polytheism, perhaps suggesting that the Word was merely a secondary god in a pantheon of deities.

The grammatical argument that the PN here is indefinite is weak. Often, those who argue for such a view (in particular, the translators of the NWT) do so on the sole basis that the term is anarthrous. Yet they are inconsistent, as R. H. Countess pointed out:

In the New Testament there are 282 occurrences of the anarthrous θεός. At sixteen places NWT has either a god, god, gods, or godly. Sixteen out of 282 means that the translators were faithful to their translation principle only six percent of the time.…

The first section of John-1:1–18—furnishes a lucid example of NWT arbitrary dogmatism. Θεός occurs eight times-verses 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, 18—and has the article only twice-verses 1, 2. Yet NWT six times translated “God,” once “a god,” and once “the god.” [1] (See page 54, you can turn to 55 once there.)

If we expand the discussion to other anarthrous terms in the Johannine Prologue, we notice other inconsistencies in the NWT: It is interesting that the New World Translation renders θεός as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. Following the “anarthrous = indefinite” principle would mean that ἀρχῇ should be “a beginning” (1:1, 2), ζωὴ should be “a life” (1:4), παρὰ θεοῦ should be “from a god” (1:6), Ἰωάννης should be “a John” (1:6), θεόν should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.

According to Dixon’s study, if θεός were indefinite in John 1:1, it would be the only anarthrous pre-verbal PN in John’s Gospel to be so. Although we have argued that this is somewhat overstated, the general point is valid: The indefinite notion is the most poorly attested for anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives. Thus, grammatically such a meaning is improbable. Also, the context suggests that such is not likely, for the Word already existed in the beginning. Thus, contextually and grammatically, it is highly improbable that the Logos could be “a god” according to John. Finally, the evangelist’s own theology militates against this view, for there is an exalted Christology in the Fourth Gospel, to the point that Jesus Christ is identified as God (cf. 5:23; 8:58; 10:30; 20:28, etc.).

  1. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Definite?

Grammarians and exegetes since Colwell have taken θεός as definite in John 1:1c. However, their basis has usually been a misunderstanding of Colwell’s rule. They have understood the rule to say that an anarthrous pre-verbal PN will usually be definite (rather than the converse). But Colwell’s rule states that a PN which is probably definite as determined from the context which precedes a verb will usually be anarthrous. If we check the rule to see if it applies here, we would say that the previous mention of θεός (in 1:1b) is articular. Therefore, if the same person being referred to there is called θεός in 1:1c, then in both places it is definite. Although certainly possible grammatically (though not nearly as likely as qualitative), the evidence is not very compelling. The vast majority of definite anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives are monadic, in genitive constructions, or are proper names, none of which is true here, diminishing the likelihood of a definite θεός in John 1:1c.

Further, calling θεός in 1:1c definite is the same as saying that if it had followed the verb it would have had the article. Thus it would be a convertible proposition with λόγος (i.e., “the Word” = “God” and “God” = “the Word”). The problem of this argument is that the θεός in 1:1b is the Father. Thus to say that the θεός in 1:1c is the same person is to say that “the Word was the Father.” This, as the older grammarians and exegetes pointed out, is embryonic Sabellianism or modalism.[2] The Fourth Gospel is about the least likely place to find modalism in the NT.

  1. Is Θεός in John 1:1c Qualitative?

The most likely candidate for θεός is qualitative. This is true both grammatically (for the largest proportion of pre-verbal anarthrous predicate nominatives fall into this category) and theologically (both the theology of the Fourth Gospel and of the NT as a whole). There is a balance between the Word’s deity, which was already present in the beginning (ἐν ἀρχῇ … θεὸς ἦν [1:1], and his humanity, which was added later (σὰρξ ἐγένετο [1:14]). The grammatical structure of these two statements mirrors each other; both emphasize the nature of the Word, rather than his identity. But θεός was his nature from eternity (hence, εἰμί is used), while σάρξ was added at the incarnation (hence, γίνομαι is used).

Such an option does not at all impugn the deity of Christ. Rather, it stresses that, although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. Possible translations are as follows: “What God was, the Word was” (NEB), or “the Word was divine” (a modified Moffatt). In this second translation, “divine” is acceptable only if it is a term that can be applied only to true deity. However, in modern English, we use it with reference to angels, theologians, even a meal! Thus “divine” could be misleading in an English translation. The idea of a qualitative θεός here is that the Word had all the attributes and qualities that “the God” (of 1:1b) had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person. The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father. [3]

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 266–269.

THREE FOOTNOTES I THOUGHT WERE RELEVANT:

[1] R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Philipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1982) 54–55.

[2] Before 1933 NT commentators saw θεός as qualitative. For example, in Westcott’s commentary on John: “It is necessarily without the article (θεός not ὁ θεός) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person. It would be pure Sabellianism to say ‘the Word was ὁ θεός.’ ”

Robertson, Grammar, 767–68: “ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (convertible terms) would have been pure Sabellianism.… The absence of the article here is on purpose and essential to the true idea.”

Lange’s commentary on John: “Θεός without the article signifies divine essence, or the generic idea of God in distinction from man and angel; as σάρξ, ver. 14, signifies the human essence or nature of the Logos. The article before θεός would here destroy the distinction of pesonality and confound the Son with the Father.”

Chemnitz says: “θεός sine artic. essentialiter, cum artic. personaliter.”

Alford points out: “The omission of the article before θεός is not mere usage; it could not have been here expressed, whatever place the words might hold in the sentence. ὁ λόγος ἦν ὁ θεός would destroy the idea of the λόγος altogether. θεός must then be taken as implying God, in substance and essence,—not ὁ θεός, ‘the Father,’ in Person.… as in σὰρξ ἐγένετο [John 1:14], σάρξ expresses that state into which the Divine Word entered by a definite act, so in θεὸς ἦν, θεός expresses that essence which was His ἐν ἀρχῇ:—that He was very God. So that this first verse might be connected thus: the Logos was from eternity,—was with God (the Father),—and was Himself God.”

Luther states it succinctly: “ ‘the Word was God’ is against Arius; ‘the Word was with God’ against Sabellius.”

[3] Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, the simplest and most straightforward translation is, “and the Word was God.” It may be better to clearly affirm the NT teaching of the deity of Christ and then explain that he is not the Father, than to sound ambiguous on his deity and explain that he is God but is not the Father.

To the contrary of the three excerpts of the points made by this J-Dub apologist… the facts don’t fit the narrative.

A BONUS EXCERPT

Edmund C. Gruss, Apostles of Denial; an Examination and Expose of the History, Doctrine and Claims of the Jehovah’s Witness (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub Co, 1970). (FREE TO VIEW HERE)

PAGES 118-119

On page 776 of the Appendix the New World Translation translators quote from the recognized authority, A. T. Robertson, in support of their “a god” rendering: “Among the ancient writers ho theos was used of the god of absolute religion in distinction from the mythological gods.”32 (Sup­posedly proving that God with the definite article is to be distinguished from God without the article.) What the translators failed to include was Robertson’s further state­ment: “In the N. T. however, while we have pros ton theon (John 1:1, 2), it is far more common to find simply theos, especially in the Epistles.”33

On pages 774 and 775 the translators quote Dana and Mantey who they misuse, as a check of these citations demon-strate.34

To this evidence also may be added the weight of the great majority of the translations and versions now in existence, as well as almost every recognized Greek scholar. The writer has checked over twenty translations as well as many commentaries based on the Greek, and in every case (except for Moffatt’s and Goodspeed’s readings) the trans­lation “the Word was God” or its equivalent was found.35

One of the strongest arguments against the New World Translation reading is the fact that such a reading would be absolutely abominable to the Jewish ear. The Jews were strict monotheists and to accept the Witnesses’ translation would make John guilty of polytheism. The New Testament makes it clear that the believers were worshipping Christ (Matt. 14:83; 28:9, 17; John 20:28).36

On page 107, the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduce four more verses, three of which are wrongly understood. The argument is as follows: (1) “Psalm 90:2 declares that God is `from everlasting to everlasting’.” (2) If this is true Jesus could not be God for He had a beginning. (3) Proof that Jesus Christ did have a beginning is found in Revelation 3:14; John 1:14; and Colossians 1:15.

Revelation 3:14 is quoted according to the New World Translation rendering which makes Christ “the beginning of the creation by God.” On the surface this verse seems to say that Christ was God’s first creation, but an examination of the scripture shows this understanding is not acceptable. The first thing which is erroneous is the translation of the verse. The translation “by God” cannot be justified, for the genetive tou theou, means “of God” and not “by God.” For the translation given by the Witnesses the genitive would require the proposition hupo, which is not found in the passage.37 The second word which is wrongly understood is the Greek word arche, translated “beginning.” Concerning

32 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (fourth edition; New York: George H. Doran Company, 1923), p. 761. Arndt-Gingrich state that then is used of “the true God, sometimes with, sometimes without the article.” Arndt-Gingrich, op. cit., p. 357.

33 Robertson, loc. cit.

34 Cf. H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: The Macmillian Company, 1955), pp. 140, 148, 149. See Dr. Mantey’s own reaction in M. Van Buskirk’s The Scholastic Dishonesty of The Watchtower (Canis, P.O. Box 1783, Santa Ana, Calif. 92702).

35 An interesting and informative presentation on the deity of Christ with special reference to John 1:1 and the Witnesses’ official reply is found in the article by Victor Perry, “Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Deity of Christ,” The Evangelical Quarterly, 35:15-22, January-March, 1963.

36 “For an excellent presentation on worship given to Christ see: Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), pp. 889-44.

37 “Dana and Mantey, op. cit., p. 112: “In fact, agency is expressed with the aid of hupo more frequently than it is by all the other methods combined.”

Page 208-211

5. Arbitrary use and non-use of capitals when dealing with the divine name. The place where this is especially evident is John 1:1 where the New World Translation trans­lates “the Word was a god.” According to the Witnesses’ argument “god” appears here without the article. If this is the rule that the Witnesses themselves establish, why are they not consistent? In John 1: 18, which is a parallel pas­sage, why have they not translated it: “No man has seen a god,” as there is no definite article before “God”? The same might be asked concerning Romans 8:8; Philippians 2:6; and Philippians 2:11. It also causes one to wonder, if Christ is “god” with a little “g,” how, when Thomas in John 20:28 gives his great declaration of faith to Christ’s deity, does the NWT have “My Master and my God.” It can be seen that the theos in John 20:28 is with the definite article, but how can the translators apply both “god” and “God” to Christ in the same book?

Other reviewers’ comments on the New World Transla­tion of the Christian. Greek Scriptures. What do qualified men say concerning this Watch Tower translation? What is the purpose of the translation?

Ray C. Stedman writes:

. . . A close examination, which gets beneath the out­ward veneer of scholarship, reveals a veritable shambles of bigotry, ignorance, prejudice, and bias which violates every rule of biblical criticism and every standard of scholarly integrity.42

Henry J. Heydt draws his conclusion:

“We consider the New World Translation a gross miscarriage of what a trans­lation should be, and a biased travesty of God’s Holy Word.”43

Martin and Klann conclude their chapter on the New World Translation with the following comments:

Once it is perceived that Jehovah’s Witnesses are only interested in what they can make the Scriptures say, and not in what the Holy Spirit has already perfectly reveal­ed, then the careful student will reject entirely Jehovah’s Witnesses and their Watchtower translations.44

F. E. Mayer shows the purpose of the translation as he writes:

The New World Translation sets forth other distinc­tive views which are essential to the entire doctrinal structure of the witnesses’ message. It is a version that lends support to the denial of doctrines which the Chris­tian churches consider basic, such as the co-equality of Jesus Christ with the Father, the personhood of the Holy Spirit, and the survival of the human person after phy­sical death. It teaches the annihilation of the wicked, the non-existence of hell, and the purely animal nature of man’s soul.45

Lewis W. Spitz, writing in the Introduction to Mayer’s booklet, Jehovah’s Witnesses says:

The purpose of this translation is to support the basic tenets of the cult with the use of its own sectarian term­inology. Theological discussions with the Witnesses will in the future prove more futile, for they will insist on using this translation as their authority. 46

In his appraisal of the entire translation Anthony Hoekema says that:

their New World Translation of the Bible is by no means an objective rendering of the sacred text into modern English, but is a biased translation in which. many of the peculiar teachings of the Watchtower Society are smuggled into the text of the Bible itself. 48

In a balanced statement dealing with the New World Translation F. F. Bruce states that

some of its distinctive renderings reflect the biblical interpretations which we have come to associate with Jehovah’s Witnesses (e.g. “‘the Word was a god” in John 1:1). . . . Some of the renderings which are free from a theological tendency strike one as quite good. . . .48

Bruce M. Metzger in his article “The Jehovah’s Witnes­ses and Jesus Christ,” clearly shows the errors of many Christological passages found in the New World Translation. For the reader who either agrees or disagrees with this re­viewer’s comments, this writer urges a study into the evi­dence presented by Metzger and the articles of the other reviewers cited.

Conclusion. After just this cursory look at the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures the hon­est mind can only conclude that this work, although outward­ly scholarly, is plainly in many places, just the opposite. Its purpose is to bring the errors of the Witnesses into the Word of God. This translation carries no authority except to its originators and their faithful followers, and should be re­jected as a perversion of the Word of God.

42 Ray C. Stedman, “The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures,” Our Hope, 50:34, July, 1953. p. 30.

43 Henry J. Heydt, Jehovah’s Witnesses: Their Translation (New York: American Board of Missions to the Jews, Inc., [n. d.]), p. 9. John 13:18 has been revised in the 1961 edition., p. 19.

44 Walter R. Martin and Norman H. Klann, Jehovah of the Watchtower (sixth revised edition, 1963; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1953), p. 161.

45 F. E. Mayer, The Religious Bodies of America (fourth edition; St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1956), p. 469.

46 F. E. Mayer, Jehovah’s Witnesses (revised 196?; St. Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1942), p. 4.

47 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 288, 239.

48 F. F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translation (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961), p. 184.

PAGES 132-133

One Old Testament reference should be mentioned: in Isaiah 9:6 the Messiah is designated the “Mighty God,” even in the New World Translation. The Hebrew words trans­lated “Mighty God” (el gibbor) in Isaiah 9:6 also appear in Isaiah 10:21. This reference uses the identical expression to identify Jehovah. Hoekema points out that this designa­tion “is, in Old Testament literature, a traditional designation of Jehovah—see Deuteronomy 10:17, Jeremiah 32:18, and Nehemiah 9:32.”66 When Witnesses attempt to make a dis Unction and say that Christ is a “Mighty God” and Jehovah alone is the “Almighty God,” they must violate the Scriptures and teach polytheism. The New World Translation render­ing of Isaiah 44:6-9 shows that the Witnesses are wrong: “‘. . . Besides me there is no God. . . . Does there exist a God besides me? No, there is no Rock’.”

True, others are designated “gods” (angels, idols, false gods, magistrates), but these are never made objects of true worship. Paul makes the situation clear in I Corinthians 8: 4-6: 4-6 :

. . . There is no God but one. For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him, and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him [NWT].

B. B. Warfield remarks cogently: “You cannot prove that only one God exists by pointing out that you yourself have two.”67 When the Witnesses admit that there is a “Mighty God” and an “Almighty God” they are doing just this and they make the admission that they are polytheists!

Arndt-Gingrich point out that Ignatius (died c. 110) calls Christ “God” in many passages.68 He is an important witness to the Christological thought of the early Church because he was born shortly before or after the ascension and his life spanned the writing of the New Testament. In his Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Romans he used such expressions as: “Jesus Christ our God,” “in the blood of God,” and “our God Jesus Christ” Ignatius also wrote: “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived in the womb of Mary…. God appeared in the likeness of man.” At another place he stated: “Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God.”69 It is evident that the Christological statements of John and Paul were preserved by Ignatius.

66 Anthony A. Hoekerna, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1963), p. 332.

67   Benjamin B. Warfieid, Biblical and Theological Studies (Phil­adelphia: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1952), p. 75, 76.

68 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Earlij Christian luiteratitre, ed. and trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1957), p. 367.

69 J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, ed. J. R. Harmer (1891 edition; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962), pp. 63-68, 75-79

Most Racist Movement Since the Nazis

Published by Papa Giorgio

The below are some old posts combined circa:
January 2018 / March 2018 / August 2018 / January 2021 / March 2021/UPDATED Oct 2023

Hat-Tip to BREITBART:

…Following Schumer’s quota-based logic, Prager asked if the share of Jews within the judiciary should be reduced in pursuit of proportionate ethnic representation:

  • I wonder, if [Chuck Schumer] thinks [the judiciary] should look like America — I’m just curious, since I’m a Jew, I can ask this question, because if a non-Jew asked this he’d be accused of anti-Semitism — so I would like to know, I’ll bet you that the proportion of judges who are Jewish is greater than the proportion of Jews in the society. Would Chuck Schumer like to see fewer Jews in the judiciary so that the judiciary looked like the American population? Is that an unfair question? I’m serious, is it unfair? If he’s serious about what he said, does he think Asians overrepresent? Does he feel this way about sports?…

Rogan & Maher Discuss Today’s Woke Progressives — Bill Maher Just Leveled Woke Progressives With the Most Damning Comparison Ever: “They believe race is first and foremost the thing you should always see everywhere, which I find interesting because that used to be the position of the Ku Klux Klan.”

And we can’t forget Schumer’s explicit racist policies to help get him elected into government waaaay back when:

Sen. Chuck Schumer’s “Race-Card” Backfires!
 Jay Homnick Discusses Sen. Schumer’s Bigoted Past

Jay D. Homnick is interviewed about his 2006 American Spectator article on U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), entitled, “RACE TO THE TOP“.

….What Schumer explained to these audiences was as follows. If they elected him to the State Assembly, he would put forth a bill that would create a set of provisions, ostensibly to “help” the underprivileged urban blacks. It would identify those apartment buildings on Ave. K as being in a state of some dilapidation, requiring an extensive facelift and revamping of the apartments. I don’t recollect with certainty if ownership would be assumed by the State itself or one of those “community rehabilitation organizations” that served as the instrument of choice for soaking up large sums of government money for the stated purpose of redeveloping slums.

The residents would then all be relocated into government or government-subsidized housing in other areas while the apartments were being renovated. At the end of the process, the individual apartments would be redefined as co-ops or condominiums to be sold to private owners. Although on paper the current tenants would be given priority for the right to purchase the newly upgraded condos, we could be sure that — ha, ha, ha — the blacks would not be able to raise the cash required, which would be not inconsiderable.

The presumption was that by then they would have grown comfortable in their new surroundings and they would not feel victimized by the process. The refurbished apartments would be purchased by white people and, shazzam, the neighborhood sore spot would be fixed. I am ashamed to say that the people bought into this mean-spirited and racist proposition. On top of its other faults the idea was also chimerical, with no real chance of working in the political reality of our time.

In the end, construction was done on those buildings through some sort of government project, but all the black people remained. Naturally no one could complain, because their original intent was not something that could be publicized. So there it is, the inside scoop on how Charles Schumer, the patron saint of anti-racism, rose to power in a Brooklyn neighborhood….

This is important because (a) it is noted that the media has not asked Sen. Schumer about this — whereas if he were a Republican I am sure everyone’s 12-year-old to the oldest infirmed member of the family would have heard about this “racism.” (Read here media bias.) And secondly (b), it brings into context all the “holier than thou” attitude Chuckie Boy has been spouting as of late. TO WIT… Senator Chuck Schumer tells Stephen Colbert that, yeah, of course Donald Trump’s a racist

Rich Weinstein (@phillyrich1) has many more at his TWEET — he says he is “old enough to remember when the Dems didn’t think ‘Monkey Around’ was racist.”

Firstly, at the very end of this upload, Maryam Qudrat, a parent who called out the teacher union’s almost fascistic obsession with race mentions they are trying to create a race war. Thomas Sowell as well mentions this in a 2013 National Review article: “Early Skirmishes in a Race War”

Larry Elder discusses the latest regarding Cecily Myart-Cruz, president of United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA), L.A.’s largest teachers union. This woman is a radical Marxist. She pushed the self-admitted Marxist organization Black Lives Matter onto teachers and children. She has close ties to Bernie Sanders, and is really a racist at heart.

(Remember, you can change the quality of the video in the settings icon)

THE BIG FINISHER!

Do you know what’s going on in your kid’s school? The three R’s – reading, writing, and arithmetic – have taken a back seat to a fourth R. Max Eden, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute, explains what that fourth R is, and why it’s so destructive.

Note my growing stories on IBRAM X. KENDI.

COUNTER NARRATIVE!

Renowned political science professor Carol Swain started out life with every possible disadvantage. She ended up teaching at two of the most prestigious universities in the country. How did she do it? She shares her story and her wisdom in this inspiring video.

FLASHBACK

I get “Whitesplained” to about white privilege by snowflakes!

(Posted late 2015)

I posted this earlier this morning as part of a LARGER POST… but it deserved to stand alone:

The above is somewhat — already — true:

This (the above and below) comes from EAG.org, here is part of the post by them, which can be linked to below:

…EAGnews has previously reported about the social justice math activists’ tricks in a book called “Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers,” edited by Peterson.

The book includes “lessons and essays about racial profiling, environmental racism, unfair mortgage lending practices of Big Banks, the ‘overabundance of liquor stores’ in minority communities, and slave-owning U.S. presidents,” EAGnews’ Ben Velderman wrote.

“The book’s other major theme is that capitalism’s unequal distribution of wealth is the root cause of the world’s suffering. Students learn to despise free market economics in lessons about third-world sweatshops, ‘living wage’ laws, the earnings of fast food workers and restaurant CEOs, and the ‘hidden’ costs of meat production,” Velderman reported.

In the book, Peterson explains his rationale for attacking the American narrative:

“I figure that if kids start questioning the ‘official story’ early on, they will be more open to alternative viewpoints later on. While discovering which presidents were slave owners is not an in-depth analysis, it pokes an important hole in the godlike mystique that surrounds the ‘founding fathers.’”

Unionists now can’t even leave math alone and have hijacked it to push their own political agenda.

Thank goodness a growing number of parents have access to charter schools, cyberschools, voucher schools and homeschools – all of which provide an alternative to government schools, many of which have been infiltrated by left-wing activists like Lewis and Peterson.

(EAG NEWS)

Another example can be found in this story (there are too many to note here): Physics Teacher Develops Unit About Racism, White Privilege, Social Justice

See also:

During this interview, the “individual” came up. Why is this important? Because in totalitarian movements the individual is extinguished (which is opposite of our countries [the USA] documents). Below are some quotes from the socialist movement in Germany as an example. Here are the four parts mentioned in the above interview:

Why is the individual “being lambasted” (as mentioned above) important?

…Hitler noted that his task was to “convert the German Yolk to socialism  without simply killing off the old individualists.” Hitler informed Wagener that the task was to “find and travel the road from individualism to socialism without revolution.” Hitler also admitted that Marx and Lenin had the right goal, but the wrong route.

[….]

Even the school textbooks were heavily peppered with opinions which exhibited a strong bias against free enterprise and capitalism. For example, a 1943 geography textbook stated: “Until the National Socialist takeover, the German economy followed the principles of economic liberalism, which held that a nation’s economy could develop irrespective of its natural economic foundations. If the National Socialist economic plan was to be successful in reviving the German economy, all participants in economic life had to be convinced of National Socialist economic thinking. In the economy too, the guiding principle had to be: The common good comes before the individual good.”…

Nevin Gussack, The NAZI War Against Capitalism (Self Published, can order on Amazon), 10, 26.

The reason I got the above book is because of some comments by Bernie Sanders, and the fact that Hillary’s voting record is as leftist as this self-avowed democrat-socialist (which the NAZI’s were). Democrats like Bernie, even having Ronda Rousey coming out in support of. I recalled this quote from a biography of Hitler I read:

  • “We are socialists, we are ene­mies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” — Hitler

One may wish to read my “SCANDINAVIAN SOCIALISM” post for more info on Nordic socialism’s failure.

(See also: 128 ‘Artists And Cultural Leaders’ Sign Open Letter Endorsing Bernie Sanders)

Forcing Morality (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Originally Posted August 2010 (Conversation was from 2001 via SPACEBATTLES)
Updated in January of 2017, and again today (July 2023)

Susan said:

“No SeanG, unlike you, we are not forcing morality on anybody. We are for allowing a choice.  NOWHERE in the pro-choice agenda is there anything about making abortion mandatory.” (Emphasis in the original)

Answer: For women, Roe means more than having control over their bodies; it allows them to plan her life. If there’s a contraceptive failure, the law protects her, permits her to decide whether-or-not to become a parent.

Once contraception has failed, the women have ALL the rights. She can get an abortion. If she decides to have the child, she can make the father pay support, whether or not he wanted it. According to Roe, the man’s obligation begins and ends with his wallet. This is true, but money facilitates existence (one of the reasons an abortion is allowed… monetary standard of living). The quality of life is measured in dollars and cents.

Inarguably, the man is required to pay support for eighteen years and will have his standard of living diminished (severely so, if his circumstances are modest). Certain career, education, and family options will be foreclosed – for the man at least. >> UPDATE TO THIS PART BELOW | JUMP

(Sound familiar? These are excuses for the women to get “off the hook” – e.g., abort a life – but men don’t have that choice.)

If maximizing personal freedom is the primary goal of our legal system, why should men be held to their traditional obligations (supporting the children they’ve fathered) while women are liberated from theirs?

Question:

  • “Do you believe the government should be able to force someone to become a parent?”

Well? This is precisely what is being done by the government à as I speak! You would argue that the government should stay out of your affairs when choosing whether to become a parent (i.e., to abort or not), however, you wish the government to be involved in telling the father that he has to become a parent and supply all the necessary needs for that child. Thus, you are forcing your morality on me Susan (as a defined group) and using the power of the Federal Government to boot!!! You cannot say any differently with what I just have shown above. This belief is self-refuting and shows you to-be-the hypocrite, and not me. You see… I am for equal rights under the Constitution. A “right” has no “moderation (see below). You, on the other-hand, are for special rights inferred upon groups of people.

An aside: in the Laws of Logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction is the most important and can thus be stated like this – “A” cannot both be “A” and “non-A” at the same time. This law is valid in science, law, politics, philosophy, etc. Any theory which purports something, cannot also deny that purport’ion. As in this case, the pro-choice movement is purported to be about liberating – “civil” rights – etc., however, in doing this they deny to some what they want for others… it is self-refuting, a non-logical theory that is really about special rights rather than equal protection under the law.

An Update via Gay Patriot:

Good point: If women can’t be “forced” to become mothers, why should men be “forced” to become fathers?

Expectant fathers in Sweden should have the right to ‘legally abort’ their unborn child up until the 18th week of pregnancy, the youth wing of the country’s Liberal Party has proposed.

Swedish Liberal Youth argues that men should be given an equal say in whether or not they wish to become a parent, and be granted the option to cut any lawful responsibilities.

The suggested ‘legal abortion’ would be irreversible and would see the man renounce all parental duties and rights to see the child once it has been born.

This completely at odds with the position of the American Feminist Left which is that men should be forced to provide child support even for children that are proven to be someone else’s…

(read the rest)

Via Life Training Institute:

  • Student: You made some good points in your talk, but you shouldn’t force your morality on me or anyone else who wants an abortion.  It’s our choice, isn’t it?
  • Me: Are you saying I’m wrong?
  • Student: I’m not sure.  What do you mean?
  • Me: Well, you think I’m wrong, don’t you?  If not, why are you correcting me?  And if so, then you’re forcing your morality on me, aren’t you?
  • Student: No, I just want to know why you are telling people what they can and cannot do with their lives.
  • Me: Are you saying I shouldn’t do that?  That it’s wrong?  If so, then why are you telling me what I can and cannot do?  Why are you forcing your morality on me?
  • Student (regrouping): I’m confused.  Look, the simple fact is that pro-choicers are not forcing women to have abortions, but you want to force women to be mothers.  If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.  But you shouldn’t force your beliefs on others.  All I am saying is that pro-life people should be tolerant of other views.
  • Me: Is that your view?
  • Student: Yes.
  • Me: Why are you forcing it on me?  That’s not very tolerant, is it?
  • Student: What do you mean?  I think women should have a choice and you don’t.  It’s your view that’s intolerant, wouldn’t you say?
  • Me: Okay, so you think I’m wrong.  What is it you want pro-lifers like me to do?
  • Student: You should let women decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
  • Me: Tell me, what exactly do pro-choicers believe?
  • Student: We believe everyone should decide for themselves and tolerate other views.
  • Me: So you are demanding that pro-lifers become pro-choicers?
  • Student: What? No way.
  • Me: With all due respect, here’s what I hear you saying.  Unless I agree with you, you will not tolerate my view.  Privately, you’ll let me think whatever I want, but you don’t want me to act as if my view is true.  It seems you think tolerance is a virtue if and only if people agree with you.

(More Media)

UPDATED VIDEO ADDITION:

Pro-Life Man Hilariously Trolls Women’s March

See more on this at LIFE NEWS.