Personal Thoughts

David’s Heart

Then I thought about King David who, by his own admission, enjoyed thinking about God [Psalm 1:1] even without any knowledge of the Cross. David’s 51st Psalm reveals on his part a deep sense of a God who forgives without animal sacrifices [Psalm 51:16-17}. He somehow knew that a repentant heart was what God required—generations before Isaiah promoted it in a theological sense. [Isaiah 1:11-18]. In fact God chose David to be Israel’s king—not for his stature or his wisdom [or knowledge] but for his heart! [1 Kings 11:4; Acts 13:22].

Enoch’s Devotion & Noah’s Obedience

And there was Enoch, whose name meant “devoted” [to God]. He “walked with God” [Genesis 5:24]. He left this world about 70 years before Noah [whom Peter called “a preacher of righteousness” – 2 Peter 2:5] which means Enoch lived in a time of debauchery and crime [Genesis 6:5; Luke 17:26-27]. Noah, himself, is in the “Hall of Faith” [Hebrews 11:7]. We have only begun to name Old Testament “saints” who “obtained a good report through faith, [but who had] received not the promise [of the Cross]” [Hebrews 11:39].

Abraham’s Faith

Abraham chose to believe God after God introduced Himself to the patriarch. Their conversation involved a covenant and a promise; so, understandably the theologian would conclude Abraham’s faith in God was a special case [Genesis 15:6]. Abraham’s faith was invested in God’s covenant, we may conclude, because “faith comes by hearing … from God…” [Romans 10:17].

An Open Heart

Yet, God opens the heart [Acts 16:14] and the theologian has long held to a “natural revelation” [Romans 1:19-20] that declares God real to anyone willing to consider Him. This, in some ways, put the onus of responsibility on “fallen” mankind—not to save themselves [No!] but—to believe! Simply believe God is there and maybe spend some time meditating on His love for them. In this regard we might agree with Paul that sinful man has no viable excuse for not seeking God.

Others?

So, I began to wonder if, perhaps, there were others— others, whose hearts sought out in their limited way to know the God they were falling in love with—not for what He could give them but for who He was to them, the Creator and compassionate God [Psalm 116:1]. Somehow they knew He was alone in the universe and that pantheons of imagined beings could not exist because myths realistically explain nothing! [Psalm 62:5]. These few “believers” would have led secret lives [Psalm 91:1] whose inner thoughts longed to meet God because they knew that—unlike the mythological gods—He did indeed care and love them back! [Psalm 23:6; Isaiah 38:17].

It seems that what the Gnostics called “a spark of the divine” was—contrary to the Gnostic idea—in every man, but most snuffed it out rather than seeking to fan it alive!

A Matter of Grace

I say this as a matter of grace without minimizing the urgency of sharing the message of salvation [and of the Cross] in our day [John 21:22]. Christ has come and God wanting this message broadcast to the world has commissioned us to do so! Is salvation provided any other way than through Jesus’ crucifixion? Absolutely no! Salvation comes only by the Savior’s sacrifice of Himself on Calvary’s Cross for us [Acts 4:12].

But are not all the Davids and Noahs and Abrahams and Enochs in ancient times and the men and women of forgotten tribes who sought out the love of God because in their hearts they knew He was there—are not they—in God’s thoughts and on His heart? [Exodus 33:19; Romans 9:15]. He has, indeed, sent the missionary to them to tell them so.

In Glory they may more fully share their stories?

But thou, O Lord, are a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth. – Psalm 86:15

I came across a cable program that claimed that Jesus never existed and that Christianity evolved out of pagan mythology and the Roman government. I am grateful to my Lord that I was prepared to listen to what the speakers had to say—my having done a deep dive into the Biblical idea of God”s Grace and the “Cross.” This is a truth that couldn’t have evolved out of paganism, not only because the idea [along with the worldview it rested on] was provably antithetic to mythological explanations as to the origin of evil or how to eradicate it [I spoke of this in my book “If It Be Possible“] but because—and here is my reason for mentioning this now—the languages of the time [with due respect to Latin and Aramaic] were inadequate to explicate with proper emphasis and clarity the message of God’s grace. This is the message that both the Bible reveals and our Faith [our “religion”] must proclaim. [1 Corinthians 1:23; 2:2].

Consider the following [I wrote “Essays in Grace” in this regard]:

1. The Greek language never branched off into other languages: as Latin did into French, Spanish, etc. Dr. Caragounis tells us “Greek, on the other hand, never gave birth to any daughter languages.”
2. The dialect of the Greek is not found in written form in any other document beside the Old and New Testaments. There are inscriptions in the common language of the time that suggests the development of the language into New Testament Greek [Koine] but, as J. B. Lightfoot is reported to have said: “…if we could only recover letters that ordinary people wrote to each other without any thought of being literary, we should have the greatest possible help for the understanding of the language of the New Testament generally.” Dr. Caragounis admits that “We do not have any substantial documents of spoken or written Koine by Greeks from the time of the New Testament.”
3. The Language instead of branching merged 7 dialects into one which, after the Apostolic Age, split up again into multiple spoken dialects. Richard Dawkins, a leading proponent of atheism wrote, “It seems probable that language evolves by the cultural equivalent of random genetic drift. … Latin drifted to become Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French….” This is not true of the Greek language!!! Now here’s the “kicker”! Caragounis calls this “unparalleled in the history of language. … Attica Greek could not preserve its purely Athenian character, and entered a course simplification, amalgamating elements from the other Greek dialects… it became … Koine [the Greek of the New Testament].” Dr. Caragounis explained, “In Hellenistic times [when the Scriptures were compiled] the … language is reunited, … and as such goes through its third stage [Koine]. In Byzantinian … times [which follow the time of the apostles and the writing of Scripture] it breaks up once again into Modern Greek.”
4. My amateurish interest in Koine has always been historical and not exegetical. Unlike the scholars who took on the task of translating our New Testament, I only wanted to understand it. That’s why my paper (I submitted as a thesis for a college degree) was in the historical development of the “perfect tense” in Koine. This tense disappears in Modern Greek but scholars have little to go on since in the Byzantinian period of the language which followed Koine everything was written in the Old Classical Greek style [everybody loves Plato]. But I maintain that the perfect tense along with the development of a Greek passive voice out of the little understood “Middle” voice of the language (We don’t have this in English) was critical in explaining “grace”!
5. Curious: the Greek “digamma” which represents the numeral “6” is missing from the language—or at least, our Bible.

Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? – Luke 18:8

It is hard to imagine some of the behavior now considered part of the cultural standard in the Northern Hemisphere of our world—when a Supreme Court Jurist, to be confirmed has to admit “they” do not really know what makes a person a “woman;” or when children can decide their own gender and subsequently go “under the knife” to make their decision permanent without a grownup thought of the consequences; or when a male criminal can claim to be a woman and is allowed a bed in a woman’s prison to rape and impregnate “real” women; or when a university education is more about gender studies than natural science and where young minds go not to be broadened but to be indoctrinated!

Does anyone wonder what gramma thinks of all this?

Not to speak disparaging of what we might call “civilized” behavior but I am wondering if the aliens have not already landed and are among us. We no longer have a cultural identity as a people. It seems. There is no longer a common dream we might all call reasonable. Is it unreasonable to go to church—anymore? Is it unreasonable to want to raise a family? Is it unreasonable to dream of the quiet life in which neighbors are neighborly and not splintered into a thousand disunited cliques in support of ideas as ephemeral as the morning dew.

Causes change but the result always seems to support division. It is as if a lasting “hate” was all that mattered where once their was community and caring. Life is no longer a matter of what I can offer but what I can get. It is not gratitude but entitlement that motivates the human heart—if indeed, we are still talking “human.”

Perhaps, we are learning something about the human soul. It is more malleable and susceptible to suggestion than some of us thought. Take me! I have learned through introspection how little I know myself. I look back over my youthful years and wonder how I could have been the way I was or say some of the things I said. I was then someone I would rather now deny I ever was! Am I the alien?! Perhaps, this is why Saint Paul wrote in his letter to the Christians at Rome, “I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway” – Romans 7:19 NLT. (Turns out: this is a favorite scripture anymore among Christians!)

Will our nation awake one morning and shamefully regret what it has done? Will we rewrite the history to sound like it once was in gramma’s day. Yes, they had their “sins.” They made their mistakes. They even, in America, amended the National Constitution in 1919 to outlaw beer. (They called it “intoxicating liquors.” What alcoholic beverage isn’t!) All this only to amend it back into the document in 1933, a mere 14 years later, realizing that, during a depression and a pending global conflict, everyone needs a “happy hour.”

Or, just maybe, they discovered—as with a person, so it is with a society—that you cannot legislate away behavior or snatch it violently and thoughtlessly from its moorings without severe sociological or cultural consequences.

This is why it seems easier for me—for one—to imagine that there are aliens among us, even if we cannot know who’s who. Perhaps, many of us will one morning awaken and say, “I’m going back! I am so sorry, I don’t know why I did that!” And the others of us will welcome them home!

It is interesting how our minds work. Unlike God, who is infinite and eternal, Everything we imagine or we comprehend or understand is based on measurement and subsequently comparison. These 2 mental exercises allow us to analyze and categorize everything perceivable by our senses. And thus, we say, we “know” a thing. Pythagorean taught, “The problem of knowledge then becomes a search for the kind of truths that will match up with mathematical certainties,” Professor Daniel N. Robinson informed us in The Great Ideas of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, “Plato’s Search for Truth” from the Course Guidebook of “The Great Courses, Page 36.

Animals are compared taxonomically; colors by how much of 3 base colors [red, green, and blue] they contain. Everything we do involving the senses is measured and then compared. This is what science is all about.

The difference between abstract and concrete is the difference between all cases compared to the one. Persons differ by comparing the degree to which they love family or country … or God, for example. And how much of that love is shown measures commitment. What is reasonable is less me and more you in the mix.

So what if God creates a heaven that contains no rulers or scales, no watches, no clocks, no means of measuring anything because everything will be “exceedingly abundant” and “full of glory” made infinitely available by an Eternal God? It might be like needing a drink of water and there’s the ocean—go for it.

Look at Isaiah 1:18 “Come now and let us reason together, says the Lord.” What does God mean by “reasoning together”? The Greek word in the translation means usually “to investigate and expose” a matter but here it means “to dispute,” according to the dictionary. Interesting, in Job 9:33, it is translated “days-man” or umpire: “Neither is there any days-man betwixt us, that might lay his hand upon us both.” Micah 6:2 also uses the word, translated “plead” in the King James: “the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel.”]

The New Testament word that bears on this discussion is the Spirit’s work to “reprove” the world—us—of sin, righteousness and judgment in John 16:8. Interesting thing about this word: “The answer,” Professor Robinson tells us, “is: a rational enterprise that takes the form of a dialectical or argumentative [not argument as in English, but a presentation of the facts] approach. This approach is not simply a rhetorical device; it’s an investigative device. Through the philosophical mode of investigation, we come to consult whatever is contained in the rational resources of the soul itself. ” [Hebrews 4:12}.

So, according to this meaning, God wants to investigate with me in dialogue …my sin!! I must tell you that, indeed, it has been an ongoing conversation between us and until I am perfect I pray He never stops wanting to talk!

Isaiah 1:18 continues, “though…[?]” The Hebrew simply asserts the condition: from scarlet in color to snow white.

God knows us. We understand things by comparing and measuring them. Our sins will not be “whitened;” they’ll be forgiven and gone! But God speaks our language here because He is discussing this matter with us.

Make sense?

“Now, brethren, if I come unto you … what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation [material cause], or by knowledge [formal cause] , or by prophesying [efficient cause] , or by doctrine [final cause]?” – 1 Corinthians 14:6

Paul, who probably knew Aristotelian philosophy seem to plug in Aristotle’s four causes which explains his use of terms in the above verse. Materially, anything coming from God can be called a revelation [the material cause] which comes to us in the form of knowledge or something that is knowable [the formal cause] else why tell us? His Word has meaning, significance, and value as His knowledge [the efficient cause] and it serves God’s purpose, its final cause.

Read Dr. Robinson first and then refer again to 1 Corinthians 14:6. Ultimately God’s knowledge is a revelation from Him in the form of teaching or prophecy, etc and by which our lives are government and our faith confirmed.

“Of course, to say that knowledge requires an understanding of the causes of things is to raise a question about just what a cause is. “Causation” can be understood in several senses. Every identiable thing that exists is made of some particular material and could not exist except as a result of that material. The marble of which a statue is made is, thus, the material cause.Every such thing is recognizable as a given type or form of thing. This “form,” then, must be present for the thing to be what it is. In this respect, the shape of the statue and its resemblance to an original is its formal cause. But form is imparted to matter by strokes and blows and other forms of mechanical influence. The shape of the statue is carved out of the stone by chisel and hammer; this is the effcient cause of the statue. The ultimate understanding of the object stems from the intelligent design that the object itself realizes. Aristotle refers to this as the final cause—that is, the final thing realized in time, although it is first in conception.Truly developed knowledge embraces not only the material, effcient, and formal causes, but the that for the sake of which these causes were recruited. To understand x is to know what x is for, what its purpose or end, its telos, is. Thus does Aristotle seek teleological explanations as ultimate.

Questions of what things are for are also central to Aristotle’s ethical and political thought. We have purposes and ends as the kinds of beings we are; how are those to be reached? How does the polis aid or hinder those ends? Our knowledge of ourselves must be grounded in a respect for just what our defining abilities achieve because these very abilities reveal the that for the sake of which….

The developed knowledge that we have leads us to an understanding that the things of the universe, including living things, instantiate a plan; they fit in. Nature does not do things without a purpose. The ultimate question for understanding, then, is: “How does this fit into things? What is it for? What purpose does it serve?”

We know at the outset that nothing with pattern and design comes about accidentally. As Aristotle says, “If the art of shipbuilding were in the wood, we would have ships by nature.” Wood, however, is the material cause of the ship, and the workers who build the ship are its efficient cause. The art of shipbuilding is finally in the ship’s designer. It is the designer who knows what ships are for and how that purpose is served by the right materials, rightly assembled. To “know” in this sense is to comprehend far more than anything conveyed by the mere material composition of an object.” [Daniel N. Robinson Guidebook on “he Great Ideas of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, page 54]

“The ultimate question for understanding, then, is: “How does this fit into things? What is it for? What purpose does it serve?” What final cause?

A nation’s judiciary remains a critical part of its identity. Once this part of a government  is corrupted, all hope for healthy reform, or to mitigate a nation’s wrongs, is gone. I heard that the U.S. president wants term limits put on the U.S. Supreme Court [SCOTUS]. Of interest is what Alexander Hamilton argued in favor of lifetime appointments to the Court [U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 1].

Lifetime appointments for jurists was intended to put their work above and beyond the reach of political pressures. Though a jurist might be impeached, there is a process involved  for high crimes and misdemeanors—not because a political party disapproves any majority opinion from the court. The U.S. President called for an 18 year term presupposing that elderly jurists are less likely to support progressive ideas? To allow Congress to have a say in their term of office is to subject the court to political influence and persuasion instead of freeing SCOTUS to study and interpret the Constitution in a consistent and fair way.

As it is, to reach Senate consent, prospective candidates for the highest court must walk through a political mine field of “favored” interests of various senators without stepping on one blowing apart their own candidacy. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson  had to, in effect, deny her own gender identity to reach the bench. Judge Kavanaugh was forced to defend his high school past [Thank God for old calendars]. Such abuse—known as being “borked”—would be fine tuned by ruthless politicians in the name of democracy to turn what was intended as a separate power into an arm of some political party.

Hamilton Wrote in Federalist #81:

“Every reason which recommends the tenure of good behavior for judicial offices, militates against placing the judiciary power, in the last resort, in a body composed of men chosen for a limited period.”

It sounds as if Hamilton is arguing against giving the power of the judiciary to the legislature, because, in reality, if the Court cannot be a separate power, it has no power. Here are some he listed in The Federalist Papers (pp. 27-28). [Neeland Media LLC. Kindle Edition]. Hamilton wrote:

1. The same spirit which had operated in making [the laws], would be too apt in interpreting them; still less could it be expected that men who had infringed the Constitution in the character of legislators, would be disposed to repair the breach in the character of judges.
2. And there is a still greater absurdity in subjecting the decisions of men [and women], selected for their knowledge of the laws, acquired by long and laborious study, to the revision and control of men [and women] who, for want of the same advantage, cannot but be deficient in that knowledge.
3. The members of the legislature will rarely be chosen with a view to those qualifications which fit men for the stations of judges;… on account of the natural propensity of such bodies [Congress] to party divisions, there will be no less reason to fear that the pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice.

Thought you should know…

These verses are filled with the compassion of God. The Lord never shares His thoughts with us without an interest in how we are receiving them. The text refers to the son of Isaac as Israel but God called him “Jacob.” It isn’t the Patriarch, Israel, God is addressing but the frightened servant, Jacob, Isaac’s boy. God is not coming to Jacob in some official capacity as the God of the Patriarchs, Abraham and Isaac. He wants to talk to Isaac’s boy. This might have had particular significance to Jacob. Isaac had died just months before Joseph disappeared![Footnote: In Genesis 45:26, the excitement was too  great for Jacob’s 10 older sons to contain. I doubt they even told the old man, “Dad, you better sit for this one!” Perhaps, they were all wanted to be the sharer of such great news and blurted it out in unison: “Joseph’s alive!!!” When I read that, I almost cried for joy like gramma watching the end of a chick-flick movie.  Jacob went numb. I think he then sat down! Moments later, he was calling them liars because one way or another, then, when they claimed he was torn apart by wolves or now when they claim Joseph is second in command in Egypt, these guys tells stories and their playing games with the old man’s heart!  But this time, it’s true!]

Getting back: Perhaps, Jacob’s spiritual development had more to do with his father than his grandfather. Jacob was only 15 years old when Abraham died. Perhaps, Jacob’s understanding of who God was to him had been weakened by the paganism that surrounded him while he lived near his in-laws. (Remember Rachel stealing the “household gods)? Isaac was still alive most of Jacob’s life. As all this may be, Jacob must have known his dad to be a God fearing, praying man of peace—a dad whose God was well known to Jacob. [Sad when Christians do not realize that the children observe their faith!]

God knows where we have been and how life has challenged our faith. God knows where we are at in our relationship with Him—and where He wants to take us!

Even though Jacob spent 20 years in Padan Aram with his father-in-law, Hebron became home to him in old age and in Hebron he wanted to be buried. Joseph was, himself, born in Jacob’s old age when Jacob was 108 years old. 22 years later Jacob had this vision from “the God of his father.”

As God’s practice appears to be, He called twice [Genesis 22:11; 1 Samuel 3:10]. In Abraham’s case, the patriarch was about to kill Isaac, There is a certain urgency in the angel’s call, “Do the boy no harm!!” Samuel, being a young man, did not recognize God’s voice. [How familiar a scene.] The Lord called him by name twice probably to confirm that it was, indeed, the Lord calling.

And what about Jacob? Why not call him by his God-given name “Israel”? And why twice? God appeared to him “in nightly visions” [most translations use the singular, though the Hebrew is plural]. Was there more than one vision, more than one night! Or is the text simply affirming that this was then how God spoke in those times—in nightly visions. God knew Jacob was afraid, afraid to go down to Egypt, though the old man’s reason was never explained in the text.

What if God told me at my young age of 79 that He was in favor of the mission’s department sending me to central Africa as a missionary. That, He, God, would be with me and would guarantee my return—to bury me back in Massachusetts. And he shared all this in a “night vision” (a dream) while I slept. And what if instead of the emphasis being in His words, it was in the overwhelming sense of peace I sensed in my soul. God’s voice brings peace to any internal storm [Mark 4:39]. And lastly what if  God referred to Himself as the God of someone I highly respected for their faith and faithfulness to the Lord.  God might be saying, “See from his testimony how faithful I have been to him.” Maybe a missionary to Africa whom God used that I, in turn, wanted to emulate.

The part that interested me most was what God said to Jacob, “I will go down to Egypt with you, and I will surely bring you back again.” God does not send; He goes with us—especially if we are afraid we might be going alone [Exodus 33:15]. But note the word “surely” in the translation. The grammarians say this construction in the Hebrew “strengthens” the idea. What God told Jacob, He actually repeated, “I will bring you back [home], yes, to bring you home!” The English Standard Version in Isaiah 29:14 translates a similar construction where God speaks in a resolute tone as if with great feeling, as if to turn a promise into an oath, He declared, “wonderful things with this people, with wonder upon wonder….” And where might the emphasis be in God’s tone with Jacob?

Here, with Jacob, the Lord allays the patriarch’s concerns—not only by assuring him of His presence always [Matthew 28:20; Hebrews 13:5] but—by assuring Jacob that everything is going according to plan [Genesis 50:20; Romans 8:28]. It is as if God just told Jacob, “I am behind everything happening! Go to Egypt! See your son! I know what I’m doing in your life! Just trust me—can you do that!

Now, I wonder, if after this divine encounter Jacob awoke in the morning, gathered his family about him and with an excited voice and an adventurous heart proclaimed, “Fill the carts with provisions, put the children in them, too; hitch up the donkeys! We’re going to Egypt!!!! I’m gonna see my boy!!

As a programmer for many years, I might have been less impressed about what a computer could do than most who find it a marvel of modern science. In fact, some might think: who needs a belief in God when man is so capable! Scientific materialism as a modern ideology believes (and that’s the word) that eventually man will build a utopian way of life free from poverty, sickness, and war. And, for starters, our unity would have to be based on one world—a one world government—with no religious affiliation. (Man tends to use religion as a patriotic call to arms.)

But I have been reading up on some of the current mysteries in science that are so perplexing that an entire academic discipline has been created (Theoretical Physics) to deal with them (as “String theory”). And what is understated (in my opinion) is the times physicists and astronomers know their theory is unworkable or highly improbable (The universe is shown to be “fine-tuned” suggesting a “design”). But because the alternative is “a belief in God,” they either hide their findings (like the Cambrian Explosion) or they simply lie (like the cosmological constant). So the atheist would rather believe that the universe, rather than the God who made it, is eternal. If science is openminded about correcting their theories or their understanding of nature and its “rules,” why should that openness not leave room for a Designer/Creator? A belief in God can be—and I think should be—a belief in the God who designed our world! Such an idea should be supportive of, not contradictory to, scientific discovery.

We tend to take mysteries for granted when they are part of life (as birth and death). This fact hides the real issue from us that all around us are the proofs of the God we cannot always sense is there. For anyone interested, this was Paul’s opening argument in Romans 1:18 that academic scholarship tends to “hold the truth” from their own and our perception. In verse 20: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:” Verse 22 is a slap in the face, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”

The foolishness is not scientific research. The foolishness is trading a belief in the God who made the universe for a belief in ourselves to discover things without recognizing His genius and involvement. What atheism doesn’t tell you is that they have traded one belief for another. They have discarded a reasonable explanation for the existence of the universe for one that is filled with contradiction, cognitive dissonance, close-mindedness, and falsehoods.

That science can make a TV for your watch doesn’t mean, ipso facto, man will live on Mars or someday create life. The final frontier is not outer space, it is getting to know Him, Whom to know is life eternal [John 17:3].

I am soliciting honest feedback—not controversy, but ideas based on scholarly research—to explain the underlining evolutionary process or how “natural selection” works to seed new forms in the taxonomical classification of animal life. So, I evolved from the monkey? How does this work? Or must I just take someone’s word for it? If the latter, you are asking me to put my faith in someone other than the Author of the Bible! (I think not.) The following facts are irrefutable:

1. No new phyla have been found by archeologists that were not represented in the Cambrian Explosion of life [541 to 485.4 million years ago]. Evolution requires intermediary changes to occur over millions of years [The Cambrian represents a mere 70 million years—not enough time]. Every phylum, including Chordata, in which man is identified, was found in this period.
2. Missing links are—well—still missing, even though archeology has combed the surface of the globe multiple times. They are still looking and still not finding those life forms in the fossil or bone records. This suggests—if evolved—a leap. (as if nature in frustration yelled out, “Oh, skip it! I don”t have the time!!)
3. If life up to the phylum classification came only through “leaping” (they just “show up”), then, natural or random selection which is “by chance” cannot out-argue a reasonable belief in a designer—Creator.

My honest question for you is: How would or does a mutation occurring in one life form (one animal) propagate through all members or a significant number of “like” forms to represent an entire group or “kind” on that level? [I think at least one son of mine thinks the question ridiculous, as if I asked, “why are elephants pink in my dreams?] Sibling or consanguine “joining” is acceptable. (Footnote: Inbreeding among humans, consanguine marriages, across a single generation carries about the same risks of congenital disability as if a child is born to older parents. So, just as an aside, Cain could have wed a younger sister—bad choice of brothers!)

So, I came from the bonobo monkey! Don’t insult me! How does this translate into an explanation for my walking erect on 2 feet anyway? Could I outrun or outbox the gorilla (another supposed ancestor) from which I allegedly evolved? Sorry for being a bit facetious, but, I guess since my mind is more developed with language, I could talk him to death.

There are a number of issues with the current scientific explanations for the origin of man and the origin of life, in general. I am, however, comfortable with the Biblical account because the Biblical narrative has a scientific basis for it. It seems like evolution is only the agnostic’s and atheist’s alternative for an intelligent designer. But they don’t believe that either because they keep ascribing intelligence to “Mother Nature” or “The Universe.” They know pure chance or chaos is really not possible!

If life was designed and brought about by the Creator—as Christian’s believe it was—the frightening fact is that the evolutionist should prepare to meet Him someday!

I am reading “The End of Everything,” the newest work by Professor Victor Davis Hanson, Senior Fellow in military history and the Classics at the Hoover Institution at Stanford and Professor Emeritus of Classics at California State University. Not wanting to misrepresent him (I, being, far less brilliant and knowledgeable: actually quite dumb) nonetheless, I still thought it noteworthy—even if “out of context” to refer to a couple quotes from his book as they relate to the city of Carthage which the Romans “leveled” in 149 BC and the Aztec civilization which Hernán Cortéz “annihilated” in 1521 A.D. In both cases, the Italians and the Spanish, respectively, found the practice of killing children— I might say “even”—in the name of religion an unconscionable act worthy of cultural extinction. I was wondering if God felt the same way!

In the Bible the Ammonites also practiced human sacrifice which God forbade in the most absolute and demanding sense on ban, the curse, of death [Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5]. In Jeremiah 32:35, we are told Judah practiced child sacrifice to Molech, the ancient God of the Ammonites, which, alone can explain  the exile. God called this abominable. We might explain this word: It speaks of utter rejection and is represented by the carrion that vultures eat (necrotic tissue). The word itself in Hebrew sounds onomatopoetic, spelled “To-a’-Vah” as if gagging or in the process of vomiting [Revelation 3:16]. The place of child sacrifice was given a special name: “Topheth” [2 Kings 23:10], coming from the Hebrew term for “spittle”

Cortez wrote Charles V of Spain about the Aztecs: “They have another custom, horrible, and abominable, and deserving punishment, and which we have never before seen in any other place. As often as they have anything to ask of their idols [their gods], in order that their petition may be more acceptable, they take many boys and girls, … and in the presence of those idols, burn [them] offering that smoke and sacrifice to [their gods].” Professor Hanson explained, “Both the god of rain and the god of war were carnivorous and to be appeased by frequent gifts of human flesh and blood. ” [226].

In Carthage [an ancient city in Northern Africa, in what is now Tunisia] the Romans, too, found what the Greek’s would rightly call barbaric: “Carthage’s social identity was … influenced as well by its mother country  [an ancient country on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean Sea], Phoenicia, [supporting] a … retention of the rights of child sacrifice…. Archaeologists have noted that the prevalence of Topheths, sanctuaries used for child sacrifice, increased during the fourth through second century BC… Greeks [we might add] found the notion of killing children repugnant” [69, 72].

We would be self-deceived if we had not learned from this history that killing children—even if we call them by a different designation (a zygote or embryo)—cannot go unnoticed and unaddressed by God. Explaining away the act as mere paganism—as surely it is—does not exonerate the person who supports it. Because it is a moral issue, it is a religious one, and children should not be offered on the altar of a selfish motivation that simply doesn’t want them.