Here it is, my first video.

Enjoy, it's on revisionist history and I hope it educates and tickles your funny bone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SNq-RE5WwM

This week a concentrated attack has begun against this Administration's attempt at Healthcare reform by the tools of the corporate Healthcare Industry shills in the media and public office.

It comes in the form of a propaganda campaign.

I'm sure you've seen news articles with titles such as "Obama's Health care is on the ropes." An op-ed piece was placed on the home page of Yahoo, something I've never seen before.

ON YOUR HOME PAGE (If you use yahoo), in an attempt to sway you from taking action. The plan is to create uncertainty and despair in us, the average American, so that we do not mobilize and stop them.

I'm here to tell you. Healthcare reform is not on the ropes. they are lying to us.

Unlike these people and groups who support the private healthcare industry (in exchange for huge cash payouts) I have something called FACTS to back up my statement.

Fact: The public option is supported between 72%-83% of Americans. We are not "Hesitant and on the ropes about it. This portion of the American people are those who ABSOLUTELY WANT the public option. Note that the 83% number is taken from a poll done by a private Health Care company who were fishing for a low poll number in support of the public option, but were dismayed to get a poll result showing 83% in favor.

Fact: America does NOT have the best Health Care in the world. We have some of the best trained professionals and some of the best equipment, but when it comes to actual provided health care, we are ranked 37 in the world.

Considering America is perhaps the greatest, most powerful and wealthiest nation in the world EVER, that is PATHETIC.

Fact: The AMA itself backed this plan, as surprising as that is. Kudos for them for rocking the boat.

Fact: The Public Option plan will save Americans approximately 150 million dollars a year.

Fact: Any one claiming "we need to study the issue more" is LYING. We've studied it to death. It works, it saves money. They are hoping to stall this issue until the focus of the American people shifts, the issue loses momentum and they can quietly vote it down.

A politician claiming "we need to study an issue more" is about as honest as a politician retiring due to scandel claiming "I need to spend more time with my family."

Fact: Republican senator Glass DID twitter out "So what?" after the press conference. I also say; "So what?" Is it any surprise that very few Republicans have supported the Public Option? They've all being paid off by private Health Care Industry to kill this issue.

Fact: Even Democratic Senators are getting paid by private Health Care to kill this bill. So called "Centrist and conservative" Democrats (ie; Corporate Democrats), such as Bill Nelson  and Mary Landers, Senators for Nebraska and Louisiana have taking up to two million dollars in payment to help kill this bill.


Fact: The public option WILL WORK. It has been shown to work successfully in similar forms in other countries. Do not be fooled by this propaganda campaign.

What can you do?

Contact your local Senator.

E-mail him or her DEMANDING tha they vote for the public option. Despite offers of large payouts into pocket or campaign funds from Private health Insurance companies, they WILL buckle under public pressure.

These senators are WAITING to give you their votes. All you have to do is claim them.

I'm not looking to debate the pro's and con's of the public option here. I believe EVERYONE should write thier senator on this issue, regardless of how they feel about it.

After all, if 83% write in that they support it, and 17% percent write in they don't... well, that's fine by me.

So Americans, pro or con, look up your senator, write them an e-mail, and then write in the comment section below this journal that;

"I'm an American and I made a difference today!"

And be d*mned proud of it.

In Genesis we have the telling of the tale in which God decides to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.  So he appears before Abraham; he is pleased with what he sees. Abraham and his family have honored the contract of the original Covenant and obeyed it religiously.


Note that he appears "at the appointed time". God has set a "check in" clause for the Jews for when he will fulfill the confirmation of the contract (Covenant). Something of an "all mighty parole officer." :->
  
But Sodom and Gomorrah? He has deemed their sin "great and exceedingly grievous" and thus he plans to destroy them.

Now, God does a curious thing here. He essentially invites Abraham to be part of the judgment of the City. He even makes a point of stating he isn't hiding his actions from him, he's allowing for "full disclosure" which is somewhat out of character.

He then goes even further and allows Abraham to engage him in an argument over the execution of his Judgment on the City. A lengthy debate begins over just how thorough God's destruction will be.

It is written in a style which suggests that Abraham is getting God to reluctantly concede that if there are ANY righteous in the city, then they shouldn't be killed with the rest of Sodom and Gomorrah.

It is clear that God thinks Abraham's judgment on the morality of Sodom and Gomorrah is in error; but out of love of Abraham he allows his servants (Angels) to go down and take stock of the situation.

But if God is all knowing then he already KNOWS if there are any righteous in the City. One can only conclude that he is humoring Abraham due to his affection for him.

There is actually a suggestion that God and Abraham leave each other's company rather miffed with each other; God departing abruptly in "divine irritation" and Abraham turning his back to him, a physical action that especially back then signified at the best displeasure, at the worst a grave insult.

Which leads us to Lot.

Now, first; let me define what the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is. Sodom and Gomorrah is one of the favorite stories quoted by those who would lead you to believe that God destroyed the city due to homosexual behavior and thus God hates Homosexuals.

But this isn't so. The actual crime of Sodom and Gomorrah is the breaking of the basic rules of hospitality. The favored passages for the homosexual argument is;

gen19:5 "   ...bring them out unto us, and we know them.' "

and:

gen 19:9: "...now, we do evil to thee more than [to] them;' and they press against the man, against Lot greatly, and come nigh to break the door."

The crimes described here are crimes of violence and breaking of the guest right. (If there is any sexual activity, it is one of Gang Rape, NOT consensual sex, be it heterosexual or homosexual).

Lot is clearly worried that these men will come in and do his guests harm because they have come into his house and he has provided food and drink for them, which is the standard Old World invoking of the Guest right which details that a person has become a guest in the house and is entitled to specific rights.

HOWEVER, we come to the crux. Lot is NOT a man without sin. He OFFERS his daughters to the crowd in an attempt to bribe them NOT to harm his guests!

He does NOT trust in God to provide protection (regardless of whether he knows the two visitors are Angels or not; his duty is to fulfill the rules of the Covenant, regardless of the outcome).
He offers his daughters to an unruly mob who realistically will come in and do as they please anyway.

Yes, you can argue that his sin is a lesser sin than those of the men outside (In the context of the rules of society of that time). But it is STILL a sin and a breaking of the rules of the Covenant.

So, based on the above technicality, God allows Lot and his family to escape the City before its destruction (minus one salt pillared wife).

And Lot goes to hide in the mountains out of fear (of what? God? If he is an honest man, why should he fear?).

And while residing there his daughters decide to get him drunk so that they may commit INCEST and birth a child by him. Yet another sin (if it is not a sin, then why the need to get him drunk first?).

This leads to the birthing of Moab who founds the nation of the Moabites.

And as we see, the Moabites were a people who were often "guilty" of leading the Israelites into casual sex, idol worshipping, and war-like behavior despite their peaceful nature.

So.

Did God allow his love of Abraham to lead him to go against his own judgment in allowing Lot to live and produce a tribe of people who were, in the end run, sinners? By making this decision he essentially invalidated the decision of destroying Sodom and Gomorrah to wipe the "Grievousness of their Sin" from the face of the earth.

Here is my response to Addict3 (did i get that number right???) on why I believe there is no "Hell" in the fire and brimstone sense.

Please note I am not looking to offend. The Bibles are open to interpretation and everyone should feel freee to interpret to find the meanings they need from them.

But I tend to approach these things from a scholarly viewpoint, which means delving into usages and definitions of language and meanings based on the historocity and cultures of the times (boring to some, fun to others!).

Hell.

I can discuss Hell and the possibility of it's existence from a psychological/ metaphysical/ biblical stand point or a naturalistic viewpoint.

The naturalistic viewpoint is;

"There is no empirical evidence for the existence of Hell".

But we'll leave that alone for now and just deal with the biblical. :-)

Biblically, I use Young's Literal Translation when reading the Bible. It is the most accurate translation out there (... I have access to) and is very true to the Original Greek and Hebrew. True, it isn't perfect, but it's very good. The New American has some good commentary so I'll occassionally refer to it as well.

Young's deals especially with the proper translation of tenses which the original translators where very sloppy with. The King James tended to play loose with the tenses of passages which can entirely change meaning and intent.

In the original translation, there are actually no real references to Hell).


Here are some examples of the actual original words that Hell was switched in for;

Sheol: Described in terms of overwhelming floods, water, or waves.  Also Sheol is pictured as a hunter setting snares for its victim, binding them with cords, snatching them from the land of the living. Sheol is a prison with bars, a place of no return. People could go to Sheol alive.

It is really just "The world of the dead". There is no implied punishment. The above descriptors are more about "there is no return from the world of the dead." It is supposed to infer the finality of death through metaphor.


Hades: The Septuagint gives the meaning of the word Hades as exactly that of sheol.

Gehenna: Greek equivalent of the Hebrew word Hinnom, which is the name of a valley outside Jerusalem where garbage and the carcasses of animals were cast into and consumed by fire constantly kept burning.
It actually was a literal, physical place and was not intended as an afterlife. It was used to describe an apt punishment for wicked/ immoral behavior. It would be the modern equivalent of us saying;

"Fresh Kills Landfill" (the dumping ground for most of NY's garbage).

ie; "For doing that, you should be sent to live in Fresh Kills Landfill." (ugh!)


The real issue at hand for Christ with God was that mortals had actually no destination after death. There is a suggestion that mortals either rotted in the grave or wandered the earth in spiritual form. There is also a suggestion that an elect few did gain access to heaven through their deeds and acts of nobility.

But Christ thought it wrong that the everyday mortals did not have access to Heaven.

(side note) Now, this is why I tend to translate his words in a manner which does not suggest that HE himself is the true way to heaven (accepting Christ as a physical, real entity gets you access) but that it is actually HIS MESSAGE that gains you access to Heaven.

When Christ said;

"I am the way", it was characteristic of the manners of speech for that time and not to be meant literally. But to go understand this you have to delve into the psyche of people of that time (it was VERY different from a modern humans' psyche in key ways).

It helps if you understand the true meaning of the original Covenent as intended in the Old Testement to the Jews. It actually didn't really cover the afterlife; the Covenant was intended as a contract between the Jews and God for the physical world they existed in. Ther was really no promise of what happened to mortals after death in the afterlife, the Torah is rather vague.

In this context, the actions of Christ make perfect sense. He felt that a new covenant was neccessary that covered not just the physical real world existence but that of the spiritual afterlife as well.