Prosperity's Importance Over Morality & Conflict with Muslims

From reading books and seeing the news I often get the impression that Muslims take very seriously any attacks on "their brothers" especially when it is outsiders who do it. Perhaps it's not such a big deal if it's sectarian fighting (e.g. Shia Muslims vs. Sunni Muslims), but when it's the "Christian" West (and I use that term Christian extremely loosely) then it's for sure the Crusade days all over again. 

Again, this is my impression.  I could be completely wrong.

So I was wondering when is it ever okay for Westerners to fight people in Muslim countries?  It seems many Muslims are fine with our bombing in Libya since Gaddafi isn't a favored Muslim with his silly Green Book, inflated ego and love of power.  But one of the things I hesitated on from the beginning of this imposed no-fly zone was that it would be turned into some propaganda of the Christians again hurting the Muslims.  Seems perfect recruiting material for Al Qaeda.  I think even Gaddafi tried to use it to his advantage.

I mentioned I was reading Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World by Akbar S. Ahmed and in the preface he talked about former United States President Bill Clinton.  The author was giving an example of Muslim perspective on the West and - like it or not - the USA often represents "the West" to the Muslim world.  So what about Clinton?

In August 1998 he admitted to an affair with Monica Lewinsky and followed this by bombing on two continents, in Muslim countries.  Mr. Ahmed said this confirmed "what Muslims widely believed...about American society: that it has little to offer the world except sex and violence."

Also President Clinton demonstrated his lack of honor: "a man caught telling lies to his nation, his supporters and colleagues, and above all to his family.  A man who had no honor was not a worthy man and could not be trusted." 

He continues: "Interestingly the fact that most Americans, through the polls, continued to support Clinton despite his lying and deceiving convinced the Muslim world that economic prosperity was more important than honor and morality to the Americans. The polls were showing that separation of Clinton's private morals from his public office.  This was a division that could not be accepted in a society which cherished honor."   (pg. xiii)

So do you agree that we value economic prosperity more than demanding morality in our leaders and in ourselves? Do you? Is this a good thing according to your perspective or not?  I must say that I heard plenty of people here argue about the value of demanding moral behavior from our President so while the wider American opinion may have been "who cares what people do in their private lives?", I know many people did have huge problems with our Commander in Chief doing such things.

Also since I brought up the topic, when is it permissible for the United States and other Western countries to fight in Muslim countries? Honestly I hate the distinctions that we are fighting Muslims as if our fight is always about a religion and not criminals who happen to call themselves Muslim, ya know? But it seems many enjoy labeling it such and I wonder if it has roots in that Dar al-Islam stuff which pits Muslims against the rest of the world.

Sadly there are times when secular nations and those with more Christians than Muslims have conflict with nations where the majority are Muslims. What should the criteria be? We can only fight against predominantly Muslim countries when the Arab League and the UN Security Council give their thumbs up to it?

I wish there were no reasons to fight. I'm getting very weary of it and wish we could all just

"Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor."  (ESV, Romans 12:10)

March Books

I can't believe nearly 1/4 of the year is over!  Here is the list of books I finished in March. 


 

Hard To Believe by John MacArthur-- this is a book my brother had and thought I might like to read. It's subtitle is "the high cost and infinite value of following Jesus."

I liked the chapter where he talked about Luke 4 when Jesus spoke in his hometown synagogue.  He concludes by asking if we see ourselves among the poor, prisoners, blind and oppressed who need Jesus (see pg. 68-69)

"Many people hear, but if you examine your life and it's all hearing and no doing, don't deceive yourself into thinking you're a Christian."  (pg. 109)



I Shall Not Hate by Izzeldin Abuelaish -- I absolutely loved this book although it made me cry!  Dr. Abuelaish describes his life growing up in Gaza, raising a family (and losing his wife and three daughters) and practicing medicine and how he has worked to bridge the divide between Palestinians and Israelis. I admire his attitude incredibly much! My Facebook friend Aisha recommended this book after hearing him speak in the Seattle area. I put the book on my Amazon wishlist and got it for Valentine's Day.  Many good things worth sharing, but I really loved this from one of the final chapters. He spoke against the disease of hatred and urged people to get over their ignorance by asking questions, learning from others and perhaps discovering we are more alike than we are different. (see pg. 229)

To America: Personal Reflections of an Historian by Stephen E.Ambrose has just under twenty chapters and each deals with a different topic of American history or the author's life in his writing of American history.  Mr. Ambrose shares areas where he maybe was taught one thing and taught it in his own history classes as a university professor yet how over the years of reading and studying and researching and writing,he has at times changed his mind on a variety of topics.  In the book he often referred to other books he'd written so a critic could say this book was an advertisement for his other books whereas I chose to look at it as "if you like this topic and want to read about it much more thoroughly, you should check out the book I wrote on this topic."  And I was fine with that. 

For instance, he shared a chapter on our founding fathers - how impressivie Thomas Jefferson's writings were, how high his IQ yet how George Washington, to him, was the best US President.  He didn't have the writing skills or IQ of Jefferson, but he had something that rallied the people behind him yet didn't let it go to his head. Washington rejected being made the King of America and set the precedent for our limit of 2 consecutive terms in the Presidency.  Ambrose noted how much he admired Eisenhower and was chosen by Eisenhower himself to write about his papers. Instead Ambrose wrote the former President's biography.  He recalls how much he despised President Nixon. Not just for Watergate, but because Nixon always felt very self-serving to Ambrose. Yet when he was asked by a publisher to write the biography of Nixon- and declined immediately - he was challenged by the one who asked him to write it, so he dedicated a full decade and wrote 3 volumes on the man. And the books weren't 300-pages each. More like 750-plus pages each!  

I was especially interested in his thoughts on the American Indians because he and his family lived among them and became friends with many of them. He told a couple of stories about those times and Indian culture that fascinated me.  I now want to read his book on this topic to learn more about the Plains tribes.  He wrote a chapter on the transcontinental railroad and the hard work and teamwork involved by those men who built it.  I was enthralled by facts of the Pacific fight of World World II and how hated the Japanese were, how "dirty" they played even in war.  Since I've been alive, Japanese goods have been so outstanding and I've always thought of them as friends that hearing how they fought to the last man and were willing to die for their Emperor (whom they thought was a god) amazed me!  It reminded me a bit of some radicals today who won't surrender because they believe dying in the cause of God (which God's cause miraculously happens to be their cause no matter how hateful and despicable) will give them instant paradise. Another example is that in the European war, medics wearing a cross on their arms were rarely targets of enemy fire. In Japan, they learned quickly that that made them more of a target to the enemy.   

I was thankful for the efforts Theodore Roosevelt made to conserving some areas of the US for the future generations to enjoy. Otherwise we may not have many of the national and state parks because people would have stripped them of trees and probably had a strip mall or parking lot there by now.  The chapter on the D-Day Museum in New Orleans touched me as well as the talks Mr. Ambrose would have with WW II soldiers both here and abroad. He even made friends with a German soldier (from WW II) after a British soldier introduced him and assured Ambrose they were friends.  I also liked the chapter on Vietnam.

The Year of Living Biblically by AJ Jacobs -- great book; see previous posts for more details




Lilla's Feast by Frances Osborne -- A library book that says it's "a true story of food, love, and war in the Orient." The author shares the life of her great-great grandmother who was born to British parents in China and later married and lived in India, Kashmir and Britain. After her husband, a British officer, died in a shipwreck, she remarried and went back to live in China where she was a prisoner when the Japanese invaded China during World War 2.  I enjoyed learning how British people thought and acted back then!

Loved this quote:  "the past is another country, people do things differently there."  -- L.P. Harley  (pg. 116)  The author was talking about children of British parents during this time (early 1900s).  It was very common for parents living in various parts of the British Empire to send their children home for schooling. Many children rarely saw their parents from the ages of 5 until their schooling ended. Wow.

Rabbi Jesus by Bruce Chilton is a library book promising "an intimate biography" and "the Jewish life and teaching that inspired Christianity" from the cover. Eh, I wasn't enthralled though I vacillate on congratulating myself for having finished it and condemning myself for having wasted part of my life reading it.  On the plus side, I enjoyed some of the cultural tidbits shared.  It's always interesting to learn of ancient times.  On the downside, am I wrong for feeling blue when an Anglican priest believes Joseph to be Jesus' biological father after having met Mary, hitting it off so well with her that they sleep together and have a baby?  A priest who talks of Jesus being a follower of John the Baptist - learning from John in the desert - and being so obsessed with purity that when the woman with the issue of blood touches him, it's with horror that he cries out "who touched me?!" A priest who declares that Jesus put hardship on his family with all his feasting and that his family could hardly keep up and reciprocate on all these meals.  That Jesus brought shame to his family - with all that eating with questionable people.  Jesus was made out to be embittered by society's rejection of him for his questionable paternity.  The author even makes note of his "bipolar tendency."  Oh, and Jesus led a group of zealots in overturning the business going on at the Temple. He gave the agreed-upon signal and the followers let loose. Remember the murderer Barabbas?  He was one of the followers who went a little too far. 

Christianity According to the Bible -- Ron Rhodes seeks to "separate cultural religion from biblical truth." I've had this book for a while and started it nearly 18 months ago and finished the last bit this month so I could finally say it was finished.  The author speaks of creation, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, angels, the Bible, Satan, prophecies and end times among other topics.



The Good Daughter by Jasmin Darznik is a memoir of her Iranian mother's "hidden life."  I found this at the public library and enjoyed reading about her mother and grandmother's lives in Iran leading up to the revolution which brought Jasmin and her parents to California.  It was very interesting reading about another country through the lives of ordinary people.


Where God Was Born by Bruce Feiler -- In this book the author takes "a journey by land to the roots of religion."  He uses mostly the Exile and Prophetic books of the Hebrew Bible and goes to Israel, Iraq and Iran. I enjoyed learning about these countries including the section on Zoroastrianism and the previous people groups who lived in these places centuries ago.


Inside Islam -- compiled chapters by about 15 different authors; see previous post

As for politics, the gulf governments offered their people a bargain: We will bribe you with wealth, but in return let us stay in power.  It was the inverse slogan of the American revolution -- no taxation, but no representation either.

Baghdad Without a Map and Other Misadventures in Arabia by Tony Horwitz -- a collection of anecdotes from this journalist; I've come to realize I really enjoy these types of books because I learn quite a lot about various cultures and odd experiences or maybe not so odd, but things that seem odd through western eyes; this book was published 20 years ago so it was interesting to compare Tony's experiences to what I know about these countries today.

Some things I liked: Tony's adventures in Yemen; buying a shrub of qat and joining some guys for a chewing party - made him feel part of the group amongst a country who was surprisingly indifferent to foreigners (unlike Egypt); seeing all the weapons available for sale in Yemen; meeting Yemeni Jews and reading Hebrew to them to "prove" his own Jewishness; the hospital cases in Yemen were crazy; the Tamil guy on the boat ride in the Persian Gulf curious about the truthfulness of American men and women living together before marriage "how are they then virgins when they marry?" ; travels in Iraq during Saddam's rule to report on the Iran/Iraq war and later during the invading of Kuwait; travels in Iran; the sad situation in Sudan; the visit to the science museum and seeing all the dead animals due to lack of funds for their food; much more

India and the Awakening East by Eleanor Roosevelt a memoir of her travels published in 1953.  About half the book deals with India with the remainder touching on her brief stops in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia and the Khyber Pass.-  see previous post

India's Untouchables & Islam's Universalism and Leadership Role

Today I finished reading India and the Awakening East a memoir relating some of Eleanor Roosevelt's travels.  Roughly half the book is about India with the remainder touching on her brief stops in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines, Indonesia and the Khyber Pass.  It was interesting to hear "Moslems" discussed rather favorably since back then Communism was the big threat. Indeed Mrs. Roosevelt speaks often of how we can encourage these emerging nations to choose democracy over Communism.  It's kind of funny to read this nearly 60 years later and compare it with what has happened since this book was published in 1953.  India and China each had fewer than a half a billion people and talk of the problems of exploding populations (e.g. lack of food and water) was mentioned more than once. 

In the section about India, Mrs. Roosevelt mentioned the Untouchables whom Gandhi called "Harijans" or "children of God."  She said the new Indian constitution abolished "Untouchability and guarantees all people rights before the law.  But, as we know in our own country, it is one thing to abolish discrimination in the Constitution and another to put it into nation-wide practice."  She said in many Indian villages it would probably be a while before caste distinctions disappeared.   Is anyone familiar enough with India to say how things are now - nearly sixty years later?  Have things improved greatly for the Untouchables? Is the caste system still widely practiced within society?


--------------------------------------------------------------------


Also - since it was a lovely afternoon outdoors - I started reading Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World by Akbar S. Ahmed.  It was published in 1999 so it's a bit old, but I think it will be interesting to read how he portrays Islam to see if it's similar to what we observe over ten years later.  I noticed how he said on the very first page "Islam has become all things to all people" and later how "Muslims believe there are many paths to God" and although Islam may be the religion they believe is most favored, "others may be valid." (pg. 25)  He speaks of the "universalism of Islam" being "reflected in its attitude towards matter of statehood.  Throughout history Muslim rulers have been tolerant of other religions when their empires have been secure and stable -- Ottomans, Mughals, the Umayyads in Spain. One reason for this is in "contrast to both Christianity and Judaism, from its early days Islam emerged as the dominant ruling religion of the area. This gave Muslims confidence in their religion, allowing them to act with generosity and wisdom."  (pg. 26)

Some thoughts:  I found the universalism tie to Islam of great interest because I can think of several bloggers who are former Muslims or have dabbled in Islam and some who almost converted or are Muslims but are very universalistic in their outlook. So I got to wondering if Islam leads to Universalism.  Contrast this with more conservative Christians who believe Jesus is the only way to God.  Much more narrow-minded, right?

Since Muslims as secure rulers tend to be generous and wise would the world then be better off if Muslims had higher places in society? bigger roles in government? Maybe our wish for worldwide peace would be achieved if we allowed Muslims to find their voices instead of suppressing parties such as the Muslim Brotherhood.  Perhaps the terrorism and intolerance comes from their being held down and it's just part of their fight for justice that makes some into the terrorists we find distasteful.   Would we gush about Islamic thoughtfulness and tolerance instead of treating Muslims with suspicion, fear or dislike if they were at the top of societies around the world?  Or has that era passed?  What do you think?

Thoughts on any of this?

Is Fatalism Catchy?

"Egyptians undergo an odd personality change behind the wheel of a car."


Insert paragraphs where the author describes a taxi ride through Cairo and out to visit the Pyramids.  He also mentioned how Egyptians are fond of driving at night without headlights then...

"Not surprisingly, Egyptian drivers are the most homicidal in the world, killing themselves and others at a rate twenty-five times that of drivers in America (and without the aid of alcohol). Motorists in other Arab countries are almost as driving-impaired. The only insight I ever gained into this suicidal abandon came from a speeding Kurdish driver, after he'd recklessly run over a bird.

'Allah wanted it dead,' he said. The same fatalism applies to passengers."   (pg.82)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Modern Egypt inherited many things from the pharaohs -- regal good looks, papyrus, bureaucracy -- but a talent for building isn't among them. Egyptians have the opposite of a Midas touch; everything they set their hands on turns to dust.  Even spanking-new skyscrapers seem, after a year or two, fragile and filthy lean-tos.  It isn't just a question of money or expertise; fatigue and fatalism have so corroded the culture that Egyptians have simply stopped caring.  Buildings collapse for lack of basic maintenance. Sewer lines explode, flooding whole neighborhoods. Dead horses lie rotting on the beach at Alexandria. And Egyptians muddle on, as they have for millennia, muttering malesh - never mind - and gazing toward Mecca in prayer."  (pg. 85)


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tony and his wife, Geraldine Brooks who wrote Nine Parts of Desire (which I read and posted about here), received a report from the supervisor of their building. Although it was one of the nicest in the area, it had some fairly major problems. Yet ...

"None of this was news to us, except the fact that the building had a supervisor at all. Still, that someone had bothered to catalogue the building's woes was in itself remarkable.The response was not. Nothing happened.  What was worse, I found myself not caring.  The water main burst?  Malesh, I'll shower with bottled water. There are eleven tenants trapped in the elevator again? Malesh, I'll walk the twenty floors.  The mail's been tossed in a forgotten storeroom filled with dust and spiders? Malesh, I doubt there was anything important. And I'd been in Cairo only a few months. In another year, I feared, Egyptian inertia would so overwhelm me that I'd be clambering over mummified residents as I scrambled through the unlit stairwell."  (pg. 86)


So is fatalism catchy?  Do you tend towards being fatalistic? Is it healthy and good or something we should avoid?  Just this evening I was telling a friend that too many people I know come across as afraid of the unknown. OK, I was talking about Islam, about Muslims.  We just don't have many in my area and sometimes the impression I get is that we should be suspicious of "those people" because they are following that religion that wants to take over America and make us believe like they do.  But I was telling Friend that I want to not be fearful. Jesus told us not to be afraid.  I want to boldly love people and reach out to them and not fear them doing something to me. Basically I want to just love and leave the results of that to God.  Is this fatalism? 

Any thoughts on Tony's observations re: Egypt?



Notes from Baghdad Without a Map and Other Misadventures in Arabia by Tony Horwitz; please note this book was published twenty years ago (1991) so Egypt may have changed a wee bit since the author noted his own experiences there

Keep Islam Healthy and Strong

Last week when I went to the library I got 8 books and one of them was Inside Islam which is a collection of essays by more than a dozen people - Muslims and nonMuslims - discussing "the faith, the people, and the conflicts of the world's fastest-growing religion."  While the book was published in 2002 some of the chapters are from earlier works because one author mentions the Soviet Union if that tells you anything!  I especially enjoyed the chapter about Islam in Afghanistan. I am not sure why, but I find myself fascinated over and over again by this country and the variety of souls living there.

"The Conflicts" section has excerpts from a Karen Armstrong book and a Bernard Lewis article. I found both of these rather fascinating as Armstrong discussed Muslims and the West and Lewis, The Roots of Muslim Rage.  It's like by reading their words I can see my people, my culture, my faith through Muslims' eyes.  Of course Armstrong and Lewis aren't Muslims so I'm not positive that they have accurately represented the situation, but I like to think these historians know of what they write. Several things were interesting, but for now I wanted to share this.  Read them and let me know your initial reaction to these words. Do you agree? Disagree?  See any contradictions or things that may be problematic? 

First this:

"It is better for the West that Muslims should be religious," Qaradawi argues, "hold to their religion, and try to be moral."  He raises an important point.  Many Western people are also becoming uncomfortable about the absence of spirituality in their lives. They do not necessarily want to return to premodern religious lifestyles or to conventionally institutional faith. But there is a growing appreciation that, at its best, religion has helped human beings to cultivate decent values. Islam kept the notions of social justice, equality, tolerance, and practical compassion in the forefront of the Muslim conscience for centuries. Muslims did not always live up to these ideals and frequently found difficulty in incarnating them in their social and political institutions.  But the struggle to achieve this was for centuries the mainspring of Islamic spirituality.  Western people must become aware that it is in their interests too that Islam remains healthy and strong. The West has not been wholly responsible for the extreme forms of Islam, which have cultivated a violence that violates the most sacred canons of religion. But the West has certainly contributed to this development and, to assuage the fear and despair that lie at the root of all fundamentalist vision, should cultivate a more accurate appreciation of Islam in the third Christian millennium.   (pg. 190, Karen Armstrong)

And then this:

There is something in the religious culture of Islam which inspired, in even the humblest peasant or peddler, a dignity and a courtesy toward others never exceeded and rarely equalled in other civilizations. And yet, in moments of upheaval and disruption, when the deeper passions are stirred, this dignity and courtesy toward others can give way to an explosive mixture of rage and hatred which impels even the government of an ancient and civilized country -- even the spokesman of a great spiritual and ethical religion -- to espouse kidnapping and assassination, and try to find, in the life of their Prophet, approval and indeed precedent for such actions.  (pg. 208, Bernard Lewis)

The Karen Armstrong bit I understood to the degree that ideally religions make us do right.  They inspire us to live moral lives, to be compassionate, to help the weak, to be kind and all that.  However, I think many people in the United States do not want Islam to be "healthy and strong."  This is why you often hear a "whew!" sigh of relief when you find a liberal Muslim as opposed to a conservative one.  Whereas we may be fine being conservative in our own faith, we certainly don't want Muslims to be the same.  This is because we often feel taking Islam seriously and literally means they hate us and try to take over the world imposing their ideas and way of life upon us.  Is this messed up?  Is this too much stereotyping and taking what television shows and movies have shown us "true Islam" is and, therefore, it's making us fearful? Ohhhhh, real Muslims shout "Allahu akbar!" and then blow things up!  So says the media quite often.

What do you think about the West being responsible somewhat for the development of fundamentalism?  In what ways can you see this being true?  How can Westerners "cultivate a more accurate appreciation of Islam"?

What most stuck out to you from this post?  Anything you want to address? Please feel free to share your thoughts!

God likes diversity not unity!

A few thoughts from Where God Was Born: A Journey By Land to the Roots of Religion by Bruce Feiler ...


Yair Zokovitch, dean of humanities at Hebrew University and a biographer of David to Bruce and his archaeologist friend Avner:

"Biblical historiography is unique in many ways because it goes from one character to another, presenting our history through people. And that history is the story of the failure of our leaders. God is our blessing; our leaders are our punishment." pg. 85

Do you reckon this applies to us as well?  

 
When visiting Iran and learning about Zoroastrianism:

"In the battle of good and evil, Zoroastrians view death as a temporary triumph of evil, so any contact with a dead object can taint the forces of good.  As a result, humans were not cremated, because burning the body would defile the fire.  Bodies were not buried, because they would defile the earth. Bodies were left exposed in the open air, where they could be decomposed by the sun and devoured by vultures. This public exposure had the added benefit of reinforcing the religion's egalitarian principles, as rich and poor were disposed of in the same manner." pg. 292

Guess that would put an end to the cremation vs. burial debate, huh?  

 

Bruce's thoughts after rereading this story while in Iraq amongst the ziggurats:

In the episode that precedes Babel, the Flood, God is so angry at humans' lawlessness that he opts to wipe out all of humanity, "to put an end to all the flesh."  Five chapters later, after humans build the Tower of Babel, God no longer seeks to annihilate humans; he merely scatters them over the face of the earth. His leniency is telling. God is not threatened by humans' industry; he is threatened by their unity. Specifically, he worries that if humans put aside their differences and act as one, they will think of themselves as more powerful than God. To reinforce his view, God's response to homogeneity is instructive: He re-creates humans in heterogeneous groups, forcing them to live as distinct cultures, speaking multiple languages.

The message here is unexpected but powerfully relevant today.  When humans try to create one language -- when one group of people tries to impose an artificial order on the world -- God views this as a hubristic attempt to usurp his powers and slaps down the arrogation.  God insists on diversity. He demands that humans accept their differences. In rejecting the Tower of Babel, God rejects fundamentalism, the idea that one way of speaking is the only way of speaking and can be imposed on others at will.

God's solution is a cacophony of voices, living side by side. pg. 261

United we stand and become more like God, and divided we're scattered enough to never reach God's level?  Hmmm

Why do you think God scattered the people into the variety of cultures and languages? Do you like how Bruce applied the Tower of Babel story making it relevant for today?  I very much appreciate the thought of no one group imposing its will on everyone else. This is why I increasingly reject the United States having its hand in every world situation and on a more minor scale, why I think no one religious group should make the laws that apply to everyone living in a certain land.  I don't think most people want others to impose their interpretations of religion on everyone else. Thus why I hear talk of Americans who will fight militant Islam's global caliphate plans (if there truly are any...maybe this is just conspiracy talk.) 


Please share your thoughts on any of this!

The Bible On Our Struggles

After speaking of Creation in the Bible and claiming "the earliest verses of the Bible introduce the notion that order is not the natural state of the world; chaos is," author Bruce Feiler writes:

The rest of the Hebrew Bible seems to support the idea that God is constantly struggling against forces of chaos, disorder, and disrespect.  He boots Adam and Eve from his garden after they disobey his order; he destroys the world with a flood after the people act sinfully; he lashes out at his freshly liberated people after they build a golden calf at Mount Sinai; he summons Nebuchadnezzar to wipe out Jerusalem after the people despoil the Promised Land with debauchery.   His chosen people, too, struggle against waves of evil enemies -- the Egyptians, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians.  The idea that the Bible represents some halcyon time that if we only get back to we could all live happily ever after is absurd. The Bible suggests there never were good ole days. Every day is a struggle. The Bible is neither conservative, in that it recommends returning to a better time, nor is it optimistic that a better time lies ahead.  The Bible is redemptive, in that it gives humans the ability to save themselves.

What do you think? Do you tend to agree that chaos is the natural state of the world? that we are working toward redeeming ourselves from it? that there is no ideal state or time to go back to? that "good ole days" never existed? that every day is a struggle? there is no optimism that better days are coming? why or why not? Please share your thoughts on this passage.

pg. 236-237  Where God Was Born: A Journey By Land to the Roots of Religion by Bruce Feiler