Turn the Heat Up a Notch

Some company names and Twitter accounts based on the list at Daily Signal. Don't spam them or harass them, but don't let them forget about the blood on their hands either. Keep inquiring whether or not they support Planned Parenthood's inhuman, murderous agenda until they go on record one way or another.

Use one or more of these hashtags: #PPGate #DefundPP #PPSellsBabyParts #DismemberPP.

And Planned Parenthood's Twitter handle is @PPAct.

Company Twitter
Adobe @Adobe
American Cancer Society @AmericanCancer
American Express @AmericanExpress
AT&T @ATT
Avon @AvonInsider
Bank of America @BofA_Help
Bath & Body Works @bathbodyworks
Ben & Jerry’s @benandjerrys
Clorox @Clorox
Converse @Converse
Dockers @Dockers
Energizer @Energizer
Expedia @Expedia
ExxonMobil @ExxonMobil
Fannie Mae @FannieMae
Groupon @Groupon
Intuit @Intuit
Johnson & Johnson @JNJCares
La Senza @LaSenza
Levi Strauss @LeviStraussCo
Liberty Mutual @AskLiberty
Macy’s @Macys
March of Dimes @MarchOfDimes
Microsoft @Microsoft
Morgan Stanley @MorganStanley
Nike @Nike
Oracle @Oracle
PepsiCo @Pepsi
Pfizer @Pfizer
Progressive @Progressive
Starbucks @Starbucks
Susan G. Komen @SusanGKomen
Tostitos @Tostitos
Unilever @Unilever
United Way @UnitedWay
Verizon @Verizon
Wells Fargo @WellsFargo

Update 9/6/2015: Starbucks tweets that they have no official connection with Planned Parenthood beyond a "small number of employee match grants."

Election 2016 - Jay's Conservative Litmus Test

Election 2016: Grading the Republican Presidential Candidates

I very strongly believe that people backing their party's nominee regardless of the nominee's actual qualifications for the job or political views has been a complete disaster for the United States. Democrats cry for liberal policies, Republicans cry for conservative policies, and both parties only get bigger, more tyrannical government.

I'm not a member of any political party and don't intend to become one. I refuse to play that game. I vote in the primaries, but I don't play team politics. I doubt there's anything the Democrats could do to get my vote this decade, and the GOP will only get it if they nominate worthwhile candidates. Bush (all of them), McCain, Romney, Dole... These are the candidates of a party that values power, control, and money, not traditional American values like liberty and faith.

I don't demand perfection. I don't demand ideological purity. But I do have standards. I refuse to vote for any candidate for state-level or higher office who is not wholeheartedly defend the lives of unborn children, who will not protect the freedoms enshrined in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, who will not stand against the pervert mob and the invading masses, nor stand in favor of faith in God.

I don't care what party he (or she for the pathologically pedantic) belongs to. If he can't pass these tests, he can't have my vote.


CandidatePro-LifePro-1APro-2APro-4AGay MarriageImmigrationReligionTotal Score
Jeb BushCCBFDFC10/D+
Ted CruzAAABABA28/A
Chris ChristieFDDFDFC5/F
Rand PaulAABACDD19/B-
John KasichBCBCBFB16/C
Donald TrumpCDBFBFC11/D
Rick SantorumADADACB19/B-
Lindsey GrahamACAFBFA17/C+
Carly FiorinaCDAFDCC12/C-
Scott WalkerABAFCAA21/B
Rick PerryABAFABA22/B
Marco RubioBBBFADC16/C
Bobby JindalABBFAAC20/B
Ben CarsonCCBBCDB16/C
Mike Huckabee
George PatakiC

There's no science behind these scores. They don't represent months of research, just a brief scan of public statements and historical behavior. I might change some of these grades as I learn more, and I'll fill in the rest over time.

More importantly, they don't represent all possible factors that should determine whether or not a candidate is a good choice. Foreign affairs, state's rights, familial history, gut-feelings...these are all important, yet they aren't on this chart. Why? Because I'll consider those things only after I've eliminated the no-brainers. If a candidate gets below C on any of these issues, there's no point in looking further.

Feel free to make your own suggestions in the comments.

A Parallelism within a Chiasm in Deuteronomy 12





  • V1-4 – Follow God’s ways not pagan ways.
    • V5-7 – Take your sacrifices & offerings to the place God will designate
      • V8-14 – Don’t offer sacrifices just anywhere, but only in my place
        • V15a – Slaughter & eat meat anywhere
          • V15b – Clean & unclean alike just like gazelle & deer
            • V16 – Don’t eat blood
      • V17-19 – Don’t eat offerings just anywhere, but only in my place
        • V20-21 – Slaughter & eat meat anywhere
          • V22 – Just like gazelle & deer, clean & unclean alike
            • V23-25 – Don’t eat blood
    • V26-27 – Take offerings to the place God will designate
  • V28-32 – Follow God’s ways, not pagan ways.

A few thoughts:

Rashi and the Sages
v8 - You shall not do according to all that we are doing here today, everyone doing whatever is right in his own eyes...
Rashi said that this verse should be translated "...rather everyone should do whatever is right in his own eyes..." which seems to be precisely the opposite of what is intended. The Jewish sages, including Rashi, frequently have amazing insight into Torah. They have been studying it for more than 3000 years, after all. Unfortunately, 3000 years provides a lot of opportunity for corruption as well. I think this is an example of the latter rather than the former.

The sages also say that the laws in v8-25 are specifically addressing animals that were vowed to be offered at the Tabernacle, but had to be redeemed because of some flaw that developed or was discovered later. This law was given so that the one making the vow would not feel like the animal must still be treated as sacred somehow, hence the explicit allowance for the unclean to eat it.
The unclean and the clean may eat of it as of the gazelle and as of the deer.
That seems reasonable enough, but if it's correct, then it was probably only the initial reason the law was recorded in the way that it was. The rule still applies to all non-sacrificial animals regardless.

Where I think they get off track again is in the reference to the gazelle and the deer. Here they reference a tradition in which the right front leg, cheeks, and stomach of a slaughtered cow, sheep, or goat must be given to a Cohen, while the same is not true of a gazelle or deer. This formerly dedicated animal may be kept in whole without giving a portion to a Cohen.

There's nothing wrong with giving a portion of your slaughtered animals to the local Cohen--it might even be a good thing--but it is only a tradition, not a Torah command, and I do not believe that Moses had even the vaguest notion of this practice when he gave this commandment. I think he meant something much more obvious.

Since gazelle and deer were not domesticated animals, it would have been next to impossible to take them to the Tabernacle to be slaughtered. Nobody would have captured these animals before killing them. They would have killed them in the field using some kind of blade or projectile. Moses was merely saying that in this respect a cow is no different than a deer. Just because it can be used as a sacrifice doesn't mean that it must be used so.

The Meaning of the Chiasm and Parallelism

I haven't been studying Biblical literary structures long enough to be confident in these conclusions. I even hesitate to call them conclusions; they're merely speculations.

The religion of YHWH is not random or haphazard. Although God doesn't micromanage every aspect of daily life, His religion is orderly and uniform. Certain forbidden practices will tend to encourage the development of pagan religious systems:
  • We must not collect the blood of a slaughtered animal for any purpose other than pouring it out onto the ground. Blood contains life. I won't pretend to know everything that that means, but there is definitely something about blood that inspires mystical thoughts and feelings. Ingesting blood can easily evolve into a religious ritual. Many old movie featuring hunting Indians or a young man's first kill witness to our cultural understanding of this truth. (Laboratory use of blood is fine so long as it is never ingested and it is disposed of when no longer needed.) 
  • Differentiating between kosher animals that are eligible for sacrifice and kosher animals that are not eligible for sacrifice in the routine practice of slaughtering for food could also easily evolve into a religious ritual. The butcher or the purchaser must ask himself why they are observing this difference. Perhaps the spirit of the bull must be treated differently than the spirit of the gazelle, so he begins saying a little prayer to the bull with the initial cut of the knife. His son builds a small shrine beside the killing floor. His grandson builds a platform on the killing floor to catch the blood. His great grandson dabs the blood on the four horns of the family altar and drinks a cup of the sanctified stuff. 
  • A difference must be made between sanctified animals and the non-sanctified. However, it is not the animal that makes the offering sacred but the altar. Sacrifices may only be killed and eaten in God's designated place and mundane slaughter may only be done and eaten away from God's designated place. Never mix the two lest the difference in the places be forgotten and the people slide again into paganism.
Now I'm going to really step out into Messianic controversy land. Because you know how I've shied away from that kind of stuff before. Wink, wink.

The contents of the parallelism make sense in the context of the chiasm as noted in the points above. However, why is there a parallelism at all? Why say essentially the same thing twice? The repetition means it's important of course, but wouldn't it be enough to simply say "This is really important?"

On the surface (peshat), the first iteration concerns where a sacrifice must be killed and the second concerns where it may be eaten. However, it goes on to repeat much of the same rules, including the curious reference to gazelle and deer.

The Law makes no distinction between the native born and the believer who has been grafted in except in one respect: service at the Holy Place. Only the physical descendants of Levi may serve at the Tabernacle and only the physical descendants of Aaron may serve at the altars. Through Yeshua, we have been brought into the Kingdom of God, grafted into the tree of Israel, but, like Yeshua, we will never be qualified to serve as a Cohen or to care for any of the holy articles of the Tabernacle. (Yeshua is a High Priest in the Tabernacle in Heaven, not the one on earth. See Hebrews 8:1-5.)

Likewise, this command says that as far as the Law is concerned, there is no difference between the gazelle and deer (wild & untaught) on the one hand and the bull and the goat (domesticated & trained) on the other, except in one respect: service at the Holy Temple. And it says it twice.

Is this parallelism attempting to draw the reader's attention to the parallel between animals and Israelites? Is it saying, "Whether in offering or in eating sacrifices, the positive commands and the negative commands, you will make no distinction in the Law between the native born and the grafted in except for those who are dedicated to service at the Holy Place?"

The parallelism is at the center of a chiasm which is framed by instructions that all citizens of the Kingdom will worship God in the same way and at the same place. We are one body, one nation, united in Messiah Yeshua.

A Breath of Fresh Air - A review of Family Prayers from Proverbs

Eric Sims posted a review at Amazon today:

This book is a breath of fresh air. Jay has been able to take ancient practices and use them to breathe life back into several areas of existence that are in such need of revitalization today.... I recommend this book to any person or family who is looking to understand and experience a better connection to the Source of all existence, their creator.... - Eric Sims
Read the rest at Amazon. I'd post it all, but I don't want to trigger any of Amazon's comment-deletion bots.

In related news, Family Prayers from Proverbs is now available in Kindle format for less than half the price of the paper version. This is the probably the best option for smaller families. For larger families, I recommend you buy two paper copies and then email me to get a booklet-formatted file you can use to print as many copies as you need. See here for details.

Why the Didache Could Not Be Included in the Canon

The first rule for any writing to be included in the Biblical canon is this: It must not contradict what came before.

The second rule is this: It must be true.

The Didache is a late first-century Christian writing that purports to be a summary of the teachings of the first apostles to the churches that they planted across the Roman Empire.

Years ago when I first read it I wondered why it wasn't included in the canon. From a cursory reading of history, it appears that it almost was. In fact, a number of ancient Christian groups did include it in their own version of the Bible. I can't tell you exactly why the Church Fathers decided that it didn't measured up, but I can tell you a few reasons that their decision was correct.

The Didache starts out beautifully: Love God, love your neighbor, keep the commandments, avoid sin, don't mess with sorcerers or astrologers, be meek and long-suffering, etc. The first seven chapters are all fantastic advice and align perfectly with all of the Scripture that came before it.

The Didache contains good, Scriptural advice alongside some not-so-good advice.


However, it gets a little off track when it discusses fasting and prayer in chapter 8.
But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and fifth day of the week. Rather, fast on the fourth day and the Preparation (Friday). Do not pray like the hypocrites, but rather as the Lord commanded in His Gospel, like this:

Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever..

Pray this three times each day.

-From the Roberts-Donaldson translation of The Didache.
Who are these hypocrites and why should we avoid fasting on the days they fast and why do we need to fast on Wednesday and Friday instead? Since when should we care what the hypocrites do so long as we aren't hypocritical with them?

The "hypocrites" in this mini diatribe are probably Jewish believers who refused to abandon the traditions that they had been taught. The problem, of course, wasn't hypocrisy. It was fear and hatred. Anti-Jewish sentiment was rampant in the Empire at the time. Titus had just destroyed Jerusalem, killing as many as a million Jews, and scattering the remainder.

Many of these new gentile Christians were afraid to be mistaken for Jews. To make absolutely certain that wouldn't happen, they often made a point of being more antisemitic than their non-Christian neighbors, of deliberately changing the traditions they were taught by the Apostles so that outsiders could easily tell the difference between Jew and Greek.

They exchanged the commandments of God for the traditions of men and divided what God had joined together.

Some of those new traditions were invented solely for the purpose of separating Jew from gentile, while others were simply borrowed from the familiar pagan religions they had supposedly left behind. They stopped keeping the feasts as they had been commanded by God and taught by Yeshua. They changed the dates of God's appointed times, changing the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first and moving the dates of other feasts to coincide with existing Roman celebrations.

I'm not saying they were all cowards. Some of these men were courageous martyrs for the faith, willing to die rather than to renounce Jesus, however mistaken they might have been about some of his teachings. The foundation of their faith in Him was still solid as no one has ever been saved by doctrinal purity or proper adherence to ritual. But that doesn't mean they were without fear altogether. Courage isn't the absence of fear; courage is action in spite of fear.

Fear can have a profound effect on one's priorities. If you have to go the bank and you find out that there's a holdup in progress, you might also discover that a trip to the post office was really more important anyway. Faced with the prospect of persecution, we all instinctively look for ways to deflect it, whether by shuffling priorities, offering up "bigger" villains, or by convincing ourselves that some compromises are more acceptable if they make it harder to pick us out from a crowd. Those early Christians were no different and Satan took full advantage of their human weaknesses.

Passover moved to a new date and many Passover traditions morphed into completely separate new holidays and rituals like the Eucharist. The traditional period of study and fasting between Purim and Passover merged with pagan traditions to become Lent. Shavuot became Pentecost. And so on.

This wasn't an overnight event and it wasn't without contention. There was significant disagreement between various congregations during this process, but the unrelenting consolidation of power in the hands of a few who actively discouraged the masses from studying the Scriptures for themselves caused the actual traditions given by the Apostles to be subsumed beneath a syncretism of the new "Jewish" religion with the older, more comfortable paganism.

It is possible--perhaps even probable--that the passages concerning "the hypocrites" and the Eucharist (aka Feast of Gratitude, which is a little closer to its origin in Passover than the English term "communion") were added or modified by a later editor and were not part of the original. Numerous references to keeping the commandments of Torah show that The Didache was penned before the corruption had set in too deeply. It's too radically pro-Moses, which is one of the reasons I love it despite its flaws. If that is the case, it's impossible to tell for certain which segments are pure and which aren't.

I encourage all believers--Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, Messianic, et al--to read the Scriptures for themselves, beginning with Genesis. It's a huge mistake to start new believers with John or Romans. Would you start a house by making the doors and windows first or by laying the foundation? Everything that comes later builds upon what came first. The Apostolic Scriptures are all based on the Torah and filled with plain and oblique references to Torah and the Prophets. Without a good understanding of those older Scriptures, the newer ones can only be read out of context and can be very easily misunderstood.

Study the Scriptures and you will be much better prepared for sifting through writings like The Didache and the various letters of the early church fathers. Without studying the Scriptures, you'll be perfectly prepared to be deceived.

Let Them Know They're in a Fight

I hate threatening someone else's job. I don't care for boycotts. Honestly, the whole #OpTorDrop thing makes me a little sick to my stomach. I'd rather just let people know what I think by supporting things I like and not supporting things I don't. In return, I'd like to be free to support a worthy cause with my own resources, to point out obvious truths in a public forum, or to wear a gaudy Hawaiian shirt without fear of being fired and blacklisted.

Unfortunately, the world today just doesn't work that way.

The other side declared war on us decades ago and we didn't believe them. Who usually wins a fight? The first one to know he's in a fight, which is why we keep losing.

So swallow your bile and start hitting back. Let them know that they're finally in a fight.



I'm not buying another Tor book until Irene Gallo and Patrick Nielsen-Hayden have quit or been fired. I'll buy two on that day. It seems like a small thing, but every war consists of numerous small battles. Start small, start big...just start.

In the meantime, I'm looking for the next fight.

HT: Vox Day "A necessary endorsement"

Korah's Rebellion: Playing with Fire

Numbers 16:38 - The censers of these sinners against their own souls, let them make them broad plates for a covering of the altar: for they offered them before the LORD, therefore they are hallowed: and they shall be a sign unto the children of Israel.

If Korah, Datan, and Abiram were sinners, why should their censers be made holy by their offerings?

God is a God of order and laws. He ordered the universe so that if you jump from the surface of the Earth, you will fall back to it. If you speak evil things of yourself, evil things will tend to happen to you. If you lie, cheat, and steal, negative consequences will accrue. And if you dedicate something over which you have legitimate authority to God, that thing becomes holy to God. Although God will listen to his faithful and shower special blessings on those who love him, the laws of the universe apply equally to all men regardless of their standing in the kingdom.

OK, so why should those things wrought by wickedness be used as part of the furniture of the Tabernacle?

This is not a matter of the ends justifying the means. The means were evil, and the actors paid a heavy price. God has a plan, however, and that plan still operates within the universe that he created to be governed by his laws. The censers that Korah and company used in their coup attempt could no longer be used for any mundane purpose because they were still dedicated to God. It would also be inappropriate to use them as censers and thereby bestow some small amount of honor on Korah. Instead they were fired and beaten into something their creators did not intend.

Such is the case with all evil designs. They never end as intended. Satan forever attempts to twist God’s creation into something foreign, and so God does the same with Satan’s:

Romans 8:28 - And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
  
Korah played with fires that he didn't understand & it cost him dearly.