Yesiree - this really promotes idolatry!!
We can only wish this fate for the Daesh Nimrods
Carved Nimrud ivory of lion attacking Nubian circa 850-750BC. Source: News Corp Australia
Saturday, March 21, 2015
NIMRODS IN NIMRUD
It has been a little while since the barbaric ISIS/Daesh [the Nimrods] destroyed many antiquities in Nimrud, Iraq, but the phrase used in the title of this post kept coming to mind. Most of you likely know the story, but accounts can be read here in the Guardian and a good CNN report including video is here. This is just one more example of bad religion, or religion gone bad - take your pick. The Daesh claim is that the cultural cleansing is required because the antiquities promote idolatry, but my bet is that they are carrying off a lot of the stuff to sell on the black market. Here is a brief video from the Guardian link:
Just getting rid of the old to make way for the new. Just like liberals, getting rid of marriage, Christianity, capitalism, sexual identity, and freedom to make way for a new utopian paradise.
ReplyDeleteThere you go again, Bizzy [with attribution to R Reagan], taking a post about anything to preach the same gospel :-) I do not see much of a parallel between Daesh and liberals. Neither liberals nor atheists cut off the heads of those who don't conform to their beliefs. Indeed, I don't think that any of the things that you mention are in any danger of being gotten rid of.
ReplyDeleteAm going to help Biz out a little bit here. Let’s define marriage as the number three, nothing more, nothing less. Let’s define man as number 1, nothing more, nothing less. Let’s define woman as number 2, nothing more, nothing less. Marriage (3) = one man (1) plus one woman (2). 1 + 2 = 3. The liberals come along, and under the guise of the Marxist tenet of equality, want to destroy the institution of marriage by redefining it to include same-sex unions. They say 1 + 1 = 3, or 2 + 2 = 3, which is logically impossible. In other words, same-sex unions cannot equal marriage when marriage equals 3, nothing more, nothing less. What the liberals are saying is that marriage no longer equals 3, but equals any whole number from 2 through four. In other words, they redefined marriage out of existence by replacing it with a new definition. The new definition of “marriage” has been implemented by liberal federal judges and now applies to the majority of states, with the Supreme Court to weigh in shortly. An example of the elimination of a cultural tradition to help pave the way to utopia.
ReplyDeleteLet’s not forget the many heads the guillotine sliced off during the French Revolution. One result of that doing away with the old to make way for the new is the metric system.
ReplyDeleteAh, the metric system. As an old fart, I think in terms of inches and yards, pounds and tons, etc., but as a scientist, it's easy to see why the metric system is the way to go. One World Order S3!!!
ReplyDeleteMr Spock - this is not logical :-) First, you overlooked 1+1+1!! Har! But, my main point is I would assume that you are basing your 'logic' on the Bible. Big problem since there are so many different combinations of marriage in Scriptures. Go to the Blue Letter Bible, enter 'wives' and see what comes up - from many fellows having two wives right on up to Solomon have hundreds of wives. And what exactly is the scriptural authority for one wife per one husband? It certainly would be the exception rather than the rule.
ReplyDeleteYou are certainly correct, Doc. There are a variety of domestic arrangements in the Bible. However, I stick with the definition from Genesis of one man uniting with one woman. By that definition, polygamy is not marriage even though each woman might be called and consider herself a “wife.” An interesting area of reading, which I definitely have not done, is the proliferation of multi-wife “marriages” back then. Given there are equal numbers of males and females born, if polygamy was the custom, a few men would be hogging all the women. How would that work out socially, unless it meant that all those young men without mates served in the military? My guess is that polygamy was not that widespread. Lots to check into here.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Genesis said that Adam and Eve were married :-)
ReplyDelete