If Molech disciplined with whips, then the god of abortion disciplines with scorpions

 (Source) 

So here we have an advertisement which should get you thinking about abortion. The point it makes is that these are little persons, each slightly bigger than the one next to it, which relates to its age and development. Killing persons is a serious matter, which is why abortion is a serious matter. As one well-known pastor has remarked, "if it's a person, you don't shoot." But, I'm going to go even further, if that's possible. I'm going to suggest that abortion, both in America and elsewhere in the world (in China, there has been six times the number of abortions as in the U.S. in the same time period since RvW, over 330 million - that's another whole U.S.A. +), is something much worse than we have ever seen in history, even those atrocities attributed to ancient, savage peoples.

It all begins with the concept of sacrifice. Thousands of years ago, whether among the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, or others, there was a common understanding that when bad things happened, it was a consequence for the gods being upset. That might mean the people had done wrong, or it could mean the people had not done right. These peoples (and I speak in generalities because each people was distinct and not the same in every way) figured that they needed to do something to resolve this tension with the gods. They needed to figure out a means of appeasement. Generally, and as is readily accepted within the Judeo-Christian mainstream, they understood that the death of the transgressor, or a sacrifice of someone in place of the transgressor/s would suffice to appease the gods in these matters. They understood that the gods see someone taking responsibility for their (gods) being upset as fair payment for them to be happy again and proceed to shower the people with blessings again (or at least remove the curses and stay out of the picture).

But, there was a specific people in the Mediterranean region that did something unique in this regard. They were renown for it, or rather, notorious. The Ammonites were the people, and they had a god called Molech, and this god was unlike the other gods, because he expected a sacrificial payment that went beyond what the other gods ever seemed to request. This god wanted more than blood. He wanted the blood of infants; he wanted to devour children. If you can imagine a god whose mouth opens wide to razor sharp teeth to feast on the tender flesh of the newborn, then you begin to imagine the demonic presence among this people. The God of Israel was clear in his position against this god, and that anyone who engaged in this practice would not only be cutoff from Israel, but that such a person would also have God set Himself against them, i.e. it's bad enough that you're kicked out of the family, but you forevermore shall be considered our enemy. To side with Molech was a high-treason kind of matter, rebellion of the worst kind, against God and his very nature and his creation. It was an affront to the very concept of creation in its highest form - the image of God - and stewardship in its most precious estate - the family.

Now, I am not equating abortion with Molech worship. I have heard the arguments made. They are convincing but not enough. But, you shouldn't think that means abortion is more palatable to God. The following argument is to show that it's not; abortion actually exceeds Molech worship in horror. Let me tell you why I think this is the case.

Most ancient civilizations were land-based economies, they were technologically deficient compared to the ways we leverage tools for the sake of agrarian and animal care-taking and "production." They didn't use tractors and there were no Lowe's or Home Depots (or whatever they call tool and home supply stores in your country) for buying shovels or drills. Working the land was more difficult, and therefore the land was less productive. The chief means of increasing your production was through increasing the number of laborers working the land itself, and the chief means of doing that profitably was through having children to bear the load of the work alongside you, especially sons. To have children was a recognized blessing, a recognized hopeful future in latent form. Children meant extended family networks, shared resources, increased laborers, etc. More children meant more wealth (excepting the possibility of evil, lazy, and rebellious children). Sons were a sign of blessing.

Thus, when these peoples chose to offer up a child to Molech, that abominable god of the Ammonites, they knew they were making a true sacrifice. They said, this child is my future, but I put my future in the hands of this terrible demon, because if I do, then this present malady will be borne away. Sacrificing their children was a risky venture. It meant potential poverty. It meant real loss. They watched their dreams burn up in that fire, speaking their many words in their vain prayers to that demon in hopes that he would relent on their land or armies, or as a pre-purchased show of sacrifice for victory against their enemies.

Do you see how abortion is considered completely different from child sacrifice to Molech? Molech's followers, if they were anything like the other ancient peoples in this familial/economic perspective, would have desired to have Molech's relenting or "blessing" without having to sacrifice the child. They "sacrificed" one to get the other. They gave up that which they wanted to keep for the sake of ridding themselves of something they could not stand. Abortion, however, is not viewed as a sacrifice. It's generally not perceived as an undesired action by those who get them. Note: the husband in the ancient civilization had utter control over the matter. Thus, what I'm saying is that the men in that culture did not desire to sacrifice their children. That is completely contrary to the picture set before us today. We might argue that many of the women getting abortions are being coerced into having their children executed, but we would probably be in agreement that if a woman is getting an abortion, it is most likely that the father is in favor of it.

At this point, one might say, "but isn't that the same as the ancients' choosing one blessing over the other?" The answer is "no." And, this is where the whole matter turns darker. In the ancient culture, giving up the child to Molech could be likened unto the phrase, a [perceived] necessary evil. Today, however, the difference is that the child is not wanted and the [supposed] benefits that accrue to the mother/father are retained. Essentially, child sacrifice is now viewed as a convenience, a profitable rather than impoverishing act. That we have stations for child-killing is viewed as a great gain for our culture, a blessing for the sake of selfish endeavors, a mitigating force against the burden that are weaker, smaller, less-intelligent, and incapable persons. The ancients, even in their evil ways, saw child sacrifice as the worst sort of inconvenience, a horrible ritual characterizing the ferocity and terribleness of their god. Among us, such is considered medicinal, and even our-life affirming, because in our day, we take Henry's statement literalistically - give me liberty or give me death. 

Abortion is vicious and undeniably cruel. It is heinous in the worst way. But, perhaps the worst deception woven into its corrupt fabric is that it enriches rather than impoverishes. We are not only evil, but we are fools too. Have fairy tales of beautiful appearances and seemingly pleasing fruit taught us nothing of the witch's poison? I believe that such is a major reason why this evil has not been broken in our day and among our people. We see no horrible consequence. We do not see our lives poorer and ruined in the act, as the ancients were like to do. The ancients viewed it as an all or nothing, last-ditch effort to remove the curse or get the strength to defend against or conquer foes. We view it as a common way to have more free time, avoid marriage or scandal, and still have a future. Both their sins and ours are evil, but there's a big difference, and our position makes us the heartless heathen in comparison.

Gleaning: it's not your modern day welfare

When we skim in our reading, we glean. That is to say, we freely survey a small portion of something larger, fuller, richer, and more valuable. When you read that introductory chapter of the book, you're gleaning. Gleaning is about tasting, not indulging; touching, not embracing. The concept dates back to antiquity and the religious requirement to leave the outermost portion of one's fields unharvested so that widows, poor people, and sojourners without work would not perish in the land, but rather that they would find ample supply of resources to keep them alive and cared for because of their neighbors' reflective kindness of their God - provided the gleaners did the work of going out to the fields with everyone else and gleaning. 

 (SOURCE)

Don't be mistaken, gleaning is not like modern day welfare payments. Real work alongside everyone else was required. Do you know the life of Ruth? Some many decades before David, King of Israel, was born, his great relative was a widow in a foreign land, with no property of her own, without her blood family, and being of no economic status (having been out of the land for years during a famine, it's likely her mother-in-law's family estate was in ruins). You could say she was the epitome of the category for which gleaning was established. 

Gleaning's value is revealed in Ruth's response to the dire situation she and Naomi are in. She went to the fields of her own volition - not knowing whether her neighbors would be faithful to the gleaning law, especially after years of famine. You might suspect there would be some who were storing up everything they could in barns upon barns, just in case something like a flood of famine returned in their day. Ruth had the faith to go and work hard, and her ethic was reported. In fact, everyone around knew she was of greater value than seven sons. In antiquity, your wealth came from property, and your family size determined a lot about how much of that property would produce quality crop. To have seven sons would have been something of renown, a prize symbolic of God's favor. Thus, though the statement about Ruth's value was metaphoric, its truth is not diminished. Ruth took action, and her discipline was rewarded.

Ruth's multifaceted obedience and words evidence her knowledge of God as a true and loyal lover who never lies when announcing he cares for the hungry husbandless handmaiden. Her unwillingness to abandon Naomi reveals much about her knowledge of God's unwillingness to abandon his own people and her hopefulness toward his response to her demonstration of that knowledge.  You see, gleaning has a lot in common with the Christian in today's economic situation. Often, we tend to think that God's ability to manifest his glory is determined by the direness of our situation, and to some extent that is true. God glorifies himself through the exaltation of the humble. He shows his great power through our great weakness. But, this is often misconstrued.

The logic is often expressed in prayer for God to "show up" and save - to provide the student great blessing on the test or the worker great favor on the project or the entrepreneur on the deal or the pastor on the sermon or the scientist on the research or the athlete in the competition. The unspoken, however, is often the matter of responsibility of the individual to prepare the way of the Lord. The good man John the Baptizer knew this. Ruth evidenced it. We do not live in a world apart from God's working. And, God's very laws are evidence of his imminent involvement. His very blessing is in reality's fabric. This is why you ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss. The believer asks, having already been looking to God in obedience to him. That's why he continues to petition, because he's been following and obeying, loyally trusting God to manifest the righteousness of covenant-keeping. 

When the believer doesn't prepare for the test, doesn't work hard/smart on the project, doesn't cover as many angles of the deal as he could, doesn't pray/study/practice to present the Gospel, doesn't rigorously conduct his testing, or control his diet/exercise/practice regimen in a disciplined manner, then it's tantamount to unbelief. When he then calls on God to provide, he's saying, I didn't faithfully live thankfully there, but I want you to put things my way here (because I can't given what I did). In fact, that kind of believer actually thinks that, had they done the aforementioned, they would be in better control of things. If they had the money, the brains...the riches/wisdom/strength, then they would win the race. But, we should know better, that's not to whom the race goes. The race goes to whomever God gives it.Thus, the whole of the believer's life is something like gleaning, gleaning on the field of God's favor, eating the manna of his pleasure and experiencing the grace of his provision.

To evidence the Godful life of the obedient gleaner, believers ought to consider the significance of loving God with all their mind and might. Hard-work, of the physical, intellectual, or hybrid kind, you see, is faith. It's the kind that expects reward. It's the kind God points to with blessing, as in the case of Ruth. It's not a matter of earning the reward for the work, it's a matter of expecting the certain, unearned reward of faith and working as a result. The believer who wants the job and does nothing does not respect the Lord. The believer who just expects God to make circumstances change without the work of faith does not respect the Lord in so doing. Honoring God means realizing he can always change your circumstances and does not do so for his good pleasure. He's giving you a manner for maturing - by revealing himself in faithfulness after the work is done, after you've stopped sitting idle. Why does the farmer get his yield? Because he worked the land? No. He gets his yield because God brings the growth. He works the land because he has faith.

So be glad and get moving, for as Newton said to Wilberforce, "You have work to do."

Clouds and no rain

Have you ever wondered why some clouds bring forth rain and some do not? Have you watched the clouds and hoped for rain, only to be disappointed?

If you were a farmer, you would understand the let down, especially in times of great famine.

(Source)

We live amidst famines of various kinds. Some people look to the sky for a miracle, but most give up, lose faith, and put their hands back into the ground. When no rain seems to fall, men and women search through the dirt for something, anything, that might suffice. They accept the ditch's discharge in return for a bit of wetness, a memory of rain.

This reality speaks. It speaks about the perpetual dater, who is like a cloud bringing no ring. It speaks about the addict, who's lifestyle is honest about his craving for something like a permanent fix, but who only knows how to buy on the short-term. It speaks about the loss of hope and the apparent victory of dissatisfaction. It speaks about the need for fulfillment, for consummation - the end to the beginning, the rib-rejoined. But with famine, as the prophet Moses recounted his forefather Joseph's telling the people, the whole seven years were consumed by the following seven, so that the former were forgotten. When you forget the beginning, you tend to forget who made it so good, and his purpose in doing so. Thus, some scorn the sky, as if waters would again mist above the land to water the earth. Ironically, those waters left for the same reason.

Famine comes for a reason. If it does anything, it leads to a fork between Repentance and Bitterness. You choose the road you'll take, one finds a spring that ever-overflows, and the other finds a fire that is never quenched.

Recon Matters

Re·con·nais·sance

/riˈkänəsəns,-zəns/

"military observation of a region to locate an enemy or ascertain strategic features." (Oxford)

 

When I was younger, my brother and I read the "Where's Waldo?" books - though it was less like reading and more like spying through them. The books were fundamentally exercises in reverse pattern recognition - isolating breaks in the visual pattern to determine one-of-a-kind objects. For the books, this meant the goal was to find Waldo amid a host of activities and other figures who looked like he did, wore what he wore, and were similarly patterned and colored. Additionally, several blatantly clashing items and people and scenarios were depicted to break up the scenes and make finding Waldo more difficult. Of course, if you didn't first know what Waldo looked like, and what he was required to be wearing, then it would have been impossible to locate him. Here's the point: in identifying one thing among but distinct from other things, one must first categorize distinctions and then note them against the background.

It has long been understood that to defeat your enemy, you have to know some things about him - in order to identify him. Identifiers such as habitual and unique behaviors help you distinguish the enemy from friends and neutral parties. Thus, the extent to which you can clearly describe your enemy determines the extent to which you can identify your enemy within a range of difficult circumstances.

The same two requirements exist in successful arguments. First, you have to know your position, and second, you have to understand the opposition well enough to know why it is not your position. In fact, the first seeds for the latter's fruitfulness. Without the first, you are position-less. And, if you cannot make the leap to the second, then either you do not yet have enough information on the opposition or you do not have the understanding requisite to delineate your position from proximal others.

Here's where our keyword for today, reconnaissance, comes into play. Among nations, reconnaissance is a primary method of maintaining a profile for your enemy or potential enemy. Keeping tabs on what he's done, doing, stopped doing, planning to do, etc. provides a means of keeping the enemy visible. The most dangerous enemy is the invisible one, the one you cannot obstruct should he prove a threat, because there is no history to consider, no image to compare, no behavior to watch for, no deception understood. That's why programs that read your emails, record your phone calls, and identify patterns in your internet behavior matter to free countries. With tremendous liberty comes tremendous vulnerability. Such vulnerabilities compound without the means of identifying enemies should they emerge. That's why soldiers were given playing cards with most-wanted individuals' faces on them. That's why the CIA exists and why culture analysis remains a chief tool in reconnaissance training. But, notice what happens when I say that reconnaissance is also a primary method of maintaining a profile for your allies. All of a sudden, we start getting a little fearful that this is not a good idea, that we've broken some important trust. Have we? Or, have we, potentially just sharpened the profile we have on file for our ally, so that we can better differentiate their activities and presence from a foe's, so that we can say, "Yes, we know that you did not send that missive. We know you were unaware that your communications lines were compromised. We knew and did not tell you because it strengthened our hand, our partnership even, against our common enemy." Reconnaissance toward friends is the power of misinformation against foes. It is the defensive strength negating the age-old strategy of destruction of poisoning partnerships through fears of betrayal. Of course, it is assumed that your reconnaissance team is entirely trustworthy and that those giving them orders and those to whom the information is handed-off truly seek the welfare of their organization. When that cannot be assured, reconnaissance becomes increasingly dangerous. Being able to trust one side is hard enough. Not being able to trust anyone builds a bridge to insanity.

For application's sake, consider how reconnaissance might be applied toward some subject like theology. In one's studies, he will form opinions on various matters, many if not all of which will grind against some other man's opinions. But, the first man will not recognize this grinding if he does not first form opinions. He must make some kind of declarative statement about matters of discussion. He does this intuitively. He will say X is _____. Only then can it be known that the man who says X is not ______ sees the world differently. And, for that matter, the first man must know what X might be (and why) in order to perceive the extent of the difference. Suppose in studies of different doctrines, a man comes to find one interpretation different from the others in some way that pleases him where the others do not. He has to seek understanding as to why it pleases him as others don't. That will help him determine the nature of the disagreement as well as the nature of his pleasure. Moreover, such will reveal his method of decision-making and hierarchy of importance in regard to that doctrine.

Let's pull back. The point made has to do with reconnaissance being not just a matter of offense, but it is also, and even more so, a matter of defense. In matters of argumentation, the man who does not understand his own position well enough to proclaim it is not just incapable of advancing, but he is also fundamentally handicapped from guarding his own city. By his failure, thieves easily break in, rob the treasury, and impoverish his heritage.

Why we wage

War is waged that peace might replace it.  This blog is about that.  How so?  Consider this:  Foolishness is like dust and dirt in a rug.  To be cleaned (in part), it requires removal by beating.  That's what this blog aims to do:  beat bad and/or faulty arguments and ideas out of well or ill-meaning individuals by destroying all trust and hope in said arguments and ideas with good arguments and ideas.  That is all to say, this blog is about word-on-word warfare - a fight against foolish thoughts in order to (perhaps) rescue those plagued by them.