Monthly Archives: December 2014

Fox Blasphemes Jesus Christ in Airing Family Guy’s ‘2,000 Year Old Virgin’ Episode

So mocking and offending Christianity is all fun and games, but even hinting at the idea that Islam might not be the peaceful religion it claims to be and you are a racist bigot. The double standards would be funny if it weren’t so sickening.

Patriactionary

Fox Blasphemes Jesus Christ in Airing Family Guy’s ‘2,000 Year Old Virgin’ Episode.

Concerns are being raised over an episode of “Family Guy” that aired on Fox this past weekend, the parent company of Fox News Network and Fox Entertainment Group, which blasphemes Jesus Christ by mocking his purity and depicting the Messiah as desiring to lose his virginity with another man’s wife.

“The 2,000 Year Old Virgin” was broadcast on Fox on Saturday, and was meant to be the Christmas version of “Family Guy,” an animated sitcom that often features off-color humor known to push the envelope. The show is produced by Fuzzy Door Productions, run by atheist Seth McFarlane, and 20th Century Fox Television, run by Jewish President David Madden. Fox was acquired in 1985 by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, who also publishes both the NIV Bible and The Satanic Bible through his ownership of Zondervan and Harper…

View original post 436 more words


A Question of Identity

Back in the day I was into some of the more underground types of music. I enjoyed a lot of the so-called “terror EBM” (EBM stands for electronic body music) genre of music; I listened to the likes of Dawn of Ashes, Psyclon Nine and Tactical Sekt. The best way to describe this genre would be dark dance music with distorted vocals and a focus on the unappetizing themes in life…. violence, suicide, politics and horror movies. The shows would usually have the band members dressing up in bloodied costumes and tons of makeup to look as if they just came back from the dead; Dawn of Ashes was big this kind of visual. Eventually I outgrew this music and now see it as kind of cheesy and immature. I still listen to them on occasion but not with the same fervor that I used to.

I remember browsing through Youtube and forums and a single person would say how this or that band sucked. Big mistake. The rest of the people would pounce on this insult and attack mercilessly. You’re a F***ing loser, Dawn of Ashes is the best, Go kill yourself. You dumb f*** go back to listening to the Jonas Brothers or whatever S*** you listen to. The comments would be brutal and the people seemed to feel so insulted by the fact that one person didn’t like that band or genre of music.

The funniest thing I read on this was one time when the lead band member of Tactical Sekt posted a normal picture of himself with his girlfriend. The guy looked completely normal, no shredded, bloody costumes, crazy hair or horror makeup. This seemed to really piss off some of the fans. They complained that the band member looked like if he shopped at Abercrombie and Fitch. He didn’t look “goth” enough for the fans and they saw it as a betrayal. Even back then, when I went through a goth phase, I found these comments stupid. Who cares how the bands you listen to dress as long as the music is good.

I bring this up to to illustrate a theory I have. These listeners of terror EBM made this music their identity. They would all dress in the same style, have similar interest, read similar books and hate similar things. if someone thought this music was cheesy and stupid, the fans would see this as an attack on their own identity. That’s why I think teenagers and immature people respond so violently when you dislike and make fun of the kind of music they like. Teenagers are in the process of forming their identity and far more often, they will look to external things to help: music, clothing styles, cliques, hobbies, you name it. Then when you show your dislike of that particular clique or music, they feel as if you are attacking them and respond predictably.

I see this happen in other contexts. Many gays and lesbians respond viscerally when you bring up the Bible’s stance on homosexuality. Yes, we can talk all day about how evil people hate what is good… but I don’t think that’s what is going on here. See our culture, from a young age tends to teach that a person’s homosexuality is an intrinsic part of who they are and that gays and lesbians should just accept who they are. When you point out out the Bible’s stance, they feel as if you are attacking them personally because you are in a way. You are attacking what they’ve been taught forms the core of their identity.

This is important for Christians because ultimately we form our identity around Jesus. Whatever helps shape our identity will ultimately influence how we act. This is especially true of our view of Jesus. If we believe Jesus to be a kindly old uncle who just wants us to have the very best in life, we risk turning Christianity in moralistic therapeutic deism, seeing God as some kind of divine therapist who only wants us to be haaaaapy. If we only see Jesus as the kind of guy who went and hung out with prostitutes and “sinners” we will be tempted to disregard who we keep company with and completely ignore the Bible’s warning that “bad company corrupts good habits”. What exactly was Jesus like? well that is a question that can span entire books. I plan on sharing certain aspects of Jesus’ character that we modern American Christians tend to skip over or down play in future posts.


The “Rape” of Bathseba

Here’s a link to a blog post written by a feminist who believes that that David raped Bathsheba. While reading it, the first thing I thought was “this author is probably a feminist”; lo and behold, when I read the mini biography she provided, she stated that she is interested in “queer, feminist/womanist, and liberation theologies”. Ok then.

In a completely unscientific analysis, I googled “the rape of Bathsheba” and found a good number of articles and material arguing that Bathsheba was indeed the victim of rape. Funny thing was that a good amount of these articles were written by feminists. Interesting. The two articles I read on the subject provided next to no analysis on the subject and simply conclude that Bathsheba was raped because David was all powerful and would kill her if she refused. Or they point to the difference between two different commentaries and pick the one most fitting for their point as the correct interpretation. Hmmm… OK. I’ve written way too much about reading the Bible in the proper cultural and historical in order to really understand what is going on. So I won’t repeat that here. For now, let’s just see what happens when we read this story with knowledge of the proper context.

“In the spring of the year, at the time when kings  normally conduct wars, David sent out Joab with his officers 3  and the entire Israelite army. They defeated the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David stayed behind in Jerusalem. One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of his palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. Now this woman was very attractive.” – 2 Samuel 11:1-2 (NET Bible)

There is so much going on in this passage alone, but we’ll zero in on the second verse. It starts with “one evening David got up from his bed”. Notice that David had just gotten up from his bed, heavily implying that he had just been sleeping or at least trying sleep and failing. When do people go to sleep? At night… when it’s dark. Keep this in mind as it will be very important for our analysis

The next sentence states that David saw a woman bathing from where he was standing. Now, woman don’t bathe in places where they could be seen publicly. This is true now as it was in the ancient world. Furthermore, we have to remember that it was dark. People did not use electricity nor did the streets have lights… that is if there even were streets. That said, it would have been impossible for David to see Bathsheba bathing unless she had provided sufficient light to be seen from the roof of David’s palace. Hmm… curiouser and curiouser.

Now, we might posit that Bathsheba simply wasn’t aware that she could be seen from the palace. Scholars Randolph Richards and Brandon O’Brien beg to differ:

“In antiquity, people were cognizant of their proximity to the seat of power. Even today ,White House offices are ranked by their distance from the Oval Office. We would be unlikely to believe a White House aid who said, “I just stepped out in the hallway to talk. I didn’t realize the president of the United States walked down this hallway every day at this time!” Likewise, we would be skeptical if Bathseba asserted, “Oh, I didn’t realize that was the king’s balcony.” We think the story is told in a way to imply that she intended to be seen by the king. Her plan works”. p. 122 “Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes

So, now we get to the root of the matter. Bathsheba intended to be seen by David. But she was already married to Uriah, why would she cheat on him. Well, that isn’t as hard a question to answer as you might think. I’ll just let Rollo Tomassi answer that question for you:

Hypergamy is a woman’s natural (which is to say, genetically wired) preference for a higher status male–that is, higher status than herself and also higher status than the other men in her field of vision and also perhaps higher status than men she has known in the past.

I’ll make it easy for the reader to understand. King David was a high-status man. He was king of Israel and had the reputation of a warrior; he did kill the giant Goliath after all. What is interesting is that verse four tells us that at the time Bathseba “was in the process of purifying herself from her menstrual uncleanness”. In other words, she was ripe for conception. What higher-status male could Bathsheba get to impregnate her other than King David?

While this might sound like I am reading far too much into the text, keep in mind that the author of the text would have assumed that his audience would know all this. I’ve written before about the way the Bible was written and it is extremely important that we do not lose sight of that.

Despite what feminist bloggers might think, there was no rape. The text drops some pretty big hints that Bathsheba intended to be seen by David and planned the ordeal to some extent and though there is more that is going on in the story, I’ll stop here for now. I only wanted to set the record straight and show what is really going on in the “rape” of Bathsheba. The rest of the story can wait for another time.

I find it hilarious that anytime a woman might be culpable for some crime or wrong; feminists are so quick to blame everyone other than the woman herself. What will they do next, abolish prison for women? Oh wait, they are actually trying… thank you, Dalrock for the pointer.