How was man created? Apparently, in this country there are only two schools of thought – evolution or creation by the Christian god. However, there just might be a third way.

To start with, I disagree with Christians who say that God created the world in seven days and I disagree with atheists who say that there is no God and that we are, therefore, some random, unexplained cosmic accident. So, at the risk of alienating everybody, here’s why I disagree…with just about everybody.

Christianity is a fine religion. I should know since I was raised in a Christian family.  However, there is just one small problem with Christianity. It does not agree with the Bible. Yeah, that’s a problem, isn’t it?

The history of the Church’s teachings has all of the twists and turns of a Dan Brown novel. As Christian theologian Brian McLaren put it, “One of the problems is that the average Christian in the average church who listens to the average Christian broadcasting has such an oversimplified understanding of both the Bible and of church history – it would be deeply disturbing for them to really learn church history.”  So at the risk of oversimplifying, here’s just a few of the problems with Christianity:

  • The concept of Original Sin is disputed by the Bible itself (see John 9:2-3 and Genesis 8:21).
  • The teachings of Jesus are, for the most part, missing from the Bible.
  • The idea of a messiah was hijacked from Judaism. In the Jewish Bible (the Old Testament), Jewish holy men proclaimed the coming of a messiah but their messiah was totally different from the one that Christianity later promulgated. For example, the messiah of the Old Testament was to be a man, not a divine being, and he would come not to save the entire world but rather to reestablish the Kingdom of Israel.
  • The concept of the Trinity isn’t in the Bible at all.

The Bible, itself, isn’t even an original work in at least one important aspect. The stories about the Garden of Eden and The Flood in the Book of Genesis, which are central to Christian theology, were based on older Sumerian writings, namely the Enuma Elish and The Epic of Gilgamesh. The Enuma Elish, which is sometimes referred to as The Seven Tablets of Creation, was written on seven tablets with the seventh tablet devoted to honoring God. Thus, the origins of the Sabbath on the seventh day of the week, from the Hebrew word shabbath (that means day of rest). The use of Sumerian literature by the Hebrew scribes in penning Genesis is quite logical since the Israelites were descendants of the Sumerians through Abraham (as stated in the Bible).

What about atheism, then, and their argument that creation was accomplished through evolution? The interesting thing about the atheists’ argument is that they state that if the Christian god does not exist, then God doesn’t exist. However, they don’t make the same claim about Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or any of the other thousands of different religions. Only Christianity? Why?

The answer as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, admitted, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the goal of atheism is actually to replace Christianity as the preeminent religion in this country. Why? The answer is that atheism is in reality a political ideology dressed up as an argument about how we were all created.

In that ideology, God must not be allowed to be a part of people’s belief systems. The reason as geneticist Richard Lewontin, an atheist himself, explained, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” So, there it is – atheists cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door, especially in the field of science with respect to their theory of evolution.

Therefore in this debate, Christianity must be put asunder so that another ideology can take its place, an ideology where men have no inalienable rights that come from God, only rights that are specified by the State. And who exactly would the State be in that event? Well, they would mostly be those of white privilege, some of whom who are calling for the extinction of their own white race. Call them the elite, the 1% or whatever…of course, I’m pretty sure that, although they are calling for the extinction of the white race, they are not really calling for their own personal demise. You can’t rule from the grave, now can you?

 

Epilogue

So, if Christianity has these shortcomings, where does that leave us with respect to the existence of God. Well, in this country, many atheists would argue that if Christianity is wrong about the Bible, then God doesn’t exist. That’s such a stretch of logic, or in this case lack thereof, that it doesn’t deserve a response. However, I’ll give one anyway. That is, just because Christianity is wrong about their god, it doesn’t mean that a Creator isn’t responsible for the universe. I’m simply saying that there might be a third way. Now who can argue with that? Well… apparently everyone.

 

 

“When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

– George Wald, scientist and Nobel laureate

 

P.S. Wald said there are only two ways, but he didn’t say anything about a Christian god – only supernatural (divine) creation or evolution. He must be in agreement, then, that you can have divine creation without having a Christian god. It’s what I refer to as a “third way” – an explanation for creation that has nothing to do with evolution or original sin.

 

 

Advertisements

So, my last post Between Science and Faith brought a chorus of boos from both sides of the aisle. Too bad, because in my opinion you deserve it…and each other. So, let’s review the bidding.

At least in this country, the battle between science and faith boils down to a debate between atheism and Christianity. I refer to it as “Dueling Delusions.” The main sticking point has to do with which side is deemed to be more tied to a “preconceived ideology”. In my opinion, that’s a toss-up since Christianity believes in talking snakes while at least some atheists, who rely on science to describe all things big and small, apparently believe that science can observe beyond space and time and that scientific formulae written on a chalkboard constitute proof.

The underlying problem for Christianity is that it is based on a reinterpretation of scriptures written by Jewish holy men whereby Christianity claims that the writers of the Old Testament (Jewish Bible) didn’t understand what they were writing.  Opposed to that, we have atheism which is an ideology centered around materialism, evolution and naturalism, and which uses cherry-picked scientific theory (not fact) to support its ideology. I say “cherry-picked” because as Nobel laureate George Wald admitted, “Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance.“

The larger question in this debate is why is there a debate at all and why is it only between  atheism and Christianity. Why aren’t the other world religions (of which there are several thousand) included in this discussion? The reason as Michael Ruse, an evolutionist himself, said, “Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality….” So, the debate is not necessarily about who is right but rather it’s about whether atheism can replace Christianity (as the prevailing religion).

As to where I stand in this debate, I simply contend that both sides are based on preconceived ideology. This has resulted in a debate that has gone absolutely no where. Both sides believe in their own dogma, a dogma which is impervious to falsification. As Mark Twain once commented, “It ain’t what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

 

Epilogue

This debate, however, is merely a microcosm of the contentious, divisive social arguments one can witness in society today.  In the end, it is not so much an intellectual argument as it is really about who gets to rule and the social/political/economic ideas that each group endorses. It’s “identity politics” at its finest. It’s ultimately about whether the rights of man come from God or the state. That’s why I say that America is at war with itself: verbally, spiritually and politically. You might want to think of it as a Second Civil War. Hang on. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

 

 

 

America At War

09/20/2017

The falsification of history has done more to mislead humans than any single thing known to mankind”. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 

Winston Churchill supposedly said that history was written by the victors. I guess Rousseau would have agreed with him. The point is – history contains a lot of fake news.

Let’s take another look at the current left vs. right political conflict which has been characterized by extreme partisan politics. While it’s true that the two diametrically opposed camps don’t like one another (to say the least), you now have one side identifying themselves as The Resistance. Resistance to what, though, I might ask as the two parties are constantly either in or out of power.

Because of the polarization of the respective political positions, a number of commentators have said that it appears that civil war may be inevitable. I believe that statement may be true, although woefully incomplete. Here’s why.

I think that it would be more appropriate to view the American Revolution as a defining moment in world history that represented the triumph of the individual over the state (and over the people and institutions that control the affairs of states). However, with the founding of the American republic, the real war was only just beginning. As can be seen from the 2016 election results, people hate losing power.

Accordingly, I would argue that after the War of Independence had been won, the Republic has been constantly under attack ever since. Some of the significant events in American history need to be revisited and looked at through the prism of America At War. For example, here’s a short list:

  • The War of 1812
  • The American Civil War
  • The Act of 1871
  • Founding of the Federal Reserve System in 1913
  • The White House Coup of 1933
  • Establishment of American intelligence operations (the CIA) under the leadership of former Nazis.
  • Establishment of the American space program (NASA) under the leadership of former Nazis.
  • The assassination of four sitting U. S. presidents

Today, the battlefield of partisan politics has moved to some strange arenas like the football field and The Emmys. On college campuses, many students are against free speech and feel that violence in support of their own agenda is permissible because it constitutes self-defense. The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations of 2011 proved that sometimes demonstrators don’t even know what they are demonstrating for. They protested against the rich who they labeled as the 1% but what they didn’t realize is that the most of the super-wealthy people in America are on the left, starting with the likes of Google, Amazon and Facebook. Further, Millennials oppose capitalism but it’s not the system that’s really at fault, but the people (including Wall Street) who run the system. Accordingly, the American system should be more appropriately labeled fascism rather than capitalism.

Now, today, we have Carol J. Baker M.D., an infectious disease expert, who said that an overwhelming majority of people who refuse to take vaccines are white people, and a good way to resolve the problem of people refusing to take vaccines is to simply “get rid of all the whites in the United States”. Of course, Dr. Baker herself is white. Given that kind of mindset and the great divide between the factions, a civil war is perhaps inevitable…but it’s been over 200 years in the making. Regardless, America is already at war.

 

History is a pack of lies we play on the dead.”Voltaire

 

 

In a world full of racism, a curious thing is happening. One particular race is calling for the extinction of its own race. How can that be?

The race in question is the “white race.” Of course, there is no such thing as a white race, only white people. By that, I mean that white people belong to the Caucasian race, as do Jews, Arabs and many Hispanics. However, I digress.

Everything today is seen through the narrow, dimly-lit prism of race. The thing is – all races discriminate. All. In a recent study in England for example, one-third of the “white” population said that even they had been discriminated against. Further, the Japanese, who are generally wonderful people, discriminate against anyone who is not Japanese. They have a word for all foreigners, gaijin. It’s a derogatory term the way that it is often used. I should know as I lived there for a couple of years.

So, why are white people calling for the extermination of their own race. It’s simple, really. These people are the “elites” who want to rule the world and other white people are a threat to their power. This conflict between white people has been going on since the time of Cain and Abel (which I’ve written about previously). Fake race wars like we have today have very little to do with social justice. It’s simply a means to a political end, a tool to divide and conquer.

However, if some people have their way, the white race might some day disappear altogether.  In that case, I can just see the last white boy standing complaining about racism and the lack of social justice. It would be only fitting.

 

“Until the great mass of the people shall be filled with the sense of responsibility for each other’s welfare, social justice can never be attained.”  – Helen Keller

 

Arab Israel

07/24/2017

Sounds funny, doesn’t it? Arab Israel. Isn’t Israel suppose to be the homeland of the Jews? What’s wrong with this picture?

The other day, terrorists at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem attacked and killed two Israeli policemen. What is not widely reported, though, is that the two Israeli policemen were actually Arabs, members of the Druze minority sect. Yes, Arab Israeli policemen.

People who have not visited Israel recently would never suspect that Israel has become such a boiling pot of diversity.  It’s one of the few  places in the world where diversity actually has had some success. Two of the largest groups of Israel citizens, about 20% of the population each, are Arabs and people of Russian ancestry. Those of Russian ancestry are generally not religious which means that nearly 40% of Israelis do not practice the Jewish faith (Judaism). In addition, there is a large group of secular (non-religious) Jews as well as atheists, Christians and a plethora of minor faiths such as Bahai. It’s fairly safe to say then that a majority of Israeli citizens do not practice the Jewish faith.

As for Israel being a Jewish homeland, that’s true but incomplete.  It is a homeland for Jews, but it isn’t the “homeland” of the Jews. The homeland of the Jewish people is actually the ancient kingdoms of Judea and Samaria which lie next door (immediately east of what is now Israel). Israel was formed by the United Nations out of a swamp-infested tract of land that ran along the Mediterranean plus the Negev Desert. It wasn’t much to write home about and it certainly wasn’t the historical Jewish homeland.

That true homeland of Judea and Samaria for the most part encompasses what is referred to as the West Bank (the lands lying immediately west of the Jordan River). For example, Bethlehem, Masada, Jericho, Qumran and Jerusalem were part of ancient Judea and Samaria. Of course, the West Bank was ceded by Jordan to Israel as the result of Jordan losing the Six-Day War in 1967 and have effectively been part of Israel ever since, a period of 50 years.  Does anyone really think that Israel will give up their homeland after having these lands for the last 50 years?

As for the Arabs who live in Israel and are citizens of Israel, with all the rights of Israeli citizens, they enjoy a better life than in any Arab nation in the Middle East.  Second place isn’t even close.  Arab women, especially, have freedom in Israel that is unparalleled throughout the Middle East. I recently met an Arab waiter in Israel who was moonlighting from his day job as a school teacher to pay for his daughter to go to medical school. Education for an Arab woman! Are you kidding, and a doctor to boot.

Arab Israel isn’t what you think it is nor as it has been portrayed by the media. Some Arabs are Israeli policemen who sometimes die for their “country.” They are represented in the Israeli Knesset (Congress/Parliament) and an Arab sits on the Israeli Supreme Court. Maybe, the world should take notice of the Arab Israeli dynamic.  They just might learn something from it.

What Free Speech?

02/09/2017

“Fear of serious injury alone cannot justify oppression of free speech and assembly… It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” – Louis D. Brandeis

 

The University of California at Berkeley was once the scene of perhaps the greatest example of free speech in America. I should know; I was there for a time. Some of the free speech was pretty radical by anyone’s standards. However, all viewpoints were allowed. That’s the beauty of free speech. No one truly has free speech unless everyone has it.

The recent violence on the campus of UC Berkeley shows that some students there disagree with the concept of free speech. An example of their thinking was on display recently in the university’s student newspaper, The Daily Californian, a sample of which is as follows:

  • “To people with platforms who decide when a protest should and should not be violent: You speak from a place of immense privilege. As I recently wrote in a tirade against this brand of idiocy, asking people to maintain peaceful dialogue with those who legitimately do not think their lives matter is a violent act.”

Comment: We are a Republic, a nation of laws. Therefore, no individual gets to decide    what is a “violent act.”

  • “…with President Trump threatening to cut UC Berkeley’s federal funding if it does not allow all opinions to be shared… the president is threatening the freedom of speech of these protesters.

Comment: No one violated the protestors free speech. The problem is the violence, not the rhetoric. In reality, the opposite is true; that is, the protestors caused other peoples’ free speech to be violated. You may hate what someone has to say, but you have to allow him to have his say. Otherwise free speech is no longer free.

  • “…the hate speech that fails to respect the humanity of undocumented people.”

Comment: The lack of respect is actually on the part of the violent protestors. Certainly, if any of these were my kids, I’d wonder who brainwashed them into hating America.  As Dana Carvey once said, “I think free speech is probably the coolest thing we have in this country, and again, you can label it hate speech and dismiss it, and then you’re allowed to censor it.”

  • “When mass call-ins, faculty and student objections, letter-writing campaigns, numerous op-eds (including mine), union grievances and peaceful demonstrations don’t work, when the nonviolent tactics have been exhausted — what is left?…These were not acts of violence. They were acts of self defense.”

Comment: Of course, this form of “self-defense” violates the civil rights of others. Self-defense? No further comment is necessary.

  • “I urge you to consider whether damaging the windows of places like banks and the Amazon student store constitutes ‘violence.’”

Comment: Suggest that we ask the people who had property damaged whether or not it was violence.

 

Yes, we are a nation of laws. When we cease to respect those laws, we spiral down into anarchy. At some point, we actually cease becoming a nation. Instead, we are hostage to mob rule. Perhaps, that’s what was intended all along by the violent protests.

 

“Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as publick Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the Right of another. And this is the only Check it ought to suffer, and the only bounds it ought to know. This sacred Privilege is to essential to free Governments… Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Fteeness [sic] of Speech….”

 – Cato’s letters

As I mentioned in my last post, there was no hue and cry when President Obama imposed immigration restrictions in 2011.  However, the hypocrisy goes far beyond that, as witnessed by the following quotes:

 

  • “All Americans…are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.  The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants.  The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers.  That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders….”  – President Bill Clinton

  • “Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of laws.  Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws and I believe that they must be held accountable, especially those that might be dangerous.  When I took office, I committed to fixing this broken immigration system and I began by doing what I could to secure our borders.  But today, our immigration system is broken and everybody knows it.  There are actions I have the legal authority to take as President…The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they are the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican President and every single Democratic President for the past half-century….”  – President Barack Obama

Given what President Clinton and President Obama said and did, why is there even a debate today?

Immigration dominates the headlines these days and, even though I try to avoid the news, it’s constantly in my face. So, if I must, here’s my take.

One of the key issues in the immigration issue centers around “open borders.” Every nation decides for itself on this question. Look at China and Saudi Arabia, for example. Their immigration policies are unbelievably restrictive, especially when compared to America. For a nation to be considered sovereign, it must, therefore have the right to determine who can and who can’t migrate to their country. The Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al Nahyan, has come out in support of Trump’s executive order because, as he says, the United States has the right to make a “sovereign decision” regarding its immigration policy.

Aside: Even Saint Thomas Aquinas understood that principle when he expounded on the subject in his seminal work, the Summa Theologica.

The truth is that in the context of recent world-wide immigration, diversity doesn’t work. It doesn’t work, in part, because immigrants have to want to assimilate. However, Muslims, in particular, are adamant about not assimilating. For example, a vast majority of Muslims in the UK have said that they consider themselves to be Muslims first and UK citizens second. Sharia Law, which is incompatible with Western culture, then becomes a major roadblock to assimilation. As Lee Kuan Yew, the former Prime Minister of Singapore, said about diversity, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” This should serve as a warning to all counties, but especially America.

Aside: To all the women protesting against the current immigration restrictions, perhaps you should go talk to the women of Europe, particularly in Sweden, who have seen rapes committed by Muslim immigrants skyrocket through the roof. You should ask those women if immigration is a good thing or not.

On a more practical note, America does not have an overabundance of resources. In fact, it’s basically bankrupt with the national deficit sitting at over three trillion dollars annually. Moreover, there are not enough jobs to go around and as a result there are some 41 million people on food stamps. Therefore, for every new immigrant there is one more person added to the unemployment rolls. So, for all of you who are promoting immigration, I suggest that you volunteer to give up your job for a new immigrant. I suspect, however, that no one will take me up on that offer, now will they?

What is really hard to fathom for some is that the immigration protestors never objected when Obama imposed similar immigration restrictions back in 2011.  Maybe, it’s because most of the protestors today are left-wing ideologues and opposing Trump’s immigration restrictions is in reality a political ploy to marginalize and demonize political opponents. Ain’t politics wonderful? That’s why I try to avoid the news whenever possible; so much of it is Fake News anyway.

 

 

A recent study by research and analysis gurus, the Economist Intelligence Unit, says that America is now a flawed democracy due to a steep decline in Americans’ trust in their government, elected representatives and political parties.

Slight correction.  America has never been a democracy, it’s a republic. It’s like calling a filet mignon a hamburger. If you don’t know the difference, you should look it up. Are you listening there at the Economist?

The Real Israel

01/16/2017

Once upon a time, almost half-way around the world the biblical kingdom of Israel existed; that is, until it was wiped off the map by the Roman Empire. Today, the country of Israel has been resurrected but there is something very strange about it – almost unrecognizable in fact. You see, it’s now very different, geographically speaking. So, why and how did that happen?

In biblical times, Israel existed as two kingdoms; one was called Judea and the other Samaria. Interestingly enough, those two kingdoms make up, more or less, what today is referred to as the West Bank. Yes, the West Bank rather than Israel. How does one explain how the creation of a 20th century Jewish homeland never had them return to what was truly home for them. It’s sort of like someone who grew up in New York City going back home as an adult to live in New Jersey. How does that make any sense?

Well, actually there is one way that this all makes sense. The reality is that the Jewish homeland was never about geography, but rather about politics. Today, more than half of modern-day Israel is made up of the Negev Desert, which could never be considered to be a homeland for anyone, with the exception maybe of the Bedouins who have lived there for thousands of years. Further, important biblical cities/sites like Bethlehem, East Jerusalem, Masada, Jericho and Qumran are, today, all in the West Bank.

So, the true Jewish homeland is really what is now referred to as the West Bank and not some arbitrary lines drawn on a map by some politicians who carved up what was then British Palestine. The West Bank was also then part of Palestine and later became part of Jordan. After the Six-Day War in 1967, Jordan (having lost the war) ceded the West Bank to Israel, and so it remains today. Therefore, why would anyone expect that Israel would give up their true homeland? Why? Would you?

 

Epilogue

Palestine has never existed as a country, so it’s hard to see why it should exist today. This is especially true since the majority of British Palestine was spun off into an Arab nation that today is called Jordan and which is populated predominately by Palestinians. That’s why King Hussein, the former king of Jordan, said that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan.

Of course, Jordan could just become a Palestinian state (as opposed to be being a Saudi/Hashemite kingdom). However, that would be too easy. Why promote a peaceful solution when you can promote one that creates chaos instead.