We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day “Versed in issues of social justice”? Oh? What if students protested against abortion? What if they protested in favor of gun rights? Or what if their social activism included mission trips with their church? Would these things hurt their Yale applications? I am certain that any student who wanted to get into Yale, and thereby join the American elite, would do well not to mention any non-progressive activism. The gatekeepers know the kind of people they want, and do not want. The message they are sending is coming through loud and clear.
Just two glimpses into how the culture and institutions of the elite Left make Trump voters…
– Rod Dreher
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Add in the increasing boldness of those who proclaim that “Whiteness” is the source of all evil. I’m not sure where Muslim whites fit into the equation. Attempting a race war when it’s really, really easy to differentiate the sides, plus those who advocate violence are outnumbered 5:1, seems to be a severely bad idea. Definitely guarantee a Trump win in 2020.
Speaking of “social justice,” see this critique, an analysis of a book by a Tim Keller entitled Every Good Endeavor:
“Workers of the Church, Unite!: The Radical Marxist Foundation of Tim Keller’s Social Gospel,” by Timothy F. Kauffman.
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=301
[ At the moment I am for personal reasons mightily PO’d over the issue of “distributive justice,” exacerbated by the wording of some of the Ilk which I have recently heard spouted by a Proud Progressive almost word-for-word and hung — as praise! — on the character of one very dear to me. 😡 –Note to self: Must learn not to take garbage too seriously.]
.
Per Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Keller is pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. I’ve never heard of the Keller guy, and certainly haven’t read his foul book, but if Mr. Kauffman is to be believed (never heard of him either, nor of the Trinity Foundation, which seems not to hold K. Marx and his doctrines in much esteem), the critique is informative; and I note that it conducts, politely of course, an analysis and a no-holds-barred smackdown of the bilge touted by Mr. Keller and some of his Marxist brethren.
In particular, the discussion of the Marxist theory of alienation commences thus:
.
Mr. Kauffman points out that redistribution — so-called “distributive justice, is distinctly not in line with the 10th Commandment. He also notes that
.
* Taken out of context, we libertarians and O’ist fellow-travellers might agree with the statement in quotes. I think it is perfectly clear that Mr. Bellah is neither of these. And in fact, of course, people do work to “meet people’s needs [or wants, anyway]” — directly or indirectly.
Between dudes like this and the REV Jeremiah Wright, the execrable former “pastor” of the Trinity United Church of Christ and its congregant the Sith, it’s no wonder that more and more folks, even among the non-atheists, are getting away from organized Christianity. As they say in the Navy,
Christ on a crutch!
(No offense intended, as I hope everyone here knows.)
Leftists are so brainwashed and self-damning, it would almost convince the astute and intelligent that they’re walking false-flags, “Manchurian candidates” designed to get and keep Republicans in power.
Actually, the bible recommends it in lesson form. Fucking evil lesson form.
(Time to school Judeo-Christians again).
Read the following and tell me, who murdered Ananias and his wife Sapphira? Was it the Stalinist Communist terrorist Christian disciples, or was it God who murdered them because they didn’t liquidate every smidge of personal property and surrender it to these thugs?
Acts 4:32-5:12 KJV
“And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.
And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon’s porch.
Fucking goddamned terrorists.
Thailover, that section concerns a pre-existing commune of Christians who all lived together with a general promise to share everything equally between all members.
So, the verses actually work out to be a powerful tribute to the sanctity of contract.
😉
Nice save, bobby b.
Yes Julie – the Progressive “Social Gospel” of the early 1900s has evolved into Marxism (at least in New York Churches). Just as the “Machine” in your own Chicago that, as recently as 1968, fought the Marists on the street – has now essentially merged with the Marxists.
Neither of us is fond of the Progressives or the “Machine” Democratic Party politics of places such as Chicago – but they are both vastly better than the Marxists who now control both the American and British left.
Rod Drehrer thinks that the leftist (indeed Frankfurt School of Marxism) control of education “makes Trump voters” – but I doubt that. Indeed I think the leftist brainwashing in places such as Yale is largely successfully – even with “conservatives” such as George Walker Bush, who came out of Yale NOT a Marxist (certainly not), but pulled so far to the left (without even knowing it) by where the “centre” is in Yale (and most other universities) that his eight years as President were ones of a massive EXPANSION of government. His father George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush 41) was the same – he went to Yale at the very time that William F. Buckley was writing his “God and Man at Yale” the condemnation of how leftist American universities were even in the early 1950s (the so called McCarthy age – where the only academics who were really fired were those few who supported Senator Joseph McCarthy).
The rich send their children to places like Yale – even though they are not very nice places (the weather is not nice during the winter and the town of New Haven is a dump – turned into one by more the 60 years of Democrat rule) and even though the idea that Yale is a “centre of scholarship” is absurd. So why do the rich do this?
The rich send their children to places such as Yale so the children can “network” and get good jobs in the bureaucracy (both government and leading corporation bureaucracy) – even though their children come out of their many years of very expensive education at elite “Prep” (preparation or preparatory) schools and “Ivy League” universities as ignorant as sin (indeed being as ignorant as sin is an ADVANTAGE in getting these government and corporate jobs). A Marxist would say it is the ruling class perpetuating itself – and there is, actually, some truth in that. So it is somehow fitting that the “education” the children of the rich are given is full of Frankfurt School of Marxism stuff (about “racism”, “sexism”, “homophobia” and so on) which they are too ignorant to know is Frankfurt School of Marxism stuff. They, the people from “good families” who go to be “educated” in places such as Yale, are laying the foundations for their own extermination and the extermination of their families – and they do not even know it.
“Health care is a right” said the expensively “educated” daughter of President George Walker Bush (Bush 43) – thus turning the conception of a “right” as a LIMITATION on government power on its head (someone who seriously believes that “health care is a right” can have nothing but hatred for the philosophy of the American Bill of Rights). The Constitution which proclaimed healthcare (and education, and housing and…… goods and services) as a “right” was, of course, the Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1936 I believe). This is the belief system that Yale, and the rest of the education system, teaches – backed up by the “mainstream” media.
Ask those young persons demonstrating AGAINST the right to keep and bear arms (the young persons pushed by the “mainstream” media) if they think “healthcare is a right” – they will say yes. The young (and not so young now) have been taught a belief system that is the opposite of the belief system of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Harvard alum here, and my wife went to Princeton. You’re quite wrong, Paul. That’s exactly what radicalized us. We no longer recognize the institutions that educated us, and no way are we letting our children anywhere near the pieces of debased crap who run those places now.
I agree more with Rod Dreher and Annuit cœptis (March 11, 2018 at 12:09 pm) than with Paul Marks (March 11, 2018 at 9:52 am). I am justold enough to recall the last time round, when the decade of radical students were the precursors of Thatcher and Reagan. History is not guaranteed to repeat itself – but it is certainly not guaranteed to do the exact opposite.
Annuit coeptis – I stand corrected, and I am very pleased to have been shown to be WRONG.
Adding to bobby’s very good comment above, consider this:
The KJV, first published in 1611, is known to be inaccurate in many places in the translation. And per WikiFootia,
Further down in the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles
In particular, neither the 20th-century translation in the Revised Standard Version (New Testament published 1946) nor the text of the Jerusalem Bible (published in 1966) says anything about “murder.” (See the Great Foot’s article on each.) From the RVS, the pertinent passage:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+5&version=RSV
In my own copy of the (original) Jerusalem Bible, published in 1966, the two sentences in boldface are worded slightly differently:
.
I hope there are no fans of Miss R. here (other than I; but the Imp of the Perverse is strong with me 😉 ), as she was definitely a terrorist. I have read an article (sorry, can’t find the link) by a fairly widely-disseminated “bloggist,” pointing that out, including as evidence:
–She blew up an apartment complex — for poor people yet!
–She murdered a whole trainful of people, including little children.
–She was a fan of Wats’is’name murderer Hickman. And she was strongly influenced by Nietszche!
Really, it doesn’t get much worse than that.
. . .
Don’t believe everything you read in the papers … Context is all. 😆
Frankly, I don’t see a difference between “fell down and died”, “fell down dead”, and “gave up the ghost”. The last is a little more archaic and poetical, but that’s all. What’s your point, Julie?
The point, Laird, is that I misread Thai’s quote from the KJV, and attributed the charge of “murder” to it rather than to Thai.
Essentially the three versions are in agreement.
😳 I go forth in sackcloth and ashes, and rightly so.
My apologies to all. And thanks to you for the correction. 🙁 🙂
Actually, I like the KJV. To me it suggests that the misbehaving couple died either of fright (fear of dreadful punishment) or of shame (self-dishonor).
(If I thought I had seriously offended the Almighty, and was found out/unmasked, I might have a heart attack too.)
.
PS. I grew up with “gave up the ghost.” Nothing “archaic” about it, nor poetical either — downright folksy, I calls it. :>)
. . .
As to the diversion to the alleged terrorist, the point remains. For that no apology (in either sense) is necessary, and none is offered.
Thanks. Sometimes you gotta stretch.
Slow down. I’m still trying to wade through your first TrinityFoundation link. This one is like a three-credit mini-course.
But interesting.
You can’t do this unless you give the rest of us hints.
Heh. Families! ;>)
Bobby B said;
First off, Notions of agreements are absurd in the context where dissenters are flat-out murdered. Coercion, Force, and threats against life and property are obvious. Secondly, we are talking about disciples, acts of the disciples.
Julie, no version of the Christian Bible says anything about murder in Act 4 or 5. But if you’re suggesting the fair minded reader should believe both spouses simply fell dead for no reason, I’m more apt to believe that Seth Rich gave up the ghost for absolutely no reason and that Hillary is free of all legal and moral charges placed against her and that monkeys might fly out of my butt.
Note that the wife fell dead immediately after she was told in no uncertain terms that yes, she’s going to be dead and carried out by the men standing in front of her. heart attack you think? LOL. Give that man a gold medal in fortune-telling.
Thai, you place a charge of murder with no evidence at all to support it.
But consider:
1. For all I know, the “fell down dead” statement (and its variants) might have been a figure of speech current when this (section of Acts — see the Wikip. article above) was written. As an example, consider the story of Lot’s wife who, against orders, looked behind her and was immediately turned into “a pillar of salt.” As I understand it, modern scholarship has found that the quoted expression was in vogue at the time of the writing, and meant that the person so afflicted had become “white” and possibly “frozen” with shock, or awe, or fear. (We say, “He turned white with shock … she was frozen with fear.”)
2. Anent that, is there any outside verification that this whole event is true, right down to the details surrounding the lady’s death?
3. Going by your comments here, you have seem to have a touching faith that the stories and details presented in the Bible are true and are accurately given. If not, why do you place any credence in this story? Contrariwise, your own charge of murder isn’t supported at all by the Bible; rather, it looks to me like a conclusion based on your own preconceived notions. (“Preconceived”: Context: Several earlier discussions in which you pretty much condemn Christianity.)
.
With regard to believing that both spouses “simply fell dead for no reason”: Over the years there have been many cases mentioned of people who have “died of fright”; indeed I daresay some of these deaths were in physical fact the result of heart attacks. There have also been reports of people dying of unexplained causes, apparently in response to some sort of psychological stress (whether negative or positive); this again would in fact be a physiological response of the body. And sometimes, there are claims of death in direct response to the will of the deceased. If so, there is still a physical reason for the death.
.
I see also your response to bobby’s first comment:
But of course, you’re assuming your conclusion — begging the question. Unless you have proof that dissenters in this group and at this time murdered dissenters.
.
Finally, please consider also the point that Miss R. has been labelled a “terrorist,” mostly on the basis of some of her fiction and partly with a flatly false statement based on her initial impression of Walter Hickman. Nobody who troubled to read her work and consider it carefully and intelligently could reach such a conclusion from the “evidence” stated. The same standards of interpretation, and knowledge of the historical context, should be applied in considering what is meant by what is said in any other serious literary work … including the Bible.
.
None of this is to say that the story as told is untrue, or your own interpretation of it is incorrect; frankly, I wouldn’t know. But it strikes me that there’s some literary embellishment in the Biblical presentation of the story. Remember also the tales of “the bogeyman” (allegedly) told to children to motivate them not to misbehave….
As they say, I Am Not a Lawyer; but I really don’t see any probative evidence of the charge of murder.
“Just two glimpses into how the culture and institutions of the elite Left make Trump voters…”
Nor is there much difference between RINOs, ‘Never Trumpers’, and Democrats.
The origins of the ‘Steel dossier’ illustrate the point nicely. Originally, ‘Oppo’ research of one Republican PAC, which had not the least scruple about selling their pack of lies to their political opponents the Democrats, when the candidate they supported had been knocked out.
Politics, a swirling cesspool of filth. One of the largest turds in the sewer is that stream of odorous diarrhoea and traitor McCain.
Thailover–
You’ve created a false dichotomy. According to you, Ananias and Sapphira were either a) murdered by the disciples (which is clearly not the case – the text says that they fell down dead, with a notable lack of disciple-chucked weaponry sticking out of them); or b) murdered by God “because they didn’t liquidate every smidge of personal property and surrender it…”. The text you quoted gives the lie to this false dichotomy. As Peter tells them, they were perfectly free to sell their property or not. Having sold it, they were perfectly free to make whatever use they wanted of the proceeds. The text you yourself quoted says this as clearly as can be. Or at least as clearly as 400+ year old English can be to us these days. Your making an statement about how this text shows God requiring us to “liquidate every smidge of personal property” or face divine murder is tendentious and dishonest.
While the text is not 100% explicit, it is clear (from the context and from Peter’s statement) that A&S sold their property for some sum (let’s say $100) and then brought some lesser sum (say $50) to the disciples, swearing that this was the entire sale price. In other words, they wanted to have the prestige of being known as super-generous people and keep half their money. That is what brought God’s judgment upon them. Apparently the God of the Bible takes hypocrisy and lying to God seriously. You can argue about whether the imposed punishment is right or not, but don’t try to make this passage say something that it very explicitly does not. That’s bad argumentation.
Beaneater,
I inferred (unnecessarily but naturally) from Thailover’s post that as we are dealing with the survivors of the incident, and we don’t have testimony from the deceased, that Ananias and Sapphira suffered ‘unexplained’ deaths and that those deaths were regarded as deserved.
The glib explanation that they ‘gave up the ghost’ (as it is translated) is unsatisfactory. Were they murdered and a fantastical explanation given for the deaths? We cannot say. We know that we are dealing with communitarians and we also know about the Anabaptists of Münster some 15 centuries later, were certainly overtly violent. The context is clear and the outcome is ‘You have abandoned our Communism, and you die’, rather than pay damages for what justice would regard as the loss suffered (if any). It looks to me that the disciples are $50 better off than they were, yet Ananias and Sapphira die.
As Ludwig von Mises said, the New Testament reeks of resentment against the rich. That sentiment came back in the 20th Century with slaughter on a global scale, albeit in what might be fairly regarded as a heresy of Christianity as expounded by Christ.
Thanks for the response, Mr Ed. I appreciate the feedback.
It seems that you are following Thailover in seeing here a “give us all your possessions or we will kill you” communism in this passage. That doesn’t hold. First, as I said earlier, Peter says to Ananias, “Before it [your land] was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal?” This is as explicit a statement of individual property rights as I can imagine.
Second, the charge against A&S is also clearly stated, and it’s not theft, or insufficient commitment to the communist cause, or hoarding and wrecking, or anything of the sort. It’s lying: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? … You have not lied to people but to God!”
There’s no need to propose a highly speculative re-writing of history (Mr Ed: “Were they murdered and a fantastical explanation given for the deaths?”). The text itself is clear enough: A&S lied to God and God killed them. That frankly doesn’t sit so well with me, but if we’re going to be offended, let’s be offended by what is really in the text rather than being offended by a gun-to-the-head communism that isn’t there.
The text also doesn’t say “God killed them,” nor include any words to that effect. It doesn’t say, nor imply, that they were killed at all. And as I pointed out above, there are plenty of instances of deaths apparently due to no agency external to the deceased.
The thing is a straightforward report: “Nothing but the facts, Ma’am.”
You are quite right that the issue with Ananias is given as lying.
Julie near Chicago—
Fair enough – the text indeed does not say God killed them. Thanks for keeping me honest!
That being said, the fact that two people die within roughly three hours “apparently due to no agency external to the deceased” is pretty remarkable, no? Especially when they have both been in collusion to lie to God… I’m not the only person to have inferred God’s agency in the deaths of A&S.
By the way, Julie, I was appalled to read the review of Timothy Keller’s book that you linked to. Keller is a semi-big name in my circle of Christianity, and much admired. I had never read or heard anything from him that smacked of Marxism, but that review was damning. *Sigh*.
‘Ananias’ was a synonym for liar (i.e. not for greedy, avaricious or uncharitable) for centuries in the UK and the empire – e.g. Australia, where a libel case between two newspapers a little over a century ago became famous though rising from court to court right up to the House of Lords over the question of whether it was legal libel to call the writer of a provably self-contradictory report an ‘Ananias’. The sin of Ananias was always fully understood to be that of lying, not of hanging onto his money which, as Beaneater (March 14, 2018 at 1:57 pm) points out, the very reproach Peter makes against him stresses he was well able to do.
The category most despised in the New Testament is ‘tax collector’, correctly seen to be rich through enriching themselves as well as the government out of the money they screwed out of those who earned it. (However the apostle Matthew shows that tax collectors too can repent and go to heaven, evidence – on this blog at least 🙂 – that they see no sin as too vile to be forgiven.) The New Testament, in marked contrast to e.g. the Koran, ‘reeks’ of the idea that you should not use force to do good works. The message is: voluntary charity good, forcible tax-collecting evil.
Beaneater, I’ll go so far as to say the two deaths’ occurring so close together, with no apparent explanation but with some commonality of circumstances, sounds questionable. But I point again to my considerations above.
I know that many people, perhaps the majority (of Westerners at least), have seen “God’s hand” (so to speak) in the incident. That, I’m afraid, doesn’t work for me, as I Lapsed over 50 years ago. But I should think that a great many modern Christians would have trouble with that: It might be unclear why God “permits” evil and natural disasters like the eruption of Vesuvius for instance, but today God is seen as Good, Merciful, Benevolent — which doesn’t seem to square with God’s being a murderer?
I thought the review was interesting. If it is honest, I think we’ve all learned something. I was appalled to hear some of the very words quoted from one of the books being spouted by a Proudly Progressive Catholic relative (who is campaigning for Bernie)….
.
Niall, thanks very much for the additional info. Especially all of it. 😀
Beaneater
No, I am not. I am seeing ‘Give us all your possessions. Oh look, you didn’t, and you have died.‘ as being the positive case of the defender to the charge, in Scots Law of ‘Murdur‘, and were I on the jury of 15, I would say ‘Not proven‘ in the colloquial sense of the verdict.
We know that this lot were Communitarians.
As for this charge:
So where is the evidence for Satan’s existence? It is for the prosecution to prove its case, the golden thread in English law and natural justice.
And let a fictional portrayal of Sir Thomas More respond to that charge.
We know what Communitarians are capable of, from 16th Century Münster and the Anabaptist Terrors.
It does not follow that because Anabaptists were murderous nutters, their predecessor in the first Century AD were the same, but it does, in my view, pose a question, on the basis of the admitted facts, as to quite what happened to Ananias and Sapphira, and the bizarre explanation raises more questions that it answers.
Mr Ed, thanks for the link to the Foot. Quote:
It’s a fence-sitting verdict that falls short, in my morals-based opinion, in not exonerating the accused. That’s generally speaking; but in a case like this one, there is no way to establish clearly either innocence nor guilt of the alleged murderers, so one can argue that here the “not proven” verdict is defensible.
But. I am of a country where the presumption of innocence is legally required in a criminal proceeding. (“Honored more in the breach…”? Too often true. Sigh….) A man is assumed to be innocent, until the Prosecution can prove his guilt by means of credible evidence and sound reasoning based on established fact (instead of raw emotion, stomach-think, or pre-judgment).
So if these folks were at trial here for murder, and the evidence restricted to the report quoted above, I-the-juror would certainly have to vote them “not guilty.”
It seems to me the best you (anyone) can do is to say, “this sounds to me like a case of murder most foul, but of course I surely can’t prove it, nor even produce much if any evidence for it.”
.
Sir Thomas says he would insist on applying the law, including the presumption of innocence I hope, to “the Devil himself.” Good for him! By the same token, it is for the Prosecution of the alleged murderers to prove that they are guilty.
(The problem with the speech is that it gives — marker 31 sec. — “Man’s law” primacy over “God’s law.” Ideally, if there really were a Benevolent God, and if all men were “perfect”, whatever that would mean, then Man’s laws would be merely statements of God’s Law, which it would be legitimate for men to enforce. Alas, this is not the case. Given that fact, Man’s law would take precedence under the theory that God’s Law can only be known through Revelation, and that any dam fool can announce that his version is the true Law of God. Still, as the Sage keeps reminding us, St. Thomas himself said that some things would be wrong even if God did will them. It’s telling to me that the target of the Speech is one who would break “all the laws in England” to kill the devil, i.e. the source of evil. Indeed this is the fig-leaf excuse given by the tyrannical mass-murderers of the previous century* for their crimes.)
*As well as the Anabaptists, I suppose. And the murderers of alleged “witches” — not all of them Christian, by the way.
Thanks for the link. I never saw the movie; will definitely have to cure that fault instanter. :>)
Julie, your attempt to save the Bible is rather endearing. The question isn’t, “is it true”. The question is “is it touting something evil as a virtue”. The Bible, of course, does the latter in spades. I refer you to Ezekiel 5 and 6. I refer you to the book of Job.
If you really want to feel offended, read Jer 19.
And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.’
Ezekiel — 6th Century B.C.
Job — 6th Century B.C. (probably)
Jeremiah — 7th Century B.C.
I think you’re in the wrong millenium. :>)
Julie, the bible has two testaments dear, and one god. If you prefer, I refer you to the pro-slavery verses in the NT. Hell, I refer to you the idea that issuing the death penalty to one’s reluctant yet willing innocent son can exonorate the guilty of their ‘just dues’ if they accept Jesus as their divine whipping boy.
Everyday events in The Ukraine under socialism in the 1930s.