Comments on Ambassador Watch: Moron of the Week

"In particular, slavic church members were made to...

2008-11-16T06:04:00.000+13:00

"In particular, slavic church members were made to feel inferior to the sons of Joseph."

Not in one of my congregations. There was a German in the lay-ministry, and boy howdy, did he ever act like Gestapo --- he even proudly displayed a copy of Mein Kampf, just because Herbie had one.

PH - I'd agree BI was an excuse for racism, but it...

2008-11-15T00:14:00.000+13:00

PH - I'd agree BI was an excuse for racism, but it was obviously pro-Semitic. In particular, slavic church members were made to feel inferior to the sons of Joseph. These members clutched at straws like kinship to the Jewish diaspora.

Re Germany/Assyria mix: I believe Steve Collins claimed HWA "was basically correct" but confined the Assyrians to Prussia. He also flashed a few verses that made Assyrians look like end-time good guys.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/olsondiscuss...

2008-11-14T14:04:00.000+13:00

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200205/olson

discusses the fact that everyone is related to everyone else--and quite recently.

I retract what I said about his birth certificate. Jared makes a good case for the preponderance of the evidence as his being born in Hawaii.

Positive Dennis

Neo: --Hence, point out that Manasseh himself was ...

2008-11-14T12:07:00.001+13:00

Neo: --Hence, point out that Manasseh himself was half Hamitic. Manasseh and Ephraim were both half Egyptian.

When you serve this into his side of the court, he will attempt to prove that Joseph's wife mentioned was not really Egyptian but was of a "White" race of some sort.--

I had forgotten the white part! Herman Hoeh tried to prove in his Compendium that the non-native Hyksos were sitting on the Egyptian throne in Joseph's day, and that they were white.

Libro

(Are you alluding to the old saw? "Q: Where is tennis mentioned in the Bible? A: When Joseph served in Pharaoh's court!")

"Previous BI proponents believed Ephraim and Manas...

2008-11-14T12:07:00.000+13:00

"Previous BI proponents believed Ephraim and Manasseh represented churches, not populations."

That doesn't make BI any less anti-Semitic or racist, anon, I'm sure you agree....?

Don's remarks relate to our odd way of classifying...

2008-11-14T12:06:00.000+13:00

Don's remarks relate to our odd way of classifying races here in America: a person may be only 1/8th black and the rest white, yet s/he is still considered black! How much sense does that make?

Libro

(And would as many people be going on about questionable citizenship if Arnold Schwarzenegger had made a similar claim about his mom and won the election?)

Yes, indeed.Not all Anglo-Saxons are Germanic.The ...

2008-11-14T10:48:00.000+13:00

Yes, indeed.Not all Anglo-Saxons are Germanic.The Brits are a right mish-mash of races.

Some say that Germany was anciently called Ashke-nazi,which opens other cans of worms.

Seamus

Regarding this Assyrian bit,if you look carefully ...

2008-11-14T10:41:00.000+13:00

Regarding this Assyrian bit,if you look carefully in the prophets,there is reference to the land of Assyria being laid waste,and it reads as though it could be future.It applies to the land of Mesopotamia,not Germany.

Food for thought.

Jorgheinz

smilinjacksprat wrote:"Respectfully, some folks ju...

2008-11-14T09:22:00.000+13:00

smilinjacksprat wrote:
"Respectfully, some folks just don't like the word, evolution."

You're absolutely correct on that observation. When I talk to Church members I try to avoid that very word, because I too once cringed when I heard it said out loud.

Funny though how such folks seem just fine with the phrase "theory of gravity" or "atomic theory" or "heliocentrism."

But as you point out, probably because such ideas, at least nowadays, don't threaten cherished religious ideologies.

Your comment about translation reminded me of one made once by Dr. Stavrenedies, who taught Biblical Scholarship during my time at AC. In that class some self-righteous young AC kid challenged Dr. Stav by parroting HWA's oft-stated mantra that "The Bible interprets itself!"

Dr. Stav replied by mentioning that any time ancient scriptures, including the Bible, are translated from one language to another, that they, in fact, are being INTERPRETED at the same time they are being translated, and that the dynamics of human language makes this an inevitability.

You wrote:
“How many years did it take for the genius of mankind to develop math and science to a point where Relativity could be inferred?”

Only about 300 years or so – once mankind began seriously developing and using the methods of empirical science rather than trusting in ancient authority, the Old Testament included. Look at any culture that still primarily relies on ancient religious scriptures, and they are extremely primitive compared to the Western world, or at least very dependant on creative innovations originating in the West if they are advancing at all.

Incredible life-enhancing material progress began to explode forward once the Enlightenment period gradually swept aside religion as a primary cultural force.

You wrote:
“No wonder Creationists are treated with contempt. They feel that loyalty to God insists upon their denying the overwhelming scientific evidence that surrounds them everywhere.”

I agree. And that’s why I always say that if young-earth creationists were to be totally CONSISTENT in their methodology, then they would have to disbelieve and reject virtually ALL of the major discoveries of science that have occurred the past 400 years or so. The Bible, for instance, does not reveal the truth about heliocentrism. It took the empirical methods of science and math to figure out this important metaphysical reality – one, by the way, that was ardently fought against by religionists for a long time after the evidence for it became overwhelming.

I can’t say I agree with much of the rest of your comments – or perhaps more accurately, I just didn’t quite understand them - but that’s for another time!

PH:As I understand it, Ron meant that some charact...

2008-11-14T00:22:00.000+13:00

PH:

As I understand it, Ron meant that some characteristics of Britain and the USA appear to match descriptions of Ephraim and Manasseh in some end-time prophecies. He wasn't suggesting British and Americans actually descended from those tribes, which is central to HWA's doctrine.

Previous BI proponents believed Ephraim and Manasseh represented churches, not populations.

'Let's face it,the Germans and English are closely...

2008-11-14T00:12:00.000+13:00

'Let's face it,the Germans and English are closely related.So,therefore,the English must be crypto-Assyrians.So much for the Herbal Verbal about Ephraim'
======
Or, many - not all -Germans are indeed 'Anglo-Saxons' who never migrated from the territory now known as Germany.

Mr. B. should have retired years ago.

2008-11-13T22:46:00.000+13:00

Mr. B. should have retired years ago.

I am "natural born citizen" of the united States.I...

2008-11-13T19:14:00.000+13:00

I am "natural born citizen" of the united States.

I was not born in the US and did not live there until I was 18.

My mother was a US citizen but was not required to prove any residency term in order for me to qualify for citizenship.

The fact that I also have citizenship in other nations does not prevent me from continuing to be a US citizen.

"....homo sapiens was already fully developed for ...

2008-11-13T15:56:00.000+13:00

"....homo sapiens was already fully developed for a hundred thousand years when Adam received a soul (neshama)....."

Except for the fact that there was no "Adam", no "Eve", and no "garden".

And your point was?

"The only backing off I know of was Ron Dart (who ...

2008-11-13T15:48:00.000+13:00

"The only backing off I know of was Ron Dart (who said he was uncomfortable with HWA's doctrine) who accepted BI as being typological but not physical."

What the HELL does that even MEAN?!?!

Re. Leonardo's comments on evolution...Respectfull...

2008-11-13T13:44:00.000+13:00

Re. Leonardo's comments on evolution...

Respectfully, some folks just don't like the word, evolution. I suppose they cannot bring themselves to speak in terms of the evolution of knowledge, automobiles, aeroplanes, electronics, what have you. For such people perhaps the use of another word, like development, would solve at least part of the problem.

I'm convinced of Creation, but have all but no common ground with Creationism.

Rejection of God and Creation is obviously the bugaboo being avoided by those who resist evolution, at least by that term. Their loyalty to the Genesis account seems predicated on the supposed inviolability of our beloved English translations. But no translator can bring all the potential, both obvious and concealed, from a supernaturally inspired Hebrew document into another language, including English. All translations, no matter how responsibly made, are by nature at least partially untrue.

How many years did it take for the genius of mankind to develop math and science to a point where Relativity could be inferred? And if the Scriptures penned by Moses were indeed inspired by the Infinite Intelligence that brought the universe into being, then the Genesis creation account must depend in part on understanding the astounding nature of the universe, both micro and macrocosm, no? After all, we do have a vastly ancient fossil record here on earth; and all we know about the universe insists upon its even more ancient age -- with a measurable beginning.

Religion seems to feel it must cram all of Creation -- the product of Infinite Intelligence -- into its woeful ignorance of God, Torah and Science. No wonder Creationists are treated with contempt. They feel that loyalty to God insists upon their denying the overwhelming scientific evidence that surrounds them everywhere. Perhaps they don't realize that God is really, really smart, and all those smarts are part and parcel with the document He gave us through Moses.

In due time it will become manifest that the Hebrew Torah is no ordinary document, that it is a product of ineffable genius, with unfathomable depths open to all who care to dig, and completely compatible with scientific discovery. I mean, come on. If God made -- more accurately "is making" -- the universe, then doesn't it stand to reason that anything He inspires will stand up to even the most exacting standards of scientific scrutiny? Yes, including the uncertainties built into quantum physics.

In other words, the fossil record is true, the universe is ancient, homo sapiens was already fully developed for a hundred thousand years when Adam received a soul (neshama), and all of this is thoroughly supported in the Genesis creation account.

Since it would be foolhardy to dismiss Genesis, "development" might be a better term than "evolution" for describing the lengthy intricacies of Creation. Evolution connotes for some the absence of a Creator, and the consequent lack of accountability of mankind to his Maker. This misuse of an otherwise good word is a crummy reason for pretending that everything just happened spontaneously -- that all of us are simply random expressions of purposeless processes. Evolution doesn't have to mean that. The nice folks who think it does need to dig deeper, more intelligently and perhaps a little more courageously, for their understanding of what Moses wrote about how the universe, and mankind, came into being. It's a work of genius, and needs to be understood as such, or the student might too easily miss its subtleties.

Leonardo quoted "It’s pretty clear to me that God ...

2008-11-13T13:22:00.000+13:00

Leonardo quoted "It’s pretty clear to me that God never really called you."

With that statement, ask yourself "how many COG folks felt like killing themselves after hearing those cruel words?"

Yep, plenty. Just like those who were banished by the Armstrongite leadership. Salvation lost, time to die! Catholic's did this also to control thought. This is the past and present legacy in the land of cogism. It NEVER ends!

I am directly descended from a King of Denmark who...

2008-11-13T13:03:00.000+13:00

I am directly descended from a King of Denmark who was German,namely Frederick 1
(1523-1533).His mother was Dorothea of Brandenburg,a Hohenzollern.

That must make me an Assyrian.Yipes.

Let's face it,the Germans and English are closely related.So,therefore,the English must be crypto-Assyrians.So much for the Herbal Verbal about Ephraim.

Cheers,

Jorgheinz

oooh!Don didn't use the King James version. Maybe...

2008-11-13T12:58:00.000+13:00

oooh!

Don didn't use the King James version. Maybe the New King James.

We can see that Alton Biliously is obviously worki...

2008-11-13T12:51:00.000+13:00

We can see that Alton Biliously is obviously working overtime.

Dear brethren,the Advent Season is almost upon us and certain ex-Worldwides are thinking of pooling their singing skills to produce a seasonal CD,most uplifting in its tenor.

The titles of some of these carols are:

We Three Kinks of Orient Are
Deck The Halls With Boughs of Folly
Stealer Narked,High Liquor Narked
Adeste Fee Deo-lis (Tithing)
Once In Royal David's Shitty
The Thirst No-Hell
God Rest Ye Gerry Mentalmen(wonder who that would be?)
Away In A Mangler

And many other spirit-filled (hic!!)songs for your enlightenment,entertainment and enjoyment.

Jorgheinz

I did some reading on Billingsley's website and di...

2008-11-13T10:12:00.000+13:00

I did some reading on Billingsley's website and discovered that he says that "about 35" people attend his church on a weekly basis. I lost track counting how many splits from splits from splits it took to get from HWA's church to his current organization.

Biblically speaking, in terms of Israelite identit...

2008-11-13T09:34:00.000+13:00

Biblically speaking, in terms of Israelite identity, tribal inheritance is exclusively patrilineal. When a family produced daughters only, the daughters received their fathers' inheritances on condition that they married a close relative within the father's tribe. This kept ownership of the land within its proper tribal definitions. (Inheritance of Jewish identity is cultural rather than tribal, and descends matrilineally.)

The record of descent from any male ancestor, and in this discussion an eponymous one such as Ephraim or Menashe, is genetically marked, a matter of Y chromasomes. So there is no possibility of cultural assimilation removing tribal identity.

The great Genesis 10 families of the earth are still on record, deep within the DNA of humanity, as are the 12 tribal families of Ishmael and of Israel. The descendants of David, Levi, Aaron and Zadok are no less known at the DNA level, so it would seem quite probable that these "lost" identities should one day soon be known as certainly as they were in ancient times. DNA research is, after all, a relatively new science.

Take a look at his overall pedigree chart: http:/...

2008-11-13T08:53:00.000+13:00

Take a look at his overall pedigree chart: http://the.hesperos.googlepages.com/AncestorsofBarackHusseinObamaJr.pdf

From Watch.pair.com, "Obama could count at least two royal ancestors: William I “the Lion”, King of Scotland, and Henry II of England. He is related to at least six US Presidents: Jimmy Carter (half 7th cousins three times removed), Harry Truman (7th cousins three times removed), the 2 George Bushes (10th cousins once and twice removed, respectively), Woodrow Wilson (husband of Obama’s 6th cousin five times removed), and James Madison (3rd cousin nine times removed). He is also a ninth cousin once removed of Vice-President Dick Cheney. He has several relative lawmakers and Supreme Court Justices, as well."

so if the BI stuff were true, he is a relative of King David since he has royalty in his blood.

When a candidate refuses to release information, s...

2008-11-13T08:04:00.000+13:00

When a candidate refuses to release information, such as a birth certificate, it is bound to create more controversy, not less.

Very true. In this case, however, Barack Obama produced an authentic, notarised short-form birth certificate issued in June 2007 by the State of Hawaii. The allegation that Obama refuses to release his birth certificate is nothing more than tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and the most charitable and irenic thing one can say here is that only complete and utter morons think Obama wasn't born in Hawaii but faked all the evidence that proves he was born in Honolulu. This whole story was propped up and promoted by a Democrat lawyer named Philip Berg who was upset that Obama had trounced his candidate Hillary Clinton, and his windmill tilting was inevitably taken up by the conspiracy fringe of the right wing. Berg's lawsuit was dismissed, however, and among the reasons the judge cited for the dismissal is that the notion that Obama was born anywhere else but Honolulu is so incredibly unlikely that Berg would not be able to establish that he would suffer any damages if Obama were to become president.

Given that, I believe the Clintons would have used the issue if there was one there, or even hint of one.

Yep. The Clintons play the political game as hard and as dirty as anybody, and if Hillary's supporter Berg had anything going for his claims, they would surely have hopped on board.

The conspiracy theorists claim Obama "refuses" to release his original long-form birth certificate. This just shows their ignorance of privacy laws and state laws pertaining to vital statistics. The long-form birth certificate does not belong to Obama. It's the private property of the State of Hawaii, and apart from state officials, only Obama or a close relative or representative whom he has authorised is permitted access to it. Obama has the right to look at it, and he can get a short-form certificate drawn up based on the original long form, but he is not allowed to take the certificate and show it publicly. Of course he could go to court and try to get a judge to order the State of Hawaii to make an exception to the law and publish the long-form, but why should he bother if a notarised short-form is sufficient to establish his citizenship? (Hint: Ask yourself why Obama's campaign asked the State of Hawaii to prepare a short-form certificate last year? Maybe because presidential candidates have to prove they are U.S. citizens? Hmm? Maybe?)

Inundated with requests for Obama's original long-form certificate, the head of Hawaii's Department of Health and Hawaii's head registrar on Oct. 31 publicly told the press that they personally have verified the long-form certificate is on file in Hawaii. That would kind of explain, wouldn't it, how Hawaii was able to draw up the June 2007 short-form. All the claims that the short-form certificate is a fake have been debunked.

Then there is the newspaper birth announcement from just a few days after Obama was born. This is the kind of thing I happen to know something about, since I'm a journalist and a genealogist. The conspiracy theorists claim Obama's maternal grandparents, who lived in Hawaii, may have placed that announcement just to let their friends know about the birth of their new grandson. That's pretty implausible, though, because in those days the established practice was for the hospitals to draw up lists of new births every day and hand that list to the newspaper. The fact that an ordinary, "hospitalese" birth announcement appeared in a Honolulu newspaper just days after Obama was born is very, very, very weighty evidence to support Obama being born in Honolulu. This wasn't a personalised, "vanity" announcement submitted by a family such as we have today (since federal HIPAA rules now prohibit hospitals from telling newspapers about new births) -- it was just a couple lines, and Obama's name is not given, although the Hawaiian address of his parents is listed.

So we have documentation that Obama was born in Hawaii, but there is no documentation of Obama's alleged birth in Mombasa, Kenya. But, the conspiracy kooks claim, his grandmother and aunt said they witnessed his birth in Kenya, and then the day after he was born his mom took him and hopped on a plane to Honolulu.

Right. Because in 1961 it was no big deal at all for a post-partum mom to take a major intercontinental flight just hours after giving birth. I'm afraid the "oral tradition" of a couple of Obama's Kenyan relatives, who have had little contact with him in his life but are undoubtedly proud that they're related to an important elected official in the U.S., is not enough to falsify the evidence of the birth certificate and newspaper announcement. In tracing my own genealogy I have found several "traditions" about my dad's parents, aunts, and uncles that we all believed for our entire lives, right up until the point that we found the documents that proved our "traditions" were completely bogus. If the Kenyan branch of his family can produce proof of their tale, let's see it. But I note that they have stopped telling that tale, and there is still no sign of any documents from Kenyan contradicting the documents from Hawaii.

So if you want to go on believing Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, go right ahead. We'll be looking for you at your convention next year, which will be held next door to the convention of the Flat Earth Society.

As for Obama's adoption by his Indonesian stepfather and his past Indonesian citizenship, I’m afraid that doesn’t invalidate Obama’s U.S. citizenship either.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

”U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”

A 6-year-old boy obviously could not have voluntarily applied for Indonesian citizenship with the intention of giving up U.S. citizenship. The status of U.S. citizenship law at the time Obama was taken to Indonesia has since been clarified by court cases that establish the above-quoted requirements described by the federal government website. There’s just nothing regarding Obama’s probable past Indonesian citizenship that would stand up in a legal attempt to establish that he is not a U.S. citizen. That’s one of the reasons Philip Berg’s lawsuit to that effect was dismissed by the federal judge.

Here's a useful website countering the claims of the conspiracy kooks:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

"I don't know where in the world this fellow got h...

2008-11-13T07:48:00.000+13:00

"I don't know where in the world this fellow got his information from..."

Probably his pastor, or if he is a bit more "well read", a Kreationist website or book, and even then probably took the Kreationist's Komments out of context.

Paul Ray