Comments on the Story of Isaac from the Old Testament

6_abraham-sarah-baby

The story of Isaac’s life begins long before his birth . . . possibly 75 years before his birth, with the hopes and dreams of his newly wed parents, for children.  But his mother, though beautiful, was barren.  Despite the promises of God to Isaac’s father (for at least 10 years) that he would have descendants like the stars of the sky, she was barren still.  So she at last gives her maid to her husband as a surrogate.  But the family dynamics of that connection are disastrous (in the short run . . . in the long run, nations were born of that union).

Abraham and Sarah with young Isaac

Isaac was probably only 1-3 years old when his half-brother, the teenaged Ishmael, and Ishmael’s mother were sent away.  I think it fair to say that Isaac was probably doted on, by both his aging parents–possibly by the whole household.  He was his mother’s only child.  He was his father’s long-promised, long-awaited, covenant heir.  He was their only child as a couple, and now Ishmael was no longer in the immediate picture, nor his mother Hagar.

abraham-surrender-isaac-yield-genesis-221

But a rather traumatic event soon takes place.  And in this, perhaps we could say that Isaac’s story had begun many generations previous . . . in a God-believing lineage from Shem, Noah, Seth, Adam .  Even though Isaac’s grandfather had other gods, Isaac’s story begins with who his father was and chose to be:  a man of God, a godly man (concerned with righteousness and justice), a believer in the one true God.  Isaac’s father was a man that got up early to obey whatever God asked of him–even if it seemed not to make sense, even if it was heart-wrenching, even if it took a faith beyond belief.

Isaac’s father took him up to be sacrificed.  At first Isaac was innocent of his father’s intentions.  But soon enough he found himself the lamb on the altar.  There’s no doubt that Isaac could have escaped the anticipated ending of his story, but he had enough faith, enough respect for his father, and maybe also for his father’s God, that he submitted to being bound on the altar, and the knife was stretched out toward him.

Perhaps to us it is a miracle that this experience did not embitter him toward his father’s God. We can only surmise with what feelings and faith he came away from that altar.  I can imagine that he was overwhelmingly relieved at the mercy of God.  That may sound strange, for God had required the sacrifice in the first place.  But many other gods, or their priesthood, did not provide a ram in the thicket in exchange for human sacrifice.  I can imagine that Isaac came away knowing that God did not want that kind of human sacrifice.  Beside knowing that his father was totally committed to this God, he learned something about trust and faith in the extreme.  And we know that Isaac chose to believe in his father’s God, and to pass that belief on to his posterity.

See Genesis 26:2-5  God appears unto Isaac and commutes the Promises He made to Abraham to Isaac, “Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statues, and my laws.”  Perhaps as well as a reassurance, a reminder to Isaac about what God looks for when He chooses someone.

And Genesis 26:24 “And the Lord appeared unto [Isaac] the same night [that he went to Beer-sheba], and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father:  fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake.” (This is after Abimelech sent him packing from Gerar, and the Philistines had confiscated one well after another that he had dug . . . he must have been feeling a little discouraged, dis-heartened, and God came to give him reassurance that He would take care of him).

485px-Burial_of_Sarah, by Gustave Dore

Isaac was 37 when his mother died.  We have a clue about the closeness of their relationship in that he was still mourning her for 3 years afterward.

isaac-meeting-rebecca-by-friedrich-bouterwek

Isaac’s father took care for who he would marry.  His father had experience with marrying from among the local women, and from the women of Egypt.  They were not for his son. Abraham made his most trusted servant promise not to take Isaac back to Haran/Padan-Aram to live among his kin and their idols, but there was something about the character and attitude in the way the women were raised in the family, that made them his choice for his son.  And when Isaac saw Rebekah, he loved her, and was comforted in his grief for his mother.

350px-Esau_and_Jacob_Presented_to_Isaac

Like his mother Sarah, Isaac’s wife Rebekah was barren.  For 20 years.  (One wonders if it was a family trait).  Genesis 25:21 might give the impression that only then did Isaac intreat the Lord for his wife.  I suspect there was some increasingly heavy duty praying going on through most of those 20 years, by both Isaac and Rebekah.  When Isaac was 60, his twin sons were born.  Foreshadowing the first 40 or so years of their lives, Esau and Jacob contested even at birth, who would be firstborn.

Figures_Isaac_and_Ishmael_Bury_Abraham

When Isaac was 75 his father died, and he and his half-brother Ishmael buried Abraham.  No mention of Keturah’s sons (Abraham married Keturah after the death of Sarah), but that doesn’t mean they weren’t there.  Abraham had given them gifts (one suspects they were generous gifts) and sent them away–but he had also sent Ishmael and his mother away much earlier, with apparently not generous gifts.  True, they probably felt more family obligation than we do in general in our culture, but I think in those intervening years Abraham had also made some gift(s) to Ishmael (probably at least in the wherewithal for Hagar to arrange a marriage for her son in Egypt, where she was from).  So it’s hard to say what feelings Isaac and Ishmael had for each other, but they were at any rate, able to come together to bury their father.  One would expect that Isaac’s feelings had less to be put aside, but then probably his mother had told him something of her perspective of how things were. Maybe not much, but enough.

tissot_the_mess_of_pottage

Again, family dynamics come into play.  Isaac appreciates his son Esau’s hunting skills, and the meat from it.  Maybe he’s a man’s man.  Almost predictably, then, Rebekah compensates by taking Jacob’s side.  This is not to say that both Isaac and Rebekah didn’t love each of their sons. No doubt they did.  But they related to them each differently.

When Esau sells his birthright (perhaps not “despising” it, but not valuing it as Jacob did), it’s not too surprising if Rebekah knew or found out about it–mothers tend to be tuned into what’s happening in the family and amongst the children.  But who would dare tell Isaac?  And how would one go about saying such a thing to him?  It would not likely be news that he would want to believe, and might mistrust the motives of the teller of such a tale.

BeerlahairoiAharoni--Gerar, Beer-sheba, way to Shur, Abraham

Another drought/famine year, so Isaac moves over closer to Gerar, and King Abimelech is apparently still alive.  Isaac has no doubt heard the stories of his father’s sojourn in both Egypt and Gerar.  He considers it advisable to follow his father’s strategy . . . indicating that there was reason behind Abraham’s story.  Apparently not a lot of trust has grown between Abimelech and Abraham and son. The Lord had warned Isaac not to go to Egypt . . . notice that the Lord seems to keep Abraham and his posterity in a backwater while the superpowers to the north and south are flexing their muscles. And possibly various intrigues and politics make it tricky to survive in the high societies.  The Covenant lineage/seed has opportunity to become stronger, more viable.  When they do go to Egypt it seems to be a time of weaker Pharoahs, and when stronger one(s) come along, it’s time to get out of Egypt.

isaacrebecca

But Isaac and Rebekah can’t resist frolicking a bit, and Abimelech is clued in that they are more than brother and sister.  Maybe Abimelech himself wasn’t still in his prime and ready to move in on her, but somebody in the court might have taken it into his head to have her.  Abimelech either has enough conscience not to want that to happen, or he’s learned not to mess with Abraham and his son, or God might make it a misery.   He puts out a pretty strict rule (a death sentence) for everybody to give Isaac and his wife wide berth.

Isaac sows

While in Gerar, Isaac takes up farming.  And he’s really successful at it.  In fact he’s pretty successful at whatever he does, and the locals don’t appreciate his growing wealth and potential power.  Abimelech finds it politic to ask Isaac to move on.

Isaac re-digs his father's wells

Isaac moves, but  not too far away. It seems kind of foolish that the Philistines have filled in Abraham’s wells.  But for whatever reason, they now see the value of them, as Isaac has them re-dug.  They decide to confiscate 2 of them.  Finally the third is uncontested.  Isaac probably could have flexed his muscle and made his case at arms, but he chooses to turn his other cheek rather than instigate a war or “conflict”.  Abimelech comes to him and wants to have a treaty.  Isaac is a little testy after his treatment of late.  But, he feasts them, and agrees to a treaty.  And that same day the Lord blesses him with water in the well he’s been digging (his servants have been digging).

Esau is 40 when he marries . . . indicating that probably a man had to acquire enough property to prove he could provide for a family/tribe before marrying. He marries a couple of the local girls, and that is a “grief” to both Isaac and Rebekah.

jusepe-de-ribera-IsaacBlessingJacob_1786746172_400_133_

Now Isaac is feeling his age.  He’s old and can hardly see, not sure how long he’ll be in this world.  Maybe he’s had a bout of illness.  He wants to leave his last blessings.  He begins by calling Esau, the eldest by a fraction, and asks him to go hunting and bring some of his father’s favorite venison, and then Isaac will bless Esau.

Rebekah overhears.  She knows it’s Isaac’s intention to bless Esau with the blessings of the firstborn.  I think Isaac still doesn’t know about the previous selling of the birthright, and I think Rebekah does.  I think she also knows something about the characters of her sons, and she recognizes in Jacob one who would value the Covenant and commandments, and has the steadiness of character to keep them, and to lead the tribe responsibly.  Certainly God recognized it, as we shall later see.

So Rebekah instigates a deception of Isaac.  She has Jacob dress like Esau; she stews up some tasty morsels like Esau, she sends him in to his father–buttressing his doubts.

Possibly Isaac may have been suspecting something–it could be that Rebekah had pointed out to him that Jacob was the better candidate for the right of the firstborn . . . but at last he is satisfied enough to offer the blessing.

It may be a test of our faith whether we also trust that God is in charge, and knows what He’s doing; that Isaac was not only chosen by God, but was inspired by God with the words to pronounce as a blessing on his son. (Hebrews 11:20 “By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau concerning things to come.”)   If it were a matter for mere mortals, when Esau gets back and the switch is found out, Isaac surely could have just revoked the blessing he gave to Jacob (and probably send him packing, cursed for the deception).  But it seems apparent to me that Isaac recognizes that it was God that gave him those words of blessing for Jacob, and he cannot revoke them.  He then blesses Esau as well–not shabbily, but not as the firstborn.

But Esau is spittin’ nails angry with Jacob over it.  Maybe not recognizing that he is just as angry at himself for not having valued what he had.  He vows that when Isaac passes, he’s going to do away with his rival Jacob.

Again, Rebekah finds a resolution–for two matters.  She speaks first to Jacob about going back to her brother’s house in Haran until Esau cools off (no doubt she intends to help that process–she, knowing her sons, has no doubt that Esau will carry out his threat, and she doesn’t want to lose both her husband and son “in a day”), then she approaches Isaac–let’s not have Jacob marrying someone from around here, Send him back to my brother for a wife.  Otherwise, what was the point of the trouble your father went to to have me brought here?

Isaac agrees.  Maybe he also has a notion that Esau might have it in for Jacob, though probably no one would tell it to his face–certainly not Esau nor Jacob.  Isaac blesses Jacob, and re-affirms the blessings he had previously given.  Perhaps he also sees his previous blindness, that children raised by the daughters of Heth (Esau’s wives) are not going to live up to the charge and Covenant as expected, required by God.

jacob-sized

I doubt this was the first indication to Esau that his choice of wives was not a happy one for his parents.  One would have thought the subject of appropriate marriages would have been discussed before Esau married–but it’s possible Esau didn’t inform his folks ahead of time of his intentions, or that they didn’t think he would marry without their blessing, at least.  In any case, it’s now abundantly clear that they don’t approve, and he right now is seeking their approval.  So next best thing, he figures, is to marry amongst his kin–one of Uncle  Ishmael’s daughters.

Basemath md Esau

Not much more is said of Isaac.  His story is kind of overshadowed  first by his father Abraham, and then by his son Jacob.  He died at 180 years of age (Genesis 35:27-29).  Jacob had returned from Padan-aram some while previous, quite well-to-do and with a campful of wives and kids–must have been overpowering to Isaac, who had been raised an only child, and had only 2 sons that we know of.  Esau and Jacob had made peace, and they met together to bury their father in the cave that Abraham had bought for a family burial place.  They were 120 years old themselves.  (They were 15 when grandpa Abraham died).

7-Isaacs-journeys
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob

The three Patriarch-Prophets Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Fathers and keepers of the Covenant

For more details about Isaac’s birth and “sacrifice”, see https://scripturescript.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/isaac-is-born-ishmael-sent-away-abimelech-treaty/

For a more in-depth analysis of Rebekah, see https://scripturescript.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/rebekah/

and https://scripturescript.wordpress.com/2022/07/10/the-nature-character-of-god-as-revealed-in-the-old-testament-part-6-isaac-rebekah/

Essay on Governance

by Susan Ternyey, June-July 2024

Photo by Spencer Davis on Pexels.com

How did governments begin?

     From ancient times philosophers have thought about and discussed governance.  For some background, see

     It seems obvious that the government of societies began as an outgrowth of the family.  As children grew up, the extended family became a tribe.  Tribes expanded when other individuals and groups joined a tribe, either by choice or acquisition.  In an age of the nuclear family, some might question why grown children would hang around the old folks to be part of a tribe.  In times of financial hardship, grown children may be very glad to be part of an extended family.  Children growing up with good grandparents, aunts & uncles, and cousins can find a sense of belonging, love, and support that lasts a lifetime.  Life in ancient times was difficult in different ways than today, but there were good reasons to be part of a tribe, despite examples that fall short of ideal.  Elders in the tribe brought not only wisdom & experience, they brought cohesion.  Mid-range members brought protection and sustenance.  The young brought the possibility of continuance.

The Nuclear Family

     Parents, of course, are the natural leaders of the family.  Initially, children are dependent physically, emotionally and with respect to knowledge.  Parents are bigger and stronger, meaning they can offer protection & sustenance, and/or command submission.  When all other factors become equal or bettered by the maturation of the children, it is usual for adult children to continue to recognize the experience and leadership of the parents, by habit, out of respect, and/or because the emotional connection carries on.

     As children mature, wise parents step back or share their authority.   Sometimes children feel it necessary to instigate the rebalancing of control over their lives.  Parents who do not exercise their authority, or exercise it in excess, may find that rebellion ensues as soon as the children can exert themselves.  

     There are three possible parental forms of governance:  father rules, mother rules, both rule:  both are involved in decision-making, each makes decisions within his/her own sphere, or each fights for dominance.

     Which form of rule exists in a family depends upon the nature and disposition of each in respect to the other, and the division of labor.

  1. A decisive or aggressive nature will tend to rule the indecisive and/or acquiescent nature; or,
  2. The one primarily responsible for providing protection & sustenance tends to make the major decisions of how this sustenance is to be got & is spent, and where  & how the family or its members will locate;
  3. The method of child rearing often depends upon who is primarily responsible for it—this role may change as the children mature.  It may also generally depend upon the sex of the child/children.  The primary responsibility of rearing is still best accomplished with the accomplice-ment, or support, of the other parent—as a back-up figure in one way or another, or as joint providers/authorities.

The Extended Family or Tribe

     Depending on the pattern set by the nuclear family, the leadership of the extended family may be Patriarchal or Matriarchal (where one or both of the parents is extant), more or less democratic, or by a child chosen by the parent, by several/some/few/all of the children, or by a child/children/descendant who has/have exerted him/her/themselves in some way.

     A child chosen by the parent hopefully leads because of the respect the others have for the parent and his/her decision.  Even if the children are successful at group or democratic decisions, as with any group, it’s helpful to have one person lead discussions and actions. 

     Although lineage may be reckoned either or both patriarchally and/or matriarchally,  most parental and parentally derived governance has been traditionally patriarchal.  One way of accounting for this is division of labor.  Since only the woman can bear children, she is generally the primary child-nurturer/raiser (hopefully with the back-up of her mate).  As discussed above, when the man is primarily responsible for the protection and/or sustenance of the family, it may seem natural for him to lead the family and to navigate the affairs of the family in its external interactions in the world. 

     Another way of accounting for the patriarchy of families is the natural outgrowth of the personalities and values of the parents and their societies.  That a family or society is patriarchal doesn’t necessarily mean that women are discounted or domineered.  Any wise patriarch listens to his wife, respects, and honors her.  There are folk proverbs about the influence of wives on their husbands (for example, who “wears the pants” in a relationship).  Additionally, due to differences in talent and personality, some women may be more comfortable, efficient, and successful filling certain roles for the benefit of the family.

The Community or Society

     When a tribe grows into a community or society, especially when it settles in a certain place, its governance may grow naturally out of the leadership roles of a tribe:  it may be patriarchal, matriarchal, or a society of equals.  A group of humans who do not already have a leader will

  1. Disburse or disband
  2. Choose a leader or group of leaders
  3. Follow a leader(s) who asserts him/herself/themselves
  4. Be coerced by a leader or group

     Since humans are social beings, they most often choose to remain in groups, so that even if a group disbands, it will tend to form smaller bands.  It is possible that they will all become a bunch of hermits, but a cross-sectional sampling of humans through time and place doesn’t make it likely.  The reasons for disbanding (conflicts or perhaps scarcity of resources) must outweigh the self-calculated survival (both physical & emotional) of those separating themselves.  Sometimes, especially when the reason involves limited resources, the group comes back together, perhaps periodically, for social reasons, including the biological urge to reproduce effectively.

     A leader may be chosen for his/her competence, his/her self-confidence, or the confidence the others have in his/her competence—which often depends upon his/her self-confidence.  A leader will be followed because of his/her self-confidence, competence, and/or persuasive ability; and/or the rest of the group’s lack of self-confidence or competence.

     A leader may coerce followers by physical force, mental acuity, or by emotional force.  In any case, the others of the group must lack competence, self-confidence, or the cohesive ability to counter his/her coercion.  Often this coercion is carried out by a smaller group that the leader relies on for support.

     A group may allow to its leader(s) varying amounts of authority (and there’s a wide spectrum or sliding scale of authority, from absolutism to absolute non-existent):

  1. Totalitarian dictatorship or tyranny
  2. Paternalism/maternalism
  3. Limited monarchy
  4. Advisory
  5. In some limited aspects
    • Protective (vs enemies of all or some kinds, outside and/or inside) via defensive & offensive actions
    • Sustenance
    • Social
    • Intellectual or instructive (usually advisory)
    • Emotional or religious
    • Recreational

     People rarely “choose” totalitarian authority, though they may allow it out of fear of the totalitarian or fear of the lack of a totalitarian (Will anything less be able to pull it all together? Will everything fall apart if the tyrant is overthrown?).  But totalitarianism is usually brought about by coercion of one sort or another.

     Paternal/maternal authority (other than in naturally patriarchally derived governance), would usually be the “choice” of a group which follows a leader who exerts him/herself, or the general recognition of the group about the competence of that individual to lead.  This authority would, in all likelihood, be expected to provide wise/expert/experienced counsel, direction, and some degree of responsibility for the physical sustenance of the group, as well as leadership vs enemies or internal conflicts.

     A limited monarchial authority would be chosen by a group which trusted in the competence of its chosen leader and/or wished to leave the responsibilities of leadership on the chosen leader, without granting the monarch automatic total authority in all cases.

     An advisory authority would be chosen by a group which did not completely trust its leader, or trusted the competence of the group as a whole, or its members, equally (or nearly so) as well as the leader’s competence.  This group, or its members, particularly likes to make their own decisions in general, yet is a little hesitant to do so completely without some authority to advise them or to see to the enforcement of decisions.

     An advisory authority might be most nearly democratic.  I don’t know if there could exist a truly democratic group (unless very small), because I think almost all groups recognize some authority, whether or not it is an explicitly chosen authority, or merely a mentally/emotionally acknowledged authority, or whether the members don’t even recognize their own acceptance of that authority.  One person, or group of persons, will tend to stand out ahead/above the rest as leader, and that is most convenient/efficient and workable, especially in the case of protecting the group.  A truly democratic group would be the most likely of any to break up, and the larger the group, the more likely disputes/disagreements will arise, that without some leading authority may not be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

What authority would the leader (or leading group) chose?

     The coercer(s) would, of course, tend toward totalitarianism.  The leader/persuader would probably choose paternalism (though perhaps be willing to accept other forms of authority).  The self-confident might choose any of the forms, depending upon whether s/he/they was/were confident, very confident, or egotistical about her/his/their abilities, and those of the members of the larger group.  The competent’s choice might be any of the above, depending also on his/her/their own self-confidence, egotism, and view of the members or group as a whole.

     The larger the group, the more varying is the authority of the leader(s) among its members.  As the group becomes larger, the coercer must have a smaller group of strong supporters amongst the larger group.  The persuader will tend to need various special-interest lieutenant persuaders for the varying support among the members.  The self-confident will tend toward being a persuader, and the chosen leader will tend toward being a persuader, or need a support group of persuaders, or face the next choice of the group for a new leader or leading group, because group popularity/confidence is a flaky thing.  Authority only exists by recognition, cognizant or otherwise, of those being governed.

     It seems fairly obvious by now that I propose that the rule of authority is by consent of the ruled—whether this consent is willing or unwilling.  If a group/population has not overthrown a ruler, it is essentially consenting, except in the case of actual physical or numerical coercion (as in a military rule).

     I propose that the right to authority/rule depends on the reason for it:

  1. Might & mightier
  2. Competence and confidence
  3. Chosen, chosen again, or 2nd choice

     If the authority exists by might, it must bow to a mightier might.  If the coercer is coerced into submission, s/he/they must bow to it in turn, whether it is an upstart or an uprising.  Of course, as a coercer is a bully, s/he/they don’t care about what is fair or what the rules are, so this authority doesn’t back down easily—must be essentially crushed, possibly more than once.

     Of whether “might makes right” in the case of physical or numerical coercion, that’s not really the question.  It may be used as an excuse or rationale, but a bully at heart doesn’t really need a rationale.   It’s merely a statement of fact in the bully’s mind, that is, “might is  might”.  Anyone under the thumb of a bully can only either escape or (possibly raise a clever or clandestine) revolt.  Sometimes revolutionaries invite outsiders to their aid.

     If a leader (or group of leaders) is chosen, s/he/they must face the fact that s/he/they may be “un-chosen”, in favor of a 2nd choice, or the 1st chosen needs to be chosen again, as popularity sways in the breeze (often blown about by competitors).  That breeze, or gale, isn’t always congruent to the leader’s actual leadership abilities, except in the talent of persuasion (either the leader’s own, or the leader’s supporters).

     If a leader is chosen, s/he/they must face the fact that s/he/they may be “un-chosen”, in favor of a 2nd choice, or the 1st chosen needs to be chosen again, as popularity sways in the breeze (often blown about by competitors).  That breeze, or gale, isn’t always congruent to the leader’s actual leadership abilities, except in the talent of persuasion (either the leader’s own, or the leader’s supporters).

What authority/governance would the people choose?

     When a group is ruled by (other than coerced) consent, the purpose and effectiveness of its governance is of the group’s (and individual’s) own choice.  Pretty well all groups rely on some form of governance, even if tacitly.  Members of a society may belong to more than one group or more than one governing entity:

  1. Protection of the group or its individuals (including attacks on health, economics, land, sovereignty, etc.): defensive & offensive
  2. Sustenance  (could be governmental programs, co-ops, charities, etc.)
  3. Social (these can be traditional government entities, social groups, and idols/influencers)
  4. Instructional (such as intellectuals, philosophers, media, educators, bureaucracies, as well as elected officials speaking from the bully pulpit)
  5. Religious (whether in a theocracy or a society with separate churches)
  6. Recreational (like sports teams/leagues, corporations, bureaucracies . . . )

     The group may choose a strictly limited or specified function for its governance:  such as  
advisory functions, limited decision-making functions, paternalistic functions, or an autocratic function.  It may choose one, some, or all of the above purposes for its governance, in varying proportions to other functions and to each function itself.  But the group ought to consider before choosing, and then abide by the consequences of its decisions, in terms of what the form of authority requires of individuals, what the authority viably can provide, and how workable/effective that authority is in itself.  Naturally, the group may find the need to change its choices in these considerations, but that’s not always easy.  Better to be wise in the first place, take stock of past and contemporary examples, as well as using some intelligent foresight into possible consequences.

What’s the best form of Government?

     The best form of government depends upon the people governed.  Are they homogenous or have a high degree of variability in ideas, goals, attitudes, values?  Is there a cooperative spirit among the group?  If not, they are likely to disband or disintegrate.  What is the size and complexity of the group and the geography of the area they inhabit?

  1. Uninformed people need an intelligent and trustworthy, paternalistic & instructional ruler.
  2. Busy people need representational government, such as those in subsistence agrarian cultures or in large & complex societies.
  3. A group with finite resources, such as limited land or water, may find, at least from time to time, the necessity of a sustenential role for their government.
  4. The more educated (not propagandized/indoctrinated) the society, the more its members ought to govern themselves.  The individual governs the Self, and involves his/her Self in governmental decisions, for example, voting for representatives and laws/rules.
  5. There must be a balance between the group standard of ethics and its laws/rules.  If the standard of ethics greatly differs from the law, or a large number of the group has a differing standard of ethics, no amount of law can untangle all the loopholes which the lawless can manufacture.  For instance, a theocracy would only work for a group that all believe alike.   On the other hand, the more the members of the group govern themselves, the less govern-mental control must be exerted upon them.  I propose that nearly any form of government can work, if the people are good/ethical/moral, and informed to the necessary degree.    If an individual or smaller group does not like the laws/rules of the group, the laws/rules may be duly, lawfully changed, or the individual(s) should leave the group.
  6. Governments must take into account human nature, which is fallible and flawed.

Rights and Freedoms

     What about individual Rights?  Membership in the group implies consent to its authorities & governance.  Individuals may give up their rights, but groups should not take them away, though a criminal (duly convicted in an honest and just court) may be made to forfeit individual Rights by law.  Trials should establish guilt, as well as protect the Rights of the individual in process of conviction.

     One definition of individual Rights may be “those freedoms which may be exercised by an individual” outside any society.  Certain of those freedoms end up being exchanged for the benefits of belonging to a society, including when a man joins a female’s society (such as in marriage).

     In a free society, an individual has the right to make his/her own decisions about:  where to live, what to do, and how to live (as long as it is lawful).  The intrinsic rights of a group would include the ability to expel dissidents, to protect its own form of governance, to keep out subversives/subversions. 

Conclusion

     Governments grew naturally out of family structures via tribes & communities.  Different forms of governance developed from the experience, needs, and nature of both those who govern and those governed.  Humans are social beings, and generally belong to more than one group with functions of governance.  Authority and freedom, as well as the functions of governments, inhabit a range along a spectrum of possibilities, and nearly any can be successful if the members of the group are agreed upon the rules, willing to put in the efforts required to have a successful group, able to choose for themselves, are ethical, and informed.

Faith & Science

Photo by Anthony ud83dude42 on Pexels.com

by ST–May 2024

Enlightenment vs Faith in God

The Enlightenment freed us from a superstitious belief in God as the explanation for whatever we don’t comprehend.  Science can explain more and more, so we don’t have to fall back on God or the miraculous for an explication of things.  Right? 

We understand the development of a fetus into a baby.  Yet does that make it any less miraculous?  Similarly, chromosomes, genes, the genome . . . all astounding, awe-inspiring, no matter how much we know about them.

I can’t personally prove that the sun will rise tomorrow.  I can’t entirely explain the wonders of the Universe; I take them on faith.  I have to believe that for the most part, scientists know what they are talking about, have done the work to find out, and are honest.  What is faith? 

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”    (Hebrews 11:1)  Is that “blind faith”?  We can’t see sub-atomic particles, but scientists see evidence of their existence.  There’s something substantial about that.  We hope for greater knowledge, and we pursue it.

Pursuing Enlightenment

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you.  For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.”  (Matthew 7:7-8).  In all the years I’ve studied the Bible, I don’t recall ever seeing a scripture saying, “Don’t ask”.  God is not afraid of our questions.  He invites us to look for answers, and I believe He often inspires people with solutions to the problems that vex them.   

Ask, seek, knock.  That is essentially the Scientific Method.  The scientist Louis Pasteur said, “Chance favors the prepared mind.”   Science requires the curious mind, the questioning mind, the observant mind, the seeking mind, the reasoning mind, the theorizing, planning, experimental mind, as well as action (knocking at Nature’s door).  

God gave us those minds, those minds that are in His image.  Without faith that the Universe is reasonable, and that human reason can unlock its mysteries, we would not pursue enlightenment.  Note that a mystery is just something that is not commonly understood; as in Science, so in Faith.

Did God give us our minds, or did they evolve over millions of years?  While some say that belief in God is unreasonable, I ask, Is it any more reasonable that the Universe, as well as our minds, could have occurred by a long, long series of accidents?  Every tiny step has little chance of happening successfully (meaning survival, then replication), and the combination of millions (and more) of steps would be considered mathematically a statistical impossibility.

Humility vs Dogma

Both scientists and religionists tend to dogmatism.  It’s a human flaw, expressed in the wise saying, “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing,” originally, “a little learning is a dangerous thing,” by Alexander Pope (1688-1744).  Many scientific theories have been taken (and preached) as fact, yet were later shown to be misleading, incomplete, or even false.  Remember the flat earth theory, the earth centrist theory? 

When a scientific theory is shown to be in error, scientists don’t give up on the Scientific Method, they double down on the research, asking better questions, seeking better reasoning/logic, looking for better answers and solutions.  Similarly, why give up on religion when certain religionists prove fallacious?  Not all religions, scientists, nor all teachers of such, are created equal (or rather, create themselves equally valid or valuable). 

We are children in our understanding of the Universe, and even of ourselves.  Hopefully we are growing, maturing–not only in knowledge, but in wisdom.   “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.” (1 Corinthians 13:11)  Being childlike (humble, curious, eager . . .) and childish (self-willed, self-centered . . .) are not the same. 

Religion & Science

Are Religion and Science “at odds”, opposites?  They are both ways of seeking the Truth.  Each has its sphere.  But like a Venn Diagram, they are not mutually exclusive.  In fact, the more I learn through real science, the more I am impressed with God.  Science is not well-suited to explain intangible realities such as faith, love, and the purpose & meaning of life.  Like sub-atomic particles, science can observe effects, take surveys, yet these are very indirect ways to delve deeply into such important, essential questions of life. 

We can benefit from ages of acquired experience and thought, even that billed “revealed”.  We can admit that our minds are capable of comprehending and reacting to more than what we can directly experience or explain with our typical 5 senses (which take in data to help our minds make sense of the world).  We can look for Truth in every pursuit of life, and even when we are just living it.

What Came Before?

Some question, If God created all, where did He come from?  How did He come to exist?  But one could just as well ask, What was before the “Big Bang”?  How did the “Big Bang” come to be?  Just because we don’t know or understand everything, doesn’t mean we don’t know or understand anything.  It’s important to be humble; it’s also important to work with what we do know and understand, even when sometimes/often our knowledge & understanding are imperfect, incomplete.

The Problem of Evil

One of the charges brought against religion is that evil has been done in its name.  Unfortunately, every institution or idea is capable of corruption.  Corrupt, greedy humans corrupt any thing they can for the chance at fame, wealth, and power:  governments, armies, guilds & labor unions, trade/business/commerce, industry, educational institutions, even science, as well as religion. 

We’d all like to believe that scientists are utterly objective, not self-serving, but history has shown us differently.  Has no scientist ever defended his views for selfish reasons?  Has no evil been done in the name of science?  Nazi experiments are a well-known example; more recent examples are still so controversial and politicized, it would distract from my point to detail them.  Nevertheless, those examples still exist.

In Conclusion

Let’s not “throw the baby out with the bath”.  Evil exists, ignorance exists, but let’s not give in to them, nor refuse to do or to see good, nor be blinded by them.  Let’s keep seeking Truth, Beauty, and the Good, both through  Religion and Science. 

Resumé

by ST, Apr 2024

Photo by Anna Shvets on Pexels.com

     Life resumes, might be my life’s resumé, its summary.  Daunting things, disquieting things, sometimes dreadful things happen.  Sometimes they happen in an instant, sometimes they must be endured for years.  But are those the only things that must be got over?  Sometimes it’s getting over ourselves, no?  Moments or even days of bliss, enthusiasms, euphoric raptures don’t last forever, and as it turns out that’s good.  Eventually, ordinary life resumes.  Perhaps that seems boring, banal, mundane, humdrum, prosaic.  Yet years ago, I found that I need a boring day occasionally—once a week would be preferable.  Otherwise, my mind and my body are exhausted.

     A summary could read something like:  Since over 35 years ago I’ve lived life as a paraplegic (one of those instantaneous daunting changes in life).  From my own experience of decades, as well as close connections with neighbors, friends, family members, sometimes just acquaintances, I’ve learned something about the challenges of being disabled in one way or another, or in more than one way at once.  And I’ve learned about aging, living solo, even feeling persecuted and other emotional challenges.

     But I want to leave this world a better place, leave this life a better person.  I have sought an education formally and informally, sought to let life educate me.  I have come to believe that every life can enrich my own.  I love learning and teaching, the latter perhaps because it teaches me, beside the delight it brings to see others learning.  Knowing the delights of learning, one wants to help others find that delight as well.  I’ve served as a paid mentor a few years, and a volunteer teacher and presenter many years.  I found that being involved with the young (or even the old) guards against rigor mortis of the soul.

     Travel as a paraplegic required some research about the accessibility of accommodations, amenities, places to go and things to do.  Perhaps the information I was gathering for myself would be useful for others.  That was the impetus to develop a Travel site, free and informational only.  While most of the information is useful for anyone, I have tried to include details & photos of accessibility, as well as details and photos of landscapes, cityscapes, interesting, artful and historic destinations.  Between the travel and the creation and publishing of the posts, it has nearly taken over my life.

     Additionally, interest and an invitation to make a presentation about preparing for emergencies led to a blog for that purpose.  After making a power point, finding I had more to say, I started that blog to share more and expand on applicable ideas and options.  My anticipation was a few months’ posts.  Four years of publishing nearly monthly finally expended all I felt I had to say on those matters.  One moves on.  I was involved in about 4 other blogs:  curricula, food & culture studies, poetry & prose I’ve written, my own likes and opinions, and scripture studies.

     All good things, and all bad things, come to an end, and life resumes or passes on.

Links to some of my projects:

www.travelpacificnw.com my Travel site

https://www.facebook.com/groups/961059104274911/  travel blog with more frequent posts

https://www.facebook.com/groups/595279157939214  my food blog developed beyond the alphabet, it began to feature holidays and cultures as well 

https://emergencyprepideasoptions.wordpress.com/2018/09/11/the-bird-emerges/ emergencies

https://www.learninglab.site/ my curriculum site suffers from time spent on my Travel and food sites, but I’m still in process of consolidating content from years of creating

https://scripturescript.wordpress.com/  the Old Testament

Plucky Little Duck

by ST, 10 Mar 2024

There once was a ducky named Pluck,
Hitched a ride in a red farmer truck;
When the farmer truck stopped
Out ducky pluckily hopped--
Unluckily poor Plucky got plucked.
Was ducky dinner or down?
We may ask with a frown,
But whichever he were
Unlucky 'tis sure
He hitched his last ride into town.

L’Abysse

by ST, abt 1980

    I
Je me sens
dans quelque abysse
triste et noire,
en chute
sans appui.
Toujours
la chasme
fait mon passage:
s'elargit, s'approfondit.
J'essaie me sauvais--
si je peut me jeter
sur une cote, ou l'autre,
je peut m'arrete.
Je tente d'agripper le mur,
ralente ma precipite,
m'empeche.
Je tient,
precairement,
ma vie en main,
en verite.

    II
Au dessus,
je devient conscient
d'une ville de lummiere
au droit de la crevasse.
Je m'y invisione:
tout a coup
l'ame rejoie . . .
tout et brillant!
Les murs, les rues . . . toutes choses!
Je m'imagine marcher.
Je marche au bord . . .
me oeilles traversent
la crevasse--
tout est sombre . . .
Je m'y imagine--
c'est desole, tenebreux,
j'appercevoie s'incline
a l'insensibilite
au bout
plus que mauvais, plus que maudit,
que l'abysse.

    III
L'abysse--
mes bras, mes doigts,
mes doigts au pieds . . . !
J'essaie grimper,
pour attenir la cite,
mais un pied . . .
les doigts un prise on tenu
de l'autre cote--
je m'effraie de le laisser!
Je commence a glisser . . .

    IV
Au secours!
Je m'affole--
Il faut laisser
un pied ou l'autre--
le chasme s'elargit--
mais
je ne peut pas le faire!
Laisse-le!
Mais je ne peut pas . . .
Je m'effraie de le laisser!

Half a Glass

by ST, 1996

Half full or half empty? Mathematically either is correct. But which answer is the best, or most useful?
     There ae several ways we could respond when given half a glass of something:

Shock: "Oh my gosh, I've only got half a glass!"
Curiosity: "I wonder how come I only got a half a glass?"
Outrage: "Hey, my glass is half empty!"
Low self-image: "I guess I don't have what it takes to get a full glass."
Sarcasm: "I guess that's all you can expect around here."
Positive: "Half a glass is better than none--"

What really makes the difference is what happens next. Some of these responses end in complaints and cynicism, while others could end in problem-solving.
Reader's Digest had a couple articles on optimism vs pessimism. Not surprisingly, optimists have been found to be more successful, for at least 2 reasons: 1) If you believe something good can happen, you will keep searching for the way to make it happen (a person who believes it can't happen will never put in the energy to see it happen); 2) people are attracted to those who have a positive personality, so that person is more successful in recruiting help to solve problems.
Although I recognize that I have faults and weaknesses, if I spend my time consumed in berating or bemoaning myself, I can never accomplish anything, unless it might be suicide. If I never face my faults and weaknesses, likewise, I am not likely to succeed. I need to recognize both my strengths and my weaknesses, believe in my ability to change what I don't like in myself, and put the effort into finding a way to be what I want to be.
I feel the same way about our school and our community. We have both strengths and weaknesses. We can choose whether this is a happy place, or a prison. If enough of us (both students and staff) are willing to believe in our school (believe in each of our students, believe in each of our staff members), look honestly at ourselves, search for solutions, have the courage to risk failure in order to find a way to succeed, and, keep on trying, I believe we can make our school what we want it to be. Other schools have done it, with just as many liabilities, and we can too--if we'll believe in ourselves, and believe in each other!
Thanks for all you do--Susan Ternyey

Written as a piece to share with the school I was working for (in the capacity of a mentor).