God's Charges

 ...gave them a charge unto the children of Israel, and unto Pharaoh king of Egypt...
Exodus 6:13

God delegates all authority to be used for a purpose. Rulers have authority over cities and regions and nations to be a terror to evildoers. Bishops and elders have authority over congregations for their teaching and guidance. Husbands have authority over their wives, and fathers have authority over their children, but not so they can do whatever they want with them. If Moses had ordered Pharaoh to let the Ethiopians go or if he had led the Hebrews in armed rebellion, he would have overstepped his commission. He was granted authority over Israel and Pharaoh solely for the purpose of bringing Israel out of Egypt. Husbands and fathers and mothers also hold their authority conditionally. Men may not order their wives and children to lie or steal, and mothers may not severely treat their children.

Girly Men for McRomhuckiani

Yep. All Muslims want to kill all Americans. We have to be over there so they don't come over here. Whatever.

I've met a few Muslims, and as far as I could tell, none of them wanted to kill even a single American. In fact, some of them seemed like pretty decent people. What's really amazing is that none of them were terrorists. They were just ordinary people trying to make a living right here in America without shooting anyone or blowing anything up.

Terrorists are bullies, and like all other bullies, they harass you for one of two reasons: to provoke a fight or to prevent a fight. Call them the Fighting Bully and the Intimidating Bully. Saddam Hussein seemed to be of the latter sort. So too are most governments, including those of Afghanistan and Iraq. They use violence to cow and pacify. For the most part, we have absolutely nothing to worry about from them. They make a lot of noise about the Great Devil in the West, because we are a useful tool to keep their people in a state of perpetual fear. It's the same way Washington uses al Qaeda and the Taliban. They scream and threaten, and their people might dance in the streets when our buildings burn down, but most of them aren't so stupid as to want real war with us. If you stand up to the Intimidating Bully, he will almost always back down. If he doesn't, then spill some blood. Learn to speak his language, and he'll start to listen.

If the media reports are to be believed, then Osama bin Ladin is the other sort of bully, the kind who wants to fight. They pick at you until you lash out, providing them with a public excuse to try to really hurt you. This is the kind of bully who won't back down if you stick up for yourself. Unfortunately, he's almost always more than you can handle, or at least he believes he is, which is often just as bad. You can do one of two things with the Fighting Bully. You can put him down hard or you can change the rules. Don't give him the reaction he wants. Give him something completely unexpected. Does he want a military showdown? Offer him Jelly Bellies with one hand, while your other hand pays someone else to knock him over the head from behind.

The Bush method of dealing with terrorists is stupid. If the party line on 9/11 is accurate then a war in the Middle East is exactly what al Qaeda wanted. Iraq was never a threat to the United States, neither was the Taliban. Operation Iraqi Freedom never had anything to do with anyone's freedom--especially not ours--and everything to do with pride and greed. Ron Paul's take on foreign policy is exactly right on this. If you aren't going to declare war and execute it ruthlessly, then get the heck out. Offer Afghanistan some Jelly Bellies and issue some letters of marque and reprisal. Smuggle in a few truckloads of Cosmo every month. That would really teach them.

Now we have two probably unwinnable wars going on, wide open borders, and every reason in the world for a thousand and one Arabian terrorists to want to cross them. We went over there so we wouldn't have to fight them over here? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

The truth is that Bush and company want to keep you scared. They make up boogeymen so you'll cower under your blanky and cry for Big Brother to make you safe. They never intended to free Iraq or to defeat terror. They intended to promote terror, because Bush is every bit the Intimidating Bully.

The Means of Vexation and Oppression

The situation of the inferior gentry, or Franklins, as they were called, who, by the law and spirit of the English constitution, were entitled to hold themselves independent of feudal tyranny, became now unusually precarious. If, as was most generally the case, they placed themselves under the protection of any of the petty kings in their vicinity, accepted of feudal offices in his household, or bound themselves by mutual treaties of alliance and protection to support him in his enterprises, they might indeed purchase temporary repose; but it must be with the sacrifice of that independence which was so dear to every English bosom, and at the certain hazard of being involved as a party in whatever rash expedition the ambition of their protector might lead him to undertake. On the other hand, such and so multiplied were the means of vexation and oppression possessed by the great Barons, that they never wanted the pretext, and seldom the will, to harass and pursue, even to the very edge of destruction, any of their less powerful neighbours who attempted to separate themselves from their authority, and to trust for their protection, during the dangers of the times, to their own inoffensive conduct, and to the laws of the land.
-Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe

Sound familiar? Nothing has changed except the technology of oppression. The "great Barons" of today still protect each other while they pretend to be enemies. They still use the Franklins at the EPA and the IRS to ride the backs of the common man. Minding one's own business–even minding the law–is no protection against thugs. They believe that, since they write the laws, they are free to ignore them whenever it suits. You cannot live through a single day without breaking some law, without tripping over one of the many blocks placed for that very purpose.

Nenastnyj vs Ron Paul

SecureWorks' Joe Stewart recently revealed that the culprit behind October's Ron Paul spamming was a low-level spammer-for-hire known as nenastnyj. I'm not saying there's a vast neocon/communist conspiracy or anything, but using the same transliteration system taught by the Defense Language Institute, nenastnyj is a Russian word meaning "rainy." The botnet software used by nenastnyj was also Russian--or at least CIS--and probably controlled by a server in one of the CIS nations. The likelihood of this all being coincidence is fair, since DLI has probably trained tens of thousands of Russian translators over the years and is almost certainly not the only entity to teach this particular system. It might even be taught by Russian universities. I just thought it was interesting enough to share.

Pax Americana Belliger per Deus

Robert Silverberg’s Roma Eterna is a collection of alternate history stories in which Rome never succumbed to the corrupting forces of decadence nor to barbarian hordes. Although there are some very dull moments, it’s mostly a good book.

The primary point of divergence in Silverberg's alternate universe was 3500 years ago at the time of the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt. Instead of crossing the Red Sea, the Israelites were driven into it by Pharaoh, drowning 10,000 of them and dooming the remnant to remain in Egypt. Of course, in reality, there probably never would have been a Roman Empire if the Israelites had not conquered Canaan. The kingdoms of Israel and Judah were much more powerful than most of the individual Canaanite kingdoms they replaced. They served as a stablizing influence in the region and very likely set in motion a series of migrations that sparked the development of both the Greek and Roman peoples into true nations. Their religion and scriptures were also major influences on other Mediterranean cultures.

Despite that historical problem, Silverberg’s characters still tell a few significant truths:

Democracy in Iraq?

While discussing the possibility of bringing Arabia into the Empire, Nicomedes says, “…these Saracens are free men, free within themselves, which is a kind of freedom that you and I are simply not equipped to comprehend. They can’t be conquered because they can’t be governed. Trying to conquer them is like trying to conquer lions or tigers. You can whip a lion or even kill it, yes, but you can’t possibly impose your will on it even if you keep it in a cage for twenty years. These are a race of lions here. Government as we understand it is a concept that can never exist here.”

Nicomedes was wrong about the freedom of the Saracens, but he was right about the possibility of governing them. God said they would always be at war with their neighbors, and so that’s the way it will be. Attempting to bring democracy to Ishmael’s descendants is worse than a fool’s errand. It’s rebellion against God. Do we really think we can bring peace where God said there can be no peace?

Gen 16:11- And the angel of the LORD said unto [Haggar], Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction.
Gen 16:12- And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him…

The Lowest Common Denominator

Later, a Roman in exile became a friend of the fictional version of Muhammad in the days before he Islam. He said to Muhammad, “We Romans are accustomed to regarding all creeds with tolerance, and if you ever visit our capital you will find temples of a hundred faiths standing side by side. But I do see the beauty of your teachings.”

Muhammad replied, “Beauty? I asked about truth. When you say you accept all faiths as equally true, what you are really saying is that you see no truth in any of them…” And he was absolutely correct. It borders on insanity to say that Hinduism and Voodoo contain as much truth as Christianity or Judaism. Most of the great religions are totally incompatible with each other. Either you believe Yeshua’s words or you believe Muhammad’s. If you say you believe them both, what you are actually saying is that you believe neither, and you make yourself look like a complete ignoramus.

Divorce Is Not the Problem

Dr. Stephen Baskerville at MensNewsDaily wrote that "...until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that "divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today's challenge by gays." The central problem is the divorce laws."

He's right that divorce is a problem and that the divorce laws are a problem, but he is way off when he says they are the central problem. The divorce laws are terribly perverse, but that is only a symptom of a greater problem that really is cultural. Or maybe I should say spiritual. The central problem with marriage today is feminism, rebellion against God's prescribed order. The absurdities of no fault divorce, mandatory and draconian spousal maintenance and child support payments, default child custody laws, homosexual marriage, et cetera, are the logical end of rejecting the common sense of created order. In that context, divorce is actually an oft-abused remedy that God has built into his Law.

Here's my ideal solution (as of today--I might change my mind later):

1. Take marriage out of the hands of government. Do away with marriage licenses. The civil government has no legitimate role to play in deciding who may marry whom. Neither does the church.
2. Replace marriage licenses and platitudinal "vows" that no one takes seriously with real marriage contracts that must be signed by the bride, groom, and at least one senior relative of each. Two would be better. If there are no relatives available, then a spiritual mentor, such as pastor, rabbi, or priest, would do.
3. Reduce the government's role in marriage and divorce to contract enforcement.
4. Immediately eliminate government financed welfare for able-bodied adults and corporations. Gradually eliminate most other government financed welfare programs as well and eliminate the income tax to compensate. Charity is admirable and spiritually mandatory, but there's no charity at the end of a gun.
5. Institute a biblically based land and property reform. Every family gets its own land, which will be returned every fiftieth year without obligation. No land can ever be permanently sold, but can only be leased for a maximum term of fifty years. The only way that land can be permanently divided or transferred is through inheritance. Eliminate inheritance taxes. (I did say ideal and not necessarily practical, didn't I?)
6. Replace the judicial concepts of punishment and reform with restitution and removal. Scrap 95% of all laws and send all the lawyers to an internment camp on the shores of the Beaufort Sea. The ones we don't just give to old Billy, anyways. All future judges in local courts must be unpaid and must be respected and successful men of the general public.

Then I think we might be getting somewhere. ;-)

The Eighth Day

Days were divided into seven-day weeks at Creation, with the seventh day set aside as a day of rest. If you are at all familiar with Hebrew numerology, you'll know that the number of each day corresponds in meaning with those things created on that day. Two obvious examples are six and seven. Six is the number of man, who was created on the sixth day. Seven is the number of completion and perfection. Creation was complete and God rested on the seventh day.

Eight is the number of new beginnings. On the eighth day of Creation, a new week began--the first week of the completed creation. Throughout the Bible, eight is a day for starting new things. The eighth day of Sukkot is a high Sabbath in honor of the start of a new life in relationship to God. The eight days of Hanukkah represent the rededication of the Temple and are a shadow of the Great Sukkot to come (Isaiah 4, among others). Yeshua rose from the dead at the very beginning of the eighth day not to change the Sabbath from the seventh day--that is actually one of the signs of the antichrist (Daniel 7:25)--but to symbolize a new phase of his ministry and the new life we have in him.

Veterans Day 2007

I wanted to write something in honor of Veterans Day, but I can't think of anything appropriate. There is honor in serving, in being willing to risk your life to defend your nation. I only realized after I had already served for several years that the nation I had signed up to defend didn't exist anymore, and maybe it never did.

It seems I've been down that road more than once now.

The Game Plan: Good Call

When I checked the movie listings I didn't even mention this one to my son. I didn't think he'd be interested in a cute father-daughter story. Instead, we settled on Martian Child despite my misgivings about the pro-homosexual theme of the original book. (The reviews said that Cusack's character had been straightened for the movie version.) However, as soon as he saw The Game Plan on the marquee, all thoughts of cardboard boxes were out.

I was expecting another story featuring an incompetent father, but I was pleasantly surprised. Johnson's character was vain and self-obsessed, but not stupid. I think the audience heard the line, "Peyton needs her father," so many times that someone out there might get the idea that the writers think fathers are more than sperm donors and cash cows. Good for them!

I really liked this movie. And not just because Roselyn Sanchez was all over it. That doesn't hurt, though.

What Was Sarai's Status in Pharaoh's House?

From Genesis 12:15 - "...the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house."

Sarai was taken to live in Pharaoh's house, but only in a state of semi-betrothal (v19). Apparently, it was a widespread practice for a wealthy man to take his prospective bride into his house--often against her will--as a sort of hostage in order to influence negotiations with her family and to forestall other potential suitors. Other possible reasons for this practice may have been to ensure the bride's purity and to watch for indications of sickness which appear over time. The same practice can be seen in...

1. The similar events at Gerar (Genesis 20:1-18).
2. In the story of Dinah and Shechem (Genesis 34).
3. The betrothal of a captured war bride (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)
4. In the story of Queen Esther (Esther 2:1-18).

There is something similar among some modern polygamous families. A prospective bride might live with the groom and his family for a period of several months to a year so that she can be certain their lifestyle will suit her and so that any personality conflicts with existing wives might become obvious before a binding commitment is made. Close knit communities who worship and work together would eliminate the perceived need for such "trial periods" because everyone would already have a good idea of each other's character and lifestyles.

Liberty for Security

 Something that Harry Browne used to ask people: Would you be willing to trade your favorite government program for greater freedom and prosperity? What he was really asking people was to trade the illusion of security for liberty.

Do you really care about education? Do you also care about the freedom to speak your mind? Then consider getting the federal government out of both. If you could secure your right to speak and hear the truth on any subject, would you be willing to shut down the federal Department of Education? What if it meant you would also have an extra thousand dollars each year to invest in your own child's education?

Do you really care about the plight of small-scale farmers in the face of unfair competition from giant corporations? Do you also care about the right to defend your family from human predators? Wouldn't it be satisfying to know you could get more money into the hands of those farmers at the same time you ensured your right to protect your own home? Eliminate federal subsidies to farms, which probably do more to support politicians and lobbyists than to help farmers, and you would have more money in your pocket to spend directly on locally grown produce.

The problem with using government to solve social problems is that there is always a trade off. If you give the government the power to regulate or fund something, it will always use that power to take a little more. The only way you will ever have more freedom is by taking power away from government. Arguments about monopolies, anarchy, and all of those typical panic buttons are just so much hot air in the face of reality. Monopolies are almost always created by government. Anarchy grows even while the federal, state, and local police have more power at their disposal than ever before.

Government programs are like security blankets. They're helpful now and then, but they're mostly only good for making you feel better. They can't protect you from the real bogeymen, and the government refuses to even try. In truth, most people don't have a lot of room to complain about foreclosures, school shootings, or terrorist attacks. As Franklin said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

If you're plan to vote in the presidential election next year, I urge you to support Ron Paul now. Some of his ideas might scare you, but, like walking on your own for the first time, that's the price of growing up. Don't be a child forever. Take some responsibility for your own successes and failures, for your own liberty and security.

Noah: A Man of the Soil

Genesis 9:20 "Noah became a man of the soil, and he planted a vineyard."

Wherever men live, they are men of the soil. So few of us exist the way we were intended, but we always find a way of bringing green back into our lives. We plant grass around our houses, hang plants from our apartment ceilings, put flowers in our windows, or grow vegetables in our back yards. Somehow, someway, we manage to maintain our connection to the soil. Only in the most dysfunctional and unhappy societies is everything consumed by brick and concrete.

Update October 10, 2007: Yesterday I was reading on someone else's blog about the parallels between Noah's ark and Moses' ark. I don't remember him mentioning this one. Noah's ark was to be pitched inside and out. The Hebrew word used for "pitch" is kopher, which means to cover something. The Ark of the Covenant was topped by the mercy seat. The Hebrew word translated as "mercy seat" is kapporeth, which comes from kopher and means "lid or cover." (I have no idea why it was translated as "mercy seat.") The pitch on Noah's ark kept its inhabitants from drowning in the water that was the result of a world of sin. Without that pitch, the boat would have leaked and eventually sunk. The cover on the Ark of the Covenant represents the Messiah seated between two angels. Without him, the spiritual death that results from our world of sin would overwhelm us. It is only by the pitch of his blood, inside and out, that we are saved from ultimate destruction.

Ron Paul on Marriage Licenses

According to Joe Kovacs at WorldNetDaily, Ron Paul denied the need for a constitutional amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage.

"I think we have fallen into a trap that we have to redefine marriage," Paul said. "Why don't you just tell them, 'Look it up in the dictionary to find out what marriage is?'"

He said the Defense of Marriage Act was good enough and if further regulations were necessary, "put it at the state level like the Constitution says."

Paul explained getting marriage licenses only came about in recent history for health reasons.

"True Christians," he said, "believe that marriage is a church function. It's not a state function. I don't think you need a license to get married."

I think Paul only got that partly right, although still closer to true than any other candidate.

He's right that the federal government should stay out of anything having to do with marriage. There aren't many clearer instances of a power "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." It is simply beyond the right or authority of anyone in the federal government to make any laws whatsoever concerning marriage. Morally speaking, it is inappropriate for even individual States within the Union to legislate concerning marriage beyond defining it in relation to its laws. A marriage license, by definition, is state permission to marry. Slaves ask permission to marry, not free men.

However, I think Paul is wrong on two points.

First, marriage is is not a church function any more than it is a government function. What priest was present at the wedding of Isaac and Rebekah (Gen 24:67)? Marriage is between a man and a wife with God as catalyst and witness. It is certainly appropriate for the couple's community, including church and government officials if they desire, to serve as witnesses to their vows or ceremonial participants but nothing more than that.

Second, I don't believe marriage licenses were created to address health concerns. They are primarily an exercise in state power. By insisting on a license, the state asserts its authority over you and your marriage. By seeking a license, you accede to that assertion. Although potential health issues, such as improper consanguinogamy, is often cited as a justification for marriage licenses, health has always been secondary to state power.

Stem Cell Fight a Waste of Time

The long fight over stem cell research has been a complete waste of time, at least for the those arguing scientists should be able to use fetal stem cells derived from aborted babies. On that side, they argue that the potential life-saving benefits of the research far outweigh any moral considerations concerning the source of the cells. It appears to be a purely pragmatic argument, but it really isn't.

Scientists have known for years that adult stem cells are much easier to work with and produce more tangible and promising results in the lab. More generalized stem cells are also available from umbilical cords and uteran tissue. It's easy to understand why the pro-lifers argue against using fetal stem cells. If they really believe that a fetus is fully a human being with all the rights of any other child, then they are morally obligated to fight almost anything that would encourage more abortions. So why would stem cell research advocates spend so much time and effort fighting for the superfluous ability to use fetal tissue? It seems to me that they do it for the same reasons that Hwang Woo-Suk might have had for faking his stem cell research: ideology, pride, and money.¹

Ideology has always been a powerful force in the halls of science. In the seventeenth century, Galileo was persecuted by his fellow astronomers, because he didn't tow the party line. Perfectly valid research by some physicists, geologists, biologists, and others is often ridiculed and dismissed out of hand, because it tends to undermine the prevailing "wisdom" of the day. Much of the research that is lauded is overblown, misinterpreted, or out-right faked. This one particular avenue of stem cell research may attract so much attention, because it is right in the middle of an ideological war over the status of unborn babies. Are they individual people with inherent rights or are they organs, part of a mother's body? Scientists who take the latter view will tend to fight for their right to harvest stem cells from aborted babies long beyond the point of reasonable return on their effort, because they are true believers in the cause.

Anyone who has spent a great deal of time on something they consider to be important, especially when it has the potential for making them seem important in the eyes of others, will necessarily not want to give it up. If you show them how pointless their efforts are, they might actually work harder in an effort to prove their own worth. Their pride is a blinder to rationality.

However, the bottom line in almost every protracted struggle is money, and politicians are drawn like flies to you-know-what. The financial best interests of administrators, officials, lobbyists, congressmen, and every other stripe of bureaucrat lies in peddling fear and guilt. "Their going to kick you out on the street if the funding for this project is cut!" "If we don't pass this law, you could die! Your children might suffer!" "Don't you care that more people like Christopher Reeves will die if we don't act right now?" Horse hockey. It's your money they're after. They don't care about a better life for anyone but themselves. They will tell you anything they think will get you to give up your cash. They will threaten, cajole, deceive, and, ultimately, they will tell you it's ok to kill your own children, because it might, someday, somehow, if we're lucky, save someone else's life. "What? No, don't look behind you! Look at this terrible problem over here! You have to act now to save the children."

Which children would that be again?

¹ Of course, many people have been fooled into thinking that fetal stem cell research is vital to the future salvation of people with cerebral palsy, nervous system injuries, and every other ailment under the sun. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about the scientists, the people who should know better.

The Rabbis Should Heed Gamaliel

According to YNet News, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has forbidden Jews to attend the annual Sukkot parade in Jerusalem, fearing the presence of Christian missionaries. First off, a people with confidence in the superiority of their own religion shouldn't fear missionaries. More importantly, the Rabbinate should heed the words of Gamaliel:

Acts 5:38-39 Withdraw from these men and let them alone. For if this counsel or this work is of men, it will come to nothing. But if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God.

Scientists Discover that Boys and Girls Are Different

AP medical writer, Maria Cheng, tells us that women may need different heart treatment than men, because they are fundamentally different. "There is a big question mark over why this is happening," [Dr. Eva] Swahn said. "We want there to be equality between the genders, but that doesn't mean that women and men should get the same treatment."

In other words, no matter how many times we are told that men and women are the same, they aren't. Pretending otherwise has real consequences.

Faith without Perseverance

Of what use, of what substance, is your faith, if you do not continue in it through the worst of times? "Faith without works is dead," and so is faith without perseverance.

Lawyers Are Not Your Friends

Unless you own one, are sleeping with one, are related to one, or have some other exceptional relationship with one, no lawyer will ever work for you. You might hire one, pay him exorbitant fees, and even cry on his shoulder, but he will never work for you. He will work firstly for himself and secondly for the court. No matter what he might say or even believe, what is best for you will never be his priority. He will work to protect the legal status quo, to protect the legal system, and especially to line his pockets. Only when all that has been accomplished will he remember you.

The Next Generation of Trekkies

I never actually qualified as a Trekkie. I've always been a fan, but never that obsessive. My son just discovered the original Star Trek series and is eating it up. I think that's great, since it's so much healthier than Digimon and the like. However, we watched the first seven episodes, and I was surprised at how suggestive Star Trek was. Much more so than any subsequent spin-offs. It's been years since I've seen it, but I'm pretty sure I didn't pick up on any of that when I was a kid. Our culture has certainly become much more puritanical since then, and definitely not in a healthy way.

Is God Irrational?

"Come, let us reason together." Isaiah 1:18

God is very often counter-intuitive. He acts based on a much greater knowledge base than we do. But God is never irrational. He is the inventor of the physical laws on which all of our science is based. He is a God of order, rules, hierarchy, and reason. He is not the author of chaos and confusion.

Understanding that "equals" does not mean the same thing as "is," if God says a=b and b=c, then you can be certain that a=c. He does not reveal a truth in his written word and later flatly contradict that with a spiritual revelation.

I was told today that interpreting the Bible rationally instead of spiritually is the basis of heretical sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons. That assertion is obviously false. The facts are exactly the opposite.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses didn’t come to their doctrines through a rational interpretation of the Bible. They were founded on prophetic revelations that were contradicted by the plain meaning of Scripture. Later, they had to change the Bible to justify their reasoning, rather than letting the Bible speak for itself. By the very plain testimony of Scripture, Russell and Rutherford were both false prophets.

The same is true of the Mormons. Joseph Smith didn’t acquire his doctrines through honest Bible study. They were given to him by looking into a hat with special goggles. If that’s relying on reason, then...well, I don’t even know what, because nothing in the universe can be known or understood.

The heart is deceitful above all things. If you ever receive a spiritual revelation that contradicts the written word, then you are hearing from demons or your own imagination. God cannot be discerned with reason, nor can all of his laws, but that which he has already told us can be relied on completely. God is not the author of lies or of confusion. He is a God of order and reason.

How Many Animals Did Moses Put on the Ark?

Maybe you've fell for this joke before. Now you'll have a know-it-all retort.

Zero is not the only correct answer. It depends on how you want to use the word "ark". Moses did oversee the construction of an ark, and there were at least the semblances of animals hammered into its cover. According to Ezekiel, cherubim have four faces, each resembling a different earthly creature: man, eagle, ox, and lion. The cover of the Ark of the Covenant held sculptures of two cherubim looking down at the Ark. So how many animals did Moses put on the Ark? Six. Two eagles, two oxen (or bulls), and two lions.

Nanny-State Busybodies

I’ve been reading Zig Ziglar’s autobiography this week. He was the tenth of a widow’s twelve children. His mother had no career, no job, no education, no welfare, but she still managed to feed and clothe and educate her children. She taught them to be hard-working, responsible people. She sold dairy products and home-grown produce. Her children worked at grocery stores, delivered newspapers, sold peanuts, and did other odd jobs to help.

She might not be able to do that today. She would probably have to move into a cinder-block cave (aka low-income housing project), get on the dole, let her kids run with gangs, and submit to periodic interference from social workers. All in the name of helping the poor, of course.

We have laws against self-reliance these days, against child labor, private enterprise, homeschooling, home maintenance, and just about everything else that allows the poor to live independent and responsible lives. Some of the worst things that have ever happened to this country were the New Deal, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs, and all their relatives. Too many people think they have to solve every social problem there is, and they aren’t content just to lend a hand themselves. They have to start a government program, a tax, a bureaucracy, a task force, a committee.

I can’t even call these people well intentioned, because I don’t believe they are. They say they want to help the poor or the children or whomever, and they might even believe that, but what they really want is to help themselves. They want to feel as if they’ve done something without actually doing anything. If they really wanted to help the poor, they’d walk down the street and help some poor people, but they don’t want to get dirty. Instead, they extort (because that’s all government really does) from everyone else to pay for a scheme that delivers ten cents worth of services out of every dollar extracted. Then they pat themselves on the back for their bravery and compassion and wonder why crime, illiteracy, disease, and divorce rates go up.

Give us all a break. The next time you feel like helping, why don’t you go volunteer at the Rescue Mission, the Salvation Army, a church, hospital, or any number of other places where you will come face to face with the people who need you. Keep the government as far away from them as possible. If you can’t handle that, then mind your own business. You can’t save the world, so try not to ruin it for everyone else.

Like it or not, we all have a job to do

What happens to a partnership if the partners continually pull in opposite directions? If one partner pulls while the other sits? If both partners sit on their arses? The relationship fails. Someone (or both) gives up.

Here’s the problem, as I see it, with marriage: most men don’t know how to be men and most women don’t know how to be women. Some relationships can be saved by just one of the partners doing their part; the other eventually comes around. That doesn’t work all the time, though. Many people will get really tired of carrying all the weight, and eventually they’ll just stop. They’ll take their ball and go home, maybe waiting for a better, saner game on some other day. They’re the John Galts of marriage.

Men, you need to learn how to be men. Not men in touch with their feminine side, and not men who bully their way through everything. Men with strength and humility. Burn your pink polos and your black sabbath t’s, too. (Metaphorically, of course. There's nothing particularly wrong with pink polos or Black Sabbath T-shirts.) Then you need to hold the line. Don’t back down. Don’t give in to political correctness. Don’t let the zeitgeist (or your wife) set your rules.

Women, you need to straighten up right now. Lose the tattoos, the whorish dress, and the attitudes, and take some responsibility for yourself and especially for your family. I don’t care if you don’t like it. I don’t care if it makes you sick. Submit to your fathers and husbands. Now.

Female Emo-Shine

Over at Voxday, Pretty Lady wrote, "Thus a woman's behavior may appear to be controlled by her emotions in the moment, as in weeping easily, but does this necessarily imply that her subsequent decisions upon all matters related to the situation in the future will be controlled by the fact that the situation caused her to weep? Or will she simply factor in the emotion as one more variable in the equation, and proceed to evaluate the other variables accordingly, once she has calmed down?"

In my experience, emotion is a factor in everyone's decision making process, however it is more heavily weighted in the minds of most women. Men and women tend to see in slightly different cognitive spectra and emotions shine brighter at the female wavelengths, like the sun overwhelming apparently lesser considerations like the moon and stars and west-bound traffic in the morning. The moon doesn't shrink and the cars don't stop coming when the sun is in your eyes; they're just harder to see.

Random Thoughts on Yitro

A few random thoughts on Yitro:

• There must be some kind of behind-the-scenes parallel between Yitro and Laban. Both were unbelievers and God arranged marriages between their daughters and patriarchs of Israel.
• Zipporah and the Ethiopian woman, Moses’ other wife, are prophetic images of God’s people. Zipporah is the Jews who were sent away under the tutelage of a priesthood (in the form of the rabbinate) gone astray. Like Zipporah, they will be united with the Messiah by that same priesthood after the Greater Exodus. The Ethiopian woman was a believing gentile grafted into Israel, just like those of us who have been united in faith with Yeshua. Like her, we are made citizens of Israel at our exodus, and given Torah in full afterwards.
• The Ten Commandments can be categorized in many ways. One interesting way is into groups of three, one, and six. The first three commandments deal directly with how we relate to God. Three is the number of divinity and the triune God. The last six commandments deal directly with how we relate to our fellow men. Six is the number of man. The middle command deals with how we relate to God, our fellow men, and ourselves. One is the number of unity. If counted with the first three, this command makes four, which is the number of the Messiah. If counted with the last six, this command makes seven, which is the number of completion. In Yeshua, our divine Sabbath Rest, we are made complete and united with God.
• Exodus 18:18 - Thou art not able to perform it thyself alone... Although the husband is meant to be the head of his house, the head cannot live or even command the body on its own. Effective command requires the trust and cooperation of the commanded as well as good communication and delegation. A husband’s and father’s authority may be freely delegated to servants, sons, and wives. When his children are young, he authorizes his executive officer, his wife. Later, that responsibility should gradually move to his lieutenants, his sons, as he teaches them to be men. Under most circumstances, the firstborn son should be placed ahead of his siblings, but that is not an inviolate law. Reuben was passed over for Judah, Ishmael for Isaac, et cetera, all for good reasons. The point is that a man cannot expect to effectively govern his house on his own. He must train his family to lead in his place, and he must trust them to do so.

More Global Warming, Please

With the Denver area temps ranging between -8° and -18° at 6 AM today, I'm thinking I could use a bit of that famous French global warming. Throw in a hot cup of cocoa, and I'll be your friend forever.

Poly Women in a Mono World

An outsider’s observation...

In the Western world, you have to be an unusual kind of person to want to live polygynously, especially if you are a woman. In my experience, there are three kind of women who are willing to toss aside tradition in favor of the onslaught of pressures that you are certain to face as a polygynist.

Desperate. Some women have already faced some of the worst the world has to offer and are willing to face a little bit more in order to find the relief that comes with family and love. They don’t think very far ahead, living one day at a time without great regard for consequence.

Sick. Some women (some men, too, but that’s another article) love to destroy other people’s lives, especially their own. They weasel their way into families by feigning submission and gentleness, and then turn on the very people who have opened their homes, tearing down husbands and driving other wives away. If they aren’t interested in polygamy, you’ll find them as mistresses, one-night stands, bitter and angry. Patriarchy in action (sometimes the mere mention of it) sends them into fits of rage. They often make claims of strength, when they are anything but.

Free. Some women are open to polygyny because they are simply open. They don’t base life choices on what everyone else does. They choose what seems right to them, and not what others tell them is right. They are usually strong, secure, and intelligent. Some of these women started in the same way as the desperate women, but they responded differently. Their hardships drove them to freedom instead of to desperation. They rarely have a need for polygyny and neither do their husbands.

The desperate woman and the sick woman are likely to poison all their relationships with men, intentionally or not. The desperate woman should be handled with caution. Her perspective on life is seriously skewed, and she has propensities for selfishness and instability. You are likely to spend all of your time propping her up, instead of working together to build a family and ministry. The sick woman should be avoided at all costs. Her risks far outweigh her benefits, which are few and mostly fallacious. She will destroy your life and the lives of everyone else who gets close to her. Both of these two are also likely to be Jezebels, controlling and manipulative.

The free woman is every great man’s dream. If you are worth her time and you do your part, then your synergy will be amazing. Whatever you decide to do, you are likely to exceed everyone around you. If she puts her energy into becoming a great woman, then she will be a ruby set in pure gold.

A Tale of Three Cities

Three Biblical cities illustrate the ways in which God deals with sinful men:

1. Sodom was destroyed without warning and without mercy. Abraham bargained with God and won a single hope for Sodom, but God already knew that it was a false hope. He knew the hearts of the men of Sodom and so did everyone else, Abraham included. In a city of tens of thousands of people, Abraham asked God to spare it for the sake of only ten righteous men. I think he knew that they were not likely to be found.
2. Thebes probably had a good number of righteous people. God offered Pharaoh and the Egyptians a chance to repent, and many of them accepted his offer, joining with Israel in the Exodus. Unfortunately, Pharaoh and the majority of his people did not and the entire nation suffered terribly.
3. Nineveh received a reluctant prophet and immediately took his message to heart. The city repented and was spared.

So what city will you be when God exposes your sin? Will you ignore him, despise him, revile him, and be destroyed like Sodom? Will you fight him and try to compromise with him, and be divided and crippled like Egypt? Or will you surrender completely to him and be spared like Nineveh?

God's Ways

Letting God run things his way is always difficult. We think we know what we're doing, and our own opinions drown out that still, small voice. Abraham's story helps keep that in perspective. Would I recognize God's voice if he told me to kill my own son? And how about Ezekiel living in the cave and cooking everything over dung? God's ways...I may never understand, but I pray that I will know him whenever he calls.