Evolution vs. Creationism–Comparing Consequences

“A Venerable Orang-outang”, a caricature of Charles Darwin as an ape published in The Hornet, a satirical magazine (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’ve recently made contact with several people with whom I went to high school. I haven’t seen or talked to any of them in most of 50 years. Hard to believe. 50 years?! How th’ hell did that happen?!

One of them (John S.) actually took the time to read a couple of my blog entries. I was delighted.

John then sent an email asking for my opinion on an article about a particular anthropologist. I started to read the article—and I’d like to have responded to the contents of that article—but I was quickly diverted by descriptions of the anthropologist’s dedication to Darwin’s theory of Evolution.

Well, I felt compelled to explain my notions on Evolution and Creationism to John. It wasn’t the subject matter he’d asked for, but he did ask for my opinion on “something”. In doing so, he provided me with a bit of a “soapbox”. For me, that’s an almost irresistible temptation. (In fact, when it comes to soapboxes, I’m kinda like Will Rogers. I never met a soapbox that I didn’t like. I have a little of Archimedes in me, too: “Give me a soapbox big enough and a place to stand, and I could move the world.)

In any case, once I got rolling, I wound up writing over 2,500 words on my notions concerning Evolution and Creationism. That’s too many words to present to just one man by email. Some of that text might be of interest or even insightful for some readers, so I’m reposting here:

 

Secular Humanism is a “Religion”

Courtesy of Google Images

In A.D. 1961, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Torcaso v Watkins.  The case hinged on the right of a man who had otherwise qualified for the office of Notary Public in “Maryland” to assume that office without first confessing (as required by the Maryland Constitution) that he believed in God. The man was an atheist and refused to falsely confess that he believed in God when, in fact, he did not.  More, he contended that the requirement for a confession of a belief in God was an unconstitutional “religious test”.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the atheist as struck down the requirement that public officers had to affirm their belief in God as a prerequisite for holding public office.

The Torcaso case is probably most famous for a footnote which declares,

“Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others.”

With that footnote, the Supreme Court elevated “Secular Humanism” and other atheistic philosophies to the status of “religions“.

 

In the name of “Jesus”?

Hagia Sophia ; Empress Zoë mosaic : Christ Pantocrator; Istanbul, Turkey (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of my readers commented on my previous article (“On this rock I will build my church”—OK, but which “rock”?).  He quoted part of my text, “That’s the ‘rock’ on which the church of Christ is built—the fundamental principle that the being we now (incorrectly) call ‘Jesus is the Christ (chosen one) and Son of the living God.”

The reader then explained and asked:

“‘Jesus’ is the English pronunciation of the Greek name “Iesous”, which is what the authors of the New Testament, who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, called the Christ.  What do you find to be ‘incorrect’ in this conversion from Greek to English for the sake of pronunciation?”

I’ll answer as follows:

My proper, Christian name is “Alfred”.

Years ago, I visited Mexico on several occasions and sometimes lived there for 3 to 5 months at a time.  I had friends in Mexico who called me “Alfredo”.  I took no offense.

But the fact remains that my proper, Christian name is “Alfred” and has been ever since my parents gave me that name 68 years ago.  Other have called me “Al,” “Alfie,” “Butch” and other nicknames too numerous to mention.  But my proper, Christian name has always been and, so far as I know, will always be, “Alfred”.

I’ll bet that the Christ was never once called “Jesus” by his mother, earthly father, family, friends, apostles or disciples or even Pontius Pilate.  So far as I know, during His earthly life, the Christ never once referred to Himself as “Jesus”.

 

“On this rock I will build my church”—OK, but which “rock”?

English: Icon of Jesus Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the regulars on this blog posted a comment concerning Matthew 16:18.  That verse reads,

 

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

 

Matthew 16:18 is commonly believed to mean that the man, Peter, was thereby commissioned to be the “rock” or cornerstone on which the church of Christ is built.  That belief lies at the foundation for the Catholic Church.

Maybe so, but I think Matthew 16:18 is commonly misread and misunderstood.

I believe that the “rock” mentioned in Matthew 16:18 is not the man Peter, but instead the principle described just three verses earlier in Matthew 16:15 which reads,

 

“Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 

 

That’s the “rock” on which the church of Christ is built—the fundamental principle that the being we now (incorrectly) call “Jesus” is the Christ (chosen one) and Son of the living God.

 

International Law for Christian Nations

International Law based largely on Christianity?

One of my readers posted a comment that included the following:

“The problem with this is that international law is for Christian nations.  Excerpt from  The Cyclopedic Law Dictionary (verified in Vattel as well):  
http://tinypic.com/r/15s7ev5/5

I had no idea of the link between international law and Christianity.  I don’t know that that link is still deemed true today in what passes for “international law”.

But, insofar as I view most of what happens on this earth as evidence of “spiritual warfare,” I’m pleased and excited to see evidence that international law was–and might still be–based on a Christian foundation.

I’m not yet sure how to apply this new insight.  But, if you’ve followed this blog or my radio shows, you might recall that I like to focus on the “man or other animals” definitions of drugs and medical devices.  Insofar as those definitions are subject to a “freedom of religion” challenge, they might also open the door to some challenge in “international law” (provided that “international law” is still founded to some degree on Christianity).

In any case, I’m posting the evidence of the International Law/Christianity “connection” without much commentary simply because I think it’s important and you deserve to see it.  That “connection” is at least consistent with arguments that most of what we see to today is the result of spiritual warfare.

If you have more knowledge on this subject, please let me know.

 

Slick Production Values?

US Edition Cover, May 1971 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As I’ve previously explained, I don’t believe that the Christ and God are one in the same.  I believe that our Father YHWH ha Elohiym is God and the Christ is His Son.  Many people agree with that belief.

Many others disagree.

I can’t say whichever belief is right.  I can only say that my belief is honest and sincere.  Given the intellect and information available to me, my belief is the best I’m currently able to embrace.

Here’s a video that’s based on the belief that God and the Christ are one.  I disagree with that premise but, nevertheless, I find the video to be a powerful and delivered by speaker with a style that I’d love to see on the pulpit.  I find the video inspirational.

Faced with the power of this video, I feel able overlook the video’s belief that God and Christ are one being.  For me, the video “works” despite my belief in the God/Christ duality.

 

“My People Perish for Lack of Knowledge”

Tetragrammaton (Photo credit: ideacreamanuelaPps)

On of this blog’s readers (“Morningstar”–but not Don Bailey) posted a comment on another article that read,

“Some scriptures I believe I understand. Some I know I do not understand.. One scripture says, My people are destroyed because of a lack of knowledge. Then, another scripture says, Woe to those who deprive my people of their rights.This last scripture is enough for me to believe that rights come from YHWH. BUT, it seems to me these rights are going to be denied by the oppressors regardless of whether God’s people have “knowledge” or not..I think Christ & other apostles etc.,had knowledge. Also, he,Christ said if they have persecuted me, they will persecute you. So, I am at a loss to understand what the scripture that says my people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge means. Except I know what destroyed & being destroyed means.”

“Morningstar” knows God’s people are destroyed for “lack of knowledge” but, so far, he can’t figure out what that “knowledge” is.  Is the needed knowledge the Pythagorean Theory?  How ’bout how many ounces are in a metric tonne?  What’s the Las Vegas “line” on the next Super Bowl?  Exactly, what “knowledge” is needed not to “perish”?

It is a puzzlement.  I don’t know the answer for sure.  But I’ve also wondered about that essential “knowledge” for at least a decade.  And, then, about five years ago, an “answer” (or at least a possible answer) came to me.

 

Papal Resignation

Pope Benedictus XVI (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Genesis 9:6 explains why it’s a sin to murder or even injure a man:

“Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”

Because we are each made in God’s image it is wrong to kill us, or even assault us.  To kill another man is a kind of blasphemy against God, Himself.

However, highest form of the blasphemy inherent in killing another man is killing yourself.  That’s why those who commit suicide are deemed to have committed an unpardonable sin and won’t be buried on “hallowed ground” by the Catholic Church.

See, my body is the particular “image of God” with which I’ve blessed and also entrusted in this life. It’s merely true that others have a divine prohibition against injuring or killing my body, it’s also (in my opinion) that I have an obligation to defend my personal “image of God” against any assault by the wicked.  Thus, I have a right of self-defense where that “self” is my personal “image of God”.

Therefore, if I commit suicide, I have probably committed the single greatest insult and blasphemy that any man can commit against God.  By committing suicide, I not only kill my own “image of God,” I deny my obligation to defend my “image of God”.

There may be greater blasphemies than suicide, but I have no idea of what they may be.

This introduction on suicide brings me to the recent resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.  I want to begin by saying I am not Catholic.  I wasn’t raised Catholic.  I haven’t studied the Catholic faith.  So, my following commentary is based on nothing more than my own “gut”.  I write from ignorance.  Even so, I might have something to write that’s worth reading.

There are a number of conspiracy theories to explain why he resigned.  Some say he’s so old that he can no bear the workload required of a Pope.  Others say he may have some criminal liability attached to lawsuits against the Catholic Church for allowing child abuse by priests to continue.  I have no idea which theory is true.  I don’t know why the Pope resigned.

But if I understand the Catholic faith correctly, the Pope was and presumably still is, presumed by Catholics to be God on Earth.  For reasons unknown to me, after the physical body of the last Pope died, God decided to inhabit the body of the man we’ve come to call Pope Benedict XVI.

If that were true, the man chosen to be Pope would be singularly blessed.  To be chosen to allow your personal “image of God” (your body) to become the exclusive “vessel” that holds God the Father would be an extraordinary blessing.

I can say that if God chose my body to “occupy,” I would never throw Him out. I would continue to carry God within my flesh until they carried me out, feet first.

So, I look at Pope Benedict XVI and I’m wondering “What th’ hell are you thinkin’ about, buddy?”  What do you have to do that’s so important that you’ve decided to evict God and retire from the ranks of Popes?

For me–an ignorant non-Catholic–it looks as if either Pope Benedict XVI never really was God or, if he was, he has just committed a kind of blasphemy that makes normal suicides seem benign.

Pope Benedict has just abdicated what some believe to be the throne of God.  Pope Benedict has just turned his back on God and effectively said, “Get th’ hell out!”  Pope Benedict has seemingly declared that it’s better to be a mortal man than God.

A Pope has seemingly turned his back on God.

As I’ve already said, my ignorance concerning things “Catholic” is almost perfect.  I don’t mean to offend anyone.  I may be completely off the beam in this article.

But there is something in Pope Benedict’s resignation that strikes as spiritually horrific.  If the Pope were God, why couldn’t He resolve whatever health, energy, legal or political problems were bugging him?  Why would the “Pope/God” cave in to the pressure and resign as Pope?

I’m not even sure that, once chosen to “be” the Pope, any man can “resign”.  Maybe the appointment as Pope is “for life” and can’t be terminated except by death.

You don’t quit being Pope the same way you resign from being a janitor or even a President.  The fact that Benedict the XVI chose to resign rather than die tells me that either the Catholic faith is a fraud and the Pope is no more “godly” than your or me–or–the one man on Earth who acts as God’s vessel has quit.

There’s even a report by USA Today that on the night of the day when Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation, St. Peter’s basilica (located within the Vatican) was struck twice by lightning.  I don’t know if these reports are true or false.  More, as a Protestant, I’m not inclined to treat these reports as true since they tend to validate the Catholic faith.  Nevertheless, I have to admit that these reports are consistent with the idea that God might be very displeased by the Pope’s resignation–or that big changes are coming.

As a Protestant, I’m not sure that Pope Benedict’s resignation didn’t strike a lethal blow against the foundation of the Catholic Church.   He seems to have committed a kind of spiritual suicide that’s almost unprecedented.

If it’s wrong to commit suicide because you’re made in God’s image, isn’t it an even more profound suicide if you are chosen to “be” or “retain” God and you quit?  There’s something extraordinary in Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation.  There are some spiritual implications that I can’t put my finger on, but something about it all seems, at least to me, to constitute an incredible assault on the Catholic Church.

Whatcha think?

 

Eyes to See, Ears to Hear

Johnny Appleseed, Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, 1871 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

One of the most frustrating aspects of talking on the radio and posting articles on this blog is that I sometimes reach an insight (like understanding “man or other animals“) that strikes me as so profound that the insight should spread instantly “around the world”.

That never happens.  I see an insight that I regard as profound.  I try to express that insight as clearly as I can.  I expect my expression of that insight to “go viral”.  Nevertheless, only a handful of people seem to grasp that insight.  It frustrates me.  But it keeps me humble and I accept it.

For over 20 years, I’ve felt like Johnny Appleseed.  I’ve felt “called” to scatter my various “apple seeds” (insights) around this country and even some remote parts of the world.  It’s not my job to stick around to prune the young apple trees, or later harvest or even eat the new apples.  My job is to collect, and then scatter, those “seeds”–that’s all.

I’m not alone in this (minor) frustration.  I’d bet that everyone who reads blogs like mine on a regular basis is also frustrated by his (her) inability to communicate ideas and insights that he (she) believes to be important or even vital to friends, loved ones and even strangers.  Mostly, when I try to communicate these purported “insights,” my listeners’ eyes glaze over in boredom or start to squint at me as if to say, “whut th’ hell is wrong with that guy?”

 

Pre-Tribulation Rapture?

Many, perhaps most, living Christians believe that we are in or nearing “End Times”.  I certainly do.

Many, perhaps most, modern Christians believe that in the context of “End Times” there’ll be three and a half years of “tribulation” during which the Anti-Christ will torment, torture and kill many, perhaps most, of the people on Earth.

Many, perhaps most, modern Christians believe that just before the Tribulation begins, all true Christians will be “raptured” up into the air to meet with Christ and be thereby spared the torments of the Tribulation.  This is the “Pre-Tribulation Rapture” that is expected to take place before the Tribulation begins.  The rest of the world–who are not true, sincere Christians (despite some of their claims to the contrary)–will be “left behind” to be tormented/tortured/killed by the Anti-Christ.