Overblog Follow this blog
Administration Create my blog
October 9 2011 1 09 /10 /October /2011 16:34

10-commandments.jpg

By Adam Houk

Edited by John Houk

Sent: 8/16/2011 12:38 PM

Posted to October 9, 2011

 

Up until recently I always had the impression that lying/deception was always wrong 100% of the time.  I was forced to reexamine this by a few events.  Recently I was arguing with another physics grad student about the apparent contradiction of thou shalt not kill.  I had explained to him immediately that properly translated it is explicitly saying not to murder.  I thought about it further just in case I was wrong because I'm not a translator and it came to an argument that satisfied me whether it was translated that way or not.

 

Commands on actions can have exception clauses.  Exceptions are clear to this as written in the same books of Exodus and Deuteronomy that God commands the Israelites to go to battle and make a punishment system that includes the Death Penalty.  After thinking about this argument it reminded me of a debate I was having with myself once about an event I was both rejoicing about and was unsure of whether it was ok because it involved deception.  This was Lila Rose and the Planned Parenthood undercover operations [SlantRight Editor: Lila Rose ran an exposé on Planned Parenthood. Leftists make an effort to discount the exposé.].  I again wanted to resolve this. 

 

This is the conclusion I came up with: Only under a righteous motive, but not as a way to find a hole in the system. here is a list of 4 cases I found it appeared to be ok biblically:

 

1) Hiding an innocent from the tyrannical intention to slaughter. -- 2 cites: Moses as a baby hidden from the intention to kill all male children; Samuel was told to say a half truth in his fear of being killed by Saul.

 

2) War measures. -- 2 cites: In the book of judges God commands the Israelites to commit an action of 300 men breaking jars having while these men were running around at night with torches and this deceived the enemy into thinking they were being attacked and they killed each other;  Rahab in the book of Joshua when she hides the spies.

 

3) Testing of genuineness of the heart. -- 1 cite: Abraham in the sacrifice of his son Isaac. (It was never God's intention to sacrifice Isaac but to test Abraham).

 

4) Uncover the truth.  -- 1 cite: Jesus in John chapter 7 tells his brothers he is not ready to go to the feast that they should go ahead, then sneaks in behind them to hear what they were saying about him in secret.

 

I ran into a webpage in which I was contemplating this

http://www.fortifyingthefamily.com/Righteous_Lying.html

 

Once upon a time four brothers decided to go on a trip. They told their big brother about their plan and asked if he would like to join them. He said no, he didn’t feel like going yet and told his brothers to go without him. However, as soon as they left, their brother packed his bags and followed them in secret. 

Why did this man deceive and lie to his brothers? What type of man would do such a thing? Do you know who this man was? It was Jesus, and this story can be found in John 7:2-10.

My purpose in this article is to prove that lying is not automatically a sin by showing examples where God commended lying in certain circumstances and even lied Himself.

There are differing opinions about the sinfulness of lying. One example can be found in the case of Exodus 1, where the midwives refused to kill the Hebrew babies as Pharaoh commanded. When confronted by Pharaoh they lied, saying that the babies were born before they could get there. Exodus 1:20, 21 says, “Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty. And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.” 

On the one hand, John Calvin writes
… Go to the Link above to read the rest.

 

I would appreciate your thoughts on this, as I am still unsure to a conclusion, but these seem to be the cases.  Maybe this is also why the bible says that God would write his law into their hearts.

 

Before contemplating on this if I had ever become President I would have felt obligated to remove spies and undercover work.

_______________________

SlantRight Editor: I haven’t had time to address Adam with my thoughts. If Adam provoked you to think about if there is a right time to lie then feel free to add your thoughts so I can post them.

 

JRH 10/9/11

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts
write a comment
October 7 2011 6 07 /10 /October /2011 10:34

Sarah-Palin-shrugging.jpg

 

John R. Houk

© October 7, 2011

 

Judson Phillips writing for the Tea Party Nation believes Sarah Palin will nearly become irrelevant as a mover and shaker in Conservative politics after her announcement that she is not seeking the GOP nomination for President. Phillips believes her “superstar” value began to depreciate from the moment of her announcement.

 

I know I am a diehard supporter of Palin so I want to disagree with Phillips’ analysis of Palin’s political prospects. I believe on a grassroots level that a push on whoever wins the GOP nomination should be pressured to select Sarah Palin as the VP nominee.

 

Phillips is willing to believe that Palin might reinvent herself in a later election much as Richard Nixon did after losing to John F Kennedy in 1960. Personally I believe President Reagan’s journey is a better axiom to follow. After all Reagan went from movie star power, Conservative Governor of California, losing a couple of GOP nominations for President, then winning the GOP nomination and then winning the 1980 election for President.

 

Phillips uses statistics to show that Palin is no longer electable in Alaska citing lower popularity than should exist in her home State; however I am not convinced that is entirely the case as much as the good old boy Republican establishment of Alaska despises Sarah Palin. (Can you say Senator Lisa Murkowski?)

 

Phillips looks to a Palin rising star to possibly occur in Arizona to tackle a GOP nomination to replace retiring Senator Kyl. Nothing is impossible in politics but Palin has gone to great lengths to place her home as the State of Alaska. She loves the State that her primary growing up years had occurred.

 

Pointing to the recent death of Steve Jobs Phillips also used his life as an analogy of how Palin might come back. For instance Jobs was fired from the Apple Company he had founded only to return to save Apple’s butt when hard times had happened twelve years later. That is a good analogy.

 

JRH 10/7/11

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Politics
write a comment
October 6 2011 5 06 /10 /October /2011 16:35

Al Taqiyya is honorable, right? Perhaps deception and dissimulation might be honorable in Islam, but it is not a revered principle in the West. Certainly deception is a part of Western thought in politics, MSM, business and unfortunately among individuals; however deception is looked upon as a stain to honor. Lying breeds mistrust. Mistrust breeds conflict. Truth breeds honor.

 

JRH 10/6/11 (Hat Tip: Shoebat.com)

******************************

Al Taqiyya - Islam Muslims and Lies


Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts - in Counterjihad
write a comment
October 6 2011 5 06 /10 /October /2011 14:58

George-Soros-and-the-Dummy.jpg

John R. Houk

© October 6, 2011

 

This WND article is about NATO and Turkey invading Syria with the blessing of the U.N. to end Assad's tyranny against his own citizens. Sounds great!

 

There is a "but". The theme for the attack is a Left Wing strategic doctrine: "Responsibility to Protect OR to Act". Apparently it is a Soros based doctrine and Obama is all for it. 

 

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of “war crimes,” “genocide,” “crimes against humanity” or “ethnic cleansing.”

 

The Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect is the world’s leading champion of the military doctrine. Billionaire activist George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect. Several of the doctrine’s main founders also sit on boards with Soros.

 

The article is about using force to make nations comply with a greater authority of responsible sovereignty. WND focuses on the NWO aspect. The article written by Aaron Klein should have included also what this strategy might imply for Israel, Palestine and Bush using the U.S. military with Congressional OK but not with a Congressional Declaration of War.

 

The NWO thing is significant on a global scale pertaining to Free Speech, Religious Freedom, Property Rights, and the freedoms guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution that is absent or watered down in other Western nations. This you can read about this in the Klein article.

 

Frankly I thought it was a great thing to bring down psycho-terrorist supporting Moamar Qaddafi. It was a rare occasion of brilliance by Obama to utilize NATO as the brunt of the support for the Libyan rebels while keeping significant American troops off the ground. However, using the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect as the justification opens the door to an irresponsible use. For example Israel is often accused of being an apartheid State by Western Leftists (particularly in Europe) and Muslim nations might be an excuse for an Arab sympathetic American government to use military power to force Israel accept a Palestinian State that would have the constitutional preamble of destroying Israel and killing Jews.

 

Of course no American President would have the guts to say that the existence of a Palestinian State would have a purpose of destroying Israel and killing Jews; nonetheless the reality of the existence of an Arab nation called Palestine will evolve into an existential threat to the existence of the Jewish State of Israel.

 

Israel is again facing a situation in which the land is surrounded with openly hostile Muslim forces. The new Egypt is beginning to the line of Jew-hatred and anti-Israel animosity toward Israel. Lebanon has ceased to be a Christian jewel of acceptance among Muslim nations or from Lebanese Muslims. Hezbollah controls the reins of power in Lebanon. Hezbollah has a throw the Jews into the sea mentality. Syria has had a hate Israel thing since their existence and particularly under the rule of the Assad family. The only nation bordering Israel that may or may not contribute to the demise of Israel is Jordan. There is no love from Jordanians for Israel; however the Jordanian Monarchy has an ingrained distrust for Arabs that call themselves Palestinians because they have no commitment to the Monarchy which is supported by Jordanian Bedouins. In Jordan itself Palestinian-Arabs outnumber Bedouin-Arabs. Arabs that are descendants of the refugees caused by invading Arab armies are treated as second class citizens in Jordan to assure they do not the political power to toss out the Hashemite Monarchy of Jordan.

 

I can see the doctrine of Responsibility to Protect as a ploy to force Israel to 1967 borders which include pilfering the eastern half of Jerusalem which is a Jewish city founded by the ancient Jewish King David. It is the Star of David that is on the Israeli flag. This Power to Protect could be an excuse for Obama to take a step back as European nations and perhaps various Muslim nations such as Turkey and Egypt to cause the Third Diaspora removing Jews from their heritage.

 

I don’t like it. Do you?

 

JRH 10/6/11

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts
write a comment
September 29 2011 5 29 /09 /September /2011 11:35

China Critical Sea Lanes

John R. Houk

© September 29, 2011

 

There are three (maybe four if one looks at Australia) big players in Asia-Pacific geopolitics: China, Japan and USA. China and Japan are Asian and the USA is the North America Super Power that has a big stake in Asian-Pacific geopolitics.

 

The decade long Global War on Terror (GWOT) has somewhat obscured the reality that China is a Communist dictatorship that has had an ongoing successful upgrade on their economy and military. China’s upgrading of its geopolitical status in a strong economy and a modernization of its military has shown China is willing to be more and more confrontational with its neighbors.

 

In my opinion China’s geopolitical growth has made Japan (the old WWII nemesis) important to American National Interests. Japan still has a strong economy although some believe a diminishing economy. Japan has a modern military yet its military is greatly tied to the WWII victor’s in the USA.

 

I personally have focused on the geopolitics of a militant Islam that threatens Western culture and have little knowledge of the specifics of Asian-Pacific geopolitics. Every once in a while I run across an article should alert me and you about a Chinese geopolitical agenda. One such article I found at AEI by Michael Auslin entitled “The Bleak Future of Sino-Japanese Relations”.

 

The Auslin title suggests that “Sino-Japanese” relations will remain strained; however Auslin planted some seeds that imply there are those in the Japanese government and military that may see things through different lenses. That implication suggests a slight moving away from American influence because China and Japan have mutual economic-natural resource needs that when withheld from each causes a prick in each of their sides. (If I am pricked, do I not bleed?)

 

The question for America has to be: How much can America trust Japan as an ally in the future as Japanese National Interests might gravitate toward a closer symbiotic relationship with China? Does America need to encourage Japan to focus more on their military defense needs rather than American power making up the military defense difference for Japanese security? If a self-militarizing Japan occurs that could act as a military competitor with China, allow America to view Japan as an effective counter-measure to China’s modernizing military? If Japan effectively modernizes into a more than competent geopolitical military power, might that militarization lead Japan down the path of asserting their National Interests in the Pacific viewing America as more of a global competitor and less of a friendly ally?

 

In other words are the unknown variables of militarizing Japan as a buffer to China in the future a good or bad thing?

 

JRH 9/29/11

 

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts
write a comment
September 27 2011 3 27 /09 /September /2011 15:20

This is a test blog. I am not quite sure how it will develop; however the development will be basedon ease of use.


Let's see how Ubiquitous8Thoughts rolls out in the future.

Repost 0
Published by ubiquitous8thoughts
write a comment
September 27 2011 3 27 /09 /September /2011 14:55

This automated message is the first article of your blog. It will help you get started with OverBlog. You can edit or delete it by going to the "Publish" section of your administration page.

Hope you'll enjoy blogging with us!

The OverBlog team

PS: In order to log in to your administration panel go to OverBlog portal.

Repost 0
Published by OverBlog
write a comment

Overview

  • : ubiquitous8thoughts
  • ubiquitous8thoughts
  • : This is a Christian Right blog. This means there is religious freedom, free speech, Constitutional Original Intent, Pro-Israel, Anti-Islamist and a dose of Biblical Morality (Pro-Life & anti-homosexual agenda) content in this blog.
  • Contact

Search

Links