Pleading Acknowledged - Yet Biblcal Truth Cannot be Ignored.

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Sep 25, 2009 at 18:31

To the dismay of the previous writer, what is exchanged here by this writer comes not from a purely theologically religious perspective, but from a broader application of what this world is experiencing, and why so many have a difficulty understanding why there is a need to counter the movement some consider necessary to accommodate the perceived expansion of Islam. This writer has read the response of the previous reader to an assertion of a religious nature ascribed to the exchange, and this writer acknowledges the desire to distance one' self from the convictions of others for the sake of preserving more closely held beliefs.

For this writer, though, stopping what is believed to be the cause of source of life in this world is like trying to stop a nuclear reaction that has already begun. Can one stop the fusion of hydrogen into helium necessary to power the sun? Not only is it not humanly possible, neither is it logically advisable for the obvious reasons. For a true Christian to withhold the witness of the Biblical directive to present the Person of Yeshua HaMashiach as the Savior for a world in such desperate need is like asking the Sun to stop in its course of the day. But wait; there are verses that covers that also in Joshua 10. The same defense of Israel is at work today.

Now this writer was making an assertion to the previous reader, a follower of Islam, that using a Darwinian based argument to make a theological point seemed contradictory, something this writer still contends. Now, while there are many reasons theologically why such thinking does not follow sound logical bases, even the original author Charles make a distinction that his work, still hypothetical in his day, cannot be taken out of its context to prove a religious concept; which read, "He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. For he may ask in vain where are the numberless transitional links which must formerly have connected the closely allied or representative species, found in the several stages of the same great formation. He may disbelieve in the enormous intervals of time which have elapsed between our consecutive formations; he may overlook how important a part migration must have played, when the formations of any one great region alone, as that of Europe, are considered; he may urge the apparent, but often falsely apparent, sudden coming in of whole groups of species. He may ask where are the remains of those infinitely numerous organisms which must have existed long before the first bed of the Silurian system was deposited: I can answer this latter question only hypothetically, by saying that as far as we can see, where our oceans now extend they have for an enormous period extended, and where our oscillating continents now stand they have stood ever since the Silurian epoch; but that long before that period, the world may have presented a wholly different aspect; and that the older continents, formed of formations older than any known to us, may now all be in a metamorphosed condition, or may lie buried under the ocean." – Charles Darwin-Origin of Species. From a Biblical perspective, this appears categorically correct. To continue and peruse his works to determine the full intent and make a comparative study of what he 'believed'(his words) in conjunction with the Biblical record demonstrates the antithetical opposition argued for over a hundred and fifty years, and still unresolved for the lack of substantial evidence datable prior to the last ten thousand years. From his time to this, the geological record, by his own admission, was inconclusive to support his speculations beyond what he had actually observed. So, to argue that an ape mimicking human charaterisitics is theologically supportable of the idea of simian reasoning is poor logic at best, and theologically insincere at worse.

Now, there is no contest to the assertion that the 'political church' has usurped the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ in representing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that for centuries the religious powers that be have continued to press their own version of faux Christianity as a means to 'conquer' humanity into their belief system, which is partly, if not substantially responsible for the appearance of countering religions, such as Islam, to rise up and foster an imagination that rebelling against Jesus Christ is the correct humanist thing to do. And since we have heard from enough Muslims that say Islam is the humanist religion, that connection is easily made when comparing the verses of the Quran against the Hebrew Holy Bible. In the strange coincidence of the arguments of the time of Yeshua HaMashiach's first appearance, the religious rulers of His time made the same argument against Him, forcing the Romans to crucify Him in accordance with the prophetical message of the Jewish prophets.

Now, by the national reference of where this previous writer hails from, one wonders who 'my folk' might be, if we are to be identified by just that national reference. This writer, however, will not feign ignorance, that for various other items of content, that reference is well understood. To that end, further, this writer will confine comments to the previous writer to those such as brought forth a 'bravo' from the previous writer. To other issues that have the intent to contradict what the Hebrew Holy Bible says on the topic at hand, to the comments that disparage the Holy Bible, that disparage the Person of Jesus Christ, to the comments that try to displace Zion and its place in the framework of the Hebrew Holy Bible as it pertains to Israel, this writer will by the WORD of the LORD, continue to express a Biblical perspective of such things. If they are received as a theological witness, then those who make that assertion will have no reason to doubt the position of this writer, that the Holy Bible drives the witness, and is not driven by any personal agenda. In this, the witness of Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ is followed by His definition, and not this writer's.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".