Let your words be few

This is always good advice; advice that I sometimes don’t heed. From the Preacher, as recorded in Ecclesiastes chapter 5:

1 Guard your steps when you go to the house of God. To draw near to listen is better than to offer the sacrifice of fools, for they do not know that they are doing evil. 2 Be not rash with your mouth, nor let your heart be hasty to utter a word before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth. Therefore let your words be few. 3For a dream comes with much business, and a fool’s voice with many words.

It’s clear what God expects of us; it is a theme that is repeated over and over by the prophets, and by our Lord, who expressed the same concept in Matthew 5:37:

Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil.

This isn’t just a rule for right living; it is what God expects of us. It is among the lessons we take from Scripture, which our faith must encourage us to take to heart.


One comment

  1. “The most passionate advocates of evolutionary theory offer a vision of man as a kind of historical accident. That being the case, many believers — myself included — reject arguments for evolution that dismiss the possibility of divine causality.”
    It is telling that he doesn’t reject the theory because there is no evidence to support it. He rejects it because he finds the consequences of the theory conflicts with his theology. He therefore is rejecting a scientific thory on an unscientific basis. And yet he maintains that “It does not strike me as anti-science”. Well I suppose it may not be anti-science, but it isn’t science either.

    “Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order”
    We know nothing of the sort. This is a religious conviction and such should have no basis for the rejection or acceptance of scientific theories. Only evidence and data should determine the fate of scientific theories.

    “Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”
    Wow, so he states quite flatly that one should pick and choose which science to believe based on one’s religious presuppositions. Science is not based on any “atheistic theology”, which is an oxymoron if I have ever heard one. Science is not based on any theology. It is nonreligous not anti-religious. I hope our next president understands the distinction.

    Our current bible believing, anti-science president has certainly done a heck of a job.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: