Tag: Chance

A “Lot” to Learn

I learned a “lot” studying the character of Abraham’s nephew, Lot. (Read Genesis 13, 14, and 19) Today, I want to summarize…

  • Our lives depend on choices, rather than chances…Lot experienced many opportunities and some tragedies beyond his control. But even when God gave Lot some amazing opportunities– even when He offered miraculous rescue–Lot continued to make bad decisions or no decision at all. When have I done the same? Do I wait for chance and circumstance to find me? Do I drift along without making wise choices, allowing life to carry me to my next destination? Or do I seek God–His wisdom, His Word, His provision–and choose to obey Him?
  • Not making a choice IS making a choice…Lot chose to live outside of Sodom– but he ended up in the city. Lot spent much of his time NOT making decisions or plans. He chose inactivity, chose to be vulnerable to attack, chose to live in a city so wicked it was doomed to destruction, chose to compromise and bargain with his wicked neighbors, chose to drag his feet (literally) about leaving, chose to let his daughters control his destiny and legacy. How often do I pray for God to direct my steps and guide my life, and then sit on the couch doing nothing? Lot’s story doesn’t include a single instance of Lot taking initiative. He simple reacts to, takes advantage of, or accepts whatever opportunities or misfortunes befall him. And he doesn’t see his inactivity as a sin or rebellion against God. But he never CHOOSES to follow God; to seek Him or obey him. He assumes that not choosing active rebellion and evil is enough. Have I done the same? Do I think that because I am not actively involved in wickedness that I am honoring God with my inaction and apathy?
  • You cannot live surrounded by evil and not be hurt by it. Ignoring the warning signs, tolerating evil because it becomes familiar, turning a blind eye to the ways others are being hurt–if we are not part of a solution, we are part of the problem. Lot had options– he could have moved away from Sodom; he could have stayed outside the city; he could have spoken up about the evil all around him–he did none of those things. He lived a compromised life; a life in denial. What have I done to flee evil? To speak out against injustice and oppression? To stand up for what is right? When have I winked at evil, or turned a blind eye to wickedness? How often have I sat in uncomfortable silence while someone else suffered? Because “it’s not my problem.” “One voice won’t make a difference.” “It’s just the way they are.” “I don’t want to offend anyone by getting involved. It’s none of my business, anyway.” Lot and his family suffered greatly, even as they tried to “coexist” with their wicked neighbors.

That’s a lot to consider in the life of one man. But more importantly, there are a “lot” of things to learn about the character of God in this story:

  • God sees us. God included Lot in the larger story of Abraham– He gave an orphaned boy a family, a fortune, and a future. Lot had done nothing to “earn” God’s protection or favor. He certainly did nothing to deserve being rescued– twice– and he did nothing to show gratitude for either rescue. But God didn’t make a mistake in showing Lot mercy. God wasn’t surprised by Lot’s life choices– He didn’t “fail” Lot, and He didn’t forget about Him– even after generations.
  • God is a judge. We like to concentrate on God’s mercy and blessings, but God’s goodness requires that sin, wickedness, and evil be punished. God doesn’t delight in punishment, but He will not forget the cries of the oppressed. Those who practice evil and seem to “get away with it” will face judgment. If they do not seek God’s forgiveness, they will be destroyed. The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by supernatural fire; Lot was destroyed by his own fears and compromises.
  • God is merciful. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, but He was willing to save the cities for the sake of as few as ten “righteous” people. We know that “There is no one righteous, not even one..” (Romans 3:10), but God thoughtfully listened to Abraham, and promised to seek for anyone who could be considered worthy of saving. That He saved only Lot and his small family was for Abraham’s sake, not Lot’s– yet save them He did. God doesn’t save the “deserving”– He saves the lost!
  • God’s plans are perfect, detailed, and eternal. God saved the unworthy Lot, and even when his family repaid God’s mercy with incest, violence, and wickedness against Israel, God orchestrated the story of Ruth– a story of love, faithfulness, and redemption pulled from the ashes of this tragic story in Genesis. God has a plan for each of us– He already knows if we will participate eagerly in a story of beauty and blessing, or be dragged through a story of compromise and tragedy. But ultimately, our story will be woven into a tapestry of God’s faithfulness, righteousness, and restoration. How we respond will change our life, and potentially, the lives of generations to come. And God will give us opportunities to choose lives of obedience, wisdom, and faith. No matter if we live in Sodom, or wasted earlier chances, we can choose rescue and redemption because of God’s great love and mercy!

The Bible never records a prayer by Lot– whether he DID pray is a matter of speculation. But it seems clear that Lot did not seek God in any meaningful way– he didn’t obey God, he didn’t honor God, he didn’t walk with God as his uncle did. Abraham’s life wasn’t perfect– he lied about his wife, became impatient for God’s promised son and took matters into his own hands– but Abraham learned from his mistakes. He humbled himself, looked to God for wisdom, and trusted Him for the next step. He honored God, built altars, and called on the Name of the Lord. May we call out to the same God of Abraham for guidance and wisdom today.

0

The Chimp and the Typewriter

I’m really not sure at all how this post relates to prayer, but it is a subject that’s been stewing in my brain for awhile, so I thought I would “write out” my thoughts.

I have long been disgusted with a certain argument used by those who discount Creation (by a supreme God with intelligent design and purpose as put forth in Scripture). Their claim of a universe that is the result of a series of random accidents is compared to a chimpanzee with a typewriter. Supposedly, given enough time, there is a possibility that the chimp could “randomly” type a masterpiece– a Shakespearean play or the text of the New Testament.. It is a very tiny probability, but, the argument goes, enough of a probability to suggest that the universe came about in a similarly unexpectedly random way. The proponents of this argument always seem to leave their chimp typing away, convinced that their argument is unassailable– that they can drop the mic, walk off stage to the thunderous applause of their peers, and sit smugly back while creationists pick up their jaw from the floor and stammer in defeat. (To further explore how this analogy works, see https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/12/10/249726951/the-infinite-monkey-theorem-comes-to-life)

I’m flabbergasted that this argument still gets any credence. It is laughable in its illogical assumptions and disregard for the complexity and wonder of Creation. AND it refutes its own basic assumption– that of randomness. Let me break it down:

Photo by lil artsy on Pexels.com
  • First their example is NOT random at all. And, once true randomness is introduced, the idiocy of the argument is obvious. What if we replace the chimpanzee with any other random animal? A hedgehog. A butterfly. A hippopotamus. A fish. What is the probability of any of THEM typing a masterpiece? None. The theory hangs on the mathematical principle of probability theory, but probability rests, not on random unknowns, but on specific factors and specified outcomes, i.e. an agent (such as a chimpanzee) with the ability to use a specific type of tool (such as a keyboard) to produce a certain outcome (such as a specific phrase or work of literature).
  • The same thing applies if we replace the typewriter. Oh, modern arguments have replaced the typewriter with a computer keyboard– in fact computer models have even been tasked with trying to figure up the most likely probability percentage of this “random” event. But what if we take away the keyboard filled with letters, and give the chimp a crayon of a ball point pen. What chance then of the simian “creating” a work of fiction or a sacred book? As soon as it becomes apparent that the “probability” of such random factors producing a specific outcome is not just tiny, but non-existent, the analogy becomes ludicrous.
  • Finally, we don’t have random literature. Generally, we have “Hamlet.” But barring that, we have “random” works by Shakespeare, or Milton, or the King James Bible. The chimpanzee doesn’t have an Arabic keyboard. It never seems to type out classic works in Chinese literature (though it “could” in theory, I suppose). What we have is a very specific example of a single creative act that “might” statistically be “produced” (see the discussion on this below) given an infinite amount of time. And it is a visual image that our brains are tricked into thinking of as a “possible” outcome of random chance.
  • But it is not just the absence of true randomness, but the absence of reality that distresses me. The proponents of this argument not only want us to assume that the chimpanzee CAN type out a masterpiece, but that it WILL type out a masterpiece. On what theoretical plane is it logical to assume that the average (or even above-average) chimpanzee will spend any length of time pounding away at a keyboard to produce literature? To what purpose? Why should it? Or that the typewriter will never “jam” or run out of ribbon; or that a word processor will never experience a “glitch” or lose power, or have enough memory to store all the “failed” attempts. Will “auto correct” kick in? At what point does reality suggest that this “random” event is not only not probable, but not logical? As one wit suggested, “A million chimps at a million typewriters will never write Hamlet, but they will break the typewriters and fling their poop.”(I found this on the internet– I have no attribution for the “quote” as it was simply included with an image of a chimp at the typewriter.)
  • And how long will this take? You can’t realistically have a single, immortal chimpanzee in this scenario. You need infinite generations of chimps (supplied with typewriters) with nothing better to do than prove an illogical “random” theory. How many humans will it take to “witness” this process? How do they determine that the outcome has been reached successfully? And they all–chimps, machinery, witnesses– have to work toward this single goal; NOT of their own free will (and not “randomly”), but enslaved to a very human need to suggest what can only be theorized.
  • This brings me to another failing of the argument. One of the reasons we still use the word “theory” when speaking of Evolution or the “Big Bang” is that they can be theorized, but never demonstrated. No one can demonstrate how a universe can be formed out of nothing, because the universe and all its materials are already here. The most one could ever do is “re-create” or “simulate” what happened “In the beginning.” Similarly, the theoretical chimpanzee (or aardvark, or whatever) will never “create” Hamlet or the book of Matthew, or Paradise Lost. At most, it might create a reproduction–by “accident” rather than earnest intent–of an already existing masterpiece. This is not Creation. It is not even imitation, in the way that “West Side Story” re-creates “Romeo and Juliet” or a new translation of St. Matthew “modernizes” the King James Version of the same gospel. If a chimpanzee successfully photocopies a page of Shakespeare, we would never suggest that it was a literary “creation.”
  • And this brings me to my last baffling observation– that the Creation of the Universe would be compared to the creation of a single artistic product, and that Art and Literature would be dismissed as mere random “occurrences,” the likes of which any monkey could produce.
Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The Apostle Paul warned of this kind of futile thinking in his letter to the Romans:

18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Romans 1:18-25 (NIV)

The world is filled with awesome and majestic reminders of God’s Power, His Character, His Faithfulness, His Wonder, and His Glory. God created the chimpanzee– and the kangaroo, the pineapple, the ostrich, the Milky Way, and YOU! And He created individuals with the creative capacity to invent typewriters, write sonnets, paint murals, and compose sonatas. He is a God of infinite variety, and amazing consistency. Many of those who study the origins of life on Earth– really study it, rather than trying to “figure it out,” have concluded that the factors necessary to “create” and sustain life– and more amazingly, to sustain the life we see around us in its beauty, power, and complexity–require such exquisite precision and timing that the “probability” of life on Earth (and the probability of “Earth” itself) without a supreme and purposeful Creator is beyond human calculation– and even beyond computer calculation!

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

So I guess this does bring me back to prayer– We don’t pray to a theoretical “god,” but the God of Creation, and Wonder, and Majesty! Let’s remember to Praise Him today!

0

A Lot to Discover…

I spent part of last year taking a closer look at some of the figures of the Old Testament. This week, I’d like to take a closer look at one of the lesser figures of Genesis: Abraham’s nephew, Lot.

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

We tend to focus on the teachings of Jesus, and the writings of the apostles in the New Testament. We should. But we should not neglect the lessons to be found in these ancient stories. They have a “lot” to teach us about human nature, and about God’s response to it. They are rich with characters, patterns, metaphors, and foreshadowing.

We first meet the character of Lot, along with his family, at the end of Genesis 11:
27 This is the account of Terah’s family line. Terah became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. And Haran became the father of Lot. 28 While his father Terah was still alive, Haran died in Ur of the Chaldeans, in the land of his birth. 29 Abram and Nahor both married. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife was Milkah; she was the daughter of Haran, the father of both Milkah and Iskah. 30 Now Sarai was childless because she was not able to conceive. 31 Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot son of Haran, and his daughter-in-law Sarai, the wife of his son Abram, and together they set out from Ur of the Chaldeans to go to Canaan. But when they came to Harran, they settled there. 32 Terah lived 205 years, and he died in Harran.
(Genesis 11:27-32 NIV, taken from http://www.biblegateway.com)

When I was reading this passage the other day, I was struck by something I never noticed before, and have never heard in any sermon or Bible study–Lot’s mother is never mentioned, and there is a strong implication that Lot’s parents were never married. The text merely says that Haran became the father of Lot, and that he died. The next sentence, however, says that both his uncles married– and it names their wives. The Bible does not state explicitly that Lot was illegitimate, or that he never knew his mother, but if that is the case, it makes certain things about his life stand in sharp contrast. And, though it says Haran died while his father was still alive, we don’t know how long he was a part of his son’s life. Lot is part of a family, but his position is not well-defined. He is a grandson, and a nephew, but he has no parents or siblings, and he is not adopted or named as an heir by either of his uncles. (Even before Abraham becomes a father, his “heir” is a servant named Eliezer of Damascus, not his nephew– see Genesis 15:1-3) He travels with his grandfather, and then “moves about” with Abraham (Genesis 13), but doesn’t seem to be a part of Abraham’s household. Instead, he is raised by his grandfather, who seems to have given him his father’s portion of the inheritance. Lot isn’t abandoned by his father’s family, but he is not embraced, either.

Photo by Ilkin Safterov on Pexels.com

Lot seems almost to be included in this family history by chance. And, indeed, his name connotes chance and happenstance. People cast lots, play the lottery, and talk about their “lot in life.” Lot, much like his name, seems to depend on chance as he travels through life. His birth is mysterious and obscure, but he has connections to a great and wealthy family. He has great success in building his flocks and herds, enough that the “land could not not support (he and Abraham) while they stayed together” (Genesis 13:6a), but he doesn’t seem to be able to stay out of trouble. He gets used as a pawn in a territorial war (Genesis 14), and must be rescued by his uncle, only to return to the wicked city of Sodom. Angels must drag him out of the city to rescue him again, when God decides to destroy both Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness. Bitter and pouting, Lot becomes a pawn for his own daughters in the aftermath of his rescue, ending his days as a footnote in history, as the ancestor of two of Israel’s fiercest enemies– the Moabites and Ammonites.

Photo by Nishant Aneja on Pexels.com

Why is the story of Lot woven into the chronicles of Abraham? What can we learn from his character and life story? How does Lot play a part in the genealogy of Jesus?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I’ve challenged myself to learn more–may I pray that you might do the same? Nothing about Lot’s story is written without some purpose–let’s search out what a “lot” God has to share with us in the life of this one man.

1

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑