War: Let's Seek to End It Now

How many wars have human beings fought during our history? Only God knows. Perhaps the best answer is “far too many.”

War is not inevitable. It can be prevented, and it can be ended where it currently exists. We just need determination to do it.

The next section discusses some efforts to end war in the 20^th Century. After that a subtopic covers some ideas on resolving or avoiding a few specific wars. The final segment mentions some general guidelines for preventing war.

20^th Century Efforts to End War

I love the idealistic thoughts behind efforts during and after World War I to end all war.

That 1914-1918 conflict was often referred to as “the war to end all wars.” A 1914 article (then book) by H.G. Wells titled “The War That Will End War,” [1] is credited as the original inspiration for the phrase.

After World War I ended, an organization of nations called the League of Nations formed. It sought to end war. But the United States never joined it despite President Woodrow Wilson’s efforts. The organization proved ineffective to prevent another world war and formally ended in 1946.

An idealistic idea to make war illegal came a decade after World War I. The Kellogg-Briand Pact [2] prohibited war between its signatories. According to the U.S. Department of State, the United States and 14 other nations signed it August 27, 1928, and 47 other nations signed it later, “so the pact was eventually signed by most of the established nations of the world.”

However, enforcement of Kellogg-Briand did not occur. An even more horrendous war, World War II, occurred 1939-1945.

After World War II another international organization, The United Nations (UN), formed and sought to end war. According to the UN website, [3] the UN formed in 1945 and currently has 193 members.

It has proven somewhat more effective than the League of Nations. However, the United Nations has no troops of its own, depending on its members to provide them for peacekeeping efforts. Corruption of various types has occurred over the years too, as is true of any human organization.

Furthermore, the UN’s most powerful body, the United Nations Security Council, which consists of 5 permanent members and 10 members that rotate in and out, is set up so that the 5 permanent members each have veto power over its decisions. One powerful nation, such as Russia (formerly the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) or the United States, sometimes uses this individual veto power for selfish purposes.

World War I, World War II, and the United Nations haven’t ended war.

Preventing or Avoiding Specific Wars

Many have written about how events after World War I led to World War II. The huge reparations Germany was forced to pay after World War I and the rise to power of its charismatic leader Adolph Hitler were key factors that led to World War II.

Japan’s desire to expand its land and resources was another root cause.

The economic depression of the 1930s added to the problem as residents of various countries experienced economic difficulty and desperation.

Ducksters [4] is one of many websites that discusses in a simplified way some factors contributing toward World War II.

One reason we haven’t yet had a World War III is that the end of World War II was handled better than the end of World War I. The victors engaged in rebuilding efforts in Germany and Japan after the war instead of requiring reparations. This established friendships and reduced animosity.

The UN, despite its corruption and weaknesses, has proven more effective than the League of Nations. Numerous other aid organizations help too.

The other aid organizations include CARE founded in 1945, Medicins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) founded in 1972, the International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) which has expanded over the years from its original organization well over a century ago, and the Peace Corps which was created in the early 1960s. These groups help in countries around the world to reduce disease, hunger, thirst, etc.

In fact I would argue that the relatively small amount of money the United States government spends on the Peace Corps does substantially more good internationally on a dollar basis than our military expenditures.

Below is a 2017 photo of the Peace Corps building in Washington, DC, that I took during a visit to the city.

 

Much more could be done. If Vietnam had been granted its independence after World War II, the Vietnam War could likely have been prevented. When I was in college beginning in 1976, many Vietnam War veterans were still in college as well. I heard some of them at the University of Kentucky calling themselves suckers for going to war, discussing the uselessness of the war, and how poorly it was conducted.

A lot of patriotic young persons who sincerely sought to serve their country and their world in Vietnam were misled by the nation's leaders.

Indeed, many of the early protesters of the Vietnam War were veterans fed up with what was going on. Antiwar protests likely contributed toward ending the war, though the conflict could have ended better. I want to make it clear that it was wrong the way returning Vietnam veterans were mistreated though.

If done on a large scale, massive antiwar protests worldwide could end all wars and prevent future ones. But such protests in totalitarian countries are more difficult to organize and implement than in places like the United States. Still, the Arab Spring protests that began in 2010 had some constructive results in relatively totalitarian countries.

Divisions within countries often lead to violence and war, such as the United States Civil War over slavery and states’ rights, and the effort by eastern Ukraine to secede from the rest of the country.

What if the United States had managed to eliminate slavery peacefully over time as many other nations did? Instead we did it via electing President Abraham Lincoln in 1860, which was followed by the secession of southern states and war. A different path could have been pursued. 

What if Ukraine had willingly given independence to the eastern Ukraine residents who spoke a different language than the rest of Ukrainians and sought independence? What if then the internationally community had united to support a new nation in eastern Ukraine and prevent either western Ukraine or Russia from seeking to acquire it via violent or other corrupt means? The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict may have been prevented.

Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government discriminated against residents in eastern Ukraine, not allowing them to use their Russian language in schools. Then secession was sought. This was followed by Russian interference. The resulting war continues.

Russia’s military actions against Ukraine in recent years are inexcusable. But they were preceded by other inexcusable abuses.

Furthermore, if the Palestinians and Israelis who are fed up with the violent conflicts between the two groups will unite to stop the minority of radicals on both sides, they can experience peace. However, Palestinian terrorists who want to obliterate the entire nation of Israel and ultra-Zionist Israelis who want to acquire all Palestinian land in Gaza and the West Bank to create a larger Israel seem to dominate leadership of the two groups.

Jerusalem could become an international city where Jews, Christians, and Muslims could all come together in peace to worship God. Perhaps a more pragmatic solution would be for Israelis to gradually legally buy the land from Christians, Muslims, and others as they become willing to sell it, then allow visitors. 

During the late 1800s and the 1900s up until World War II, Jews legally purchased significant parts of Palestine, as noted in various sources including a United Nations document,  “Acquisition of Land in Palestine” [5] and The Rohr Jewish Learning Institute’s article, “Land Ownership in Palestine,1880-1948." [6]

How to Prevent War in General

Preventing war isn’t easy or it would have been done already due to the enormous property destruction, deaths, and injuries that war causes. But it isn’t impossible. We can do it if we determine to do so.

A key is to genuinely seek to end war, to genuinely seek to settle differences fairly and peacefully.

Let’s seek to eliminate or at least greatly reduce greed and selfishness. Teach persons, beginning with their childhood, the importance of being truthful, being honest, doing a fair share of work, and helping one another, including the needy who can’t help themselves. Teach people to seek to resolve differences without violence. Teach people to practice forgiveness for their own sakes as well as for others.

Seeking to listen to the viewpoints of other individuals and other nations and to learn from them helps too. Also, more international travel, as well as modern technology that helps translate languages eases cultural and national gaps, at least in theory.

We must be realistic though. The way the United States acquired land from Native Americans is inexcusable. So is the way Israel was formed in 1948 by taking land from Palestinians. However, it isn’t feasible to return the land to the Native Americans or to the Palestinian landowners who lost their land in 1948.

Those Native Americans and virtually all of those Palestinians have now passed on. But treating their descendants fairly is realistic. This can include improving conditions on Indian reservations, as well as in Gaza and the West Bank, in addition to helping with the relocation of those who seek to do so.

The existence of huge military arsenals under human control invites disaster. The United States and Russia frequently abuse their military might against other countries for selfish material reasons (acquiring land and/or natural resources, etc.). Finding a way to dramatically decrease military might and put it in the control of unbiased, objective leaders who seek the best outcomes for the overall situation is a worthy goal. An international military force under the control of an improved and impartial United Nations could do much to hold national military power in check.

We also need to seek to present history accurately and to describe people fairly. Religious intolerance and hatred of others is counter to the basic teachings of most major religions. It violates the principle of the “golden rule” that many major faiths incorporate in one form or another.

Too often, in the name of patriotism, God, or manifest destiny, national leaders seek to build up the pride of a nation or culture’s residents while demonizing those who are different.

Regarding Christians, even in World War II there were devout Christians on both sides. Hitler’s German government had much support from “Christians” in the country. As a Christian I wonder why we do not seek to love one another as Jesus and the Apostle Paul taught and to hold fellow Christians (and ourselves) accountable for failings?

We as individual Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and followers of other faiths or of no faith need to put basic moral standards that humanity generally agrees on into practice and stop abuses. Masses of people of various cultures and nations united to seek the best can do it.

The international scientific community and the international medical community have worked together to advance science and medicine. We humans need to unite in a general way to combat famine, greed, ignorance, laziness, lying, pollution, potable water shortages, selfishness, violence, and other problems.

If people are contented and well cared for, there’s less likelihood they will engage in war or other violent conflict. At least that’s my hope and viewpoint. Let’s seek to progress toward attaining this. We can do it.

ENDNOTES:

[1] Wells, H.G.; “The War That Will End War”; 1914; ebook version accessed on Project Gutenberg website; webpage accessed May 30, 2025; https://www.gutenberg.org/files/57481/57481-h/57481-h.htm

 [2]  “The Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928”; Office of the Historian, Foreign Service Institute, United States Department of State; webpage accessed May 30, 2025; https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/kellogg

 [3]  “United Nations, About Us”; United Nations website; webpage accessed May 30, 2025; https://www.un.org/en/about-us

 [4] “World War II: Causes of WW2”; Ducksters; webpage accessed May 30, 2025; https://www.ducksters.com/history/world_war_ii/causes_of_ww2.php

[5] “Acquisition of Land in Palestine”; United Nations; 1980; webpage accessed May 30, 2025; https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-208638/

[6] Aumann, Moshe; “Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948”; The Rohr Jewish Learning Institute; The website states that the article is reprinted from an appendix written by Moshe Aumann for the 1972 book “The Case for Israel” by  Leibler Isi. Webpage accessed May 30, 2025; https://lessons.myjli.com/survival/index.php/2017/03/26/land-ownership-in-palestine-1880-1948/

Raw Milk: Is It Safe to Consume?

 

Is drinking raw milk safe? It depends on the type of milk and how it’s consumed.

For example, raw human breast milk seems to be the best food for infants. In contrast, raw cows' milk is generally not recommended for humans by health experts, although raw cows' milk may be relatively safe if prepared and consumed properly. Below are more details.  

A Mother’s Raw Breast Milk for Her Baby/Babies

Most experts seem to agree that for human babies raw breast milk from their mother is the best food. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-25 [1] states on page 54, “Human milk feeding alone is the ideal form of nutrition from birth through about age 6 months. Human milk provides necessary nutrients, protective factors against disease, and other unique immunological benefits.”

The same page 54 goes on to state, “Human milk can support an infant’s nutrient needs for about the first 6 months of life, with the exception of vitamin D and potentially iron.” The page goes on to recommend that if a family is using donor milk from someone other than the birth mother to “obtain pasteurized donor human milk from a source, such as an accredited human milk bank, that has screened its donors and taken appropriate safety precautions.”

The document also provides guidelines for the proper handling and storage of breast milk (and human milk) on page 55 and goes on to discuss using vitamin D supplements on page 56.

In addition to The Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025, The World Health Organization website [2] states, “Breastmilk is the ideal food for infants.” The National Institutes of Health [3] and the American Academy of Pediatrics [4] also support breastfeeding.

I want to add that it’s important for a mother who breastfeeds a child to try to eat a nutritious diet.

Raw Cows' Milk and Pasteurized Cows' Milk

Just as raw human breast milk is the best food source for a human infant, raw cows' milk is likely the best source of nutrition for calves.

However, raw cows' milk for humans may be risky unless precautions are taken.

Although many people drink raw milk without experiencing harmful side effects, a significant number of others do experience problems. Studies make it clear that persons are more likely to get sick from raw milk than pasteurized milk, as noted in a U.S. Food & Drug Administration [5] article.

However, raw milk problems may often be due in large part to improper processing. An article on the Raw Milk Institute [6] distinguishes between two types of raw milk, that "intended for direct human consumption" and that "intended for pasteurization." It states safety steps taken to make the raw milk for direct human consumption safer. Still, the health risks of raw milk exceed those of pasteurized milk.

By the way, cow milking has progressed much over the years. During a 2022 visit to Chicago, I toured the huge, magnificent Chicago Museum of Science and Industry where I saw a robotic milker and a device that allowed museum visitors to test their milking ability, as shown in the two photos below that I took. Those are not actual cows in the photos. 

  

Personally, I recommend persons consuming cows’ milk to consume pasteurized milk. But as I discuss later in this article, I strongly urge humans to seek to adhere to a nutritious vegan diet that avoids dairy and animal products.

Nonetheless, I recognize that many choose to enjoy a cow’s milk, including my mom, who has loved milk since childhood.

My Mom’s Childhood Raw Milk Consumption from Family Cows

My 91-year-old mom drank a lot of raw milk as a child. My belief is that it did her more good than harm. During her childhood, refrigeration was limited. Mom doesn’t even think her local grocery had refrigeration or carried milk at that time. She drank raw milk from a family cow.

According to mom, when they milked their cow twice a day, they cleaned the cow’s udders with water from the well. After milking the cow, they strained the raw milk through a clean cloth into a container. They boiled the cloth to sterilize it prior to using it. They stored the milk in their cool well or a cool coal bank.

After mom’s family got a refrigerator, they refrigerated the milk. Also, when they starting buying bleach, they bleached the cloth used to strain the milk instead of boiling the cloth. They rinsed the bleach out of the cloth before using it.

During my mom’s high school years, she sometimes milked the family cow when her mom was unable to.

Though my mom and her family apparently consumed raw cows' milk safely, persons who choose to consume raw cows' milk would do well to take plenty of precautions.

A Vegan Diet

Humans who eat a well-balanced nutritious vegan diet can avoid drinking cows' milk—raw or pasteurized.

Personally, I seek to adhere to a quality (though I’m not perfect at it) vegan diet. Therefore, I try to avoid consuming milk from a cow at all.

I recommend a well-balanced vegan diet for others too. A vegan diet may even be cheaper than one that includes meat and dairy products.

Inflation has rendered prices in my 2016 article, “Eat a Vegan Diet for Under $5 a Day,” [7] outdated. Still, the article’s basic principles remain true.

Concluding Thoughts

I recommend breastfeeding human infants raw milk from the child’s mother when reasonably possible. 

For older children and adults, I recommend seeking to adhere to a nutritious vegan diet.

If cows' milk is consumed by humans, I strongly recommend that it be pasteurized milk.

But I am neither a medical professional nor a dietician. I can’t give either medical or dietary guidance.    

ENDNOTES:

1 “Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2020-2025”; USDA Publication #: USDA-FNS-2020-2025-DGA HHS Publication #: HHS-ODPHP-2020-2025-01-DGA-A; page 54; webpage accessed April 29, 2025; https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans_2020-2025.pdf

2 “Breastfeeding”; World Health Organization; webpage accessed April 29, 2025; https://www.who.int/health-topics/breastfeeding#tab=tab_1

3 “Infant and Young Child Feeding: Model Chapter for Textbooks for Medical Students and Allied Health Professionals: Session 2: The physiological basis of breastfeeding”; National Institute of Health, National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information; copyright 2009, World Health Organization; webpage accessed April 29, 2025; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK148970/

4 Meek, Joan Younger and Noble, Lawrence; “Policy Statement: Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk”; American Academy of Pediatrics; June 27, 2022; webpage accessed April 29, 2025; https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/1/e2022057988/188347/Policy-Statement-Breastfeeding-and-the-Use-of

5 “Raw Milk Misconceptions and the Danger of Raw Milk Consumption”; U.S. Food & Drug Administration; content current as of March 5, 2024; webpage accessed April 29, 2025; https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/raw-milk-misconceptions-and-danger-raw-milk-consumption

6 Smith, Sarah; “Two Types of Raw Milk”; Raw Milk Institute; August 9, 2024; webpage accessed April 29, 2025; https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/two-types-of-raw-milk

7 Gibson, James Edwin; “Eat a Vegan Diet for Under $5 a Day”; Google Blogger; October 24, 2016; webpage accessed April 29, 2025; https://oneopinionsomeviews.blogspot.com/2016/10/vegan-diet-for-under-5-day.html

Scientific Facts, Scientific Assumptions, and Falsehoods: We Sometimes Confuse Them

Many (most?) of us at least occasionally confuse scientific facts with scientific assumptions and/or scientific falsehoods.

Even reading something in a science textbook, such as the textbooks pictured below, doesn't make something a scientific fact.

                                       

To help make the distinction between them clear, in the next section I provide one example of each of the three, regarding the planet Earth. 

One Example of Each 

Scientific Fact: The Earth is a globe that revolves around the sun. Observations by astronomers, astronauts, satellites, etc., offer corroboration for this. It’s an accepted fact. However, to complicate things, even facts are subject to debate. The Flat Earth Society[1] offers some evidence to dispute the Earth being a globe on its website.

Scientific Assumption: The Earth is billions of years old. You can call this a hypothesis, or even a theory, that is well supported by available evidence. However, there is inadequate proof at the present time to call it a fact. Quality human records only go back centuries, or at best thousands of years. Any theory about time before then is based on assumptions about constants, constant changes, etc. And I’m ignoring the possibility of time travel to keep it simple. A key method used to date the Earth at over 4 billion years old is radiometric dating of rocks based on those assumptions of constant changes, as reported by articles on LiveScience,[2] Space,[3] and other places. What if those constants aren’t really constant over billions of years? 

Scientific Falsehood: The Earth is currently the hottest it’s ever been. Reputable scientists all consider that totally false, despite what you may read in news reports. Scientists actually believe the opposite. The scientific assumption is that the Earth was at its hottest in its early days, molten, as reported on Climate[4] and numerous other website articles. Scientists feel that the Earth has generally been cooling ever since, though there have been ups and downs. Furthermore, our planet is expected to continue to cool in the upcoming millions and billions of years, assuming the planet continues to exist. A 2022 WeatherChannel website[5] article even states that “Earth’s interior is cooling faster than expected.”

One More Example of Each

I hope the above three illustrations help make the distinction between scientific facts, assumptions, and falsehoods clearer. I’ll provide one more example of each, regarding the Earth’s temperature.

Scientific Fact: The Earth has generally been warming since the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s. Scientists have fairly accurate records of many temperatures on Earth for the last century or two. They show a fairly consistent warming trend since the late 1800s with a few exceptions such as a cooling period in the 1970s. A NASA[6] article states that “Air temperatures on Earth have been rising since the Industrial Revolution.”

Scientific Assumption: The Earth’s warming in the last century or two is due to human activities such as the Industrial Revolution. The NASA[6] article cited earlier notes that “the preponderance of evidence indicates that human activities . . . are mostly responsible.” Yes, there’s strong evidence to support human causation. But it’s impossible to totally account for all other factors to make it certain that humanity’s Industrial Revolution is the cause. Other factors could be contributing in ways we don’t know about yet.

Scientific Falsehood: If we don’t make changes, the Earth will continue growing hotter and hotter. As mentioned earlier, there’s an expected general cooling trend in geologic terms of millions of years.

What Will Happen to Earth's Temperatures in Coming Decades and Centuries?

The short answer is that humans don't know. But the heating of the Earth may not continue in the shorter term of decades and centuries. Effects on rainfall, plant growth, etc., of the current increases in temperature projected over the future are subjective. A 2016 NASA[7] article noted that “for now” global warming is benefitting plant growth. 

That NASA article referenced a "study published in the journal Nature Climate Change." The Nature Climate Change journal[8] article states that the study found that "during 1982-2009" that greening increased ". . . .over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing. . . ."

Scientists don’t know yet what all the long-term effects will be.

One factor that may impact things is that humans will likely greatly reduce using fossil fuels either voluntarily or due to declining supply over the next century.

One Natural Occurrence That Greatly Affected Climate

Remember that unexpected things like earthquakes, volcano eruptions, etc., can impact our environment in ways that surprise scientists. For example, a volcanic eruption in the early 1800s led to such massive volcanic debris worldwide that 1816 became known as the year without a summer in some areas, with extremely cold temperatures.

One of the numerous articles about this volcanic eruption is on the United States National Park Service website.[9] That article states “the eruption of Mount Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 triggered a change in the global climate.” The article goes on to state, “The cloud blocked sunlight from reaching the earth and changed the global climate by 2-7 degrees Fahrenheit." The article also states, "in 1816, summer never came to the New England states."

Let’s Seek to Be Critical Readers, Listeners, and Viewers

I remember decades ago being urged to use plastic bags instead of paper ones to save trees. I sought to do so. Then I was urged to use recyclable ones instead of plastic to reduce oil consumption and plastic waste in the ocean. Then during COVID-19 some urged us to avoid using reusable bags to help reduce the spread of disease.

Changes often lead to unforeseen consequences. Solar energy is touted as clean energy. I'm glad its use is increasing. But many minerals must be mined from the ground to produce solar panels. High winds and storms can damage solar panels. Furthermore, large scale conversion of the sun’s energy to electricity via solar power may lead to unforeseen consequences we lack knowledge of yet.

Let’s seek to be critical readers who don’t always accept the latest fad or “scientific fact” as fact without seeking to think for ourselves logically.

However, while I lack knowledge about the future of global warming or of ocean levels, I wouldn’t want to move to a low-lying island in the ocean.

I'm not a scientist, and even scientists can't accurately predict the future. But it does appear that sea levels are rising due to melting glaciers and increasing temperatures and likely will continue to for some years at least. How many years? Only God knows?

NOTE: This article was last revised October 18, 2023.

---

[1] The Flat Earth Society website; webpage accessed October 17, 2023; https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/index.php/about-the-society/faq

[2] Freedman, Ethan; “How do we know how old Earth is?”; LiveScience.com; April 15, 2023; webpage accessed October 17, 2023; https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/how-do-we-know-how-old-earth-is

[3] Tillman, Nola Taylor; “How old is Earth?”; Space.com; August 20, 2021; webpage accessed October 17, 2023; https://www.space.com/24854-how-old-is-earth.html

[4] Scott, Michon and Lindsey, Rebecca; “What’s the hottest Earth’s ever been?”; Climate.gov; June 18, 2020, but first published in August 2014; webpage viewed October 17, 2023; https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been#:~:text=Because%20no%20rocks%20on%20Earth,Kelvin%20(3%2C680%C2%B0F).

 [5] Dixit, Mrigakshi; “Earth’s Interior Is Cooling Faster Than Previously Estimated! Here’s Why It Matters”; TWC India; January 19, 2022; Weather.com; webpage accessed October 17, 2023; https://weather.com/en-IN/india/science/news/2022-01-19-earth-interior-is-cooling-faster-than-previously-estimated

[6] “World of Change: Global Temperatures”; NASA.gov; webpage accessed October 17, 2023; https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures

[7] Reiny, Samson; “CO2 is making Earth greener—for now”; NASA; April 26, 2016; webpage accessed October 17, 2023 and again October 18, 2023; https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/#:~:text=Studies%20have%20shown%20that%20increased,chief%20culprit%20of%20climate%20change

[8] Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R. et al.; "Greening of the Earth and its drivers"; Nature Climate Change, 6, 791-795 (2016); April 25, 2016; webpage accessed October 18, 2023; https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004#citeas

[9] “1816 – The Year Without Summer”; National Park Service website; last updated April 4^th, 2023; webpage accessed October 17, 2023; https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/1816-the-year-without-summer.htm#:~:text=1816%2C%20also%20known%20as%20the,change%20in%20the%20global%20climate.

 

What Is a Christian?

As I see it, a true Christian is one who puts obeying the highest righteous authority, God, first, regardless of what the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Masonic lodge, church pastors, or any other human organization or person supports.

It means putting God above the government. It means putting God above family. And yes, it means putting God above oneself.

And it means loving others, even one's enemies if one has any.

Is anyone really a true Christian? Perhaps not. But the closer each of us comes to being a true Christian, seeking to practice true Christianity, the better off things will be, as I see it.

I discuss my concept of authentic Christianity in my book, True Christianity: It May Not Be What You Think, third edition. Below is a photo of the front cover of that book.

Closing Thoughts

Readers interested in learning various details about Christianity and its history can do so by reading  numerous articles online, including the article "Christianity"on Britannica.com.

If someone put a gun to my head, asked me if I was a Christian and said that they would kill me if I was, I like to think that I'd reply something like "I try hard to do what is right, to be a follower of the best teachings, but I fall short of being a true follower of the book, a true Christian. What do you think I should do to do better?"

But I think one never really knows how one will behave in a particular situation until one faces it. In reality, I might panic and deny being a Christian three times, just as Peter is recorded in the Bible as three times denying knowing Jesus.

Finally, as I state near the end of my book, true Christianity may not be what I think it is either. I don't claim perfect insight into God or Christianity. God deserves the credit to the extent I succeed, and I am responsible for my failings. All any of us can do is seek to do our best and to trust God for the rest.

NOTE:

This article was last revised and updated on April 25, 2023, from a Google Blogger article originally published in 2015.

How Safe Are FDIC-Insured Bank Deposits?

How safe are bank deposits insured by the FDIC? The answer is open to debate.

Furthermore, I'm not an expert on it. But I believe that FDIC-insured deposits are safe under almost all circumstances.

Some Reasons FDIC-Insured Deposits Are Reasonably Safe

Some basics about how the U.S. banking system operates are discussed on FDIC webpages, including information about the FDIC insuring individual deposits up to $250,000 in member banks.

While the money directly available immediately to the FDIC to pay depositors isn't enough to cover all potential losses if every FDIC-insured bank failed at once, such a catastrophe is unlikely.

Furthermore, if large-scale bank closings happened, more money could be appropriated by Congress.

But perhaps much more important is that in most scenarios, when a bank with FDIC-protected deposits fails and the government takes over that bank, the bank still has significant assets of various types, even though those assets may be exceeded by liabilities.

Even a failed bank would typically hold some government bonds, some loans that are still being paid on by borrowers, etc. The revenue from these would be expected to be sufficient to pay the $250,000 per depositor.    

Therefore, if a bank fails and the government takes it over, the bank likely has some value. The government may sell the bank to another bank to keep it open.

Even if the bank doesn't reopen, the government likely can sell the bank's remaining assets for enough to pay the up to $250,000 for one account to each depositor that is guaranteed by FDIC insurance.

Indeed, there might be enough revenue from selling bank assets to repay all or the majority of the bank depositors' money that is over $250,000.

In bank failures with FDIC-insured deposits, the small depositors are not likely to suffer losses.

However, larger depositors may lose money. Furthermore, the bank(s)' owners, its stockholders, would almost certainly lose money, maybe all their investment.

The Federal Reserve System

Local banks are served by the Federal Reserve Banks similar to the way local banks serve individuals and businesses. A Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis article discusses the Federal Reserve Bank system.

Among other things, these Federal Reserve Banks serve to help out local banks when needed in various ways.

Below is a June 20, 2022, photo of an identifying plaque on the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago building.

These Federal Reserve Banks can provide loans to retail banks to help with liquidity, etc., subject to government regulations. 

Closing Thoughts

It's good to diversify one's assets. Keep some money in cash, some in banks, and some in other forms if reasonably possible.

But depositing up to $250,000 per individual in an account in an FDIC-insured bank is likely one of the safest ways to invest U.S. currency. And most of us, including me, have far less than $250,000 in banks.

However, this article just expresses my opinions. Please don't blame me if my views turn out to be wrong.

Seek information from various sources and seek to make the best decision you can for your own particular situation.

I'm a firm believer that if we seek to put the highest righteous power, God, first that things will work out well.

NOTE:

This article was last revised on March 28, 2023. 

Christ as Son of Man: Jesus Credited God Rather Than Claiming to Be God

Jesus accomplished many great “miracles” according to the New Testament gospels. But he credited God for them rather than claiming credit himself. Was Jesus God or only a man seeking to obey God?

Many Christians consider it blasphemy to imply that Jesus was only a man. Fellow Christians, please seek to read this article completely with an open mind before accusing this writer of heresy.

The word Trinity is not in the Bible. Furthermore, numerous Bible scriptures indicate that Jesus was only a human being rather than being God. I reference some of those scriptures in a subsection below.

It is sad that disputes continue over whether or not Jesus was God. Fortunately, the more time Christians devote to loving and caring for others, the less time is wasted in divisive debates.

When I was in elementary school one of the boys I played with told me that his dad said that the relationship between Jesus and God was similar to the relationship between Saint Nicholas and Santa Claus. I think the boy said that Jesus was a great man, as was Saint Nicholas, but that the idea that Jesus was God was fictional, as were the tales we typically read about Santa Claus. I think that comparison has a significant amount of truth in it.

Let’s make the world a better place by helping others. Let’s follow Paul’s advice in II Timothy 2:14 to “. . . strive not about words to no profit. . .” (KJV).

Unity and the Trinity

The issue of the Trinity is one of the biggest obstacles to accepting Christianity for a lot of nonbelievers, including many in other major monotheistic religions, such as Islam and Judaism. Even a few Christian denominations (such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons) do not accept the doctrine of the Trinity.

Personally, I became a Christian as an adult by reading the New Testament prayerfully with an open mind. During my reading, I saw no mention of the Trinity. Even after reading the entire New Testament, I did not understand how Jesus could be God.

If we acquire a better understanding of what the Bible says, maybe we can then better help unite Christians and become more effective in witnessing to nonbelievers. I think the Bible clearly demonstrates Jesus' humanity.

Who knows? If Jesus had more closely followed his own instructions to love even one's enemies, instead of turning over tables in the temple and driving out the buyers and sellers, he might have experienced a longer ministry. (See Mark 11:15–16, Matthew 21:12, and Luke 19:45 for this story). Even if Jesus' indignation was justified, I believe it could have been exhibited more effectively. That violent action was a key factor in the series of events that led to his crucifixion soon afterward, in my opinion.

I cited the above story from the three synoptic gospels. However, John 2:13–15 contains a similar description.

John's gospel is probably the book used most often by Christians who seek to “prove” the truth of the Trinity. To help individuals appreciate how even Christians can reject the divinity of Jesus, I will discuss several quotes from the book of John. Many consider John to be the greatest book in the Bible.

Analyzing Some Quotes from the Book of John

In the book of John and the other gospels, numerous references are made to Jesus praying. I never understood why Christians considered Jesus God if Jesus needed to pray.

I do not believe God needs to pray. If God did pray, whom would God pray to? Yet, Jesus prayed regularly. Thus, rather than being God, Jesus was a man, God’s son, who prayed to God frequently. John 17 cites one of Jesus’ many prayers. John 17:3 states, “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” (KJV) Therefore, Jesus was “sent” by God rather than being God.

Also, instead of calling himself God, Jesus referred to himself as “Son of man” (KJV). He did this numerous times in John and the other gospels. Of course, this does not mean he is not also a “Son of God,” since the two terms are not mutually exclusive. In fact, God is the creator of us all and in a sense the Father of us all.

As John 1:12 states, all believers receive “. . . power to become the sons of God . . .” (KJV) Therefore, we Christians are all sons of God. A major difference exists, however, between being a “son of God” and being God. And John 3:16 apparently quotes Jesus as stating that he is God's son, rather than being God.

John details many “miracles” Jesus performed: raising the dead, healing the sick, feeding multitudes with very limited food, etc. Jesus did not claim to do these on his own, though. Instead, Jesus credited God his Father. Jesus stated clearly that he could do nothing were it not for God his Father, stating in John 5:19 “. . . The Son can do nothing of himself . . .” (KJV)

Jesus makes it even clearer that he is a man and not God in John 8:40, which states, “But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God . . .” (KJV) Jesus is only a man telling the truth about God—though I might nominate Jesus as the most influential man who ever lived, the man most obedient to God.

After John reports about Jesus being crucified and resurrected, John states in John 20:17 that Jesus told Mary to “. . . go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” (KJV) Thus, he is not calling himself God, stating instead that he is going to God.

Even though Jesus was not God, as a righteous man seeking to obey God, a son of God, Jesus could pray to God his Father and receive guidance through the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Jesus in a sense relayed the words of God his Father and spoke for God on many occasions. Therefore, Jesus says in John 14:9 “. . . he that hath seen me hath seen the Father . . .” (KJV) So though Jesus was not God, in a sense those who saw and heard Jesus were often seeing and hearing God, as the Holy Spirit directed Jesus’ thoughts, words, and actions. In that sense, Jesus was one with God.

In John 12:49, John records Jesus as stating clearly that God directed his words, when Jesus is quoted as stating: “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.” (KJV)

It is important to point out as this discussion about John ends that it is always dangerous to quote scripture, because it is very easy to take verses out of context to mislead people. Also, for unbelievers the Bible is not a credible source, so what the Bible says may be irrelevant to them. My purpose in using the quotes I cited from John was to demonstrate that the concept of Jesus being only a man rather than being God is well supported in scripture.

Persons who seek to use John or other gospels to “prove” Jesus’ divinity seem in this writer’s opinion to be only citing a few select scriptures out of context, in contrast to the numerous scriptures that refer to Jesus’ humanity. Perhaps 70 or 80 or more times in the KJV Jesus apparently calls himself “Son of man,” in addition to other references to himself as “Son” or “Son of God.” Does Jesus even once call himself God?

Closing Thoughts and Recommendations

Fellow Christians, please consider what John states on the issue rather than being too dogmatic in support of the doctrine of the Trinity. The book of John provides much evidence to oppose the idea of Jesus being God. You can find lots of additional evidence in the other gospels, as well as in the other books of the Bible—if you take the time to do so.

I hope this article has helped persons who believe in the Trinity to rethink their beliefs or at least appreciate how other Christians can believe differently. Maybe this article can also help Christians interact more effectively with Muslims, Jews, and others who accept monotheism, but cannot comprehend the Trinity.

Even more important, if we Christians focus on various areas of ministry to others such as feeding the poor, caring for the disabled, helping widows and orphans, and doing other good deeds, persons will respect us and have a positive view about our faith. They will love us more for our actions than for our words.

Our acts of service then present opportunities to share the gospel. Still, we must be sure to do so in a loving way that unites the faith on its common beliefs, rather than teaching a divisive doctrine to potential new believers that may lead them to either reject the faith or to unfairly condemn those of other denominations and faiths.

Please, let’s demonstrate love for all as Jesus taught. Remember, Jesus is recorded as commanding his followers to “Love your enemies” in part of Matthew 5:44 and Luke 6:27 (both KJV). By demonstrating compassionate love we can attain joy and success that lead others to ask the source of our fulfillment.

I find this to be true. People regularly compliment me on being so happy and ask why I am so happy. Then I can witness in love about the gospel.

I know, love, and respect many Christians who espouse strong beliefs in the Trinity. It is even possible (despite my disbelief) that Jesus really is God through some miracle of God.

But, as we spread the gospel, let’s all seek to avoid needless controversies over the doctrine of the Trinity. Let's avoid stating that the Trinity is Biblical, when the Bible doesn't mention it even once. Instead, let's use God’s words to build up others! When we do, we will enjoy God’s blessings!

I hope you found this article educational and beneficial. If so, maybe you want to read more of my views on true Christianity by reading a preview of my book True Christianity: It May Not Be What You Think, Third Edition, on Amazon, or by ordering a copy from Amazon or a bookstore. Below is a photo of a JPG file of the book cover.

NOTE: This article is adapted/reprinted from chapter 8 “Jesus as Son of Man” in my book True Christianity: It May Not Be What You Think, Third Edition, which is copyright © 2017, 2019 by James E. Gibson.