Tie Tuesday, Children’s edition: Why have two when one will do?

Lookie what I found lurking in my closet. Admittedly, it’s been some time since I strayed past the few ‘old faithful friends’ in my collection. But this morning I made a discovery of sorts. Two of the same.

Both are from the Save the Children sold originally to raise funds for their charity that helps children and families around the world. The ties are designed with pictures drawn and colored by actual children they help. These two of the same were graced with an illustration called “Peace on Earth” by ten year old Risa. It reminds me of a Sunday school song I used to sing with the kids…

Red and yellow, black and white

They’re all precious in His sight.

You know the rest…

“Happy is he who takes their children and dashes them against the rocks”-ps137:9

Nah… probably didn’t make it into the songbook. 

The tie however has a nice bright rainbow with a yellow smiling sun overhead, shining down on a line of children from different countries and colors holding hands and representing the future promise of a united and cooperative humanity. 

“… and a little child shall lead them”-Isa11:6

With all the division, and hatred going on in the world and even in my own country for religion and politics sake, we can only hope to listen to the Hope of little children for a united and peaceful humanity. Here’s to Hope today. As I will pass on to one of my coworkers my second tie this morning, let’s all learn from the children to Give Hope and Bridge Divides and find a way to Live Together in Peace and Security. Give it away today. 

-kia

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “Tie Tuesday, Children’s edition: Why have two when one will do?

  1. While you’re gleefully partially quoting David expressing his desire for exacting revenge on those who had committed atrocities against the Israelites – a bit of honesty in your writing would be asking for too much.

    You should gleefully make a post about your fellow atheists/materialists Violet and Zande who only 2 days ago expressed their belief that the starving of children is okay – under certain conditions. [See, I was fair to them… they didn’t think it was always okay to starve children… just under certain conditions known only to them].

    John Branyan: [Feb 26,2017 1:31PM] “Is it ALWAYS right to feed starving children?”

    Violet: [Feb 26,2017 1:34 PM]
    “Not if they would suffer an even more excruciating death because of prolonging their life with food. But we’re not in a position to see the future so most humans with an animal sense of nurturing and a human sense of empathy, would feel it is RIGHT to feed a starving child.”

    John Branyan: “So it isn’t ALWAYS right to feed starving children. Sometimes it is actually WRONG to feed starving children. It is up to each of us to do with starving children. There is no absolute right answer. I understand…” (mocking relative morality)

    John Zande: [Feb 26,2017 1:39PM] “Is it ALWAYS right to feed starving children? (repeating the question – no doubt he knows what he’s answering).
    No. If, for example, that child is being held captive in a pit of despair (like Harry Harlow’s Pits of Despair) and you have no other way of saving that child from their absolute and permanent misery then permitting (enabling) the child to die would be the morally-ethically correct thing to do (+ more nonsense)

    Like

    • Forget about what those two think. I’m more interested in reading your take of the following three passages:

      “At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.” Exodus 12:29-30, NIV

      “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15:2-3, NKJV

      “I have sinned against the Lord,” David said. Nathan replied, “The Lord forgives you; you will not die. But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die.” Then Nathan went home. The Lord caused the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David to become very sick. . . . A week later the child died.” 2 Samuel 12:13-18, GNT (Good News Translation)

      Care to give it a go?

      Like

      • Hi Ron,
        I must apologize for only now responding to your message.

        In answer to your question, what do you think would have been the likely outcome if Pharaoh was obedient in releasing God’s people when he was commanded to do so?

        🙂 I smile at your questions because it makes me think, who is God’s rival? – He has none
        Who is God’s equal? – He has none

        So woe betides the man/woman who thinks or seeks to make him/herself an enemy of the most High God.
        Here’s a clue – God has NO enemies We do…. but certainly not Him [To think He has an enemy is to think there’s even the slightest possibility one can come against Him or ‘defeat’ Him. LOL

        Like

        • History and archaelogy both testify to the dearth of evidence that the Jews were ever slaves of Egypt or the Exodus and wilderness wandering ever happened

          Like

              • The records aren’t broken… As you’ve correctly pointed out [for now (my words)] the archaeological evidence is slim.
                However, to make the claim the Exodus didn’t happen or couldn’t have happened based on the slim evidence you have – that’s a remarkable statement of faith.

                Just so you know – the Bible/Scripture is historical record and the best we have of the ancient world.
                So to throw it completely out as a historical record, you’re left not working with very much.

                Like

              • You must not have seen my posts from a couple days ago. Not only is there no evidence for the Exodus, slavery in Egypt or the wilderness wandering, but there is actually abundant evidence against

                Like

              • No, I haven’t seen them.

                You used the term ‘dearth’ which can mean lack, but also means scarcity/slim/meagerness.

                So we’re back to what I presumed you actually said – there is no evidence which is quite different from there is little/slim evidence.

                In any event, if there were no evidence, you still could not make the conclusion with 100% certainty that the Exodus didn’t happen because it may just be because the evidence haven’t been found yet.

                The moment you have knowledge of something (discovery) is not the moment the knowledge came to be – it was always there- you just now happen to stumble on it.

                So to claim the Exodus didn’t happen because so far you have not stumbled upon that knowledge doesn’t mean anything in terms of the actual event.

                Also to say there is abundant evidence against it is rather silly.
                People have drawn conclusions based on what they’ve looked at. Obviously, they haven’t looked at all there is to see.

                Like

              • Well, this is simply your opinion, and a baseless one I might add.
                But you have faith to believe this is true, so good for you. You have stronger faith than I do.

                Like

              • Christianity Today’s Kevin D. Miller conceded: “The fact is that not one shred of direct archaeological evidence has been found for Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob or the 400-plus years the children of Israel sojourned in Egypt. The same is true for their miraculous exodus from slavery.”

                Like

              • Can you give me direct archaeological evidence for the existence of your great-grandmother 50 generations back.
                Since this was a relatively short time compared to the time of Abraham, surely you’ll have no difficulty in presenting the evidence.

                Like

          • History and archaeology say no such thing!
            That’s the conclusion of some questionable historians and archaeologists that you have chosen to place your faith/trust in their conclusions.
            You’re faith is placed on the shaky ground that these people are correct.

            Like

        • theancients,

          Thanks for the response. But I was hoping you’d explain God’s moral justification for punishing the innocent in lieu of the guilty. Why kill all the firstborn of Egypt (who had no say in the matter) for Pharaoh’s obstinance? Why exact vengeance against the Amalek descendants for a war their ancestors already lost centuries earlier? Why kill David’s child instead of David? Do any of these actions seem morally just to you?

          Liked by 2 people

          • It is a bit like the strange story of Noah and his son Ham after the flood. In Genesis 9:20-28.

            Noah comes out of the Ark, plants a vineyard, gets drunk and lies naked in his tent. His son Ham “saw his father’s nakedness”. As a result Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan to be the lowest of slaves.

            Liked by 2 people

            • It depends on how you approach the ancient scriptures. As an allegory, they represent man’s earliest attempt to make sense of his universe. As a theological treatise of enduring moral value, however, they’re an adject failure.

              Liked by 1 person

          • Hi Ron,
            I noticed you didn’t answer my question. I’m reminding you, because you’ve come back to ask the same thing.
            What do you suppose would have happened had the Pharaoh been obedient?

            What do you think of the actions of the Pharaoh, Ron?

            The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was named Shiphrah and the other Puah, “When you act as midwives to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birthstool, if it is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, she shall live.” ….
            Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every boy that is born to the Hebrews you shall throw into the Nile, but you shall let every girl live.”

            In answer to you questions, what or whose standard (yardstick/measure) are you using to judge God?

            Like

            • theancients,

              “What do I suppose would have happened had the Pharaoh been obedient?”

              I suppose the Hebrews would have packed their belongings and left without all the ungodly drama.
              In regards to your passage, Exodus 2:23 informs us that the Pharaoh who issued the edict to kill all the Hebrew boys died, which kind of makes sense given that Exodus 7:7 claims Moses was 80 and Aaron was 83 when they spoke to the Pharaoh. Moreover, Exodus 12:37 states that 600,000 Hebrew men left Egypt—a strong indication that the deceased Pharaoh’s edict was largely ignored. But how does any of this tie in with my question concerning the unjustness of killing the innocent in lieu of the guilty?

              “…what or whose standard (yardstick/measure) are you using to judge God?”

              We all judge God by the same standard: our personal opinion. The only thing that differentiates us is that some are more open and honest to admitting said fact than others.

              Like

              • Ron: But how does any of this tie in with my question concerning the unjustness of killing the innocent in lieu of the guilty?
                We all judge God by the same standard: our personal opinion

                If we all judge God based on our personal opinion, then which of us have the most correct opinion. Who decides which is the best and most moral position.
                What gives you the right to judge God? Is your opinion greater than His standard? (and even if you said yes, that’s simply your opinion – you have no yardstick by which to measure your opinion… so it boils down to, so what, who cares).
                Is your opinion better than mine? Why should I or anyone else listen to or care about your opinion, much more the God of the Universe.

                See, this is the only outcome when each person’s personal opinion is the standard for morality (self-righteousness anyone).

                Like

              • theancients,

                What gives me the right to judge God? Precisely the same thing that grants you the right to judge God. By definition, to judge means to form an opinion. So if you’ve formed an opinion about God’s character, you too have judged God.

                As to deciding whose moral opinion prevails, let me ask you this: which of us is defending a deity that exhibits the same character traits we normally deplore in others? Given there’s zero evidence your god exists or that any of these events ever took place, you’re essentially attempting to defend the moral integrity of a fictional despot.

                Liked by 2 people

              • Ron, the point of what gives you the right to judge God is simply this – Why should God care about your opinion of His rules.

                [In reality, He wants you to come to the conclusion that you (all of us) are incapable of keeping His laws and therefore need a Savior]

                My bigger point was this: Opinions are NOT standards, and this is where atheism/naturalism/materialism fails big time.
                The atheist etc. wants to have moral outrage – but based on what?
                He has no clue 😦 So he resorts to individual opinions.

                A few days ago, some who share your philosophy admitted it’s okay to starve children under some conditions.

                My opinion is, it’s always wrong to starve children.

                Who gets to decide which of us is correct?

                Anyway, I already figured the conversation would lead back to the non-existence of God (your opinion).
                If you believe God does not exist, then you are arguing against the morality and moral standard of ‘nothing’.

                Isn’t it interesting and so very telling, that you would refer to a being that you say doesn’t exist as a despot. That’s absolutely irrational.

                I absolutely believe that God exists, and that He’s the giver of all laws that govern this universe – both physical and spiritual.
                But I don’t need to defend God… and He certainly doesn’t need to answer to you or me or anyone else. After all, He’s God!
                He certainly did not seek any of our input when He brought the world into being.

                Like

              • theancients,

                Atheism is neither a philosophy, nor an opinion; it’s a response to a very specific question: Do you believe in gods? If you answer no, you’re an atheist. If you answer yes, you’re not. But neither answer mandates we adopt a specific code of conduct or shared set of beliefs. In other words, theists aren’t any more likely to share a universally agreed upon moral code than non-theists‐a strong indication that objective morality may be a phantom belief.

                You claim that you believe it’s always wrong to starve children. If so, then how do you account for your God’s callous indifference to the millions of children dying of thirst and malnutrition each year? And by what metric will you render God’s moral opinions more objective than mine? Because some ancient text claims it to be so?

                And what’s irrational about judging the moral quality of a fictional being? Do I really need to believe that Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort and the Wicked Witch of the West actually exist prior to rendering an opinion on their character traits?

                Liked by 2 people

              • Ron, it’s obvious you don’t know what atheism is.

                My theism (belief there is a God) charts the way I live my life (my relationship with God and man)

                Similarly, your atheism (belief there is no God/gods) dictates the way you live your life and interact with others – hence here you are denouncing God.

                If you knew Scripture, you would know that God is far from indifferent from the sufferings of the world. God allows what we allow.
                We are the ones allowing children to die from malnutrition etc.

                Jesus specifically tells us when we feed the hungry, clothe the poor, visit those in prison etc. we’re doing it to Him.

                It’s your business if you want to spend your time judging a being you claim does not exist.

                But I don’t see how a person who denies that Christ Jesus doesn’t exist can be taken seriously.

                Like

              • Contrary to your assertions, atheism is not a belief system. Nor is it a religion. Atheism (derived from the Greek word atheos) means without belief in gods. Rejecting a proposition unsupported by evidence requires zero belief. As always, the burden of proof rests with the one who’s making the positive claim. Provide empirical evidence for the existence of your god and I will immediately abandon my disbelief.

                I wrote that “theists aren’t any more likely to share a universally agreed upon moral code than non-theists.” Do you deny this fact? If so, how do you account for all disputes over which god, which holy text and which interpretation of said holy text prescribes the one true unerring code that all must follow? Or the fact that most non-theists lead exemplary lives and follow moral codes similar or superior to those of theists?

                As a non-believer, I fully agree that we’re the only ones capable of alleviating the suffering of others. But as a believer, how can you excuse God’s failure to intervene on the pretext that God allows what we allow? Would you accept that excuse from rescue workers who remained idle because no one else was willing to provide assistance?

                I argue against theological propositions for my amusement. But what about you? Why do you waste time arguing with non-believers when it could be better spent helping others? How can I take you seriously when you ignore Jesus’ advice to go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor?

                Liked by 1 person

              • Great reply Ron. Too many people out there intentionally and dishonestly reversing the definition of atheism to mean the belief THAT there are no gods, when it’s simply a lack of belief or rejection of unproven claims for gods

                Like

              • Ron, I thought it was already a settled issue for you that God does not exist (in your opinion).
                If that’s the case, what additional evidence are you asking me for.

                I’m not trying to convince you that God exists. You have all the proof you need (just as I and the rest of mankind does) and you have concluded: there is no God.

                Obviously all Christians agree on objective morality and that Christ Jesus /God is the source of objective morality.
                Objective morality simply means there are indeed right/good values that are true and binding and independent of whether anyone believes it or not.

                For example: it is always wrong to starve children to death.

                One of the biggest misunderstanding of the atheist/materialist is not understanding that there is a difference between:
                – One can be moral (to an extent) without believing in God
                and
                – Morality cannot exist without God.

                I thought you knew and understood the Scriptures.
                Why did Jesus commandus to feed the hungry.
                Matter of fact: Why did Jesus have to come to earth as a man/human being? Why did He need a “body”?
                [I really don’t need you to answer these questions. It’s to prompt you to think]

                When a person is being a glutton, do you also expect God to intervene and in what way?

                To amuse means not to think. It’s clear atheists do not think (at least not in a coherent manner). Amusement is highly overrated 🙂

                I do not consider it a waste of time speaking about who Christ Jesus is and His essentiality to a purposeful, abundant, and eternal life.
                Eternal life is knowing God and Christ Jesus.

                Your last line is another confirmation of your poor apprehension of Scripture.

                Like

              • theancients,

                At what point did I claim the issue was settled? As per my previous comment, I’m asking you to provide empirical evidence for the existence of your god—i.e. something more substantive than mere claims and assertions, rationalizations or appeals to personal intuitions.

                How did you determine there are certain values that are true and binding and independent of whether anyone believes it or not? (For instance, if absolutely no one believed that genocide was morally wrong, how would you ever determine it was objectively wrong?) Or that God (whose existence remains to be demonstrated) is good? Or that morality can’t exist without God? And if it’s always wrong to starve children to death, why do you give your God a pass for refusing to prevent starvation? Again, would you accept that excuse from rescue workers who remained idle because no one else was willing to provide assistance?

                I’m always open to correction and clarification. If my last line (How can I take you seriously when you ignore Jesus’ advice to go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor?) demonstrates a poor apprehension scripture, please help improve my apprehension by explaining where I’ve erred.

                Doing things for amusement doesn’t necessarily mean not having to think. People engage in all kinds of mental challenges purely for the sake of entertainment. I encourage you to give it a try. You might enjoy it. 🙂

                Like

              • Ron, all your arguments are derived from atheism/materialism which informs the way you see the world (that’s philosophy… and religion – you have faith in your “lack of belief” regarding the nonexistence of God/gods.
                Plus, here you are ‘debating’ / having a discussion with me – so you’ve moved on from non-intellectual commitment (ex: a stone lacks belief in God/gods) to taking a position or acting on what you know (ie. God/gods do not exist).

                Asking for empirical evidence for the existence of God is wrong (and somewhat funny).
                That’s like asking what color is a square. Different categories.

                God – by definition is immaterial, transcendence Being who exists outside of time and space – so asking for scientific (testable, material evidence) for an immaterial transcendent God is incorrect.

                I’ll respond to the rest at a later time.

                If you choose to continue to tell me that

                Obviously, I lack belief in your atheism.

                Like

              • Failed again, ancients. Atheism and materialism are not the same. Neither is naturalism.
                Atheism is the answer to one question, do you believe in God or gods? The answer no means you are atheist. Period. It doesn’t inform any other opinions or form the foundation for any philosophy, worldview or religion.

                Like

              • Failed at?
                I never said atheism and naturalism are the same. However, I do lump them together along with materialism because all 3 belief systems have much in common.

                The atheist’s answer of “no” (to the question: Do you believe in God/gods) is an intellectual one – meaning he made the conscious choice to “lack belief”/”not believe”.
                ie. He came to this conclusion via reason. [Or at least one would hope he did].

                You can continue to deceive yourself into thinking “Atheism is the answer to one question…” and that it ends there.

                No one stays in a position of “lack of belief”/ “I don’t believe” when an idea has been presented to them. You either accept the idea (believe it – there is a God); reject it (disbelieve it- there is no God); or ponder it (agnostic- I don’t know).

                It’s irrational to say that atheism doesn’t inform any other opinions, or form the foundation for any [your]philosophy, worldview or religion.

                So what exactly have you been blogging about?
                Don’t answer – it’s obvious you haven’t a clue.

                Like

              • You’re failing again. Your words…
                “reject it (disbelieve it- there is no God); or ponder it (agnostic- I don’t know).”

                Aside from mixing two different questions, knowing vs believing, that have nothing to do with each other, you have once again linked ‘not believing’ to believing there is no god. One is a rejection, the other is a positive claim that… again… atheists do not make for themselves.

                Like

              • theancients,

                My disbelief in your God informs my world view to the same extent as your (and my) disbelief in all the thousands of other gods we both reject: not a whit.

                And if God is an immaterial, transcendent being that exists outside of time and space, how did you ever become aware of its existence? Because as Matt Dillahunty says:

                “A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.

                Regardless of whether or not you choose to acknowledge it, our moral world view—or at least mine—is informed by social conditioning, introspection and empathy (or lack thereof) for others.

                Morality is about doing what’s right because you want to, not because you’ve been told to—that’s merely blind obedience. (Would you blithely comply if your scriptures said God commanded us to lie, cheat, steal, murder and commit adultery?) Moreover, why do those who profess that there’s a god judging our every move so often act as if they don’t really believe said god exists or cares? Shouldn’t they express more incentive to obey God’s edicts?

                I still await your response to my other questions concerning morality.

                Liked by 1 person

              • If we take the Bible at its word then we are told that ‘God’ hardened Pharaoh’s heart. So much for Free Will. Indeed the Bible goes further and says that Pharaoh was raised up for this very purpose an that ‘God’ wanted to make an example of Pharaoh.

                The key point is I am not judging ‘God’, rather I am judging whether the Bible shows signs of being a divine or a human book. The moral inconsistency points me to conclude a human book.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Peter,

                Perhaps the biblical authors didn’t have time to address the moral inconsistencies because they were preoccupied with tending to their feasts, ritual sacrifices, priestly vestments and tabernacle furnishings.

                Liked by 1 person

    • Copied from ron’s response meant for you… ancients

      MARCH 1, 2017 AT 3:35 PM
      Forget about what those two think. I’m more interested in reading your take of the following three passages:

      “At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.” Exodus 12:29-30, NIV

      “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15:2-3, NKJV

      “I have sinned against the Lord,” David said. Nathan replied, “The Lord forgives you; you will not die. But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die.” Then Nathan went home. The Lord caused the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David to become very sick. . . . A week later the child died.” 2 Samuel 12:13-18, GNT (Good News Translation)

      Care to give it a go?

      Like

  2. Forget about what those two think. I’m more interested in reading your take of the following three passages:

    “At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.” Exodus 12:29-30, NIV

    “Thus says the Lord of hosts: ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he ambushed him on the way when he came up from Egypt. Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15:2-3, NKJV

    “I have sinned against the Lord,” David said. Nathan replied, “The Lord forgives you; you will not die. But because you have shown such contempt for the Lord in doing this, your child will die.” Then Nathan went home. The Lord caused the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David to become very sick. . . . A week later the child died.” 2 Samuel 12:13-18, GNT (Good News Translation)

    Care to give it a go?

    Like

    • Hard not to conclude that ‘God’ is only really interested in a small cohort of folk in the Bible and the rest are seen to be of no value.

      When I was a Christian my biggest question was whether these folk who were destroyed went to Heaven or Hell. To send a person to Hell who was killed as a baby seemed unjust. But to let all babies into heaven automatically raised all sorts of other issues as it would imply better to die young than grow up and risk Hell. In the end I could never get a satisfactory answer to this issue.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Christian Apologetics is not about answers for seekers from without. To paraphrase a sentence from cs lewis and use it much differently than he intended…
        “The doors are locked from within”
        Christian Apologetics are intended to keep the door bolted and secure to prevent escape

        Like

      • Yeah, Romans 9 lays waste to the free will argument:

        “It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: ‘I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.’ Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”

        According to Paul, we’re all mere pawns in God’s cosmic play.

        It was passages like these, along with the aforementioned ones, that destroyed my faith. Who’d seriously want to praise or worship such a capricious and malevolent deity for eternity—even if it did exist?

        Liked by 1 person

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s