Survival of the Fittest: The Fittest

     Follows is an excerpt from my book in progress, tentatively called, On the Origin of the Species. I am providing a sample for the purpose of advertising. Of course, my fittest species is not the most proliferent, but the one to whom God assigned that role. Read on:

Survival of the fittest is a description of the reproductive process, or success at reproduction. Basically, the fittest are those who reproduce most proliferently, or leave copies of themselves over the generations (Spencer 1864). As the reader can see, that parallels the natural reproductive selection which is similar but different in each of the species. For instance, elephants have the same process as mammals, but the gestation period is much longer. They produce in the same manner but with different frequencies. They were on the verge of not surviving until people establish regulations to protect them.

On the other end of the spectrum are mice. They too have the same process, but gestation is of shorter duration. Which are the fittest; mice, men, or elephants?

If merely making copies of themselves makes the fittest, perhaps insects are the fittest. Anyone who has been to the tropics understand that the proliferation and irritation of insects. In evolutional theory, perhaps mosquitoes are the fittest. Unarmed, people are less fit that mosquitos. Otherwise, humans have intelligence; they avoid and fight mosquitos with inventions.

The ability to copy their own species quickly and numerously seems to be a poor definition of “fittest,” although without men around to disturb the natural process, perhaps insects are the fittest! Intelligence and invention, then, disturbs natural selection. Is not human kind a species? Why should mankind exclude themselves from the environmental and biological processes?

Environmentalists consider human life as disturbers of the environment. What considerate people have done to help the environment is minimized.  Humans are known by their carbon footprint, not by their superiority.

The human species seems to be excluded from even being the fittest! Modern technology allows the unborn to be terminated before they become a problem to the environment, just as the eggs of insects are sprayed or oiled to suffocate. Human life is considered less fit and should not even survive! Environmentalists attribute extinction to the human species.

The world has made the human species the enemy of creation. In a spiritual sense, perhaps they are, but physically, humans seem to be the fittest of the fit.

Evolutionists have different “fittest” species. Numbering and proclivity make smaller organs most fit. During the dark ages, it is estimated that from “75 to 200 million people in Eurasia and peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351” died from the plague. (ABC/Reuters 2008). The cause of the plaque was some disease carried by fleas and transmitted distances by rats. The black death was powerful, but who were the fittest: bacteria, fleas, rats, or humans. The latter three species died, but not before the bacteria demonstrated their power. Whatever species that was, seemed to be the fittest using Spencer’s definition.

Unknown is whether the bacteria of the plague died out or not (or other microbes.) On the other hand, fleas, rats, and humans survive to this day!

Who engineered the elimination of the plague? Not the fleas nor rats, but only the humans. They used their intelligence to discover what was causing the spread of the disease, and by doing so, demonstrated their superiority.

Time and again, the human species have shown their ability to outwit, outsmart, and outlast the other species. (Thanks goes to the television reality show, Survivor, for a better definition of “fittest.”) Fitness is a trait of the human species. At times, they were also the most unfit, as they devolved into mere beasts. More on that shortly.

Fitness seems to be based on physical attributes. After all, can a mouse subdue and elephant? Can a kitty intimidate a rhinoceros? Maybe a cat can, but who knows? The point is that fitness is more than structure or agility. After all, Jaws in James Bond movies, although quite fit, was often outmaneuvered by the quick and cunning Mr. Bond.

In the beginning were different species. Scripture refers to the species as “kinds.”  On the third day of creation, God  brought forth or generated, “grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind.” [i] On the fifth day, “God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind.” [ii]

On the sixth day, “God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind,” [iii]and “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [iv] On the alternate days, God continued with the creation of things which are not alive but accommodate life, as well as the timepiece for life – the sun.

God dictated that all animal life was to reproduce. They were all made “fit” according to Spencerian understanding. The purpose of all life is to make copies of itself – to be fit. God saw that everything that He crated was “very good.” [v] To be honest, the other animal species did not introduce evil; mankind did!

God made mankind in His image. [vi] God is the epitome of “good” as well as might. He also is the Great Mind that made the Creation. Because mankind was designed the fittest, God gave man dominion over the other species. [vii]  The human species were designed to be the fittest, and civilization existing to this day demonstrates that God endowed mankind with that.

Many have seen the series of movies about The Planet of the Apes. Hypothetically, apes became the fittest because mankind abused them. With fitness comes responsibility. God gave three commandments to His fittest creatures: (1) Multiply and subdue the earth, [viii] (2) dress and keep the garden, [ix]and (3) submit to His authority. [x]

It may be that Adam and Eve pleasured rather than multiplied as commanded. [xi] Furthermore, Adam and Eve dressed themselves after they pleasured, [xii] and they dishonored God by assuming the roles belonging only to God. [xiii] Shortly after they were created the fittest, they showed themselves unfit!

“Dressing and keeping the garden” is caring for the Creation and the creatures therein. Jesus was the Tree of Life – the Centerpiece of the Garden. [xiv] Foremost, mankind was to love Jesus. Jesus is the Tree of Life. [xv] Jesus is God manifested to the senses of mankind. [xvi] His representation is the visible tree. God is symbolized by the root – the unseen part of the tree – the part of the tree which generates “good fruit.” [xvii]

The root of the tree uses hidden water from below the ground to nourish the tree and bring forth fruit. There was no rain in the Garden of Eden, and the waters of life sprang forth from the earth. The fruits of the Tree of Life were twelve, and they were from the Spirit of God – from the living waters. [xviii]

According to Adam’s vocation – to dress and keep the Garden – loving God and all the species made him fittest. Indeed, lovingness is a characteristic of fitness.

Some will say, but there were no other humans (trees) in the Garden. They were there, but were unseen, because they had yet to be manifested. Adam and Eve had not yet made copies of themselves, but souls were in the spiritual realm of the Garden ready for mankind to copy themselves.[xix]  Human life is sacred because only the fittest of the species had living souls. [xx] What makes mankind the fittest is the ability to care for their own species, other species, and God Himself.

In fact, until love is extinguished, the species - humankind and animal kind - will exist. When hatred overcomes the world, none of the species will exist on Earth. Existence, then, depends on mankind and love. Mankind is the dominant species and were designed the fittest; that is until evil revealed itself!

The reader may not appreciate the ideas that mankind is the fittest, but that species is on whom the world depends. Unfortunately, at times the fittest is morally the least fit! For instance, how many other species entertain themselves by observing others having coitus? The fittest creatures are oftentimes the most decadent. Next, the reader will learn of the destruction of the unfittest.

---

[i] Gen 1:12

[ii] Gen 1:21

[iii] Gen 1:25

[iv] Gen 1:27

[v] Gen 1:31

[vi] Gen 1:27

[vii] Gen 1:26

[viii] Gen 1:28

[ix] Gen 2:15

[x] Gen 2:17

[xi] Gen 3:6

[xii] Gen 3:7

[xiii] Gen 3:5

[xiv] Gen 3:3

[xv] Rev 22;2

[xvi] John 1-2, 14

[xvii] Mat 3:10

[xviii] Rev 22:2

[xix] Ephes 1:4

[xx] Gen 2:7

Clear and Present Danger

     This era is certainly the last days. They are as in the times of Noah. The big ship is ready but few are willing to come aboard. Everyone must squeeze in more pleasure before boarding God's "ship." If anyone misses the closing of the door, it's not as simple as going to the next port and boarding. The door closes for all until safety is reached. The Captain's Journal lists the destination, but the time of arrival is uncertain. This time, the ship is not of wood sealed with pitch; it is an invisible boat sealed with the Word. Theologians call that journey "the rapture" and it is the snatching up of all those whose ticket is paid by Jesus of course who redeems the lost.
     Of course, the ticket is one way and for one date only. There will be no other cruise. The destination is the beautiful City of God; not Atlantis in the Caribbean, but the Garden Paradise with the River of God running through it, sheltered by the Tree of Life. Heaven is sanctuary from Hell. The twin cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbolic of Hell as it was destroyed by fire and brimstone. Only a few escaped "hell," but before they were saved, Lot's wife looked back. There is a clear and present danger in us looking back to the pleasures of sin.
     Those who believe in God often have cognitive dissonance. They want to be saved by God, believe He can save, but want to enjoy the pleasures of the world before they board. The port of call is a place of pleasure, and the destination is joy and contentment. The allure of pleasure oftentimes exceeds the promise of contentment. People, as they say, want their cake and eat it too! They want the pleasure of sin but the security of  righteousness. It can't be both ways. "Can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh" (James 3:12). Christians can't have it both ways, and Lot's wife found that she was the salty one in the company of the fresh water. Today, Lots' wife has been absorbed by water in the Dead Sea. She is dead to God just for looking back!
     The danger at the present is living for pleasure. Everyone is surrounded by fun and enjoyable activities. Some attend fun things while others praise God at church. Perhaps the doors to church will be closed next week. There is a danger that that may come soon. Jesus has become the enemy of the state, the people, and even the church - the three estates. Jesus is public enemy number one, and most Christians are Peters - not just denying Jesus thrice but daily. When people choose pleasure over worship, they are denying Jesus. They prefer the harlot Satan's brothel to our Father's House:

And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father's house in peace; then shall the Lord be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee. (Gen 28:20-22).

      Jacob (Israel) set a stone as a symbol that the Jews were a pillar in God's House. Christians are living stones in God's House - the Church - and us living stones are the pillars of the Church:

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Rev 3:12).

    Being part of the Father's House is not for everyone. It is for those Christians who overcome? Overcome what? Evil with good (Rom 12:21). Overcoming evil is not being of the world; it is being apart from it. Christians cannot continue in the world as before, not looking back, they are to forsake the pleasures of the world. There is danger in being in the flesh when God wants Christians to be in the Spirit.
     The entertainment industry lures Christians away from God. Think not? Can you not tear yourself away from your favorite artists even when they are against all things dear to God. Can you not turn off the television when actors curse God, and homosexuals arouse your sympathy? Can you not walk out of a movie when it is profane? Am I the only one who is offended by the decadence of Hollywood and New York?
     I believe that Islam is a clear and present danger to the world. On the other hand, I believe Christians are asleep in entertainment. Some say that people partied as Rome self-destructed. Are Christians self-destructing as the pleasure goes on? Miley Cyrus is much more dangerous than Saddam Hussein ever was. She has the hearts of adults and the children. Many thousands of people want to be like Miley. Many people want to be like the bachelor and bachelorette. Some people even want to be like Hillary Clinton! Many of those "stars" are more dangerous than a crazy Mulluh! They rob the souls of the people of the world, and even Christians.
     Safety from the world is in the House of God. The only place that I feel safe is in the presence of the Lord, most often in the church building. Even in my home, I am attacked every day by evil people from far away as they seek to tantalize and provoke me to do things their way. People become acclimated to sin. We often watch perversions that we never knew existed in yesteryear. Rather than walking out of a movie for one F-bomb, the limit has been stretched. Rather than never denigrating God, now people listen and even laugh at entertainers undermining the Savior.
     Entertainment is dangerous for two reasons: (1) People prefer to be entertained rather than entertain God. That makes them as gods, and (2) entertainment is generally far from righteous.
    I like a good movie as well as the next person, and to be honest, pretty girls help make the plot of movies more "interesting." However, filthy language and denigration of Christian doctrine is really offensive. Never get accustomed to sin, and never support sin! I've heard Christians say. It was just one g.d. word. I've heard Christians say, It was just one sex scene. One is too many.
     The idea is that Christians must be set apart from the world. That doctrine is "sanctification." Those not sanctified, even though they are safe, make themselves unsafe and vulnerable. Sanctification is making a commitment to please God in our thoughts and deeds. If that is our desire, then God does the sanctifying. "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thes 5:23). May He? God does not infringe on our will. Sanctification must be welcomed.

Sharia Law

     I wrote recently that Islam is the religion of the Antichrist who Muslims call Isa - their "Jesus." Someday Isa will come with a vengeance. Obviously, us Christian "infidels" will be the object of his vengeance. In phase two of the Great Tribulation period, Christians who will not take the mark of the  beast will be beheaded (Rev 20:4). Some Muslims have written that the Quran represents "666." I believe them! The government in those days will be autocratic with the Antichrist at its head. He will declare himself God, and the global world religion will become law. That fits Isa, the world-wide caliphate which Islam will form, the Islamic world religion, and Sharia Law.
     Our nation is governed by the Constitution, or at least by charter. Sharia Law will someday be allowed, commencing with religious disputes. Muslims will be allowed to judge and discipline their own people. That sounds fair, but Sharia Law allows capital punishment for even the slightest religious transgressions. For instance, if a Muslim denies Allah or Mohammad, their death can be justified. Likewise for adultery on the part of the woman.
     Many countries have allowed Sharia Law to be partially introduced - even England. Muslims are not special; why should they have special laws? Well, the answer is that their long-range goal is to have world-wide Sharia Law, not only for them, but especially for "people of the book" - Jews and Christians.
     Sharia law is frightening. It is unjust and barbaric. The Mullahs have no mercy when Allah or Mohammad are offended. Because of that, Christians and Jews are the most vulnerable to their sense of justice. In this age, Muslims are one of the few groups who practice beheading, and several Americans have died for their faith and country in recent years. If anyone does not have Islamaphobia, they better get it as quickly as possible for their own well-being.
     I have heard politicians and even preachers say, "Islam is a peaceful religion." That statement shows stupidity and naivete. Their history is intimidation, coercion, war, pirating, and murder. For a few years they were somewhat peaceful, but since WWII they have returned to their old time religion. Mohammad was merciless as was his nephew Ali. Studies have shown that most Muslims in the world want Sharia Law. It's as high as 80% in some Asian countries. That should be frightening since they have announced their intention to have a world wide caliphate (global Islamic government).
     The terrorists are not as frightening as those who infiltrate our nation to introduce Sharia and Islam into our culture. Like the communists who vow to overthrow us from within, that's why immigration from the Middle East is so high. We can see the early stages of their process with the recent election of several Muslims. If that does not frighten you, Halloween's Jason is just a prankster!
     Ironically, Muslims use socialists to advance their cause, and socialists use Muslims for theirs. If patriots don't end socialism, Islam will. When liberals are no longer useful, those fools will be shot or beheaded. Muslims have an even stronger motivation to win the world than socialists; the former wants the world for Allah, and the latter for themselves. Allah is much more brutal than even communists. Scripture shows that they will win the world for awhile.
     In the first three and one-half years of the tribulation, Islam will seem docile and peaceful -  just like the socialism. In the second semester of the tribulation, Isa will wield his vengeance. Marx will shudder in his grave when he realizes Mohammad stole his thunder and brutality! Muslims will keep their guns and swords. Liberals will give theirs up for the sake of peace. America will be easy pickings as weak-kneed liberals fight zealot Muslims who have guns and swords. The only chance this nation will have is the gun-loving Bible-thumping Christians who will have to have their guns pried from their cold dead hands!
     On the other hand, although that is destiny, it can be delayed. Christians must begin to care about their Christian faith. We must care about the faith of our children. We must keep the socialists out of our schools and Muslims out of our government. I'm no Jeremiah, but I know the methods of evil men. I have read scripture and believe it can and will happen.

The Lie of Progressivism

     The world has blurred the distinction between Nazism and Communism. Colleges teach that they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum; to wit: Nazism right wing and Communism left wing. Ignore "wings" for the moment; they were developed in the French Revolution but both right and left wings were left wing; one side was merely more left than the other. The distinction should be regressive/progressive. Ironically, "right wing" Nazism was the "progressive" party. Are you surprised? Read Marx's words yourself:

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. (Marx, Karl and Engles, Frederick; Manifesto of the Communist Party; 1848; Chapter I).

     The list of people are proletarians - the working class of people. They are those from whom the communists evolved. Modern-day "progressives" claim to support the middle class; not so, they are the representatives of what was at one time, the lower classes. Why the difference? Capitalism in the West made the lower class virtually disappear, so progressives merely took on a new class. In Marx's time, people who live comfortably would be "petty bourgeoisie." Essentially, the latter are those not involved with hands-on work, but live off those who do.
     The proletariat class still exists but capitalism has made them prosperous. In fact, capitalism has elevated all the classes, and with the exception of a few, they are indistinguishable . On the other hand, pure socialism has diminished all the classes except the leadership who have grown rich at the expense of the lower and middle classes. The very notion of socialism is based on coveting what others have, or to be crass - jealousy.
     That is not progressive, as is written in the manifesto of Marx. Marxists are not progressive but reactionary conservatives. They are regressive! Leftists accuse the Nazis of being just that! Reactionary conservatives are far right wing, well beyond the right wing of the French Revolution whose trademarks were hierarchical, traditional, and clerical interests. They were not reactionary conservatives but traditional leftists.
     First off, Marx implied that the Communist Manifesto could as well have been the Socialist Manifesto: "Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems" (ibid; "Preface to The 1888 English Edition"). Of course, according to Marx, before 1847 socialists were proponents of the middle class but thereafter of the lower class. What is the distinction between socialism and communism? The tactics they use for revolution. Socialists use political change and communists use force. In this century, oftentimes "progressives" turn to mob violence. That, my friends, is communism!
     Which is more of a present danger? Socialism by far! If the left-wing turns violent, the masses will reject their ideology. Socialists know that. They are conducting mostly a non-violent revolution to the extent that they know they can give up their weapons and win the war without firing a shot. On the other hand, if they must, as Janet Reno demonstrated, they indeed will turn their guns on American citizens! That is a totalitarian tactic used by socialism in all communistic revolutions.
     What makes socialism regressive though? They are against progress. Progress is ambiguous but can be recognized; it is booming cities, humongous factories, automation, machinery of all types, growing business and basically capitalism in action. According to the Manifesto, socialism opposes all those things.
     Progress, for them, contaminates the environment; that's why so-called "progressives" are environmentalists. That is not to protect "mother earth" but father Marx. Socialism depends on pollution to advance their cause. Why do you think that Alexandria Orcasio-Cortez (AOC) proposed the Green New Deal? "Green" is the uniting issue in socialism. The original New Deal in Roosevelt's time was the introduction of socialism into our capitalistic country. AOC proposed an environmental form of the New Deal to make socialism less reprehensible.
    At one time, communism operated in secret. The very word "communist" instilled fear into civil people. Communism has failed so often that both Nazi and Soviet Communism passed themselves off as non-violent socialists; to wit: National Socialism and Soviet Socialism. Both eventually showed their true colors; both were racist communism. Both used division to advance their brands of socialism. The Russian Bolsheviks were led by Jews until Jews were no longer needed. They were murdered en masse. Likewise, the German socialists used homosexuals until their services were no longer required. On Kristallnacht they were murdered in their beds.
     History shows that the Democrat Party in the United States are users. The black race is being used right now to advance the cause of socialism. They are the proletariats whose numbers they use to gain power. Power is what socialists seek; nothing more. Why do they desire unfettered immigration? It is not for the Latin-American proletariat, but for their own power. Naïve people really think that monstrous Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Shumer care about the lower classes! They are the upper crust of the bourgeoise; why would they care? They both have become capitalistic millionaires off the "stupidity of the American voter," as Obamacare author Jonathan Gruber indicated. The same thing applies to homosexuals; they are being used for political purposes.
     Socialism is not truly opposed to capitalism. What they are most opposed to is the clerical. By that I mean the Judeo-Christian faith. Marx referred to religion in dismissive terms: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" (Marx, Karl; A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right; 1843). Socialism is an escape from divine authority; "In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.." (Jud 17:6). That is the allure of socialism.
     Why is feminism and abortion so sacrosanct to socialists? Because they can do what is right in their own eyes, and don't want God interfering with their authority. Christians are the enemy of socialists, but many duped Christians are deceived by the cunning of the Marxist "serpents."
     They don't want kings or presidents, but freedom to do what they want without regard to God's will. Unfortunately, Christians stand in their way, thus Christians are collateral damage in their civil revolution. By "civil" I mean that rather than guns and Molotov cocktails, they use intimidation. "Political correctness" is a weapon of intimidation. In the book 1984, socialist George Orwell made that clear, and in 2019, American society is Orwellian. Think not? Try saying truthful things in public and see how quickly you are censored.
     The other day, journalists on nearly all the networks referred to a false accusation against the president as a "bomb-shell." Today, the rehearsed response to an accusation is called a narrative. In socialist Germany, it was propaganda. Both are means of deceiving the masses; thus, the dependence on the "stupidity of the American voter."
     The name "progressive" was adopted because it was forward-looking and had positive connotations. Nazism was more progressive than American progressivism. They would have America turned to feudalism as long as they are the lords of the manor. Vladimir Putin, a product of socialism, is the modern-day tyrant Peter the Great who kept power by enslaving the people. Socialism is a reversion to feudalism, and proletariats are the losers - the modern day serfs.
     Socialists would have America destroyed to gain power. We see that demonstrated everyday! They hope the president fails, even with the economy, because the destruction of the American Dream is a pre-requisite for their own dream.
     The notion of the wall of separation between church and state is a socialist tactic. Why so? It is a one-way wall! Christians can't step on the other side,  but the government can and does. The Democrat Jefferson used the stupidity of the American people so that they thought their religious freedom was protected. Not so! Socialist use that imaginary wall to keep Christians confined to their own commune.
     Everyone accuses the other of being Nazis. They are no  longer ashamed of being communists, and are actually proud of their Marxism. How can the true Nazi Marxists be identified? By who is taking innocent lives! The stupid American voter (their term) have been deceived by Orwellian newspeak; abortion has become "freedom to choose." That's sounds so libertarian, but it is cunning. The learned lesson of Nazism was supposed to be, it must never happen again! Now, rather than the Jews being the "sub-human parasites," unborn human beings are. Nazis are noted for killing innocents. The Democrat Party Platform as well be Mein Kampf.
     Don't blame the people of the Democrat Party; just as the Germans did, they will learn of their error after the socialists are exposed. Just as Jesus said, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34). Democrat progressives (sic) know not what they do. They don't test things to scripture. Adam and Eve closed their eyes to God's Word, and died. Christians who fall for the "progressive" lie assist in the death of America.
     People have been conditioned not to talk politics and religion; that may offend someone. That is another socialist initiative. Christians, just as Jeremiah, should be raving about the foolishness of the American voter. They will bury us, and the dirt will be thrown on Christians just as it is now thrown on Christ. How so? The very word "Jesus" is anathema to the world!
     I normally don't ask people to pass along my commentary. However, there is a revolution in progress, but people fail to realize it. The minimum that can be done is to pass along this message. In this case, our very lives and livelihood depend on it. Guns won't stop progressives, but the sword of the Word will (Ephes 6:17)!

Lost Outside Paradise

     Almost all theologians are wrong about the location of Eden. That is bold of me to say that, but scripture supports that as well as Jewish religious writings. To this day the Jews accept Jerusalem as the Garden of Eden, and Nahar ha-Yarden (Jordan) means "River of the Garden" (Wikipedia; "Jordan River").     Unknown is the size of Eden. God expelled Cain to the land of Nod "east of Eden." (See below). Hence, Eden was not the entire world, the Middle East or even Israel. The key to the size of Eden is the land given to the tribe of Dan.

Twelve Tribes of Israel (Wikipedia; _Tribe of Dan")

      Hebrew writings designate the Land of Dan as Eden. Nod was likely in Reuben's or Gad's inheritance. Many theologians believe Nod represented nomadic life and Cain was cursed to wondering in the wilderness. That makes sense, because the Egyptian Jews were a kind of Cain, also cursed to wondering in the wilderness for forty years, although like Cain, they were protected by a mark of some type.
     No one knows the type of mark, or whether it was even physical. It makes sense that it was one of two marks: circumcision or the name of the Father: "And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads." Some Jewish theologians agree that it is the latter. That makes more sense since circumcision is a Hebrew rite, and circumcision was not known to exist until Abraham's time.
      If that is true, then God's name would be something similar to the Phoenician tetragrammaton which is the upper letters.

God's Name (Wikipedia; "Tetragrammaton")

     Of course, the mark of God would appear on the forehead of latter-day Christians likely in their own alphabet. For Americans, perhaps JHWH or JHVH (Yahweh or Jehovah). Now read the story of Cain and Abel:

And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. (Gen 4:3-16).

     Cain was lost spiritually, but kept safe with God's seal. Now let's apply that to this era.
     "The Lost" are not those who have never been regenerated, but those "sheep" who were once under the care of  the Shepherd and strayed away.
     Those not born again know exactly their place; they are outside God's will and know it. The true lost are those who know God's will, profess the Doctrine of Christ, but yet are in the world, or under the law of sin rather than the Law of God.
     Cain was spiritually lost, and God sent him out to wander in the world. God didn't send Cain back unto the Garden eastward of Eden but beyond Eden to the east. The Garden would have been a return to Paradise, and Cain would have been saved from further harm. On the other hand, Cain was sent into the world, but God kept him safe. The mark was so that others would not kill him. The "others" were likely Satan and his demons, as per Job chapter one, since other than Adam's female children - Luluwa and Aklia - there were no others.
     Cain's condition, then, is a foreshadowing of the regenerated Christian who lives in sin. God marks those people so they won't fall away: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it"(Prov 22:6).  Adam trained Cain. He knew the Way of the Lord. He merely had trouble keeping the Way. God put a seal on him just as he would the Jews of the apocalypse to keep them from the evil one. Cain was not saved, but safe since he was still outside the Garden of Paradise. God was merciful to him, and let him live. He lived, however, with the adversary always there.
     Apply that to ourselves. The seal of God was a sort of hedge just as Job had around him (Job 1:10). God provides a hedge out of grace, and can tear it down when he tires of disobedience: "I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down" (Isa 5:5). It seems that Cain's "hedge" - the seal of God - was removed when his descendants tired of God's authority; that was with the flood of Noah's time. (Of course, Isaiah was writing of the Jews and Jerusalem, but God always uses the same method of justice.) Christians who live for the world have a sort of hedge or seal around them. They are safe but not yet saved. The latter - saved -is when they are back in the Garden or Paradise in Heaven.
     Christians are the "salt". That's enthusiasm to please God. In a short time, those born again can lose their savor when exposed to the world: "Salt is good: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be seasoned" (Luke 14:34)? That is just as the prodigal son did, and the father took him back under his care: "For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry" (Luke 15:24). The problem is in losing so much savor that there is none. Those are lost sheep. They have value to God but they wander in the land of Nod just east of Paradise but never in Paradise.

Life and Death

     I intended this morning to teach on regeneration. However, it occurred to me that before regeneration can be understood, degeneration must be. Is not degeneration death? Let us proceed.

     To understand life, anyone must understand death. Consider death; death is _______________. (You fill in the blank). Most would say, death is the cessation of life, or words to that affect. Of course, that brings to mind, what is life? Any mature person should understand life because they are living it. Tell me, then, what is living?
     We have become accustomed to human understanding. Most understand "living" as the summation of all experiences. Experience is interaction, or motion, with nature. Life must be animate. Nature requires material, both living and non-living. Is not death, then, the cessation of experience, or when living creatures cease to interact with nature? Perhaps. Perhaps not!
     Does cessation of interaction with nature culminate in death? How long does dying last? Could it be that there is interaction and experience after death? That implies that there is something supra-natural after death. If there is a supra-natural, cannot living be in the hereafter, or interaction with things beyond the natural? Note that I use supra-natural rather than supernatural, because the latter may include paranormal activity, or ghosts.(para means "beside" whereas supra means "above")
     If there is life beyond, then, are their ghosts? What are ghosts? "The seat of life or intelligence," also, "a disembodied soul." A soul is "the immaterial essence" of a human being. It has nothing to do with living or dead. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary). The soul is a permanent state of being.  That implies that everyone always existed in some form or the other.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love... (Ephes 1:3-4; italics mine)

There are several key points in that passage:

• Everyone was blessed by God in Heaven. (blissed or intended for complete happiness.)
• In Christ. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
  The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men" (John 1:1-4, italics mine). Jesus is the source of life, and that intelligence (the soul) is the light or knowledge of Christ. Sin dimmed that life and the souls of men were in darkness. Is not darkness associated with death? Close your eyes; what do you imagine death to be?
• Christ has chosen us in him. To be like him. "God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness" (Gen 1:26). What was he Designer's intent for Adam-kind? To be like Him. What are the characteristics of God? Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God is Mind, Jesus is His Flesh, and His Holy Spirit is His power. God's Spirit is what? The universe, or all of Existence I AM). "Space", then is God's "container." What is our container for God's Spirit? The human soul. God's plan was to fill the soul of everyone with His Holy Spirit.
• When was that planned? Before the foundation of the world. Our souls were tagged for life before the world was ever created. Souls, then are permanent, or immortal - exempted from death. We all have always existed and will never cease to exist. Our souls are also tagged after death. In he beginning all were tagged for life, but after natural animation ceases, a few are tagged for eternal life, but most for eternal death.

      Remembering that the soul is a permanent state of being, then death does not kill the soul. Jesus said, "Father"... "take away this cup from me" (Mark 14:36). Of course, he was referring to his purpose but also the "container" for his soul. The human soul is a permanent "cup" which was designed to hold God's Spirit.

     Are you beginning to understand what death is? Say it aloud: It is the separation of God's Holy Spirit from the soul, or lack of communion with God. Now, let's refer back to our genesis: The first commandment was, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" (Gen 2:17).

     It should seem logical. Adam was expected to know what "die" means. That is imperative because the penalty for disobedience is death! Now let's look at the original sin:

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die (Gen 3:4), and when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Gen 3:6).

     What did they not understand? What the meaning of "die" is. They perceived death to be the cessation of motion. What do you say death is now? It is not to cease interacting with nature, but losing communion with God!
     Life, then, is having communion with God. It's having the soul endowed with God's Holy Spirit.
     What happened when Jesus died? "Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost" (Mark 15:37). "Ghost" is a disembodied soul. Jesus's death was when his body was torn asunder from his soul. For a short time, God seemed to have "forsaken" him (Mat 27:46). Adam missed the point. Why did Adam eat of the forbidden fruit? He saw that Eve ate, yet she still appeared to live. He could not see into the supra-natural because the Serpent has cast a shadow.. Inside, Eve died, then Adam ate and he died.
     By grace, God restored the life of the two. They were regenerated (a re-genesis) because they were ashamed. How did God regenerate them? (Hint: the coat made from the skin if a living creature.) They surely had an intense feeling of despair, and preferred bliss.
     They were born again as new creatures. Where have we heard that before? "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new"(2 Cor 5:17). That goes back to before the foundation of the world - where God's intent was that man be in Christ - in his doctrine. Eternal death, then, is loss of communion with God forever. It's the immortal soul "living" in isolation from God, and in communion with the author of death. Eternal death is more like eternally dying. What is it that Christians are saved from? Their souls are saved from eternal tribulation.
     The creation of mankind is described: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (Gen 2:7; italics mine). On the other hand when God sucks the "breath" from a living soul, he or she becomes a dying soul.

Reversion to Paganism

     The Abrahamic Covenant was God's promise to bless and grow the Israelites, and eventually, out of their number, provide a Savior. Many think that is was an agreement of one part; however, it was a two party deal. The Israelites had to remain faithful to God to receive the blessing. Haskalah - marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew - historically has been forbidden. It must be remembered - "Jew" is not a religion.  Liberal Judaism has allowed converts to Judaism to marry Jews. Conversion to Judaism is possible, but conversion to the Jewish race is not.
     The world has labeled the prohibition of intermarriage "racism." Indeed, in some states, intermarriage was illegal into the mid-twentieth century; not necessarily on religious beliefs but for racial purity. Jews originally were not to intermarry to maintain their racial purity as the progenitors of the Messiah. God endorsed racial purity of the Jews, not out of hatred, but because they are the chosen people. God even provided His reasoning:

When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou;  And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them: Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. (Deut 7:1-4; italics mine).

     God's reasoning for what liberals have labeled "Xenophobia" was for the survival of His fittest - His "chosen people." God wanted a Jewish man to become the Savior for one reason: Abraham had been faithful to God, and God wanted to bless him for his faith. None of the other "ites" mentioned above had been faithful; why then, would God reward them?
     In spiritual matters, the "seed"of the man is paramount to the "receptacle" of the woman - the ova. Jesus himself was the seed of both Jews and non-Jews. For instance, Bathsheba was Jesus's ancestor (Mat 1:6) but if she was a Hittite, she was likely a convert to Judaism. Her lineage remains unknown, but Jesus may have been part Hittite through Bathsheba. Jesus's ancestor, Ruth, was a Moabite. On the other hand, Jesus's paternal ancestry (through Mary of course) was Jewish. Jesus whose make-up was an admixture racially but was thoroughly an Israelite through Jacob.
     God sought to maintain spiritual purity through racial purity through the male line. Unfortunately marrying foreign wives and disregarding God's command from the Book of Deuteronomy above was rebellious. I don't believe the Jews are Xenophobic but obedient. They may not fully understand the spiritual reasons behind that, but Jewish racial purity is God's intent, especially considering the final part of the Abrahamic Covenant: "And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel" (Rev 7:4); then the number from each of the twelve tribes are named. The "sealing" were those who were set apart for salvation.
     Spiritual fact: God wanted the Jews to remain racially pure. Spiritual outcome: Failing to, God enforced His command:

“We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the surrounding peoples, but there is still hope for Israel in spite of this. 3 Let us therefore make a covenant before our God to send away all the foreign wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the command of our God. Let it be done according to the law. 4 Get up, for this matter is your responsibility, and we support you. Be strong and take action!” 10 “You have been unfaithful by marrying foreign women, adding to Israel’s guilt. 11 Therefore, make a confession to Yahweh the God of your fathers and do His will. Separate yourselves from the surrounding peoples and your foreign wives.”

     Throughout the Bible, the Jews fornicated with other gods because of their foreign wives. God's reason for racial purity was for religious purity. Thus, what some call Xenophobia, in this case, was for proper and valid reasons. Racial purity can be for spiritual reasons, although in many cases it has been for ethnic purity which is prideful. Boaz taking the foreign widow, Ruth, for a wife was admirable because Ruth was righteous. If Boaz had taken a heathen wife for lustful reasons, that marriage would have been sinful.
      Is modern-day intermarriage acceptable spiritually? As with Boaz and Ruth, it must be for right reasons. Gentiles are people of all non-Jewish races, and the mystery of God is that grace is for them as well. Intermarriage, as with Ruth, is not objectionable as long as the two are of one faith as Holy Matrimony is a covenant between man, woman, and God. On the other hand, Holy Matrimony can never be for people of different faiths. For instance, Allah is not the One True God because he never became flesh. Allah is an imposter God, and represents, it seems, the Antichrist. (See my earlier commentary on that thought.)
     Is it okay for Jews (chosen people) or Christians (peculiar people) to marry Arabs? Yes with a provisio: They must be Christians for Christians or Judaists for Jews. Religious intermarriage is spiritually wrong. It is not a racial issue but an holy one.
     Donald Trump's daughter converted to Judaism to make her marriage palatable to Jews. If she converted for right reasons, then maybe God honors that. If she converted because she was persuaded that legalism is the way to salvation, that is a noble and right cause. However, Judaism's legalism is not the path to salvation but an obstacle to it. Hence, the maybe should be definitely not! 
     On the other hand, according to scripture, Jared Kushner should have converted to Christianity. God would have honored that. In fact, all the 144,000 from the Book of Revelation who are "sealed" will be truly converted from Judaism to Christianity. Messianic Christianity is God's plan from the beginning!
     When a Christian woman marries a Muslim, she is converted to Islam. If it was only to meet marriage requirements, perhaps it was not true conversion. Perhaps if she was not converted to Christianity at some time previous, her marriage was merely a continuation of paganism. Conversion is spiritually serious business; and never should conversion be for any reason other than persuasion (Acts 26:28). It takes a thorough convincing to become a Christian; likewise, serious reconsideration is needed for becoming unconvinced. There is a great penalty for reversing persuasions:

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Heb 6:6).

     A Christian who converts to Islam or any other religion shames Jesus; it is a violation of the Third Commandment which penalty is: "the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name (Jesus) in vain" (Exod 10:7; parenthesis mine). Reverting to paganism is blasphemous and re-crucifies Christ. In the case of Islam, that can be a racial issue as well because most Muslims are of other races. To marry a Christian Arab, for instance, is not an issue, but marrying a Muslim Arab is of great consequence. If conversion was serious, it is damning. If done merely to marry one of a pagan religion, it is humiliating to God and rebellious.
     Inter-marriage between religions dilutes Christianity, and concentrates Islam. It minimizes Christ and elevates Mohammad. Taking the Quran (666) is damning. It is accepting the mark of the beast:

And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Rev 14:11).

     Converting to Islam is the most catastrophic and damning thing a Christian can do! Doing that for the sake of marrying a foreigner who God says to forsake and turn away is spiritually treasonous.
     It's not impossible for a Christian to turn from the faith; Paul validated that. However, those of little faith are more apt to do that because they are more vulnerable to deception. Religious intermarriage is NOT okay with God! My personal position is that I care for the souls of people who covert to false religions.