Free Republic

The author argues that a major evidence against the promised apostasy is that the God of Israel would have protected his ekklesia against said apostasy. No such universal protection appears evident in the cited scriptures (Joshua 1:5, Matthew 16:18) nor in history.

The first assembly of the called out was the household of Abraham, who all left country, kindred and home to cross over at the call of the LORD. Apostasy from that community led Lot to turn his face toward Sodom.

The same turning away was evident within forty days of the children of Israel promising "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient." (Exodus 24:7) The Golden Calf incident nearly led to the total obliteration of this particular disobedient ekklesia or "son" which had been called out of Egypt. Only Moses and Joshua would have been spared.

Joshua's renewal of protection (Joshua 1:5) was as contingent upon his effort toward obedience as that of the children at Mt. Horeb:
"Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to do according to all the law that Moses my servant commanded you. Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left, that you may have good success wherever you go. This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it. For then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have good success. (Joshua 1:8,9)"

Skipping ahead to the contemporary assembly that Jesus called out, the apostatic process was evident to Jude who reminded his readers that if the wayward children in the wilderness were not spared, why should their fate following disobedience be different?

The process of turning away is not a singular event in history, rather it is a consequence of the human "sin nature".

The question is from what did those in ancient days turn?

Jeff Benner has developed additional resources:
http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/

The real answer is that the value of the dollar is falling, which means oil goes up in price when paid in dollars. However, the price of oil in relation to other real commodities has not changed much at all, as reflected in this graph:

Have you noticed that a pre-1964 silver dollar now costs around 25 Federal Reserve Notes? So actually the price of gas has gone down in real terms as a gallon of gas in the early 1960's was $0.25 - $0.35.

Global warming is a proven historical fact. Every previous ice age was ended by global warming. The cycle of ice age repeats every 10 to 20 thousand years.

That we live on a planet with a wobbly orbit around a variable star would seem to be a given - but there's no watermelon factor to be had. Can't sue or tax the designer.

Oh, and the video was guffaw provoking!

Because oil couldn't be naturally bubbling up from beneath the floor of the Gulf. /s

Well, maybe about half!
Oil In Ocean Shows Up On NASA Images: Half Of The Oil In The Ocean Bubbles Up Naturally From Seafloor

Hate is not what Christianity is about. The Bible does not say to hate sin. The statement ‘”Love the sinner, hate the sin” is attributable to Mahatma Ghandi not Christ.

Not sure if this cuts any ice with you, but, the God of Israel has a few issues:

Proverbs 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
A proud look,
a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
A false witness that speaketh lies,
and he that soweth discord among brethren.

The Torah's commandment regarding kindness to strangers referred to the ger or sojourner - one who was willing to abide by the "one law for the native born and for the 'stranger' who dwells among you" standard. It was not applicable to foreigners who chose to remain aloof. Before Ruth entered Israel with Naomi she famously declared "your people are mine, you God is mine". She adopted her new culture and turned her back on Moab. I doubt that very many of our current "illegals" are emulating the attitude of Ruth, the Israelite.

Rather, most of our illegals have the attitude of Amalekites, Edomites and Ismaelites. They want to displace the extant culture with their own.

"In one fell swoop, President Barack Obama must..."

I doubt Mr. Feller intended to imply the true Shakespearean meaning (Macbeth) of the phrase, but perhaps he did mean: taken down in a single evil stroke.

MACDUFF: [on hearing that his family and servants have all been killed]

All my pretty ones?
Did you say all? O hell-kite! All?
What, all my pretty chickens and their dam
At one fell swoop?

Doesn't make them right...

Was he right there as well?...

It seems you're interested in proving who is "right", or at least in arguing.

Is it "right" to deprive another of his life, liberty or property without his consent, by force or threat of force?

The drafters of the Declaration of Independence thought not, and felt that when governments became threatening of these, that the consent of the governed was forfeit. That, I believe, was one of Spooner's key assertions about the Constitution - that it could never bind one to its provisions who had not agreed to them. Do you believe that governments are always right, and that the governed can never withdraw their consent? Wasn't that the point of secession as put forward by even Abraham Lincoln himself in January, 1848?

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better.This is a most valuable, a most sacred right--a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much territory as they inhabit"

Granted, Lincoln's government subverted his prior opinion and did so with might of arms. So, those who rose up, could not, did not, have the "power" - but does that make them wrong or the ones who imposed union by might... "right"?

Do, after all, the ends justify the means?

Or...

Is there perhaps some absolute...

Transcendent...

Justice...

justly pursued?

Slavery was and is evil.

Putting hundreds of thousands of free men to their deaths in war was also evil and not the way to end either the secession or slavery.

Unless might makes right.

How? I've listened to you lost causers claim that for years now. How exactly did Lincoln murder the Republic?

It would perhaps be better to describe Mr. Lincoln as an accessory after the fact. The anti-Federalists were right after all. A. Hamilton was Lincoln's political progenitor.

Professors Thomas DiLorenzo and Walter Williams seem to have a handle on it. Have you read Lysander Spooner? Why exactly did New England States ponder secession so seriously?

You might want to expand your reading lists. See:
Tariffs and the American Civil War

Issues regarding the regional imbalance in tariffs stoked the embers of conflict dating back to Whig leader Henry Clay's tariff increase in 1824 and the "Tariff of Abominations" in 1828. The successor party to the Whig's, the Republican Party, pushed a huge increase (250% on some items) in the Tariff, (the Morrill Tariff), in early 1861. The shelling of the Revenue Post, Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor came when negotiations to end the standoff in the harbor failed.

Slavery was a sideshow by comparison, as stated by A. Lincoln to Horace Greeley in 1862.

Arming the crew with AA-12 automatic shotguns would serve most boarder repelling needs. See the videos here.

Nope, not the only one.

The basic problem is one of translation from Hebrew Torah through Greek Nomos to English Law.

The basic sense of the Hebrew is proper direction and instruction i.e. the right (straight and narrow) path. The choice of nomos over didaskalia by the editors of the Septuagint has had lasting and unfortunate consequences.

The Hebrew word Torah is defined by Brown-Driver-Briggs as:

04183 hr'AT n.f. direction, instruction, , law -- 1. instruction: a. human: of a mother; , of a father; of sages; of a poet; ds,x, , tr'AT kind instruction (of a wise wife). b. , divine; through his servants. c. a body of , prophetic (or sometimes perh. priestly) , teaching; in the heart; myriads of precepts. d. , instruction in Messianic age. e. a body of , priestly direction or instruction relating to , sacred things. 2. law (prop. direction): viz. a. , of special laws, sg. of Feast of Massoth, , sabbath; of direction given by priests in , partic. case; of statutes of priest's code; pl. , tArAT laws; (of decisions in civil cases , given by Moses); the laws of the new temple; , those laws in which men should walk. b. of , codes of law, (1) hr'ATh as written in the , code of the covenant; (2) the law of the , Deuteronomic code. (3) the law of the Priest's , code. 3. custom, manner: ~d'a'h' tr;AT , the manner of man, not of God, i.e. deal with , me as man with man. (pg 435)

I have been able to access www.israelnationalradio.com, which displays “you are not author” “you do not have permission”, but allows me to listen to archived programs, though not the “live” link. I suspect it’s part of the arab hackers’ counter observance of the PA’s nachba.

...""If you cross a Barlow and Jessop, you stand a high risk of getting this condition," Tarby says.

..."Aleck says the fact that so many people in the polygamist enclave are blood relatives of the founding Barlow and Jessop families "shows the magnitude of the problem."

So, the judge in the FLDS "abuse" case is ordering DNA testing in order to find evidence of who bred with whom - when these folks are more inbred than the royal families of Europe? All the DNA will be closely matched, and therefore, inconclusive.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

-- C.S. Lewis

Maybe it's not such a big deal.

Just borrowing from an old tradition.

Maria was just a latin nickname anyway.

Her given name was Miriam, just like Moshe's sister.

Of course, the mention of a Hebrew name would really have set off the PC crowd.

I want to know what “softer” fascism is.

Technically, fascism is a form of government in which the means of production are regulated and directed by government agencies. In essence, fascism is the modern successor to mercantilism, wherein kings granted special monopolies to the enterprises of their friends and supporters. Some American colonials were especially angered by such arrangements and after victory sought to prevent the development of a strong central government which would have power to grant boons and banes. These were the anti-federalists. Federalists, like Hamilton, wanted a strong central government and a central bank to favor and protect their business interests.

Today, both major parties are composed largely of those who would use the government to support their financial interests. Thus, the friendly revolving door between lobbying firms and congressional offices. We have developed permanent public-private partnerships or in the older term, industrial-state committees.

That we don't have an especially heavy-handed police state makes for a certain "softness".

The problem with Romney’s theology is that it reveals a strongly supersessionist bent - newer, better ideas replace the outdated. This, as well as his political history, would suggest that he would be very comfortable with a loose constructionist view of the Constitution.