Monday, September 18, 2006
What's Discrimination?
By Walter E. Williams
CNSNews.com Commentary
September 06, 2006
There's so much confusion and emotionalism about discrimination that I thought I'd take a stab at a dispassionate analysis. Discrimination is simply the act of choice. When we choose Bordeaux wine, we discriminate against Burgundy wine. When I married Mrs. Williams, I discriminated against other women. Even though I occasionally think about equal opportunity, Mrs. Williams demands continued discrimination.
You say, "Williams, such discrimination doesn't harm anyone." You're wrong. Discriminating in favor of Bordeaux wine reduces the value of resources held in Burgundy production. Discriminating in favor of Mrs. Williams harmed other women by reducing their opportunity set, assuming I'm a man other women would marry.
Our lives are spent discriminating for or against one thing or another. In other words, choice requires discrimination. When we modify the term with race, sex, height, weight or age, we merely specify the choice criteria.
Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival.
I've sometimes asked students if they believe in equal opportunity in employment. Invariably, they answer yes. Then I ask them, when they graduate, whether they plan to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them. Most often they answer no; they plan to discriminate against certain employers. Then I ask them, if they're not going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them, what's fair about requiring an employer to give them an equal opportunity to be hired?
Sometimes students will argue that certain forms of discrimination are OK but it's racial discrimination that's truly offensive. That's when I confess my own history of racial discrimination. In the late 1950s, whilst selecting a lifelong mate, even though white, Mexican, Indian, Chinese and Japanese women might have been just as qualified as a mate, I gave them no chance whatsoever. It appears that most Americans act identically by racially discriminating in setting up marriage contracts. According to the 1992 Census Bureau, only 2.2 percent of Americans are married to people other than their own race or ethnicity.
You say, "All right, Williams, discrimination in marriage doesn't have the impact on society that other forms of discrimination have." You're wrong again. When there is assortive (non-random) mate selection, it heightens whatever group differences exist in the population. For instance, higher IQ individuals tend toward mates with high IQs. High-income people tend to mate with other high-income people.
It's the same with education. To the extent there is a racial correlation between these characteristics, racial discrimination in mate selection exaggerates the differences in the society's intelligence and income distribution. There would be greater equality if there weren't this kind of discrimination in mate selection.
In other words, if high-IQ people were forced to select low-IQ mates, high-income people forced to select low-income mates, and highly educated people forced to select lowly educated mates, there would be greater social equality. While there would be greater social equality, the divorce rate would soar since gross dissimilarities would make for conflict.
Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate.
(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Free Market Project.)
Copyright 2006, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
CNSNews.com Commentary
September 06, 2006
There's so much confusion and emotionalism about discrimination that I thought I'd take a stab at a dispassionate analysis. Discrimination is simply the act of choice. When we choose Bordeaux wine, we discriminate against Burgundy wine. When I married Mrs. Williams, I discriminated against other women. Even though I occasionally think about equal opportunity, Mrs. Williams demands continued discrimination.
You say, "Williams, such discrimination doesn't harm anyone." You're wrong. Discriminating in favor of Bordeaux wine reduces the value of resources held in Burgundy production. Discriminating in favor of Mrs. Williams harmed other women by reducing their opportunity set, assuming I'm a man other women would marry.
Our lives are spent discriminating for or against one thing or another. In other words, choice requires discrimination. When we modify the term with race, sex, height, weight or age, we merely specify the choice criteria.
Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival.
I've sometimes asked students if they believe in equal opportunity in employment. Invariably, they answer yes. Then I ask them, when they graduate, whether they plan to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them. Most often they answer no; they plan to discriminate against certain employers. Then I ask them, if they're not going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them, what's fair about requiring an employer to give them an equal opportunity to be hired?
Sometimes students will argue that certain forms of discrimination are OK but it's racial discrimination that's truly offensive. That's when I confess my own history of racial discrimination. In the late 1950s, whilst selecting a lifelong mate, even though white, Mexican, Indian, Chinese and Japanese women might have been just as qualified as a mate, I gave them no chance whatsoever. It appears that most Americans act identically by racially discriminating in setting up marriage contracts. According to the 1992 Census Bureau, only 2.2 percent of Americans are married to people other than their own race or ethnicity.
You say, "All right, Williams, discrimination in marriage doesn't have the impact on society that other forms of discrimination have." You're wrong again. When there is assortive (non-random) mate selection, it heightens whatever group differences exist in the population. For instance, higher IQ individuals tend toward mates with high IQs. High-income people tend to mate with other high-income people.
It's the same with education. To the extent there is a racial correlation between these characteristics, racial discrimination in mate selection exaggerates the differences in the society's intelligence and income distribution. There would be greater equality if there weren't this kind of discrimination in mate selection.
In other words, if high-IQ people were forced to select low-IQ mates, high-income people forced to select low-income mates, and highly educated people forced to select lowly educated mates, there would be greater social equality. While there would be greater social equality, the divorce rate would soar since gross dissimilarities would make for conflict.
Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate.
(Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., and a member of the Board of Advisors for the Media Research Center's Free Market Project.)
Copyright 2006, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Gloom at the IRS
As it stands now, there is one glaring flaw in our Constitution, and that's the detrimental, some say evil, 16th Amendment which legalized the income tax. If the Supreme Court upholds a decision handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Aug. 22, that decision may have more far-reaching effects on the income tax than the innocuous case to which it was applied.
Marrita Murphy sued the government and the IRS to recover taxes she'd paid on a court award for "emotional distress." The problem is the wording in the 16th Amendment, which states: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived." But the amendment doesn't define what income is, so Congress and the IRS devolved a covert, evermore inclusive, "living" definition. Don't that just burn your toast?
In a surprisingly powerful ruling, the court stated: "At the outset, we reject the government's breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the Sixteenth Amendment--upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments it advances here. The 16th Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as 'incomes' every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact'."
In an excellent analysis of the implications of this decision, syndicated columnist Bruce Bartlett has gathered some interesting information. He reiterates the court's points that the IRS can deem any revenue to be taxable income, and that's because there's no legal definition for it. To facilitate its ever-increasing hegemony, Congress has little interest in overhauling or abolishing the incomprehensible, self-contradictory gargantuan tax code.
Another implication Bartlett mentions is the likely possibility that, if this decision is upheld, interest could be ruled not to be income and not taxable. If so, could capital gains and other investments be far behind?
Until now, the argument against abolishing the income tax has been the "momentum" behind it, what with the need for Congress to maintain its omnipresent influence and its ability to pander to lobbyists. But this decision could well undermine that impetus and force Congress to have to pass another amendment to define "income," with the inevitable re-re-rehashing of the tax code.
In lieu of that, as Bartlett puts it, "Given the logic of the Murphy decision it could revolutionize taxation and eventually lead to a pure consumption tax, which most economists today favor." This is music indeed to the ears of those who see the corruption and frustration engendered by the income tax code, as well as it being the focal point for the soak-the-rich class warfare that motivated popular opinion to favor the passage of the 16th Amendment in the first place. At that time, only the wealthiest 1 percent were going to have to pay income taxes. Class warfare was and is democracy at its worst.
The situation went downhill from there. Conservatives in 1913, playing to the mob and thinking it would never pass, voiced their support, and the rest is history.
However, it just so happens, there's a bill before Congress right now that would establish the aforementioned consumption tax, contingent upon repealing the income tax. If passed, that consumption tax would be the FairTax opposed only by lobbyists and the naysayers who don't like it because they didn't propose it.
No matter how hard the powers that be try to ignore it, it just keeps slowly and surely gaining momentum, making it harder and harder to ignore, especially if this decision holds.
In view of the lack of leadership and fear of the press displayed by so many of our politicians, perhaps they should try the "it'll never pass" stratagem again.
Just think, when it fails they'd not only get the growing FairTax crowd to shut up, but they'd be able to continue to use the income tax to manipulate the populace and bring in the lobby dough with a level of impunity never before imagined.
I like it.
Mahlon Marr lives in Byron and can be reached at thepainefultruth@wmconnect.com.
The full article will be available on the Web for a limited time:
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/15502587.htm
(c) 2006 Macon Telegraph and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
Marrita Murphy sued the government and the IRS to recover taxes she'd paid on a court award for "emotional distress." The problem is the wording in the 16th Amendment, which states: "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source derived." But the amendment doesn't define what income is, so Congress and the IRS devolved a covert, evermore inclusive, "living" definition. Don't that just burn your toast?
In a surprisingly powerful ruling, the court stated: "At the outset, we reject the government's breathtakingly expansive claim of congressional power under the Sixteenth Amendment--upon which it founds the more far-reaching arguments it advances here. The 16th Amendment simply does not authorize the Congress to tax as 'incomes' every sort of revenue a taxpayer may receive. As the Supreme Court noted long ago, the 'Congress cannot make a thing income which is not so in fact'."
In an excellent analysis of the implications of this decision, syndicated columnist Bruce Bartlett has gathered some interesting information. He reiterates the court's points that the IRS can deem any revenue to be taxable income, and that's because there's no legal definition for it. To facilitate its ever-increasing hegemony, Congress has little interest in overhauling or abolishing the incomprehensible, self-contradictory gargantuan tax code.
Another implication Bartlett mentions is the likely possibility that, if this decision is upheld, interest could be ruled not to be income and not taxable. If so, could capital gains and other investments be far behind?
Until now, the argument against abolishing the income tax has been the "momentum" behind it, what with the need for Congress to maintain its omnipresent influence and its ability to pander to lobbyists. But this decision could well undermine that impetus and force Congress to have to pass another amendment to define "income," with the inevitable re-re-rehashing of the tax code.
In lieu of that, as Bartlett puts it, "Given the logic of the Murphy decision it could revolutionize taxation and eventually lead to a pure consumption tax, which most economists today favor." This is music indeed to the ears of those who see the corruption and frustration engendered by the income tax code, as well as it being the focal point for the soak-the-rich class warfare that motivated popular opinion to favor the passage of the 16th Amendment in the first place. At that time, only the wealthiest 1 percent were going to have to pay income taxes. Class warfare was and is democracy at its worst.
The situation went downhill from there. Conservatives in 1913, playing to the mob and thinking it would never pass, voiced their support, and the rest is history.
However, it just so happens, there's a bill before Congress right now that would establish the aforementioned consumption tax, contingent upon repealing the income tax. If passed, that consumption tax would be the FairTax opposed only by lobbyists and the naysayers who don't like it because they didn't propose it.
No matter how hard the powers that be try to ignore it, it just keeps slowly and surely gaining momentum, making it harder and harder to ignore, especially if this decision holds.
In view of the lack of leadership and fear of the press displayed by so many of our politicians, perhaps they should try the "it'll never pass" stratagem again.
Just think, when it fails they'd not only get the growing FairTax crowd to shut up, but they'd be able to continue to use the income tax to manipulate the populace and bring in the lobby dough with a level of impunity never before imagined.
I like it.
Mahlon Marr lives in Byron and can be reached at thepainefultruth@wmconnect.com.
The full article will be available on the Web for a limited time:
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/opinion/15502587.htm
(c) 2006 Macon Telegraph and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Purpose of Religion
via email from Rusty Lee Thomas
Dear Champion of the Lord and the Preborn,
The Lord richly bless you! Just received an interesting request from a student. She is involved in a history class that is exploring the world of religion. She asked me to comment on this important subject. The following is her initial request and then my response. If you find any merit, please pass it on to others.
IN KING JESUS' SERVICE,
Rusty
Rusty,
this is ruth ferrell. for history class we have to compile a survey based on the following questions: What is the purpose of religion? Is religion simply a means of social control? or Does it have real spiritual meaning? I was wondering if you would be willing to give your opinion on these questions.
Thanks for your time.
Dear Ruth,
The Lord richly bless you! Here goes.
It is our worldview that determines our definition and meaning as it pertains to religion. If one holds to a theistic (God centered) view of the world, religion will play an important role in one's life. On the other hand, if one holds to a humanistic or secular worldview (man centered), even though this worldview has been defined as an official religion, traditional religions will not resonate.
The Bible declares that man is the highest crown of God's creation and is made in God's image. Theologically this means that "man thinks God." Because God used reason, logic, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to create the heavens and the earth, these attributes in measure have been granted to man. Though sin has certainly marred and corrupted these attributes, they still function in some measure. Religion is therefore inescapable. Since time memorial man has asked deep philosophical and religious questions. Why are we here? Who am I? What am I to do with my existence? What happens after we die? Why is there evil and so much misery
in the world? Is there a God? What is He like and so forth? In man's inevitable search for these perplexing questions, different religions and philosophies have emerged over time to try and relieve man's anxiety and quest for viable answers to these tortuous questions. So, in answer to the first question, "What is the purpose of religion?" It is to find some sense of meaning and value in a world filled with suffering, pain, misery, evil, and death.
The quest then becomes whose religion is true? For the human landscape is littered with many religions that are available to indoctrinate gullible souls and the latter state of the seeker of religion can become worse than their former state without religion. The principle here is our beliefs in and of itself in any religion does not determine whether or not the religion is true. Truth must determine our beliefs. Sincerity of belief is no substitute for the substance of our beliefs. In other words, the folks on the Titanic sincerely believed the mighty Titan of the Seas would not sink. History records they were sincerely wrong. The nineteen Muslims who crashed airplanes into our buildings and brought America to its knees, sincerely believed they were serving their god, Allah. Their belief brought many innocent people to an untimely death. If these murderers could come back from the dead, they would reveal a horror much worse than the Twin Towers collapsing. Rather than joining 72 virgins as promised by the religion of Islam, they would scream of the torments of hell. Instead of entering a paradise, they find themselves in a place of eternal damnation that they cannot escape. They can't even commit suicide again to be released and no belief in the Koran will deliver them from the severe consequences of the lies they believed.
Secondly, the next question, "Is religion simply a means of social control? Oviously, in our post 9/11 world and the rise of the threat of Islamic terrorism, this question becomes crucial. Those who are suspicious of anything religious would certainly hold to this view and thus chafe against it. I can't tell you the number of people who have contacted me as one who holds to a Biblical Christian worldview and have compared me to the Islamic Fascists. Because I hold to a belief in the God of the Bible, they believe it is the same as the belief that Muslims have in the god of the Koran. Because I hold to a belief in absolute truth, they believe I'm a fanatic like crazed Muslims bent on Jihad. The truth is every religion of man seeks to control men from without. Doctrine, tenets, and rules of religion become primary in controlling the masses of "true believers." In fact, Karl Marx, founder of the religion called Communism and hater of religion true or false, defined religion as "an opiate for the masses."
Christianity radically departs from this religious process. First of all, religion is defined as man seeking God. It is man through his own efforts trying to solve the alienation he experiences from his Creator and other human beings. That is why every religion besides Christianity is based upon good works and religious duties. The brilliance and uniqueness of Christianity, however, is not man working his way to God, but God came to us to seek and save them which are lost. Our relationship with God is not based upon our obedience of keeping religious rules, which is impossible to keep, But to put our faith in the One who did, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In other words, as man is drowning in the sea of sin, alienation, despair, and death, God did not throw at us a religious rule book to control the masses. This would have only caused us to sink quicker by the weight. No, He sent a Savior to rescue us. The two, mans way to God and God's way to man, are mutually exclusive.
Besides this, a wise Congressman by the name of Robert Winthrop in the 1800s made this profound statement, "All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries, and other governments to talk about the State supporting
religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State."
Man, due to his sinful nature must be controlled and governed, otherwise chaos, confusion, and mayhem will rule the day. Man has two choices in solving this dilemma. He can rely on forces from without, both civil and religious, which leads tos tyranny and oppression, or man can control himself from within by the saving grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is either One Nation under God or one nation simply under.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams, Second President of America.
Our Founding Fathers knew that only "One Nation Under God" can produce order in society and freedom to individuals. They knew freedom was the power to do as we ought and not to do what we want. They knew there were two enemies to liberty, licentiousness amongst the people and tyranny in civil government. They knew self-government was the key to protect liberty. Only a religious, moral, and virtuous people who put restraints upon their appetites, lusts, and greed can remain a free people. Both the Bible and our history attests to these truths. If America does not return to these truths, America as we know it will cease to exist.
Finally, the last question was "Does it have real spiritual meaning?"
Emphatically yes, if it is true religion undefiled, it leads to salvation, freedom, liberty, and prosperity. It answers all the gnawing questions, fulfills our destiny upon earth, and leads to eternal life in Heaven. If the religion is false, however, it leads to the robbing of man's destiny here upon earth and eternal destruction to all those who are ensnared by its deception. It has profound spiritual meaning regardless. One has the power to save men's souls and the other is a lie that brings men's souls to damnation.
IN KING JESUS' SERVICE,
Rusty
Dear Champion of the Lord and the Preborn,
The Lord richly bless you! Just received an interesting request from a student. She is involved in a history class that is exploring the world of religion. She asked me to comment on this important subject. The following is her initial request and then my response. If you find any merit, please pass it on to others.
IN KING JESUS' SERVICE,
Rusty
Rusty,
this is ruth ferrell. for history class we have to compile a survey based on the following questions: What is the purpose of religion? Is religion simply a means of social control? or Does it have real spiritual meaning? I was wondering if you would be willing to give your opinion on these questions.
Thanks for your time.
Dear Ruth,
The Lord richly bless you! Here goes.
It is our worldview that determines our definition and meaning as it pertains to religion. If one holds to a theistic (God centered) view of the world, religion will play an important role in one's life. On the other hand, if one holds to a humanistic or secular worldview (man centered), even though this worldview has been defined as an official religion, traditional religions will not resonate.
The Bible declares that man is the highest crown of God's creation and is made in God's image. Theologically this means that "man thinks God." Because God used reason, logic, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to create the heavens and the earth, these attributes in measure have been granted to man. Though sin has certainly marred and corrupted these attributes, they still function in some measure. Religion is therefore inescapable. Since time memorial man has asked deep philosophical and religious questions. Why are we here? Who am I? What am I to do with my existence? What happens after we die? Why is there evil and so much misery
in the world? Is there a God? What is He like and so forth? In man's inevitable search for these perplexing questions, different religions and philosophies have emerged over time to try and relieve man's anxiety and quest for viable answers to these tortuous questions. So, in answer to the first question, "What is the purpose of religion?" It is to find some sense of meaning and value in a world filled with suffering, pain, misery, evil, and death.
The quest then becomes whose religion is true? For the human landscape is littered with many religions that are available to indoctrinate gullible souls and the latter state of the seeker of religion can become worse than their former state without religion. The principle here is our beliefs in and of itself in any religion does not determine whether or not the religion is true. Truth must determine our beliefs. Sincerity of belief is no substitute for the substance of our beliefs. In other words, the folks on the Titanic sincerely believed the mighty Titan of the Seas would not sink. History records they were sincerely wrong. The nineteen Muslims who crashed airplanes into our buildings and brought America to its knees, sincerely believed they were serving their god, Allah. Their belief brought many innocent people to an untimely death. If these murderers could come back from the dead, they would reveal a horror much worse than the Twin Towers collapsing. Rather than joining 72 virgins as promised by the religion of Islam, they would scream of the torments of hell. Instead of entering a paradise, they find themselves in a place of eternal damnation that they cannot escape. They can't even commit suicide again to be released and no belief in the Koran will deliver them from the severe consequences of the lies they believed.
Secondly, the next question, "Is religion simply a means of social control? Oviously, in our post 9/11 world and the rise of the threat of Islamic terrorism, this question becomes crucial. Those who are suspicious of anything religious would certainly hold to this view and thus chafe against it. I can't tell you the number of people who have contacted me as one who holds to a Biblical Christian worldview and have compared me to the Islamic Fascists. Because I hold to a belief in the God of the Bible, they believe it is the same as the belief that Muslims have in the god of the Koran. Because I hold to a belief in absolute truth, they believe I'm a fanatic like crazed Muslims bent on Jihad. The truth is every religion of man seeks to control men from without. Doctrine, tenets, and rules of religion become primary in controlling the masses of "true believers." In fact, Karl Marx, founder of the religion called Communism and hater of religion true or false, defined religion as "an opiate for the masses."
Christianity radically departs from this religious process. First of all, religion is defined as man seeking God. It is man through his own efforts trying to solve the alienation he experiences from his Creator and other human beings. That is why every religion besides Christianity is based upon good works and religious duties. The brilliance and uniqueness of Christianity, however, is not man working his way to God, but God came to us to seek and save them which are lost. Our relationship with God is not based upon our obedience of keeping religious rules, which is impossible to keep, But to put our faith in the One who did, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. In other words, as man is drowning in the sea of sin, alienation, despair, and death, God did not throw at us a religious rule book to control the masses. This would have only caused us to sink quicker by the weight. No, He sent a Savior to rescue us. The two, mans way to God and God's way to man, are mutually exclusive.
Besides this, a wise Congressman by the name of Robert Winthrop in the 1800s made this profound statement, "All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them, or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries, and other governments to talk about the State supporting
religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State."
Man, due to his sinful nature must be controlled and governed, otherwise chaos, confusion, and mayhem will rule the day. Man has two choices in solving this dilemma. He can rely on forces from without, both civil and religious, which leads tos tyranny and oppression, or man can control himself from within by the saving grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is either One Nation under God or one nation simply under.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams, Second President of America.
Our Founding Fathers knew that only "One Nation Under God" can produce order in society and freedom to individuals. They knew freedom was the power to do as we ought and not to do what we want. They knew there were two enemies to liberty, licentiousness amongst the people and tyranny in civil government. They knew self-government was the key to protect liberty. Only a religious, moral, and virtuous people who put restraints upon their appetites, lusts, and greed can remain a free people. Both the Bible and our history attests to these truths. If America does not return to these truths, America as we know it will cease to exist.
Finally, the last question was "Does it have real spiritual meaning?"
Emphatically yes, if it is true religion undefiled, it leads to salvation, freedom, liberty, and prosperity. It answers all the gnawing questions, fulfills our destiny upon earth, and leads to eternal life in Heaven. If the religion is false, however, it leads to the robbing of man's destiny here upon earth and eternal destruction to all those who are ensnared by its deception. It has profound spiritual meaning regardless. One has the power to save men's souls and the other is a lie that brings men's souls to damnation.
IN KING JESUS' SERVICE,
Rusty
4 VIEWS OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION
via email from Rusty Lee Thomas
Historical: Joachim of Fiore (1132-1202) was the first to introduce the historical view of interpreting the book of Revelation as a detailed prediction concerning the course of history. He systematically divided all history into an age of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The method he utilized is called the day/year formula. This view is based upon counting each day as a year. Once he established this formula, he went on to divide the entire book into seven periods of the Church.
He believed that he was personally living in the sixth period and was anxiously awaiting the seventh period that would usher in the final age. He was convinced the seventh and final stage would begin about 1260. At first, this view taught the different prophecies in the book referred to the same event. However, this view was later discarded and a chronological sequence replaced the original view.
The historical approach relies heavily upon the formula that a day in prophetic time is a year. Psalm 90:4 states, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” 2 Peter 3:8 states, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Both of these passages are cited to support the historical view. Obviously, these passages of Scripture do not speak specifically of a day prophetically becoming a year. It speaks in terms of God’s realm, which is outside of time, as a day being a thousand years or vice versa. Those who tend to overly spiritualize the Scriptures typically embrace this view. All these passages of Scripture teach, however, is that any apparent lapse of time does not invalidate God’s promises. God is simply above time, but He does act in His own good time.
Objections To This View
Advocates for the historical view cite Numbers 14:33,34 which states, “And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.” Israel was punished forty years for their unbelief. According to the historical view, Israel suffered God’s penalty as one year for each day the land of Canaan was explored.
David Clark points out, “Had God said they should wander forty days and the time turned out to be forty years the theory might claim some support.” Secondly, if the passage in Numbers represents a universal law, we should expect to see it illustrated in other examples of fulfilled prophecy. For instance, Noah’s flood which was predicted to last forty days did not take forty years to end. When Jesus declared that he would be crucified and resurrected in three days, did He intend to encourage the Apostles to wait three years till he came back from the tomb? The list could go on and on with such examples.
There are specific passages of Scripture that speaks of actual years, but none of them establishes this “prophetic” interpretation that a day means a year. Scriptures, such as, Judges 17:10, 1 Samuel 2:19; 2 Chronicles 21:19, and Isaiah 32:10 are a few examples that teach a year means an actual year and not a day.
John Walvoord, who holds to a futurist view of the book of Revelation, claimed at least fifty different interpretations that have arisen from the historical view. According to him, the historical view “seldom if ever takes cognizance of the Church outside Europe.” This weakness becomes even more pronounced as much of the Church’s growth in history takes places outside of Western Europe. Lastly, every prediction based upon this model of interpretation concerning chronological date setting has proven to be false and misleading.
Idealism: Those who hold to the idealist or spiritual approach to the book of Revelation, do not believe in any specific time frame concerning prophetic fulfillment. Their orientation is neither futurist (future fulfillment) or preterist (past fulfillment). The Idealist views the book of Revelation as a series of spiritual concepts, Biblical principles, and moral lessons that are universal in scope and are observed and applied in each generation throughout God’s redemptive history. It depicts the book of Revelation as the ultimate conflict between good and evil. It is the tale of two cities- fallen Babylon and the rise of New Jerusalem.
The Idealist believes that the truths contained in the book of Revelation are applicable to all ages in the struggle of right against evil. It encourages the saints to patiently suffer persecution and await the divine intervention of God to judge their persecutors and liberate His people from oppression.
Objections To This View
Some who object to this view believe that the book of Revelation was not written primarily to be a devotional book for suffering saints, regardless of what stage of history they found themselves. There must be some historical framework. The book of Revelation is primarily apocalyptic in nature. It warns of impending judgment. This would provide very little comfort if the Church could not be certain of a time frame.
Philip Carrington argued that Revelation was “decidedly a message to its own age, that its tone is too fierce to be the product of a philosophical interest in the general laws of history, and that a Hebrew never thought of the spiritual except as an actual living force in present history.” Robert Wall thought this view tended toward existentialism and an individualistic approach to interpretation. In other words, it makes the Church devoid of a unified eschatological meaning to the book. Its weakness then does not take into account the role of history in interpreting the book.
Futurist: As with the Idealist, the Futurist interpretation also removes any historical verification of the book of Revelation. Whereas the Historical view interprets Revelation in light of European history, the Futurist views Revelation in the light of current events and political trends, especially, as they relate to the Middle East. Most Futurists believe that the Church is raptured in Revelation 4:1 which states, “After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.” According to the Futurist view, the rest of the book is future as well.
Objections To This View
In context of Revelation 4:1, the heavenly message was given specifically to the Apostle John, the human writer and chosen vessel of this divine revelation, and not granted generally to all believers as the Futurist teach. The purpose for the passage is to reveal the near future, not for the Church to escape tribulation upon the earth. Plus, the Futurist, out of all the different interpreters of the book of Revelation, is most likely to advocate a literal interpretation of a highly prophetical, symbolic book. Henry Morris explained, “It is inevitable that literalistic expositors of Revelation will be primarily futurists since practically none of the events of Revelation 4-22 have yet taken place in any literal sense.” It may, however, have been literally fulfilled through symbolic and prophetic language. This possibility does not enter the thinking of the Futurist.
Revelation 1:1 gives two important keys the Futurist must struggle with when it comes to interpreting the book of Revelation. It states, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.” Notice first, the time frame issue. The Revelation of Jesus Christ “must shortly come to pass.” The Strong’s Concordance defines the term shortly as an adverb from 5036; briefly, i.e. (in time) speedily, or (in manner) rapidly: --hastily, quickly, shortly, soon, suddenly.
Add to this, the shortly time frame theme is repeated throughout the entire book. Revelation 1:3 states “the time is near.” Revelation 1:7 states that Christ is coming (present tense). Revelation 2:5 states, “Christ will come to you (quickly).” Revelation 2:16 states that Christ will come quickly. Revelation 3:11 states that Christ is coming quickly. Revelation 6:11 states that the martyrs should rest for a little season.
At the end of the book, the theme remains the same. Revelation 22:6,7 states, “And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.” Revelation 22:10 states, “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.” Revelation 22:12 and 20 both state the Christ is coming soon. If words mean anything, soon does not mean thousands of years.
Secondly, the book of Revelation came from God and it is all about one topic, namely our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Its stated purpose is the Revelation of Jesus Christ and not a revelation of end times. It came through an angel to John by way of signifying the truth of Jesus Christ. The word signifying comes from sema (a mark; of uncertain derivation); to indicate: --signify. The dictionary defines the term as a sign or an indication of; it is a sign that represents something or makes known.
In other words, from the very beginning of this highly controversial book, God warns against taking a literal approach of interpreting its contents. Its signified, symbolic, figurative language that employs much of the prophetic language found in the Old Testament. Commentator Tenny wrote, “(semaino, signified) This term evidently meant a kind of communication that is neither plain statement nor an attempt at concealment. It is figurative, symbolic, or imaginative, and is intended to convey truth by picture rather than by definition.”
Preterist: The word preterist is taken from the Latin praeteritus, which means past or gone by. This view takes into account the historical time frame that had great significance to the early Church for whom it was written. In other words, the Apostle John wrote to the generation that was his contemporaries and not to a future audience. If what he wrote had no bearing upon his generation, then why address them in the first place? If the book of Revelation is just a futurist book with no reality to those to whom it was written, then surely God would have made this clarification. The preterist believes He did not make this clarification.
The preterist believes that just as the Apostle Paul wrote epistles to the early Church that dealt with specific issues challenging the Church in his generation, so is the book of Revelation. Paul wrote about specific problems, but because it is the word of God, they are timeless in their application. The same is true with the book of Revelation according to preterism. Though it was written to those it would impact, it is the word of God that continues to speak to us today and forever.
The preterist, therefore, takes into account not only the historical context with its interpretation that had relevance to the first century audience, but also its application to the Church in every period of time.
Objection To This View
Typically, those who deny this view point out the weakness is the preterist relies too much upon interpreting the prophetic Scriptures as figurative or symbolic. They demand a more literal approach to interpreting the book of Revelation.
IN KING JESUS' SERVICE,
Rusty
Historical: Joachim of Fiore (1132-1202) was the first to introduce the historical view of interpreting the book of Revelation as a detailed prediction concerning the course of history. He systematically divided all history into an age of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The method he utilized is called the day/year formula. This view is based upon counting each day as a year. Once he established this formula, he went on to divide the entire book into seven periods of the Church.
He believed that he was personally living in the sixth period and was anxiously awaiting the seventh period that would usher in the final age. He was convinced the seventh and final stage would begin about 1260. At first, this view taught the different prophecies in the book referred to the same event. However, this view was later discarded and a chronological sequence replaced the original view.
The historical approach relies heavily upon the formula that a day in prophetic time is a year. Psalm 90:4 states, “For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.” 2 Peter 3:8 states, “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” Both of these passages are cited to support the historical view. Obviously, these passages of Scripture do not speak specifically of a day prophetically becoming a year. It speaks in terms of God’s realm, which is outside of time, as a day being a thousand years or vice versa. Those who tend to overly spiritualize the Scriptures typically embrace this view. All these passages of Scripture teach, however, is that any apparent lapse of time does not invalidate God’s promises. God is simply above time, but He does act in His own good time.
Objections To This View
Advocates for the historical view cite Numbers 14:33,34 which states, “And your children shall wander in the wilderness forty years, and bear your whoredoms, until your carcases be wasted in the wilderness. After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years, and ye shall know my breach of promise.” Israel was punished forty years for their unbelief. According to the historical view, Israel suffered God’s penalty as one year for each day the land of Canaan was explored.
David Clark points out, “Had God said they should wander forty days and the time turned out to be forty years the theory might claim some support.” Secondly, if the passage in Numbers represents a universal law, we should expect to see it illustrated in other examples of fulfilled prophecy. For instance, Noah’s flood which was predicted to last forty days did not take forty years to end. When Jesus declared that he would be crucified and resurrected in three days, did He intend to encourage the Apostles to wait three years till he came back from the tomb? The list could go on and on with such examples.
There are specific passages of Scripture that speaks of actual years, but none of them establishes this “prophetic” interpretation that a day means a year. Scriptures, such as, Judges 17:10, 1 Samuel 2:19; 2 Chronicles 21:19, and Isaiah 32:10 are a few examples that teach a year means an actual year and not a day.
John Walvoord, who holds to a futurist view of the book of Revelation, claimed at least fifty different interpretations that have arisen from the historical view. According to him, the historical view “seldom if ever takes cognizance of the Church outside Europe.” This weakness becomes even more pronounced as much of the Church’s growth in history takes places outside of Western Europe. Lastly, every prediction based upon this model of interpretation concerning chronological date setting has proven to be false and misleading.
Idealism: Those who hold to the idealist or spiritual approach to the book of Revelation, do not believe in any specific time frame concerning prophetic fulfillment. Their orientation is neither futurist (future fulfillment) or preterist (past fulfillment). The Idealist views the book of Revelation as a series of spiritual concepts, Biblical principles, and moral lessons that are universal in scope and are observed and applied in each generation throughout God’s redemptive history. It depicts the book of Revelation as the ultimate conflict between good and evil. It is the tale of two cities- fallen Babylon and the rise of New Jerusalem.
The Idealist believes that the truths contained in the book of Revelation are applicable to all ages in the struggle of right against evil. It encourages the saints to patiently suffer persecution and await the divine intervention of God to judge their persecutors and liberate His people from oppression.
Objections To This View
Some who object to this view believe that the book of Revelation was not written primarily to be a devotional book for suffering saints, regardless of what stage of history they found themselves. There must be some historical framework. The book of Revelation is primarily apocalyptic in nature. It warns of impending judgment. This would provide very little comfort if the Church could not be certain of a time frame.
Philip Carrington argued that Revelation was “decidedly a message to its own age, that its tone is too fierce to be the product of a philosophical interest in the general laws of history, and that a Hebrew never thought of the spiritual except as an actual living force in present history.” Robert Wall thought this view tended toward existentialism and an individualistic approach to interpretation. In other words, it makes the Church devoid of a unified eschatological meaning to the book. Its weakness then does not take into account the role of history in interpreting the book.
Futurist: As with the Idealist, the Futurist interpretation also removes any historical verification of the book of Revelation. Whereas the Historical view interprets Revelation in light of European history, the Futurist views Revelation in the light of current events and political trends, especially, as they relate to the Middle East. Most Futurists believe that the Church is raptured in Revelation 4:1 which states, “After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.” According to the Futurist view, the rest of the book is future as well.
Objections To This View
In context of Revelation 4:1, the heavenly message was given specifically to the Apostle John, the human writer and chosen vessel of this divine revelation, and not granted generally to all believers as the Futurist teach. The purpose for the passage is to reveal the near future, not for the Church to escape tribulation upon the earth. Plus, the Futurist, out of all the different interpreters of the book of Revelation, is most likely to advocate a literal interpretation of a highly prophetical, symbolic book. Henry Morris explained, “It is inevitable that literalistic expositors of Revelation will be primarily futurists since practically none of the events of Revelation 4-22 have yet taken place in any literal sense.” It may, however, have been literally fulfilled through symbolic and prophetic language. This possibility does not enter the thinking of the Futurist.
Revelation 1:1 gives two important keys the Futurist must struggle with when it comes to interpreting the book of Revelation. It states, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.” Notice first, the time frame issue. The Revelation of Jesus Christ “must shortly come to pass.” The Strong’s Concordance defines the term shortly as an adverb from 5036; briefly, i.e. (in time) speedily, or (in manner) rapidly: --hastily, quickly, shortly, soon, suddenly.
Add to this, the shortly time frame theme is repeated throughout the entire book. Revelation 1:3 states “the time is near.” Revelation 1:7 states that Christ is coming (present tense). Revelation 2:5 states, “Christ will come to you (quickly).” Revelation 2:16 states that Christ will come quickly. Revelation 3:11 states that Christ is coming quickly. Revelation 6:11 states that the martyrs should rest for a little season.
At the end of the book, the theme remains the same. Revelation 22:6,7 states, “And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done. Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.” Revelation 22:10 states, “And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.” Revelation 22:12 and 20 both state the Christ is coming soon. If words mean anything, soon does not mean thousands of years.
Secondly, the book of Revelation came from God and it is all about one topic, namely our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Its stated purpose is the Revelation of Jesus Christ and not a revelation of end times. It came through an angel to John by way of signifying the truth of Jesus Christ. The word signifying comes from sema (a mark; of uncertain derivation); to indicate: --signify. The dictionary defines the term as a sign or an indication of; it is a sign that represents something or makes known.
In other words, from the very beginning of this highly controversial book, God warns against taking a literal approach of interpreting its contents. Its signified, symbolic, figurative language that employs much of the prophetic language found in the Old Testament. Commentator Tenny wrote, “(semaino, signified) This term evidently meant a kind of communication that is neither plain statement nor an attempt at concealment. It is figurative, symbolic, or imaginative, and is intended to convey truth by picture rather than by definition.”
Preterist: The word preterist is taken from the Latin praeteritus, which means past or gone by. This view takes into account the historical time frame that had great significance to the early Church for whom it was written. In other words, the Apostle John wrote to the generation that was his contemporaries and not to a future audience. If what he wrote had no bearing upon his generation, then why address them in the first place? If the book of Revelation is just a futurist book with no reality to those to whom it was written, then surely God would have made this clarification. The preterist believes He did not make this clarification.
The preterist believes that just as the Apostle Paul wrote epistles to the early Church that dealt with specific issues challenging the Church in his generation, so is the book of Revelation. Paul wrote about specific problems, but because it is the word of God, they are timeless in their application. The same is true with the book of Revelation according to preterism. Though it was written to those it would impact, it is the word of God that continues to speak to us today and forever.
The preterist, therefore, takes into account not only the historical context with its interpretation that had relevance to the first century audience, but also its application to the Church in every period of time.
Objection To This View
Typically, those who deny this view point out the weakness is the preterist relies too much upon interpreting the prophetic Scriptures as figurative or symbolic. They demand a more literal approach to interpreting the book of Revelation.
IN KING JESUS' SERVICE,
Rusty
-
- Reclaiming America for Christ
- John Piper Ministries
- Elijah Ministries
- Man in The Mirror
- Setting Captives Free
- Stand to Reason
- Foundation for American Christian Education
- American Center for Law and Justice
Marriage & Family
Christian Views
Tax Reform
General Politics
God, family, and country. My allegiance stands in that order. Church and State will illustrate my opinions on issues of religion and politics, along with regular thoughts on family.
Contact Me
Recently Published Letters
Blogs I Read
- Blue Dog
- The Market Center Blog
- Government Bytes
- RedState
- The Club for Growth
- Tax Policy Blog
- Joshua P. Allem
Archive
- current
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
