Marx, Christianity & America

Here are some thoughts, and quotes, and some personal notes in light of Barack Obama being called a Marxist. The first is a passage from the Biblical passage of Acts, the second is some quotes by Karl Marx from the Communist Manifesto, along with just some personal notes of interests that I have made.

³² Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. ³³ With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. ³⁴ There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. ³⁵ They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. ³⁶ There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). ³⁷ He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. (Acts 4:32-37 NRSV)

Quotes by Karl Marx (Communist Manifesto)

“The history of all hitherto existing society is a history of class struggles” (Marx 57)

- All men not equal. If all men are created equal, then some men had to, ast some point give up their equality for security and survival.

“Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed.” (58)

- Marx is against class and class struggles. ¹¹ In that renewal^e there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all! Colossians 3:11 NRSV)

“The bourgeoisie [middle class – the “elitist” class of the Industrial Revolution and Industrial era] has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage laborers.” (62)

- This is a revolutionary, but insightful quote. Instead of have a vocation – i.e. being a doctor, priest, etc for the simple sake of feeling that it is your vocation, and for the good of society, the effects of capitalism has turned these vocations into mere jobs. To me, it seems that Marx is saying that, as these are now jobs, the “heart and soul” have been taken out and replaced with the wage earning hand.

“The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.” (62)

- In essence, instead of looking to your family for more then survival support, you see them as a means for financial gains. This can be seen in many areas, but most notably to me in the advent of children workers in factories. Also, it can be seen in the attitude of not wanting to have to deal with family if there is nothing to gain.

“The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most backward, nations into civilization. The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the underdeveloped nations’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeoisie mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilization into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeoisie themselves. In one word, it creates a world in its own image. (64,65) Boldness added by me.

- Add a modern idea – Democracy for all nations. Middle East, Eastern Europe, etc.

“The bourgeoisie has subjected rural areas to the rule of cities.” (65)

- Think of the Electoral College – where the majority of the population is – i.e. the cities, so goes the votes for an entire state, at least, this is a large possibility. In other words, as in America’s case, yes, we have Universal Suffrage, but does it truly exist outside densely populated areas?

“Into their place [the old feudal system] stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeoisie class.” (66)

- The elitist make the rules – society went from one aristocracy to another, and continues on to this day

---

Its not complete yet, so please forgive me, but there is a lot in the Manifesto, as well as Das Republica. Its just interesting to me that the “modern” “Church” has gone away from the communal ideals of the New Testament… which began when Christianity was made the imperial religion of Rome, and has continued since, and yet, when someone possibly wants to go back to them, the “Church” blasts them and calls them a Marxist, even though most Evangelicals and the like do not even know what a true Marxist is, and do not realize that Christ was a “social” man – i.e. It is easier for a poor man to enter into Heaven then a rich man, for a rich man to enter into Heaven, he nust give his possessions away… interesting.

JZ Holloway

Pro-Life Reality Check – Real or Fake?

Pro-lifers are everywhere. On street corners, on TV, in supermarkets, on college campuses – including my own here at the University of Georgia. In fact, for many years, I have considered myself amongst their numbers. Even so, I find myself here, today, right now, questioning the ideological foundation of the very term.

Many who are pro-life are also pro-death penalty. I will not get into the semantics of what pro-death penalty is, but lets just say that it is for premeditated, methodical murder. In other words. John Doe wakes up one morning and decides to go buy a gun, take that gun, and then shoot and kill Jane. He thought about it, considered it, and did it. Not only did he think about it and do it, he also planned it out. For the majority of pro-lifers who believe in the death penalty the sentence is simple… death.

Now to the second part. For a pro-lifer, life begins at conception. Once the sperm meets the egg and they do their dance and become an organism that is capable of multiplicity, it is alive, and it is human, therefore, sacred. Also, alluding to former posts and comments, it has been affirmed through the Scripture that the shedding of innocent blood is the most heinous and immoral act considered by God. Also, it was made clear by Bishop David Epps that early Church Fathers had the same opinion of many today, life begins at conception, the unborn is a child, human and alive, and that abortion is one thing, murder.

Now, we have established abortion as murder, and we have also established many pro-life believing individuals as pro-death penalty – which, in many ways is simply ironic to me – and it is why I personally prefer the title of anti-abortion, and pro-death penalty instead of pro-life, but that is another argument for another post (Big Brother maybe able to antagonize me into it!). Now, for the sake of argument, we are going to say the death penalty should only be for those, again, who committed premeditated and methodical murder. Now, for the crux of the argument, can anyone say that abortion, which we are saying, as “pro-lifers” is murder, is not premeditated?

For example, except in the case of rape, the woman (As well as the man), choose to have sex, and even more so, without “protection” – yes I know, abstinence is the “only way,” but as I have already discussed previously… its just not happening, and never has historically. The choose to copulate, for pleasure, without protection… and bam (paid for), she is pregnant… with child… knocked up. But, this was done with her own permission, her own decision (again, along with the man, and he is just as responsible). Now, four weeks later, she takes the test, finds out she is pregnant, and she has a decision – again, another choice – to make. And she does the unthinkable – the unthinkable decision, which 2.5% of Americans make each year, and have on average since the passing of Roe v. Wade – she decides to have an abortion. Later that same week, either she drives herself, or the man responsible for the seed that took root within her drives her, or maybe her mother, or aunt, or even a co-worker, to the abortion clinic. She freely walks in, signs in at the counter, fills out the forms, and then waits. After a short, or maybe long, wait, she is called back, and she chooses to follow the instructions of the doctor, who then performs the abortion. She then gets up, and she leaves.

This was an abortion… which, as before said, is murder. But… it is also premeditated and methodical murder. Wait… seriously, think about it. IF abortion is murder, and the woman thinks about it, plans it, and then has the abortion – i.e. commits the murder… its premeditated. See the irony? IF we are pro-death penalty for one, how can we not be for the other, yet, if we claim we must love and nurture those who have committed abortions, lead them to Christ and His love, forgive them, show them grace and mercy, how then can we be pro-death penalty. Yes, the laws of the land, in some states, have the death penalty, but as a Christian, one can not have it both ways. So, which direction will you support? Will you be Pro-life, or simply anti-abortion… or neither?

Engels on Conditions of the Working Class in England – Updated

FYI – The initial post yesterday of the article was the rough draft. The paper has been finalized, and has been updated below in the original post. Thanks!

The Most Important Issue – Bishop David Epps

Once again, I have a wonderful article that was written by Bishop David Epps. Again, I am using a recent article of his to address certain articles that I have written or posted on, and that have been apart of the normal discussion on this blog. The main reason I truly appreciate this artice is because it goes beyond the traditional Evangelical and Protestant arguments concerning abortion, including both word translation study and sources from before Luther and beyond the simple Dogmatic statements of the Roman Catholic Church. Bishop Epps’ weekly articles can be found at: http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/staff_blog/39

Enjoy! JZ Holloway

There are key issues that, for me, stand in importance above all others. Certainly, especially in the last several weeks, the economy is an issue. How and when peace will be brought to Iraq and Afghanistan are important issues. Energy dependence on foreign sources, how immigrants are to be treated, relations with Russia and other nations are issues to be considered. The security of the nation ranks near the top of the issues. But, for me, there is an issue that I simply cannot ignore.

In the last 25 years, some 40-plus million children of American parents have had their lives snuffed out before they ever drew their first breaths. The ending of a healthy child’s life prior to birth is not a political issue. It is a moral one.

The Bible clearly prohibits taking the life of an innocent person. It follows that if the developing baby is a “qualified” member of the human race, these scriptures apply: Deuteronomy 27:25a — “Cursed is he who accepts a bribe to strike down an innocent person.” Proverbs 6:16-19 — “There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood …”

The Bible consistently uses the same word for a “born” or “unborn” baby. This is because the divine Author of the Bible did not recognize a material difference between the two.

In Scripture, there is not some special event when a “human being” becomes a “person.” Rather, he or she is a person from the beginning who goes through growth and development both inside and outside of the womb.

In the New Testament, the Greek word “brephos” is used to describe the unborn, newborns and youth. In Luke 1:44, the word is used to mean unborn baby: “For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for joy.”

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word “yeled” is used in the same way. In Exodus 21:22, it means an unborn child: “If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely …” And yet, in other Old Testament usages, it means “youth” or even a teenager.

In the Bible, our worth as a human being or our “personhood” does not depend on how far along on life’s journey we have come. Instead, we are beings who are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). Each person is valuable because God created him or her that way. It doesn’t matter whether a person is still in his mother’s womb, a newborn, a toddler, an adolescent, or a senior citizen. Only quite recently has the concept of “personhood” surfaced.

There are some in our society who want to find a developmental stage where they can justify that the fetus is not really a person.

Carl Sagan put that fetal stage at perhaps 6 months, when the cerebral cortex is in place. Only then, he feels, should we confer “personhood” on a fetus.

Such ideas are clearly subjective. It would seem that these discussions of personhood only arose from a need to justify the act of abortion. Certainly, they are not expressed in the Bible.

Quite to the contrary, the Bible story shows that “personhood,” or reaching one’s full potential, comes from knowing God. A person develops and is preserved through his communion with a personal God who reveals Himself to us in love. The Bible consistently links our “personhood” to the time we are formed (conception), or even before in God’s “mind.”

According to the Bible, God knew us prior to our birth: Psalm 139:13-16 — “For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth; Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; and in Your book were all written the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them.”

Jeremiah 1:5 — “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.”

One politician has said that the historic Church has not had a clear stand on life and abortion. This is simply false:

“Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 from 74 AD).

“… And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25, 137 AD).

“You shall not procure abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1 from 150 AD).

“There are some women among you who by drinking special potions extinguish the life of the future human in their very bowels, thus committing murder before they even give birth” (Mark Felix, Christian Lawyer, Octavius chap. 30 from 170 AD).

“The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion” (see Ex. 21:22) Tertullian, 210 AD.

“Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (Tertullian, Apology 27 from 210 AD).

“The law, moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind” (The Works of Josephus, Flavius Josephus Against Apion, Book II, 25).

Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, or Independent, I cannot cast a vote for a leader that does not recognize the sacredness of life, however weak and powerless that life may be. I cannot, will not, vote for those who condone the abortion of children. The stakes are too high — we reap what we sow. All other issues are secondary.

[Bishop David Epps serves as a bishop to Georgia and Tennessee. He is also the founding pastor of Christ the King Church, 4881 Hwy. 34 E., Sharpsburg, GA 30277, between Peachtree City and Newnan. Services are held Sundays at 8 and 10 a.m. Bishop Epps is also the mission pastor of Christ the King Church in Champaign, IL. He may be contacted at frepps@ctkcec.org. Much of this article was drawn from www.abortionfacts.com.]

Freidrich Engels and the Industrial Revolution in Britain

Engels and the Industrial Revolution in Britain

Engels, in his book, “The Conditions of the Working Class in England,” addresses the origins of the Industrial Revolution in Britain. He also goes on to explain how he felt it negatively affected the British working class, as well as his solution to right the wrongs caused by the industrial environment. It is important to note that Engels is not writing with the advantage of hindsight as a historian would, but as a contemporary living at the time the Industrial Revolution exploded in Britain. His works, along with the works of Karl Marx, become the basics of Socialist and Communist philosophies.

Engels makes clear, even in his Preface to the English Edition, that the Industrial Revolution was able to begin, and maintain itself due to conditions, though seemingly coincidental at times, that existed. He cites the repealing of laws, such as the Corn Law in England, as well as the discovery of gold in California and Australia (Engels 35). However, these events all took place after the initial publishing of the book, and are used by Engels as a further explanation of the Revolution’s continuation. He also mentions advances in communication and transportation, for example the steam ship. However, this is seen as an effect of the Revolution, not the cause.

For Engels, the history of the working class, or the proletariat, begins with the invention of the steam engine and the invention of machine-based cotton production (50). According to Engels, these two events gave rise to the Industrial Revolution. With these two inventions, production not only speeds up, but that which is produced can be made available quicker, and on a more widespread basis. Also, because of this, production becomes cost effective, and the prices of manufactured good decreases.

Engels views the history of the Industrial Revolution through the conditions of the everyday British citizen. Before the Revolution, He claims that each individual farmer, though uneducated, and though he may have even been a bad farmer, still had a personal stake in his land (50, 51). He worked for himself, and his family. The crops he planted went to feed his family, and the extra work done, as in weaving, went for personal use first. He was “permanently settled,” only working when necessary, and for what he needed (51). Engels calls them “toiling machines” which had been guided by the small, but elite, aristocracy. The origins of the Industrial Revolution, both how it came about and how its structure grew, was, to him, simply the logical course of development (52).

In 1764, the jenny was invented. Though Engels acknowledges that the machine was “rough,” He points out that this was the first invention that gave way to “radical change in the state of English Workers” (52). This invention led to the increased productivity, which led to increasing “cheapness” of woven goods. This, coupled with the increasing demand, led to more weavers being needed. He then explains that a person working as a weaver could make more money then they could by farming, which led to people abandoning their farms to become weavers (52, 53). For Engels, this was the beginning of the “industrial proletariat,” and thus the first signs of the Revolution to come.

Engels explains further that the development of the industrial working class led to the creation of the “agricultural proletariat” (53). Forced to replace the loss of substantive farming caused by farmers now becoming industrial workers, the same working class process invaded agricultural life. Also, with the invention of the jenny, and the increased production, came improvements. These improvements were not only with the machine itself, but also came to the system of production. Factories were built by “single capitalist,” and with these factories came even more inventions, such as the spinning throstle, which Engels calls the second most important invention of the 18^th Century after the steam engine (54). Along with this, the mule was invented in 1785, as well as the carding engine and preparatory frames. The factory system, for the spinning of cotton, now became the prevailing system of production (54).

The inventions, and their yearly improvements, leads to the eventual victory of machine based production over hand-work. The effects of this were the rise in production, the lowering price of goods, prosperity of commerce, and the increase of national wealth in Britain. However, Engels also points out that it also led to the “rapid multiplication of the proletariat,” the end of property holding, and the end of security for the workforce. Also, it brought on the demoralization of those in the working class and political excitement (54, 55).

Engels says that three-fourths of the population in the British Empire was members of the working class. He claims that now, with the Industrial Revolution in full swing, that there was two classes of people, workers and capitalists (62). Engels sees the middle class, who are the capitalists, become rich off the poverty of the worker, and at the same time, ignore this poverty (63). He goes on to say that the only way for the worker to rise above their poverty, and force the capitalists to recognize their distress, was to rise up in revolution (64).

Engels elaborates that the capitalist sees the worker simply as a piece of capital, no longer as a fellow human being. Thus, as long as the worker is producing, that is all that matters to those who “invest” (66). Because of this, people see each other only as “useful objects,” willing to exploit one another for their own gain. The capitalists, though few in number, seize the wealth for themselves, while as Engels explains, the many who are weak and poor barely maintain an existence (69). He points out that, because anyone can do anyone else’s job, there is no job security. This also means that the employer can virtually pay whatever he wants, since the worker must simply be happy to have a job to begin with. The worker is guaranteed neither work nor wages from each passing day. Going even further, because the wages are low, the living conditions of the worker are also terrible. Engels describes these conditions as “slums,” and his description of these slums paints a picture straight out of the Middle Ages. Houses are built irregularly, the streets are unpaved, there is no ventilation or sewers, and these slums are generally filled with refuse and garbage (70, 71). However, because of the exploitation of the worker, the worker has no hope of salvation from these conditions.

The most powerful force of exploitation for Engels, however, is competition. He calls the competition between workers the “sharpest weapon” the capitalist has against the proletariat. For Engels, the worker is helpless against this because he is dependent on the middle class for everything he needs. In essence, the worker is not merely a worker, but a slave (111, 112). Further, competition within the working class brings wages lower and therefore worsening conditions for the proletariat, as well as increasing profits for the middle class. However, Engels acknowledges that there is also competition between the capitalist, which forces them to need the worker. Though he admits this leads to an increase in wages, he claims that it only increases as high as the demand permits (112, 113).

Engels ends his treatise describing the attitude of the middle class towards the working class. He describes them as being hypocritically philanthropic, only giving charity from their own self-interest (276, 277). Even beyond this, he describes how the new reforms stopped the ability of organizations from giving welfare support except for admission to workhouses. All monetary and provisions relief was no longer allowed (284). This was done to ensure that the people would be forced to work so that they could eat.

Engels, in light of this, says that the proletariat must make the choice to “starve or rebel” (290). For him, the current conditions in Britain, as well as what he sees as an eventual American take over of the industrial monopoly, the British workers have no other options (289, 290). However, he claims that even if Britain maintains the monopoly, it will be inevitable that the proletariat will rise up in revolution (290). For Engels, the answer is Communism, and the spread of communistic ideas throughout the entire working class. Though he acknowledges that it will be impossible to fully spread these ideas though out the entire working class before the revolution starts, he believes that there will be enough “intelligent comprehension” to enable the communist party to rise up and defeat the capitalist (292). The hope for intelligent comprehension is ironic since he describes those who would become the proletariat, as they were before the Industrial Revolution, as intellectually dead (52). However, he does say that the taking of the “last trace of independent thought” by the social elite during the Industrial Revolution forces the working class to demand a position “worthy of man” (52).

In conclusion, Engels critique of the beginning and fruition of the Industrial Revolution is a powerful picture of origins of the process, as well as the conditions surrounding those most involved in its success, the working class. It is clear that Engels is disgusted by the way the working class is treated by those in the middle class, and that his solution, or remedy, is a violent revolution against those who exploited them. Engels clearly dismisses democratic reform by promoting change only by revolution. For Engels, even reform of the middle class will not be enough, only revolution will. Along with his claims that the revolution is inevitable, he prophesizes that this war between the rich and the poor will be the bloodiest ever waged (291). Though Engels introduces this idea here, his view never changes, and is most popularly seen in his assistance to Marx in the Communist Manifesto, both in assisting with notes and the text, as well as writing prefaces for the different editions (Marx/Engels 52-54). For Engels, it was nothing but: “War to the palaces, peace to the cottages!” (Engels 292).

Engels, Friedrich. The Conditions of the Working Class in England. London: Penguin
Books, 1987

Marx, Karl & Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. New York: Washington
Square Press, 1964

The Upcoming Election – Pastoral Note – Father Bob Roethel

Note: Fr. Bob Roethel is the Dean of the Cathedral of St. Michael and All Angels, Charismatic Episcopal Church. This pastoral was sent out by email, and I thought it deserved to go a little further. Also, please note that the two links at the end of the article concern Thomaston, Upson County, Georgia.

It is refreshing to see that some Christian leaders still believe in trusting in God, and praying about who you should vote for, instead of bashing one another over policies, issues, and speeches. Also, it is very refreshing to me to see someone who I respected greatly before this article, give me even more reason to respect by showing his knowledge of not only the Bible, but also the political structure of this country, and the historical structure of this country. Enjoy, JZ Holloway

In a little more than a week, on November 4, you will have an opportunity to
vote for candidates who will represent you at all levels of civil
government; national, state and local. I would encourage you to exercise
your right to vote. You have an obligation, both as a citizen and as a
Christian to take part in civil government, especially the election process.

The preamble or introduction of the United States Constitution states:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.”

Note the first three words, “We the people”. Our founding fathers, even
though imperfect, desired that the citizens be involved with the government
of the nation.

As Christians, we know that Romans 13:1-4 teaches that all authority comes
from God and that all governments have been instituted by Him. This passage
goes on to say that those in government are actually God’s servants whose
purpose is to keep civil order in society. We know that we are God’s
servants and are made in His image(Genesis 1:26). We are told to be holy as
He is holy(Leviticus 11:44-45, 1 Peter 1:16). This character trait should
also be true of our elected officials.

Given this understanding we should be supportive of those candidates that
are exhibiting “Christ like” attitude and behavior. The political party
affiliation, gender and race are not important. What is important is the
candidate’s character. Attached are links that will show you the ballot
that you will be looking at on November 4, 2008. Look at your voter
registration card or ask someone what district you are in. Another link has
information concerning three constitutional amendments that you will be
voting on. Take the time to research each candidate and find out who they
are and what they stand for. Talk to people you trust and get their
opinion. During this time “Seek the LORD” as to what He would have you to
do.

After you have voted, “Let it go”. It’s in the LORD’s hands. Proverbs
21:31 states, “The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the
victory belongs to the LORD”(RSV). If we seek the LORD and do our part, in
all areas of our lives, He will do His part. Keep your focus on the LORD
and not on the current distractions that we are facing.

Blessings & Peace,
Your Pastor and Servant in CHRIST,
Fr. Bob

Sample Ballot for Upson County:
http://www.upsoncountyelections.com/ballots_general_2008.htm

3 Amendments:
http://www.thomastontimes.com/articles/2008/10/08/opinion/editorials/edit2.txt

Insert [Name] Here… thoughts about contraception, abortion, and the like…

Today, my brother sent me a link which discussed the statistics of abortion rates in countries where abortion is legal – http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2504499.html. For instance, for every 1000 pregnancies, roughly 2.5% have ended in abortion since Roe v. Wade. Also, in the United States, and other developed countries, birth control methods are available, and abstinence is not the only means of “protection” that is being taught. In other words, even though abortions do occur, the rates are not only low, but have decreased in most developed countries fitting these criteria. In contrast, “In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year.” – http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

So, my question is not whether abortion is right or wrong – I believe it is wrong myself, but whether a single minded approach should be made in dealing with pregnancies that are unwanted, etc. Should birth control, and the use of condoms not be considered? Should abstinence be the only way taught?

First, people have been “copulating” since the beginning of time, married, unmarried, extra-marital, pre-marital, post marital, and so on and so on (and so on). Its a historical fact. In fact, the very nature of sexual activity is mandated by God – “Be fruitful and multiply,” and the only way to do that is to have sex (unless your the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary). To tell someone not to have sex is, in essence, telling that person to go against there nature. Now through cultural development, both through the Judaic and Hellenistic codes of culture, the with who, and with how many have slowly, through the course of history, become defined. For example, as Christians, we receive the idea of marriage from the Old Testament. On the other hand, we receive the idea of the number of spouses from the Hellenistic side of things (Greek then eventually Roman). But even with all of the cultural, and even moral growth, the simple fact of the matter is that men and women have sex, and one could argue that a majority of them due, regardless of being married or not.

Now, the point of the article is not to establish proper mating rites, nor to argue the sinfulness of pre-marital sexual relations, but ot make a point that maybe the foundation of those trying to prevent abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and so on, might need to shift slightly. To me, the two biggest arguments against the use of birth control (i.e. pills, condoms, “pulling out,” etc) is that a. it “spills the seed,” and b. that is kills the life that is in the sperm – which of course, goes back to the spilling of the seed. The second argument is that its “playing God,” but to me that side of the argument lacks any foundation due to the fact that once you wake up, you play “god” all day long, freely making choices… freely choosing to sin or not to sin, and therefore lacks any fortitude as an argument, but the spilling the seed, thats were I would like to go.

The argument, simply is, life is in the sperm… generations are held within the sperm, etc. Now, keep in mind, scientifically, there are millions of sperm in a man’s reproductive organ. These sperm do not stay still, in fact, even without intercourse or some other sexual experience, can, and do leave the body, even with out the provocation of the said man in which the sperm reside. So, even without sexual activity, the “seed will spill.” Again, the man, married, along with his wife, decide to try and “make” a baby. So, as men and women due, the try, and try, and try again, but, alas, she does not get pregnant. The sperm, along with the eggs from the female, eventually get flushed from her body… is this killing the seed? Again they try, and to no avail, she still does not get pregnant. Again, flushed. So, they go to the doctor, and they discover she is not able to have kids. So, the dilemma is… now that THEY KNOW they cannot have kids together, is the husband simply “spilling/killing his seed” just to have a pleasurable experience. I mean, they are not having sex to follow the mandate from God to be fruitful and multiply… his seed is dying by the millions each time… so, is this wrong? On the other side… when I man uses a condom… its the same process, the sperm die in the same way (except one is in rubber), or when a woman uses birth control… which most pills do not kill the sperm, they just make the eggs inert… which is possibly the same condition woman mentioned above had… whats the difference? Now, you could argue that in the last mentioned instances, they were preventing a pregnancy for the sake of pleasure… and that the God mandated sex drive is for reproduction, not pleasure, but if thats the case, if one cannot reproduce, then what the point of sex? And if the only point of sex is reproduction, then all sexual activity not for reproduction – married or not – would be sin. And any seed killed by such sexual activity should be considered killed.

Now, I seriously doubt you would consider the fictional married couple to be killing the man’s seed and living in sin… but all I ask you to do is think about it. Abortion is a great atrocity… if not the greatest of our time. We should not be single-minded in our approach to stop these murders, and we should also not be naive and think that people will stop having sex because we tell them to, or show them pictures of venereal diseases, or scare them with AIDs… or even worse, the fires of hell… All people have sinned and fall end short of the glory of God, all men (and women) are human… the majority of which will succumb to the desires of the flesh, and yes, they will suffer consequences, and yes, they, as well all, need to repent, but please, open you minds, and get your heads our of where ever they are.

JZ Holloway

Jesus… a rebel?

Over the past month, I have had multiple professors claim that Jesus… Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary and Joseph, etc etc etc, was a rebel against the Roman Empire. They claim to have historical proof. Now… I am a history and Religion major, and though I do not know everything… thank God… I am pretty sure, in fact, 100% damn freaking positive that Jesus was not a rebel against the Roman Empire. First… and my major point, “Render unto Caesars what is Caesars,” etc… and even further, if He was such a revolutionist against Rome, why would Pilate… a Governor of the Emperor… meet with him, in private, and talk “truth,” or rather, veratis with Him.

Granted… the argument, he had a zealot as pat of His twelve… He also had a thief and the one who betrayed Him, He also had a tax collector. So, what does that mean??? Nothing. Jesus only “revolted” against those who used the “religion” of the Hebrew people to exploit them… i.e. the money changers in the Temple, and so forth, as well as those who used the Law to keep the people of God in bondage, which also allowed the Word of God to go out ot the gentiles. So, was Jesus opposed to the Empire of the Roman’s, against the Caesars? No… and that is not why His message spread as fast as it did, it spread due to the truth, the veracity of Hid Words… plus, the Empire which He was supposedly opposed to, helped spread the message.

JZ Holloway

Lost in Translation

Recently, I made a post concerning a description of a Bible paraphrase translation, stating how I disagreed with the assumptions it made within the description of whom the Bible was written for. I admitted that I had never really looked at this version, however, I had heard of it, and once I had posted my article, I decided to look it up online, and found the version online. Now, so I do not make this article long, I only want to compare two passages. Also note, I did find the Message Bible online (BibleGateway.com – Version information: The Message), But these two passages are taken straight of of the article on the Message Bible on Wikipedia.org.

(Matthew 5:1-8)

King James Version

1. And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2. And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
3. Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
5. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
6. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

The Message Bible

1-2. When Jesus saw his ministry drawing huge crowds, he climbed a hillside. Those who were apprenticed to him, the committed, climbed with him. Arriving at a quiet place, he sat down and taught his climbing companions. This is what he said:
3. “You’re blessed when you’re at the end of your rope. With less of you there is more of God and his rule.
4. “You’re blessed when you feel you’ve lost what is most dear to you. Only then can you be embraced by the One most dear to you.
5. “You’re blessed when you’re content with just who you are—no more, no less. That’s the moment you find yourselves proud owners of everything that can’t be bought.
6. “You’re blessed when you’ve worked up a good appetite for God. He’s food and drink in the best meal you’ll ever eat.
7. “You’re blessed when you care. At the moment of being ‘care-full,’ you find yourselves cared for.
8. “You’re blessed when you get your inside world—your mind and heart—put right. Then you can see God in the outside world.

(Psalm 23:1-4)

King James Version

1. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
4. Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

The Message Bible

1. God, my shepherd! I don’t need a thing.
2. You have bedded me down in lush meadows, you find me quiet pools to drink from.
3. True to your word, you let me catch my breath and send me in the right direction.
4. Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I’m not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd’s crook makes me feel secure.

Now, these two passages are commonly known, recited, and studied. My question is, does the Message Bible truly impart the meaning behind the original words? For example, in the passage from Matthew, the KJV says the meek shall inherit the earth, but in the Message version, it says you are blessed when you are content… which means nothing close to what meek means – i.e.patient, submissive, gentle and kind, as opposed to content, meaning satisfied, not wanting anything more. To change the wording from meek, to content, completely changes the context and meaning. To be content is not to be submissive, its to be satisfied. It does not mean that you are not prone to anger, it does not mean you are gentle. It could be argued that many men full of pride were content… not meek and submissive. How does this make any sense? To me, this passage in the Message Bible is in error. Not the typical printing error, etc, but grave error.

Next, Psalm 23, which, besides John 3:!6, is one of the most popular and well known Scripture passages in the world. In the KJV, as well as the NIV, the NRSV, and so on, it says something to the effect that “God MAKES me lie down…” while in the Message Bible it says “you have bedded me down.” Again, two different meanings. To make someone do something is different then to “bed” someone down, and even more so, the term bedded can easily be misconstrued in this instance to a more sexual connotation. Many pastors, my father included, have taught that God “makes” you, its not the most pleasant experience, but it is a necessary one, for again God makes you, and you submit. For God to “bed” you down, it implies its an euphoric experience, again, not as gross a difference as the passage from Matthew, but still a misrepresentation within the translation.

Again, as said before, I still have not read the entire thing, nor have I studied it intently, but these are two immediate passages that jumped out at me. I question modern translations period, and when I say modern, I mean those attempting to use “modern” language to enable more people to “understand” what the Bible is saying. This may be the intention, but to me, from what I have seen so far, it only distorts the true meaning of the original text, and on top of that, some of it is in complete error.

JZ Holloway

Literacy and the Bible

I came across a new Bible translation – “The Message Remix Bible,” written by Eugene H. Patterson – it can be found on Amazon.com

The product description is as follows: God’s Word was meant to be read. But more than that, it was meant to be understood. It was first written in the language of the people––of fishermen, shopkeepers, and carpenters. The Message Remix gets back to that: You can read it and understand it. In The Message Remix, there are new verse-numbered paragraphs that will help you study and find favorite passages. Or, you can just read it like a book and let the narrative speak to you. After all, it is God’s story, with its heroes and villains, conflicts and resolutions. Either way, it’s God’s Word––the Truth––in a user-friendly form.
(http://www.amazon.com/Message-Remix-Bible-Contemporary-Language/dp/1576834344)

Now, I understand the need for people to feel like that they should be able to “understand” the Bible in such a way in which it makes “sense” to them, especially as they read it alone, etc. I also understand that, beginning with the printing press and then continuing with the Protestant Reformation, personal Bible’s, and the ability to have the Bible at your finger tips have increased rapidly, and has led to an explosion of different translations (into a certain language) as well as different versions (plays on translations). And though I do not have any particular problem with paraphrase versions of the Bible – except that I would not call them the Bible – or the “Word of God,” just as in the same light a Muslim would never call any translation of the Koran the true Koran, unless it was in the original Arabic, I still do not have any particular issue with paraphrases – I do it in every paper and essay I have ever written. Also, it is important to note I have never personally read this version, and though I probably will not read this version, it is not the version that I have an issue with, it is the description.

It was first written in the language of the people––of fishermen, shopkeepers, and carpenters.

This one statement is simply not true. The Bible was not written for fishermen, shopkeepers, carpenters, or any other working class person of the day… simply… because the majority of the working class, up until very recently by the way, were illiterate. Historically – even Jesus would have been illiterate, having no need, as a carpenter, or a “Tecton,” to have to be able to read. The readings he would know, form the Torah and the Prophets, would have been memorized as a child. More over, the Old Testament was not even written down until at least 1000 B.C. and would not be “finished” until the Babylonian Exile – and even afterwards, books and lessons were added, not being formalized until the Greek Septuagint was finished in Alexandria. Even more, the Torah was written down specifically for the priests and Jewish scholars, not the common man. Like wise, the New Testament letters, as well as those written not included in the Canon, were written to the churches… i.e. would have been read to the congregation by the priest, deacon or bishop (overseer), and more then likely not read by the common man. Further, it was not “common” men, once you got out of the 1st Century A.D. who wrote commentary on the letters and the Scripture, as well as began to write and debate Theology, Christology, and the like – it was learned men, scholars, philosophers, etc.

Anyways, am I saying that the common man should not be able to read and understand the Word of God? No. What I am saying is, the Word of God should be read, but the Word of God was meant to be SPOKEN, and not spoken in a paraphrase were its dumbed down so anyone can “understand” it, but should be spoken as it was written.. in the meaning, and context, and force that it was written.

Again, I have nothing against paraphrases, I believe they can be wonderful tools. But they are just that, tools, story books – like the old cartoons that used to come on of Bible stories.

JZ Holloway