That means that we must eat plants and animals to survive but we don’t have to destroy whole species just because we can. It is in our best interest to conserve them for the future. That is the true meaning of exercising dominion: to ensure that all living things have the opportunity to flourish, which will allow human beings to benefit from them in the future. In doing so, we enable them to live the best life they possibly can in a world in which living things must consume other living things to survive. And we must not make them suffer when they are slaughtered. That, by the way, is the origin of the kosher food laws: to teach man, among other things, to be compassionate to animals and the earth.
And I brought you into a land of fruitful fields, to eat the fruit thereof and the good thereof; but when ye entered, ye defiled My land, and made My heritage an abomination.
—Jeremiah 2:7
Woe is me! for I am as the last of the summer fruits,
As the grape gleanings of the vintage;
There is no cluster to eat;
Nor first-ripe fig which my soul desireth.
The godly man is perished out of the earth,
And the upright among men is no more;
—Micah 7:1–2
First Fruits
I’ve yet to tell you about the first fruit of the season. It’s biblical to me. I have a small property north of San Francisco on which I have an orchard. When I bought it in 2002, it had a peach orchard on it that eventually died off. I don’t know the reason; perhaps some disease.
Eventually I put in a new orchard. It’s not a lot of trees, maybe fifteen or twenty, I’m not sure exactly how many. But I take such pride in and care for them. When I planted them a few years ago, they were just baby saplings, like when you first buy them from a nursery.
One day, my gardener came down to one of the places I broadcast from and said, “Michael, here are the first peaches that we picked for you.” They were little peaches; I ate a few.
Why am I telling you this story? Because nature goes on no matter who is president, no matter what madness or filth you see on television. Nature is eternal. It keeps renewing itself. That’s why we love our pets, our orchards, our connections to nature. It’s why you love to go camping. It’s why you love to go skiing.
I love my little peach orchard. That day, I got its first fruits. Look up “first fruits” in the Bible. You’ll see what I mean.
PART III.
SCRIPTURES
But with righteousness shall he judge the poor,
And decide with equity for the meek of the land;
And he shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth,
And with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins,
And faithfulness the girdle of his reins.
—Isaiah 11:4–5
Why did God inspire the scriptures?
Should the scriptures be taken literally or viewed as myth/allegory?
What are the similarities/differences between Judeo-Christian scriptures and other holy writings?
I’m an Old Testament kind of guy. I believe in the real McCoy. It’s a pretty violent book. It’s very powerful. Of course, we don’t take the Old Testament literally. If we did, we’d probably all be slaughtered by rock throwers. But there is a lot of wisdom in it, based upon common sense in some ways, in logic in some ways. But it’s seen by the atheists as a red light to their libido.
In plain English, the reason the hedonists hate religion and hate God is because they see them as holding up a red light to their hedonism. It says, “You shall not do this” and “You shall not do that.” They want to do anything they want to. Fornicating with animals is fine because “if it feels good, do it.” Why not do it in the road? That’s their modus operandi. And we know what it’s led to.
I believe there is going to be a rejuvenation of faith in this nation, a return to religion. I’ve already seen it in some ways. And just because these so-called elites, sneering snot noses in the media, do not show you what is going on, that does not mean it is not going on. And I feel it. In that sense, I’m not a rationalist; I’m an intuitivist. I can feel a change in this country. I believe this long highway of pollution has come to an end and will wind up in the trash heap.
The days that led here go back to a pornography case decided by the Supreme Court. That is what dumped the trash into everyone’s neighborhood. That’s what dumped pornography into everyone’s corner. When so-called progressives took the First Amendment to mean that they could pump filth of the lowest and most degrading kind into every mind, that was the beginning of the end of American morality.
Believe me, there is a very big place in this country for a moralist and a reformist to come along, and I don’t think we’re going to get that out of a politician.
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,
Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies.
—Joshua 10:13
Reverend Jerry Falwell Debates Michael Savage
A while back, I had the opportunity to interview my friend, and great defender of what I believe in, Jerry Falwell. I really wanted to get his perspective on several issues I knew I would be wrestling with in this book. One of them was the crucifixion. I asked him, “Reverend, what does the crucifixion mean? To me it means if you crucify others, you crucify yourself. Does that analysis hold any water with you?”
Reverend Falwell replied, “That certainly can be an interpretation, but the ultimate meaning of the Cross is that God so loved the world and everyone in it: black, white, red, yellow, Jew, gentile, rich, poor. God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, Christ, to die on that cross to pay our sin debt in full forever, and only perfect God, perfect man, in one person could do that.”
Here’s the part I don’t understand: How could Jesus die for all man’s sins for all time when such evil exists? Does that exonerate them? Does that exonerate a child rapist? Throughout this book, I’ve been talking about personal responsibility. Over and over, we’ve seen examples of how it is each individual who must seek out God and do His work. Everyone must atone for his own sins. So it makes no sense to me that Jesus could have done anything to atone for the sins of a murderer who killed yesterday.
For My people is foolish,
They know Me not;
They are sottish children,
And they have no understanding;
They are wise to do evil,
But to do good they have no knowledge.
—Jeremiah 4:22
Reverend Falwell replied, “Because first of all He is the Son of God and God the Son, perfect man, perfect God. Theologians refer to Him as the God Man, and because He is the God Man He was able to take it upon Himself. Only God could do that. In that efficacious way, the sins of everyone from Adam to the last person that shall ever be born upon this earth, past, present, future. When He said it is finished on the cross, it meant just that: I paid the debt in full; I’ve satisfied my heavenly father. My blood is shed; I’ve risen now from the dead. Alive forevermore, and all who trust Me shall have everlasting life. The death of Christ is sufficient to save all men everywhere. It is sufficient to save only those who believe and receive Him.”
For me, that begged another obvious question, which is “Can a non-Christian be saved?” What if someone is not a murderer, is not a rapist, in fact lives an exemplary life, but is not a Christian? What if Mother Teresa had lived a life identical to the one she lived but had been a Buddhist? Would she be saved? What about a Jewish man who reads the Bible every day, attends the synagogue, loves his fellow man, and avoids sin as well as the best of Christians? Can that man be saved?
My friend answered according to his faith and his convictions. He quoted the Bible, saying, “‘He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life,’ but the wrath of God abides upon him. One must receive Christ. That’s not anti-Semitic; it’s not anti-gentile. There are many Bap
tists who have not received Christ. They may be church members and have been baptized but have never personally received the atonement: Christ’s death, burial, resurrection for our sins as Lord and Savior.”
Of course, I cannot be completely satisfied with that answer, but people of goodwill can disagree on these matters. That was the real reason for the First Amendment. It wasn’t to ban God from the public square. That’s a liberal perversion of the First Amendment. The First Amendment sought to protect every individual’s right to believe and worship as he saw fit. The founders believed that because no one can know the answers to these ultimate questions, every individual has an inalienable right to decide for himself what the answers are. He can’t be forced to go against his beliefs by a national religion. That’s what the First Amendment and the inalienable right of conscience it protects really means.
Good people of any faith should be respected. We cannot dismiss the billions of people on Earth who are not Christian. What about the Native Americans, who do not even believe in an all-powerful God? Should we say all of them are pagans not worthy of salvation if they do not convert to Christianity?
I see God as the center of a spiritual wheel, with all the spokes being the many religions and beliefs that lead to God.
And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
—Exodus 18:25
Exodus 18:21
Turning to Exodus, the first chapter and verse I marked was 18:21, where it says, “Moreover, thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.” Verse 25–6 continue, “And Moses chose able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. And they judged the people at all seasons. The hard causes they brought unto Moses but every small matter, they judged themselves.”
What does this mean to me? It means that in every generation going back to Moses, we have always sought God-fearing men who love the truth, who hate thieves. And we elect them to positions of power. Where does that leave us today?
Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not murder.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
—Exodus 20:12–14
Exodus—The Ten Commandments
The next passage I marked is Exodus 20:12–14. It’s about the Ten Commandments and begins with, “Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.”
What does that really mean? For those of us who have had trouble with one or both of our parents, does it mean we must worship them? As a very thoughtful religious woman, who herself had had continuous problems with her mother, told me a long time ago, no, it does not mean blind worship of your parents. It means you should honor that you come from your father and your mother. That gives us a concept of belonging, of an origin, of who we are as beings, that we were not born unto ourselves. It does not mean we must worship our father and our mother, especially if we have a very difficult relationship with them.
As for the other commandments, do they not speak for themselves? 20:13 says, “Thou shalt not murder.” The Hebrew word is very interesting. It says “murder,” not “kill.” You are permitted to kill in war, in self-defense. Murder is quite different from kill. Think about it.
We don’t have to define the others: thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s. They’re all self-explanatory. The two most interesting words in the passage are those regarding murder as opposed to killing and the concept of what honor thy father and thy mother means.
The child shall behave insolently against the aged,
And the base against the honourable,
For a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father:
‘Thou hast a mantle,
Be thou our ruler,
And let this ruin be under thy hand.’
—Isaiah 3:5–6
An Eye for an Eye
Exodus contains all sorts of rules about an eye for an eye, which are self-explanatory. We don’t live in an eye-for-an-eye world, and many of us feel that the justice system is flawed because punishments don’t fit the crimes. It seems to most of us that the true criminals are not punished sufficiently.
For example, Exodus 21:26 says, “If a man smite the eye of his bondman or the eye of his bondwoman and destroy it, he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his bondman’s tooth or his bondwoman’s tooth, he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”
What does that mean? It means an eye for an eye, more or less. It says to give them freedom to compensate for injury. Is that an eye for an eye?
Earlier, in 21:22, it says if men are working together and hurt a pregnant woman, they must pay a fine. But if they accidentally kill the baby, it says, “… if any harm follow then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, strike for strike.”
Do we want to live in such a world? No, we don’t. Do we want to live in Saudi Arabia, where they cut the hands off thieves? Some of us would say yes; I would say no. On the other hand, when we live in a world that is ruled by liberal judges, where the courts are run by liberal lawyers, where there does not seem to be much punishment for some crimes, we’re all asking ourselves how we can make the pendulum swing to a more equitable justice system. That’s my interpretation of Exodus and where we are today.
And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
—Exodus 21:22
But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
—Exodus 21:23–25
And the man said: ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
—Genesis 2:23–25
The Garden of Eden
In Genesis, He writes this. He, God. You know who He is? God. It’s not Barack Obama. He. Not Obama. Not Castro, not Stalin, not Lenin. Not any of your heroes. Not Karl Marx, not George Soros, but He, God. God wrote the Bible, starting with Genesis, the first book of Moses, so to speak. And in Genesis 2:18, He says, “And the Lord God said it is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a help meet for him.”
Then it talks about how He created all the other animals and what Adam would call them. He gave names to the cattle and the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field. Then He looked around and said, but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him. And so He caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man. “And He took one of his ribs and closed up the place with flesh instead thereof. And the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the man sai
d, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. She shall be called woman because she was taken out of man.’”
Now listen to the rest of this. Listen to it as poetry. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” I could spend an entire book on that one passage from Genesis, but I don’t think it takes an entire book to show that since the beginning of recorded history, all religions have recognized that it’s man and woman, that there’s no need for a third-sex bathroom. You have mental problems? You’re not sure who you are? We’re sorry for you. We’re not going to hurt you. We accept you, but please don’t twist our children’s minds.
Every culture, every religion, every people on the planet, every dog, every cat, every mouse, every bird, every pigeon, everything on Earth understands that, except for the people in San Francisco. As I read a thing like that, I look further. And that’s usually when I turn to the Rock of Ages.
It’s not that I believe every word. I’m not a biblical absolutist, but it’s been around for thousands of years. Of course, everyone is not as smart as the current crop of know-it-all equalizers, I understand that. The poor people who believed in God and the Bible all these years, they just didn’t have the brains of Obama and the other atheists around him, but they did the best they could.
God, Faith, and Reason Page 6
