On the benefits of the bubonic plague

A few weeks ago on NCIS: LA, a doctor was captured who wanted to reinfect much of the world with small pox! (Thank goodness agents Hanna and Callen got her in time!) Her thinking?  The planet was overcrowded and needed to be saved. By getting rid of horrible diseases which killed lots of people, we were tampering with nature and allowing the earth to get too crowded.  It took thousands of years to reach a billion people and then within only a few short years (comparatively), another billion, then another and another. Now I am wondering how many others out there think like this doctor and believe diseases should be free to run rampant and kill people in order to save the planet. Maybe wars and infanticide can be good things so the earth doesn't get too crowded. Um, I don't think so, but perhaps some do.

Later in May as I was reading From Plato to NATO the author, David Gress, states that in "1348, bubonic plague arrived from south Asia, killing around a third of the population in its first visitation, and thereafter returning every generation  or so to cull those who had been born since the last epidemic.  ...The plague solved the food crises, and for survivors, reversed the balance of economic power between peasants and landlords. Until the famine that began in 1315, the population of western Europe had been growing probably somewhat more rapidly than the food supply. Europe around 1300 was full of landless laborers willing to work for a pittance.  Peasants were increasingly tenants, not owners, and at the mercy of landlords who could evict them and find more docile tenants without difficulty.

The plague changed this.  Surviving peasants found themselves fewer and more in demand. Landlords suffered losses when their tenants died and, unable to meet their obligations, were willing to pay more to have their land tilled and rents paid. Peasants who received better conditions were more often able to buy their land."  (pg. 234-235)

So there ya go again.  Plagues' benefits.  I guess, too, there are wars and abortion and infanticide (humanity's ways) and earthquakes, tsunamis and famines (nature's way) of controlling the population.  And homosexuals. They can't have children. Well, they can, thanks to technology.  Same with infertile couples. What do you think? Are we tampering too much with nature by finding cures for diseases and allowing infertile couples to conceive whether it be by IVF or some other means?

If only we could find a way to harness those hurricanes and stop those shifting plates underground ... or maybe not.

Thoughts?

I wonder if Earth would think differently than we do.

Pondering extreme Darwinian thoughts and how they have influenced America

This post kind of goes along with yesterday's on the Darwin/Jesus conflict in Akbar Ahmed's point of view as expressed in Journey Into America.

One example of America's meshing of Christianity and Darwinian thought is evident in the life of former President Theodore Roosevelt who was threatened enough by Catholics and Jews from Europe coming here that he urged the Anglo-Saxon people to have more children in order to avoid "race suicide."  

Please! Have more children like these!

His friend Reverend Josiah Strong wrote a book in 1885 identifying seven "perils" facing America. 

1.  Catholicism
2.  Mormonism
3.  socialism
4.  intemperance
5.  wealth
6.  urbanization
7.  immigration

The solution: "encourage progress"

Achieved how: "the propagation of the Anglo-Saxon race."

Why? It was God's will "for the white race to spread across the world until it had 'Anglo-Saxonized mankind.'" Indeed, the world was "facing 'a new stage of its history -- the final competition of races, for which the Anglo-Saxon is being schooled,' and that before long the American race would 'move down upon Mexico, down upon Central and South America, out upon the islands of the sea, over upon Africa and beyond. And can any one doubt that the results of this competition of races will be the 'survival of the fittest'?"

Did such thinking influence their world race competition?

This stuff is rich!  I'm sure people who would have believed this stuff if they lived today (which we shall bury our heads in the sand and pretend they don't), are related to the ones screeching, "Islam is trying to take over the world!  Muslims are trying to make us all submit to Allah!  And they think this is God's will for the world!"

Yet here are "perfectly normal" white men of English ancestry - or admirers of the English - saying it was God's will to spread a certain "race" - a very specific one, no less - around the world!



Apparently Hitler was an admirer of the United States' eugenics programs and was especially fond of W. Duncan McKim and Madison Grant who decided "a 'gentle, painless' means of executing those whose hereditary was 'the fundamental cause of human wretchedness' would be gas chambers."  Yes, gas chambers!  Grant argued the "need to preserve the 'Nordic races' against the Jews and others by 'the obliteration of the unfit' and against the 'sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life.'"  Did this gas-chamber thinking fail when presented to civilized, evolved people?  Apparently not!  Grant's book sold 1.6 million copies in the United States and was to Hitler, his "'Bible.'"

Meddling where no one should dare to interfere?

I remember the other day I watched a propaganda documentary from 1945 on Here Is Germany which Samer had seen and recommended. He told me not all of it was factual, but that I might enjoy seeing how Americans thought of Germans after World War II.  After I watched it, we talked about it and he asked if I noticed how they didn't focus on the concentration camps. They did show piles of bodies of people who had been starved to death, but Samer was right: there wasn't a lot of focus on the concentration camps per se.  And one would think a documentary produced in order to justify American and other Allied occupation of Germany would totally focus on such a damning thing!

Samer said everyone was too shocked about the concentration camps, and they were still trying to process that mass executions of men, women and children by use of gas chambers had actually happened at this time in history.


After reading about Hitler enjoying the fruits of American eugenics programs, I am wondering if some of the shock was guilt. Guilt that maybe we who had claims to such a sensational book and physicians and scientists would have the audacity to admire people who promoted killing off those we deemed as less desirable than our superior white race.

Were we having to come to grips that our thinking was flawed? Have we gotten over it? Or do we still live as if white children are more valuable than children "over there."  As long as our kids have food and clean water and education does it really matter what happens to the black or brown children on other continents?

Do we value the least of these or do we believe only the "fittest" survive and we are going to do all we can to ensure we are among that group?

Sarah wisely pointed out on yesterday's post that it's a shame Darwin's ideas have been misused in this way. I doubt he ever had this sort of drastic thing in mind yet people took his theories and applied them in questionable ways. The same with the man who recommended the gas chamber as a way of obliterating the unfit. Did he really mean that? Did he really think someone would take him seriously and follow-through with it?  Did he realize Hitler would come along, deem Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the physically-challenged unfit to live in this world and use his ideas to cleanse the world of these people?

What happens when someone in society decides the traits of you and your loved ones are not acceptable? That you don't belong to the favored race?  Favored sex?  Already I read of problems India and China may have in coming years when a male population ages and starts looking for wives because many females have been aborted or abandoned because daughters are not as highly valued in some families.

I, too, have the right to live, don't I?

When do we stop deeming who is fit to live and start accepting and loving people as the valuable creations that they are despite how "flawed" they may appear in our eyes?






quotes from pg. 74-75, 81

Darwin or Jesus: Who Influences Americans More?

In chapter 1 of Journey Into America, Akbar Ahmed speaks of the way Charles Darwin's "survival of the fittest" has influenced American life.  Recalling to mind that it's not the most intelligent or strongest who survive, but the one who is adaptable to change, he reminds us "those who succeed in the competition to survive are said to be the 'favored races.' ... [and] if the favored races are defined by a certain religion, language, and culture these will be imitated, preserved, and passed on. 

Because in America the English - and later by extension the white race - emerged on top in the competition, their characteristics have become the standard. ... In time, all others- African Americans, Mexicans, Native Americans, and Asians - were forced to imitate the dominant ethos if they wished to succeed."  He uses President Obama as an example. Despite his "dark skin" and "Muslim father from Africa," he has for the most part sounded and behaved like "other politicians from the dominant white race."

"A DEBILITATING TENSION BETWEEN DARWIN AND JESUS"

Mr. Ahmed says this tension lies at the heart of what defines and motivates American identity. Since Darwinian thought and Jesus' teachings are "diametrically opposed," they "cannot coexist simultaneously in one society without causing severe friction."

Think about it.  And think about Native Americans and other groups as you compare the two.

Darwin "represents adaptability and survival" and "acknowledges that those who cannot adapt will not - indeed must not - survive."   It's a struggle to survive and "the ruthless will to succeed, strength, speed, stamina, and force determine success. In turn, success generates pride and arrogance, the chauvinism of being on top, and a belief in the superiority of the dominant group."

Jesus' teaching of compassion and love for neighbors and enemies should motivate true followers to reach out to all people especially the "least privileged members in society" who often need the most help. Think of the people Jesus came to serve: basically all types!  Tax collectors, women, soldiers, fishermen, prostitutes, religious men like Nicodemus, ordinary people, children!  Even nonJewish people were not excluded from his help!

Yet why do we - who sometimes insist we are a "Christian nation" - act more like we follow Darwin with all the pride and hurtfulness that purifying the world of all the "bad races" involves instead of Jesus? I always thought the "Christ" part of "Christian" referred to the Messiah celebrated in the New Testament.  So why the Darwinian outlook in keeping the land pure for white people- Christian white people - Protestant white people?

We purified the land so let's keep it that way, right?!

Ahmed observes: "I have always found American fear and anger surprising.Why should the most powerful people on earth be fearful?  And why should the richest people be angry? If there was more true Christianity and less Darwinian thinking, I am convinced, there would be far more calmness in American social life."

I read this and noted "pg. 26 AMEN!" on my notepad!  Exactly!  Why are we going around fearful and angry? Why do we not live as people of faith and actually do what Jesus did and stop being so afraid and suspicious of everyone?

Anger and fear are not good foreign policy motivators!



"Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid."  ~ Jesus Christ (John 14:27)


TO BE CONTINUED ...


quotes from pgs. 24-26

The Bible and those bats-as birds-things

Guess what, y'all!  I'm reading a new book! Surprising, I know.  :)

I finally finished the 500+ page A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Jr. that I've discussed in recent days. It inspired posts on these topics.

Moses being the author of the Torah  
The reinterpretation of Jephthah's daughter being sacrificed for his rash vow
Why suffering though doing good
Does God allow Himself to look weak
King David and Jesus on the topic of enemies

(those are clickable links if you want to read them and add your own thoughts)

Thanks to all who left feedback on those posts!  Enjoyed it all as usual!

Now I'm reading another of my dad's books, An Historical Survey of the Old Testament by Eugene H. Merrill.  In the introductory chapter I found three statements that I wanted to record and discuss. 

Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.

Jesus and the Apostles mention Mosaic authorship many times.  If one argued Jesus erroneously attributed Moses to the Pentateuch, this "is a reflection of His Divine omniscience" (not there) "or that He 'accommodated Himself to the ignorance of the people of His time,' which constitutes an assault upon His integrity."  -- pg.18

I just thought this was interesting as I posted about this Mosaic authorship not long ago.  If you don't believe Moses wrote the Torah, how do you explain Jesus and the apostles and their "error" in attributing the Torah to Moses?

On the inspiration of the Bible.

"[The biblical authors] were not permitted to invent their message, but they were permitted to express it within the bounds of their own intellectual and cultural resources, at the same time being divinely shielded from error of message content.  An uneducated, roughhewn Amos was given a divine message, but he was not expected to express it in a style and with words which were beyond his experience.  On the other hand a refined, cultured, poetic Isaiah was entrusted with revelation and permitted to express it in the inimical manner so much admired in his writings." -- pg. 9

I really liked this because it doesn't mean God dictated word for word what each person would say as if each author were a robot. If that were the case, you may not find the variety of styles presented in the Old Testament. And it would be hard to explain why a bat was considered a bird!  However, the message was not invented.  The divine message. Which doesn't rely on whether or not a bat can be scientifically categorized as a bird.  Compare this to the Quran which supposedly is word-for-word revelation from God. Does this leave any room for bats-as-birds scenarios? I'm not saying they are there, but what if those scrutinizing the Quran found such things?  Can they attribute it to a human messenger expressing himself within the bounds of his own intellect and cultural resources or do they explain it as God speaking in what was known by the humans at the time or something else entirely?

Historical and scientific matters.

"We certainly should expect the Old Testament, if it be the inspired Word of God, to be accurate in all historical and scientific matters with which it deals. Yet, and this is vitally important, we must always bear in mind the fact that the Old Testament does not always profess to speak in twentieth century scientific terms, but often employs the prescientific language of the day in which it was written." -- pg. 18

Maybe this is a bit contradictory from the above quote, but I still found it of interest for some reason. And now I found this when I googled "bat as bird in Old Testament." 

Question

When is a bat a bird? (Leviticus 11:13-19)
Leviticus 11:13-19 states that bats are birds. How can this be?

---

Answer

The Bible did not look forward and use modern biological categories, just like we in this century do not look 8000 years into the future and use names they will use then. In 8000 more years a bird may be called a ‘flycat,’ or some other unusual name, but for the time being we still call them birds. The Bible is using a rather generic category in which to group bats, as modern science uses a different classification system than the Ancient Near East. To the ancients, creatures such as a bat were considered birds since they categorized all flying animals as birds (and bats were a similar size, etc.).

We must to read the Bible from the view of its original audience (exegesis) and not bring modern categories, etc and read them upon it (isogesis). This is a common error made by many. Once, at a funeral, a person told me that baptism had to be done by dunking someone all the way under the water – as Jesus was buried 6’ under the ground. While this question is not meant to answer this specific question, what the person was doing was reading an American custom upon something that happened 2000 years ago – besides Jesus was not buried 6’ under – but sideways in a tomb! I then asked him if he baptized people sideways in a tomb, etc. … which laid his argument to rest.

The Ancient Near East categorized bats as birds in that time.


Source

Do you have any thoughts on any of this?

King David vs. Jesus on the Topic of Enemies

Psalm 9

 ¹⁹ Arise, O LORD, let not man triumph;
       let the nations be judged in your presence.

 ²⁰ Strike them with terror, O LORD;
       let the nations know they are but men.

Psalm 52

¹ Why do you boast of evil, you mighty man?
       Why do you boast all day long,
       you who are a disgrace in the eyes of God?

 ² Your tongue plots destruction;
       it is like a sharpened razor,
       you who practice deceit.

 ³ You love evil rather than good,
       falsehood rather than speaking the truth.
       Selah

 ⁴ You love every harmful word,
       O you deceitful tongue!

 ⁵ Surely God will bring you down to everlasting ruin:
       He will snatch you up and tear you from your tent;
       he will uproot you from the land of the living.
       Selah

Various psalms contain appeals to God to pour out His wrath upon the psalmist's enemies. These seem to contradict the Christian stance of love towards one's enemies. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to explain away these expressions as degenerate and sub-Christian sentiments which have been permitted in the sacred canon by the principle of "progressive revelations."  Progressive revelation is not to be thought of as a progress from error to truth, but rather as a progress from the partial and obscure to the complete and clear.  A consistent Evangelical must hold that all portions of the Word of God are true in the sense intended by the original author under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, even though couched in terms which may perhaps have been more comprehensible and relevant to God's people at the time of composition than in later ages.

This last line explains to me why certain Old Testament practices which a 21st century reader would find backward at the least were not out-and-out condemned as I believe they were more cultural than mandated or approved by God.  This also states why certain things that were understandable or normal back then don't have to carried on today.  I think we can move past some of the ancient mindsets such as slavery being permitted, women being property and polygyny a cultural norm.  Cultures do evolve over time. Technology changes.  It's not innovation to live in the century in which you were born.  The Taliban doesn't have to ban toothpaste so everyone can use the miswak as the Islamic prophet did.

It is important to realize that prior to the first advent of Christ, the only tangible way in which the truth of the Scripture could be demonstrated to human observers was by the pragmatic test of disaster befalling those who were in error and deliverance being granted to those who held to the truth.  As long as the wicked continued to triumph, their prosperity seemed to refute the holiness and sovereignty of the God of Israel.  A Hebrew believer in the Old Testament age could only chafe in deep affliction of soul as long as such a state of affairs continued. 

Do you ever think the same way when you see evil people triumphing while seemingly good people are suffering?

Identifying himself completely with God's cause, he could only regard God's enemies as his own, and implore God to uphold His own honor and justify His own righteousness by inflicting a crushing destruction upon those who either in theory or in practice denied His sovereignty and His law.  Not until the supreme exhibition of God's displeasure at sin, demonstrated by the death of His Son upon the cross, was it possible for the believer to wait patiently while God's longsuffering permitted the wicked to enjoy his temporary success. Nor was the longsuffering of God properly understood until Jesus came to earth to teach His love to men.

Here is a bit of Jesus' teachings as recorded in the fifth chapter of Matthew.

You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Do we tend to revert back to centuries past in how we deal with enemies, live our lives today, justify what we do? Or do you think we have successfully "evolved" into better people?  Why do you think the way that you do?  What do you think about what Archer said regarding progressive revelation?  Did his commentary on this matter make sense?  Had you also noticed and been bothered at David's attitude towards his enemies when comparing them to Jesus' teaching about loving our enemies? How had you reconciled the two?

except for Bible verses, all quotes in blue are from pg. 452-453 
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction by Gleason L. Archer, Jr.

a book review on The News Answers Book

The New Answers Book is a compilation of over 25 questions on creation, evolution and the Bible. The general editor is Ken Ham from the apologetics ministry, Answers in Genesis. While a few of the chapters and explanations were too scientific for my brain, others were fascinating and enlightening. The book dealt with issues such as Genesis, the days of creation (six literal days), dinosaurs, carbon dating UFOs, the global flood, fossils, the Ice Age, death and suffering and more. One topic I enjoyed a lot dealt with the "races" of mankind. I didn't realize this understanding of races was rooted in evolution which believes the Caucasoid "race" was the most superior (sounds kind of like Hitler and proponents of enslaving black people, eh?). Ken Ham said we should get rid of that evolutionized term because all people are equal in God's eyes. The only race is the human race. God did not make us all look exactly alike.

I also appreciated the chapter on defense-attack structures on animals and plants. Was this part of the original creation which God declared "very good" or was this a result of the Fall? Indeed Romans 8:22 reminds us that "the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs until now" as a result of sin and death entering the world. Not only was the serpent, men and women cursed, but all of creation. Before the Fall, animals did not attack and eat one another, but suffering and death are a result of sin entering the world. This is one reason the evolutionary theory of dinosaurs living millions of years prior to man is wrong. For dinosaurs to have killed one another and die from natural causes would have meant there was suffering and death in the world prior to sin, and simply the Bible teaches this to not be the case.

A favorite thought from the book concerning chemical evolution is that "the evolutionist is asking us to believe that a tornado can pass through a junk yard and assemble a jumbo jet." :-) Yes, evolution is that ludicrous! And they say we are foolish for having faith in a Creator who brought about all this order, creativity and goodness!

Another favorite chapter dealt with archaeology and how it supports the Bible. Psalm 85:11 says, "Truth springs from the earth." Over the years people have ridiculed the Bible for mentioning something that was later found to be true. In fact even many secular archaeologists use the Bible because it has proven to be so accurate in its mentioning of customs of the day, languages used, prophecy, specific incidents and people, nations and so forth. That was an incredibly encouraging chapter because it is further assurance that the God Who gave us His Word can certainly preserve it in order that men and women today can know His plan of salvation.