(From a Biblical, Philosophical and Historical point of view)
Democracy = "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." (Bing)
Democracy was not invented by the Americans (after the Revolutionary War), nor by the French (after the French Revolution). According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, it was developed by the ancient Greeks about 2500 years ago.
National Geographic adds that democracy gives people a methodology for replacing their government “through peaceful transfers of power rather than violent uprising or revolution.”
So why is it associated with the Americans and the French? They both replaced monarchies (rule by a king or queen) with democracies.
So then, what is the purpose of “violent uprising or revolution” in a democratic governmental system?
The Huffington Post weighs in with this:
“Popular uprisings against state authorities that are largely democratic in nature…can be viewed and, rightly so, as a disproportionate, if not misguided, response to the ills of the democratic system or democratically elected leaders.”
(From a Biblical, Philosophical and Historical point of view)
“The light shineth in the darkness…”
John 1:5
I find this New Testament teaching fascinating. Firstly, What is it referring to, when it calls one thing “Light” and something else “Darkness”? The implication is that everything is not the same; that things are different–and further, it seems to be implying that everything is NOTequal (despite what many people say), but that some things are preferable (e.g., Light) to other things (e.g., Darkness).
Booker T. Washington was born a slave in 1856, in Virginia–actually about 45 miles from my home. After reading just a few pages of his book, Up from Slavery, I concluded that we, in the 21st century, have just no clue about the institution of American slavery, or the thoughts of either the slaves, nor their masters. I recommend that you read it. Washington points out that the slaves definitely wanted their freedom, and that he pitied anyone who “is so unfortunate as to get entangled in the net of slavery.” Listen to what he says about the potential for bitter feelings toward the white race:
“When we rid ourselves of prejudice, or racial feeling, and look the facts in the face, we must acknowledge that (not withstanding the cruelty and moral wrong of slavery) the ten million Negroes inhabiting this country… are in a stronger and more hopeful condition, materially, intellectually, morally, and religiously, than is true of an equal number of black people in any other portion of the globe.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 8
That is surprising–that a former slave would have that sentiment. Maybe this was because of tender age, but he claims that the same feelings were widespread.
However, as a white American, I cannot help but feel the sting of hearing that no whites–even Christians– offered to teach any of their black neighbors to read after the Emancipation. Washington explains in great detail the longing for education among former slaves of all ages.
“The great ambition of the older people was to try to learn to read the Bible before they died.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 15
And another insight seems very appropriate for our time:
“The world should not pass judgment upon the Negro, and especially the Negro youth, too quickly or too harshly. The Negro boy has obstacles, discouragements, and temptations to battle with that are little known to those not situated as he is. When a white boy undertakes a task, it is taken for granted that he will succeed. On the other hand, people are surprised if the Negro boy does not fail.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 17
And consider this:
“I have no idea, as I have stated elsewhere, who my grandmother was. I have, or have had uncles and aunts and cousins, but I have no knowledge as to where most of them are. My case will illustrate that of hundreds of thousands of black people in every part of our country. The very fact that the white boy is conscious that, if he fails in life, he will disgrace the whole family record…is of tremendous value in helping him to resist temptations.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 18
And lastly:
“In later years, I confess that I do not envy the white boy as I once did. I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed. Looked at from this standpoint, I almost reach the conclusion that often the Negro’s birth and connection with an unpopular race is an advantage, so far as real life is concerned. With few exceptions, the Negro youth must work harder and must perform his tasks even better than a white youth in order to secure recognition. But out of the hard and unusual struggle through which he is compelled to pass, he gets a strength, a confidence, that one misses whose pathway is comparatively smooth by reason of birth and race.”
Booker T. Washington, from Up from Slavery, Dover Publications, 1995, p. 19
In our next blog, we plan to take a look at Frederick Douglass, and see if we can gather some insights from his experience as a slave growing up in America.
By now, most of us have seen the musical, “Hamilton.” (If not, I recommend you do!) The musical centers around the relationship between founding fathers Alexander Hamilton and “Aaron Burr, Sir.“
The men, Hamilton and Burr, remind one of several famous several pairs of counterparts in the Bible, such as Abraham and Lot, Jacob and Esau, and even Moses and the Pharaoh of Egypt.
First, let’s look at Abraham and Lot–the differences between them. Abraham is often referred to as a man of faith, though he screwed up a number times.
Genesis 12:1, God says to Abraham (then known as Abram), “Go…to the land that I will show you…”
Genesis 12:4 tells us, “So Abram went…”
Verse 7 “He built an altar to the Lord…”
Verse 8, he built another altar.
Genesis 13:8-9, there’s quarreling between Abram’s men, and his nephew, Lot’s.
The two men choose to separate.
Abram lets Lot choose west or east.
Verse 10, Lot chooses the east–the “better” land (the Jordan Valley).
Verse 12-13, that includes the city of Sodom.
Genesis 13:14-17, God’s promise to Abraham (not including Lot):
“Lift up thy eyes, and look from the place wherein thou now art, to the north and to the south, to the east and to the west. All the land which thou seest, I will give to thee, and to thy seed for ever.”
Genesis 13:14-17
Verse 18, Abram built another altar to the Lord.
Genesis 15:6 “(Abram, now called Abraham) believed the Lord, andHe credited it to him as righteousness. In other words, despite Abraham’s failures, God considered him to be a righteous man.
righteousness = "the quality or state of being just or rightful." (Dictionary.com)
The Greek word originally used in the Bible to describe that is dipsos, which is G1373 in Stong’s Concordance: “wavering, uncertain, divided in interest, vacillating.”
Verse 8, he offers his own daughters to the men of Sodom.
Verse 9, the men of Sodom treat him like a hypocrite, saying, “he’s acting like a judge!”
In the Hebrew, the word that’s used is shaphat, H8199 (to act as law-giver).
Verse 14, When Lot advises them to flee the city for safety, “his sons-in-law thought he was joking”
Verse 18 When the angels tell Lot to flee to the mountains, Lot replies, “No, my lords—please…I can’t run to the mountains…I will die. Look, this town is close…Please let me go there…”
Verses 30-36, It didn’t turn out well.
But 2 Peter 2:8 calls Lot:
“The just soul…”
Douay-Rheims Bible
Other translations call him:
“That righteous man”
King James Version
How can that be?
Is it possible that right-standing with God is based on our beliefs (despite our less-than-virtuous behavior)?
In Genesis 25:34, we find the statement, “Esau despised his birthright.”
despise = "feel contempt or a deep repugnance for." (Bing)
The Hebrew word the Bible uses is bazah, which is H959 in Stong’s Concordance: “to despise, hold in contempt, disdain.”
Even a cursory look at the book of Genesis shows that Jacob did not have sterling character, but there was a difference between he and Esau, just as we will see that there was between Hamilton and Burr.
To begin with, as we said before, Esau revealed his character, see Gen 25:31).
This seems reminiscent to Shakespeare’s:
“This above all- to thine own self be true…”
Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3
Peoples’ choices–often made when under pressure, quite often end up determining their destinies.
From this perspective, let’s look at Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr’s early lives.
Their love stories and the births of their children could have been an opportunityfor both men to turn their hearts in God’s direction.
In the song, “Dear Theodosia,” Burr says, “When you cried, you broke my heart.” Hamilton says, “When you smile I am undone… I fall apart, and I thought I was so smart.“
The Bible says:
“The Lord is near to the broken-hearted…”
Psalm 34:18
And:
“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart…”
Psalm 51:17
This reminds one of David, the man who committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah killed.
In the song, “It’s Quiet Uptown,” Alexander Hamilton says, ““I take the children to church on Sunday / A sign of the cross at the door / And I pray / That never used to happen before.” In Ron Chernow’s biography of Hamilton, which was the inspiration for the musical, he writes: “It is striking how religion preoccupied Hamilton during his final years.”
♫“Forgiveness, can you imagine?”♫
The grace of God was available to both Hamilton and Burr’s lives, just as it had been to both Jacob and Esau. Yet, their legacies are the result of their choices.
The New Testament, looking back on Esau’s life in hindsight, calls him:
“(An) ‘immoral (and) godless person…who sold his own birthright for a single meal…though he sought for (the blessing) with tears.”
Hebrews 12:16-17
Under pressure–when “push came to shove“–Esau revealed his true nature by his choices. And this was the case with Hamilton and Burr.
In 1800, Aaron Burr had been elected Vice-President under Jefferson, but Jefferson said of him:
“[H]is conduct very soon inspired me with distrust…I habitually cautioned Mr. Madison against trusting him too much.”
Burr’s is a notorious case. But was he outside the reach of God’s grace? That is a not only a profound question, but also a very practical one, that has ramifications for all of us. One might say that it (God’s grace) “doesn’t discriminate between the sinners and the saints.“
In fact, the Bible distinctly says that:
“The Lord does not delay His promise, as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.”
2 Peter 3:9
Does that mean that God’s promises are for everybody–that God’s “salvation” is universal?
No, but it is available to all who accept it, in spite of anything they may have done, in the same way that Hamilton seems to have done.
But is it possible to resist God’s grace?
Yes, we know that Esau must have rejected it (Hebrews 12:16-17).
Lot, though he seems to be a lot like Esau, did not.How do we know? (2 Peter 2:7).
Hamilton seems to have not.
“It is striking how religion preoccupied Hamilton during his final years.”
Ron Chernow
This apparent mystery is made clear in the story of Moses and Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Why? The Bible tells us that Pharaoh, like Esau, despised God.
despise = "feel contempt or a deep repugnance for." (Bing)
“Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice…?'”
Exodus 5:2
God was aware that Pharaoh held him in low esteem. But God did not react to Pharaoh in indignation.
indignation = "anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair treatment."
Instead God gave Pharaoh ten opportunities to turn to humble himself before Him. But Pharaoh did not.
Have you ever seen the movie and TV show, Stargate SG-1? They really did an excellent job with their visualizations of the Goa’uld as the rulers of ancient Egypt.
These were wicked, evil, and arrogant people. And, like a lot of people in powerful positions, they were paranoid and petty.
“Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick, as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves.“
Exodus 5:7
Think of Henry VIII of England.
God brought ten plagues upon the land of Egypt. Why?
The Bible tells us:
“The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch forth mine hand upon Egypt…”
Exodus 7:5
People will argue that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. That’s true. But do you not know that God allows all of our hearts to be hardened, if we allow it? It’s true. Each “plague” that life throws in our path is an opportunity for us to harden our hearts, to raise a fist toward the heavens and curse God (Sovereign of the Universe). It may be a mystery, but it’s not a secret.
It’s simple. God wants us to wantHim. Why? Is God insecure? No, God only wants authentic believers in His kingdom.
authentic = "not false or imitation" (Mirriam-Webster)
“Now for a little while…you have been grieved by various trials, that the genuineness of your faith…may be found to praise, honor, and glory at the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
1 Peter 1:6-7
“The Father seeketh such to worship Him.”
John 4:23
“I love those who love Me, and those who seek Me find Me.”
Proverbs 8:17
“You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.”
Jeremiah 29:13
“The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by human hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything. Rather, he himself gives everyone life and breath and everything else. From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.”
Acts 17:24-27
That is why the Bible tells us at least three different times:
“Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your heart…”
Psalm 95:6-11; Hebrews 3:7-19; Hebrews 4:1-8 (and see Deuteronomy 1:26-38)
Like Aaron Burr (who lost his wife, grandson, and precious daughter), Pharaoh lost his own son–his heir.
“And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. And he called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the LORD…”
Exodus 12:30-31
And like Burr, Pharaoh–even at that point, even after all that suffering–turned away from all those opportunities to humble himself, to soften his heart, and to accept God’s grace.
“And it was told the king of Egypt that the people fled: and the heart of Pharaoh and of his servants was turned against the people, and they said, ‘Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?’ …And he took six hundred chosen chariots, and all the chariots of Egypt, and captains over every one of them… And the Egyptians pursued, and went in after them to the midst of the sea, even all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and his horsemen… And the waters returned, and covered the chariots, and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them; there remained not so much as one of them…. But the children of Israel walked upon dry land in the midst of the sea; and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left.”
Exodus 14:5-29
Grace is always available to those who turn to God. And He, in His mercy redeems our life–our story.
redeem = "to buy back, repurchase;" "to free from captivity by payment of ransom;" "to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental;" "to release from blame or debt, clear;" "to free from the consequences of sin." (Mirriam-Webster)
So what about you? What are youwaiting for?
Will you accept God’s offer of reconciliationand redemption? Will you accept His grace?
In “The Ox-Bow Incident,” made in 1943, we get a very clear portrayal of democracy in action.
democracy = "comes from two Greek words that mean people (demos) and rule (kratos)." (National Geographic)
democracy = "government by the people, especially: rule of the majority." (Mirriam-Webster)
Genesis 12 begins the story of how God, in much the same way that He had previously chosen the individual man–Noah–to save the human race, selected a particular family of people–a tribe, if you will, to become his chosen people, to be His representatives to the rest of humanity.
We learn later, in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, that God’s chosen form of government is actually theocracy.
theocracy = "The Jews were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King." (Easton's Bible Dictionary)
Is the implication, then, that God wants the whole human race to enter into that type of system of government?
Well, yes, as a matter of fact, except that Jesus (the “Son of God”) will temporarily reign until He turns rule of all things to His Father.
“And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: ‘All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth.'”
Matthew 28:18
“For He must reign, until he hath put all his enemies under his feet.”
1 Corinthians 15:25
However, until Christ returns to do that, God has left it to men to rule themselves.
Interestingly, when the American colonists set up their brand-new experiments in self-rule, they did not choose a democracy. The question to carefully consider is why not?
“The founders feared that passions could arouse the public, and national policy could become hostage to these passions. Therefore, they wanted men mediating between public opinion and national policy. They also expected these men to be of substance and property, with much to lose from error and also more difficult to corrupt.”
“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths
James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 10
No discussion of governmental systems would be complete, I think, without a glance at King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, interpreted by Daniel in Daniel 2.
kaiser = "Kaiser is the German title meaning "Emperor". Like the Russian Tsar it is directly derived from the Roman Emperors' title of Caesar..." (Definitions.net)
There are still ways that the legacy of the Roman Empire lives on in Europe, England and even in the United States of America.
The U.S. Capitol
But what about the “iron mixed with clay?”
The main difference today between the governmental systems of most of the statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is that all of the empires mentioned above were ruled by a dictator, while most of the modern countries are considered democracies.
democracy = 'control of an organization or group by the majority of its members;the practice or principles of social equality." (Bing)
That seems to make sense to me, that people would want to rule themselves by democracy, rather than submit to a dictatorship.
dictatorship = "autocracy (a system of government by one person with absolute power), absolute authority in any sphere." (Bing)
Then, let me ask you a question: Why doesn’t the malleableclay REPLACE the iron in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream?
malleable = "easily influenced; pliable" (Bing)
“And whereas thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay… but they shall not stick fast one to another, as iron cannot be mixed with clay.”
Daniel 2:43
Rather than replace the iron, the clay attempts to mix with it, but it is not possible. Eventually, under enough pressure the weaker, brittle clay will fall off. And only iron will remain.
In the book, How Should We Then Live?, Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer wrote (in 1976):
“Overwhelming pressures are being brought to bear on people who have no absolutes… The pressures are progressively preparing modern people to accept a manipulative, authoritarian government.. If these pressures do continue to mount, which seems probable, do you think people, young or old, will at great cost to themselves, at the cost of their present personal peace and affluence, stand up for liberty or for the individual? …When these outward forms are imposed on (their) wordview (which) would never have produced freedom without chaos in the first place, people will not stand when the pressures increase… As the memory of the Christian base grows ever dimmer, freedom will disintegrate…”
“I will require the blood of your lives… at the hand of every man, and of his brother, will I require the life of man.
Genesis 9:5
This is a verse of the Bible that can probablybeeasily overlooked, but it really is quite foundational to the world you probably want to live in.
In other words, God was letting mankind know that He was going to hold individuals accountable for how they treated their fellow man. This was the beginning of a foundation for civil law.
Later, when Moses wrote what is known as the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), he included what is known as the Mosaic Law. However, in the New Testament, Paul (the apostle) gave us a new understanding of each individual’s moral responsibility for his own actions:
“The law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of fathers, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers…”
In the French Revolution that began in 1789, and the “Reign of Terror” that followed it, people died. The king, Louis XVI, died. His queen, Marie-Antoinette, died. In fact, 40, 000 people died before it was said and done, including the Rebellion’s architect, Maximilien Robespierre.
In that same year, 1789, the U.S. Constitution was ratified.
And (wisely) founding father John Adams wrote this about it:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
And many years after that, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke these words:
“It wouldn’t take us long to discover the substance of (the American) dream. It is found in those majestic words of the Declaration of Independence, words lifted to cosmic proportions: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by God, Creator, with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.’ This is a dream. It’s a great dream….”
Dr. King went on to say, “..That dream goes on to say another thing that ultimately distinguishes our nation and our form of government from any totalitarian system in the world. It says that each of us has certain basic rights that are neither derived from or conferred by the state. In order to discover where they came from, it is necessary to move back behind the dim mist of eternity. They are God-given, gifts from His hands. Never before in the history of the world has a sociopolitical document expressed in such profound, eloquent, and unequivocal language the dignity and the worth of human personality. The American dream reminds us, and we should think about it anew on this Independence Day, that every man is an heir of the legacy of dignity and worth…”
Then he said:
“Now ever since the founding fathers of our nation dreamed this dream in all of its magnificence…America has been something of a schizophrenic personality, tragically divided against herself. On the one hand we have proudly professed the great principles of democracy, but on the other hand we have sadly practiced the very opposite of those principles.
Dr. Martin Luther King, on “The American Dream”
And on July 4, 1965, when he spoke those words in Atlanta, Dr. King was 100 percent right.
Why? Why was the “dream” of America out of reach for so many black-skinned people?
“You see, the founding fathers were really influenced by the Bible. The whole concept of the imago dei, as it is expressed in Latin, the ‘image of God,’ is the idea that all men have something within them that God injected. Not that they have substantial unity with God, but that every man has a capacity to have fellowship with God.And this gives him a uniqueness, it gives him worth, it gives him dignity. And we must never forget this as a nation: there are no gradations in the image of God. Every man from a treble white to a bass black is significant on God’s keyboard, precisely because every man is made in the image of God. One day we will learn that. We will know one day that God made us to live together as brothers and to respect the dignity and worth of every man.”
It sounds like Dr. King’s “dream,” was filled with hope for the future.
The story of human relations through time is an interesting one.
And it starts in an unusual place.
“Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth.”
Genesis 9:1
Seemingly–for a while–they did just that.
In Genesis, chapters 9-10, we see a description of a culture wherein people had small family property holdings, and when children were born, grew to adulthood, married, and had children of their own, they would spread out (scatter), build their own homes, and raise their own families. Each household would have enough land to support themselves. There were no “rich” people or “poor” people. There were no “lords” or “serfs.” There were no “masters” or slaves.”
Yet in Genesis 11, we read:
“And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it. And each one said to his neighbour… ‘Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.'”
What’s your understanding of “the American Dream?” Is it all about making a name for yourself?
Or is it about something else?
What’s this imago dei thing that Dr. King was talking about?
One article interestingly claims:
“(Following the Civil War) many black leaders argued against special privileges and requested for blacks only ‘the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ specified in the Declaration of Independence.”
“Everybody has asked the question, … ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!”
Frederick Douglass, “What the Black Man Wants,” 1863
Listen carefully to an excerpt from a book about Frederick Douglass:
“It was (‘an elderly, partially literate, and intensively devout black man, whom Douglass would later refer to as Uncle Lawson‘) who imparted to the impressionable young Frederick a strong sense of self-esteem, convincing the youth that he had an important mission to fulfill.”
Are you convinced that you have an important mission to fulfill?
Back in Genesis 9-10, everyone had a purpose. Each family had to own a cow or a goat (milk for the children, and perhaps cheese), and chickens (for eggs and meat). Children often fed, cleaned up after them, milked them, and collected eggs from them. Each family had a small farm, and a small orchard. Each family had a garden. Often, children tended it. Mothers made clothes for their children. Fathers tanned hides. Children picked fruit. Mothers made jam, baked pies, fermented vegetables, milled wheat, baked bread, made elderberry syrup for dealing with illnesses. Fathers hunted, fished, made repairs, built homes and constructed needed tools and equipment. Parents taught children to read, write, and do arithmetic. Children submitted to parents. Families helped each other when necessary.
But a fellow named Nimrod came along:
“Now (Cush) begot N(i)mrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. And he was a stout hunter before the Lord. Hence came a proverb: Even as N(i)mrod the stout hunter before the Lord. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.’A stout hunter’: Not of beasts but of men: whom by violence and tyranny he brought under his dominion. And such he was, not only in the opinion of men, but before the Lord, that is, in his sight who cannot be deceived.”
This new re-structured, re-imagined world is one of specialization, mechanization, and centralization. This is an urban world, filled with soot, smoke and sweat-shops.
This was not God’s plan. It was built by Nimrod–for his own benefit. This dude was strictly in in for himself.
“The mainstays of his empire were Babel (Babylon), Erech and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From this country came Asshur (Assyria), and he built Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah,and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (this being the capital).”
The earth was filled with violence in Noah’s day, but the Bible tells us that “God’s patience waited” (1 Peter 3:20).
Why did God wait? What was He waiting for?
“The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you,not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
2 Peter 3:9
Why was the ark being prepared?
Noah’s Ark
God, contrary to what you might have heard, is kind.
It has always been God’s desire to give people a means of escape, if they would simply take advantage of it.
“The Lord saw that the wickedness of man (like all that we have been horrified to see played out in the news in 2020) was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart (liketyranny, resistance to civil and public health authorities, selfishness, disobedience, lying, deceiving, conspiring,greed, racism, murder, scheming, rioting, looting, and anarchy) was only evil continually. And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.”
Genesis 6:5-6
One site, called The Hope Project, says: “The phrase, ‘And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth,’ could be understood in a number of ways…So what is this verse saying to us? …To say that God was sorry and that He grieved in His heart shows us that God has emotions… In the original text the phrase, ‘He was grieved in His heart,’ literally reads, ‘He was grieved to His heart.’ In other words, God looked on the evil in the world and was grieved ‘all the way to His heart.’ One version of the Bible (the NIV) translates this verse, ‘His heart was filled with pain.’ …If God is infinite, then how far is it to the depth of His heart? How big is His heart? How much grief would it take to fill God’s heart? …God knew He was going to hurt this deeply as a result of creating man, and He did it anyway. And not only that, He did it exactly the way He intended to do it. But why would God do such a thing?”
The Bible tells us that:
“God is love…”
1 John 4:8
A.W. Tozer writes:
“The love of God is one of the great realities of the universe, a pillar upon which the hope of the world rests. But it is a personal, intimate thing, too. God does not love populations, He loves people. He loves not masses, but men. He loves us all with a mighty love that has no beginning and can have no end.”
“So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters, and said, ‘Get up, get out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city!’ But to his sons-in-law he seemed to be joking.”
Genesis 19:14
And we know that only Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives were saved.
“A few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.”
1 Peter 3:20
One website, “Answers in Genesis,” says:
“When the door to the Ark was shut, there was room for many more people.”
“God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.”
1 Corinthians 1:27-28
Today people are claiming that Jesus may be coming back soon, to “Rapture” the church.
“For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain shall be together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air
“Let no one deceive you by any means; for (the Day of the Lord) will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.”
“The Lord is slow to anger but great in power; He will never leave the guilty unpunished.”
Nahum 1: 3
A lot of people laugh.
Those people look around, and see riots, and fires, and hapless government leaders without solutions. They certainly do not see the guilty –if they actually believe there actually are any–punished.
The Bible (in Genesis 4) tells us that Cain killed his brother, Abel. Why did he do it?
The answer is there, in Genesis 4.
“Sin is crouching at the door…”
Genesis 4:7
What does that mean?
If you believe the Genesis account is moral fiction, just mythology, as Jordan Peterson does, then sin–as a concept–becomes a nothing more than a metaphor for chaos (contrasting with order).
But the Bible (in the book of Ecclesiastes) says:
“The hearts of the children of man are full of evil, and madness is in their hearts…”
Ecclesiastes 9:3
So, sin is the normative human condition.
This is confirmed in the book of Jeremiah:
“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick…”
Jeremiah 17:9
Racism is sin. Murder is sin. Rioting and looting are sin. Hating your brother is sin.
How do we fix the human heart?,
The book of Hebrews in the Bible was originally written to Jewish Christians, who knew the Old Testament book of Jeremiah, and it quotes from the 31st chapter of that book:
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant… not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant that they broke… For this is the covenant that I will make… I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be My people…”
Jeremiah 31:31-33
In other words, God will, through His Spirit–living within individual Christians–empower them to overcome sin, a feat that is otherwise impossible to humanity.
The book of Romans says:
“None is righteous, no, not one… no one does good, not even one… By works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight…”
Romans 3:10-20
So, the rioters in the streets are wasting their time. The people in Minneapolis who are disbanding their police force, they’ve got it all wrong.
“On the way down the mountain trail, in the middle of a storm, Alvin (York) meets his God, in the form a lightening bolt, which melts his gun, and throws him from his mule. From that moment on, Alvin becomes a transformed man of faith, apologizing…for his former behavior… Under the leadership of the Pastor Rosier Pile (Walter Brennan) Alvin starts living his life according to Biblical teachings, growing his faith in God and His word.”
Alvin York, medal-of-honor winner from World War I, is a real life example of a man who learned to be a contributing member of society by becoming a Christian.
Another example is Desmond Doss, a medal of honor recipient from World War II.
Desmond Doss, hero of 2016’s “Hacksaw Ridge,” receiving medal-of-honor
According to People Magazine:
“Doss’s faith and courage were forged growing up in Lynchburg, Virginia… He was particularly intrigued by a illustration of the Sixth Commandment, showing Cain murdering his brother Abel.”
“Private Desmond Doss walked into the bloodiest battle of World War II’s Pacific theater with nothing to protect himself save for his Bible and his faith in God…”
In an effort to understand, we found a book about Jerry Falwell, Sr., the founder of both Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University (both in Lynchburg), whose son, Jerry Falwell, Jr., is currently being trashed on social media and being widely accused of racism. The book, titled, Jerry Falwell: His Life and Legacy, was written by Jerry Sr.’s wife, Macel Falwell, in 2008.
In the first chapter, she wrote:
“When angry protestors at Harvard University asked Jerry (Senior) if he was a racist, he replied, ‘I once was.'”
“Jerry would realize that the Lord had been dealing with him about racism for years… Finally, Jerry realized that right was right and wrong was wrong, and he had to take a stand for what was right… He thought of the children in that Dominican Republic orphanage (where he had once done some missionary work), and the Christians he’d worked alongside in Jamaica, Haiti, and Puerto Rico… This day, he realized, had been coming for a long time…”
And this is how seemingly beleaguered Jerry Falwell, Jr remembers his father:
“The day before he died, Dad dropped by my office and said, ‘Go with me up to the (LU) monogram on Liberty Mountain.’ I was swamped with work and couldn’t afford the time… Then I saw the look on his face. It was rare to see him so disappointed. ‘You know (Jerry Jr said), on second thought, I would love to go.’ We sat up on top of the mountain and talked to Liberty University students. It was one of Dad’s last gifts to me, and I will always cherish the memory.”
“I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds…”
Hebrews 10:16
Mrs. Falwell, in the book, was careful to point out the rough-and-tumble life that Jerry Falwell had known before God got ahold of him–just like Alvin York. She included all the tasty tidbits that so many people have used to try to destroy what has happened here in Lynchburg. But through it all, making a difference in the world–and doing what he thought God wanted him to do, is what this man was all about (in spite of his faults, in spite of his critics).
The Bible says:
“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Romans 4:3
And John Wesley (founder of Methodism, and largely credited with transforming nineteenth-century England to such an extant that it was spared from the revolutions that were occurring all over Europe at that time) said:
“Give me one hundred men who fear nothing but sin and desire nothing but God, and I care not whether they be clergyman or laymen, they alone will shake the gates of Hell and set up the kingdom of Heaven upon the earth.”
from a letter in the Works of John Wesley
Wesley is often quoted as saying:
“Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, In all the ways you can, in all the places you can, At all the times you can, to all the people you can, As long as ever you can.”
Attributed to John Wesley
Those words certainly apply to Jerry Falwell’s life as well. And just as Abraham’s, and Wesley’s legacy lived on for many generations, the same will be said about Falwell’s.
This modern worship song could be said to express Falwell’s story well:
In our last blog, we talked about radiometric dating, which we called into question. So many people, though, accept radiometric dating as little-understood, yet (somehow) factual. They make decisions about all kinds of things–including their belief systems and worldviews—simply accepting Science’s truth-claims, but at the same time scientific consensus changes so often today that one can’t help but wonder why.
The problem is that Science keeps moving the goal-posts.
"moving the goal-posts" = "to alter the rules or parameters of a situation in such a way as to suit one's needs or objectives, making it more difficult for someone else to succeed, keep pace, or achieve an opposing objective." (The Free Dictionary)
Moving the Goal-posts
Have you ever realized that evolutionary theory–no matter how complicated anyone tries to make it–is just a simple three-legged stool?
natural selection (Darwin called it “survival of the fittest”)
adaptation = "a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.." (Bing)
natural selection = "the process whereby organisms which are better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution." (Bing)
No one has a problem with the concepts of adaptation and natural selection. Together, they combine in what is called microevolution.
microevolution = "evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period"
The problem comes in when we talk about macroevolution. That’s really the point of contention.
macroevolution = "evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)." (Mirriam-Webster)
This is where the bizarre and ridiculous claims come from:
“Whales, like all mammals, evolved from reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Thus, over hundreds of millions they left the sea, grew legs, grew fur, and evolved lungs. Then they returned to the sea, lost their legs and fur, but kept their lungs.”
Proof-of-Evolution.com
“Archaeopteryx seemed to emerge fully fledged with the characteristics of modern birds,” said Michael Benton, a paleontologist at the University of Bristol in England… To explain this miraculous metamorphosis, scientists evoked a theory often referred to as “hopeful monsters.” According to this idea, major evolutionary leaps require large-scale genetic changes that are qualitatively different from the routine modifications within a species.”
“Charles Darwin believed that evolution was a slow and gradual process… Darwin assumed that if evolution is gradual then there should be a record in fossils of small incremental change within a species. But in many cases, Darwin, and scientists today, are unable to find most of these intermediate forms… However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record… They termed this mode of evolution ‘punctuated equilibrium.’ This means that species are generally morpholgically stable, changing little for millions of years. This leisurely pace is ‘punctuated’ by a rapid burst of change that results in a new species. According to this idea, the changes leading to a new species don’t usually occur from slow incremental change…”
“The modern theory of evolution—little more than a contemporary restatement of basic Darwinism—does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. . . . Our model is fully consistent with Darwin’s central postulate that natural selection controls evolutionary change. Natural selection requires continuity and intermediacy, for selection must create the fit by steadily increasing the frequency of favorable variants. It does not require exceedingly slow and gradual transformation of entire populations.
Let’s be real. For a long time now, many people–including many of us—have been capitulating to Evolution, surrendering our religious convictions in favor of “expert” testimony.
Isn’t it time to question that stance, to recognize the inadequacy of Science as an epistemological position–as the basis for your worldview?
“Today’s intense competition greatly increases incentive to produce the maximum number of publications and to have one’s name on as many papers as possible. This in turn produces temptation to engage in a number of questionable practices, such as ‘beautifying’ data and developing biased research designs in order to produce desirable results…”
We found another website filled with clever ideas for ascertaining tenure and grant money…
Consider, in closing, the following quotes:
“It is repeatedly said that science is intolerant of theories without data and assertions without adequate evidence. But no serious student of epistemology any longer takes the naive view of science as a process of Baconian induction from theoretically unorganized observations… (Richard Lewontin, eminent evolutionary geneticist and Harvard professor)
“There can be no observations without an immense apparatus of preexisting theory.
Richard Lewontin
“Before sense experiences become ‘observations,’ we need a theoretical question, and what counts as a relevant observation depends upon a theoretical frame into which it is to be placed. Repeatable observations that do not fit into an existing frame have a way of disappearing from view, and the experiments that produced them are not revisited.” (from “Billions and Billions of Demons,” Richard Lewontin, New York Review of Book, January 9, 1997)
“For an institution to explain the world so as to make the world legitimate, it must possess several features. First, the institution as a whole must appear to derive from sources outside of ordinary human social struggle. It must not seem to be the creation of political, economic, or social forces, but to descend into society from a supra-human source. Second, the ideas, pronouncements, rules, and results of the institution’s activity must have a validity and a transcendent truth that goes beyond any possibility of human compromise or human error. Its explanations and pronouncements must seem to be true in an absolute sense and to derive somehow from an absolute source. They must be true for all time and all place. And finally, the institution must have a certain mystical and veiled quality so that its innermost operation is not completely transparent to everyone. It must have an esoteric language, which needs to be explained to the ordinary person by those who are especially knowledgeable and who can intervene between everyday life and mysterious sources of understanding and knowledge.”
mythopoeic = "of or relating to the composition of myths." (Collins English Dictionary)
myth = "an unfounded or false notion." (Mirriam-Webster)
Is Reverend Paul right? Is the Genesis account a myth?
“In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.”
Genesis 1:1-2
How can we know if this is true? Science can not prove it. It happened in the past. None of us was here. Therefore, science cannot disprove it either. It would have been a supernatural act by a supernatural God. You either believe it or you don’t.
“God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light. God saw that light was good, and God divided light from darkness. God called light ‘day’, and darkness he called ‘night’. Evening came and morning came: the first day.”
Genesis 1:3-5
And here is the first problem. How, exactly, can the Bible claim that God made heaven, and earth, and light on the first day when everyone knows that the universe is at least 13 billion years old and the earth more than 4.5 billion?
Radiometric dating = "a method of dating geological or archeological specimens by determining the relative proportions of particular radioactive isotopes present in a sample." (Bing)
But is radiometric dating really that reliable? In investigating the validity of radiometric dating, we found this:
“Many radioactive dating methods are based on minute additions of daughter products to a rock or mineral in which a considerable amount of daughter-type isotopes already exists. These isotopes did not come from radioactive decay in the system but rather formed during the original creation of the elements.”
His Holiness Pope Pius XII Encyclical Letter on the Promotion of Biblical Studies September 30, 1943
To Our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Archbishops and other Local Ordinaries enjoying Peace and Communion with the Apostolic See.
Inspired by the Divine Spirit, the Sacred Writers composed those books, which God, in His paternal charity towards the human race, deigned to bestow on them in order “to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.”[1] This heaven-sent treasure Holy Church considers as the most precious source of doctrine on faith and morals. No wonder herefore that, as she received it intact from the hands of the Apostles, so she kept it with all care, defended it from every false and perverse interpretation and used it diligently as an instrument for securing the eternal salvation of souls, as almost countless documents in every age strikingly bear witness. In more recent times, however, since the divine origin and the correct interpretation of the Sacred Writings have been very specially called in question, the Church has with even greater zeal and care undertaken their defense and protection. The sacred Council of Trent ordained by solemn decree that “the entire books with all their parts, as they have been wont to be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in the old vulgate Latin edition, are to be held sacred and canonical.“[2] In our own time the Vatican Council, with the object of condemning false doctrines regarding inspiration, declared that these same books were to be regarded by the Church as sacred and canonical “not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and as such were handed down to the Church herself.”[3] When, subsequently, some Catholic writers, in spite of this solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the “entire books with all their parts” as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever, ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals, and to regard other matters, whether in the domain of physical science or history, as “obiter dicta” and–as they contended–in no wise connected with faith, Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Leo XIII in the Encyclical Letter Providentissimus Deus, published on November 18 in the year 1893, justly and rightly condemned these errors and safe-guarded the studies of the Divine Books by most wise precepts and rules.
