"Woe to you, scribes and pastors, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous, and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'"
To appreciate the meaning of this, you need to remember that LaHaye and Jenkins don't think of the U.N. as a diplomatic forum for the nations of the world. They think of it as a kind of global government. The secretary-general is, to them, a kind of world overlord. (They seem to think the word "general" in that title entails global military rank.)
The difference is justice. Justice is the necessary ingredient without which no worship, prayer, assembly, offering or other form of religious expression will be regarded as legitimate by God Almighty. Injustice delegitimizes all religion. It turns that which God has commanded into something that God detests.
The problem for those attempting to argue that Douglass' rhetoric was anti-Bible is that his supposedly anti-Bible rhetoric is taken directly from the Bible. It is -- in both style and substance -- explicitly and utterly biblical. He is imitating, emulating and directly quoting from the Bible itself.
"This horrible blasphemy is palmed off upon the world for Christianity. For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done!"
The faction defending the status quo is -- correctly -- portrayed as the "conservative" side. They're fighting to prevent change. They embody the definition of conservatism by standing athwart history and yelling "Stop!" And thus, because they are in that sense conservative, they also tend to portray themselves and to be portrayed by others as being religiously conservative. Thus positioned as the representatives of religious conservatism, they are therefore also perceived as the defenders of true religion against the liberals and the anti-religious. Everyone else therefore has "a religion problem." Everyone except them.
Cameron "Buck" Williams is the Dirty Harry of journalism, the renegade maverick who plays by his own rules, etc. We've seen little evidence to support this characterization. Ignoring his deadline for the cover story on a global cataclysm might technically count as "bucking" journalistic convention, I suppose, in the same way that his craven willingness to drop his story in order to save his own hide bucks the conventions of "crusading journalist" stories, but I doubt that's what the authors had in mind.
“Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house,” the messenger tells Job. “And suddenly a great wind came across the desert, struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead; I alone have escaped to tell you.” When Job learned that his children had died, he wept. But God did not weep.
What had happened was that I'd made it all the way to Numbers. I was doing it -- reading the whole Bible all the way through, start-to-finish, just as we'd been urged and encouraged and admonished to do. And I was reading it devotionally, a little bit every morning, prayerfully and with pen in hand, meditating on its meaning and application to my daily life and my daily walk and God's Plan For My Life. Yet no matter how much I prayed or meditated, there just seemed to be a lot of days when I didn't find anything that seemed terribly profitable for doctrine, or for reproof, or for correction, or for instruction in righteousness.
The start of a new year brings us a wide variety of read-through-the-Bible-in-a-year plans. Some of these are more sophisticated than others, but ultimately all such checklist approaches boil down to basic arithmetic. Our Bibles have been conveniently chopped into 31,102 verses, divided by 365 days in a year. So then it's just a matter of slicing it into little 85.2-verse chunks for daily consumption. This is a very strange, unhelpful way to read a book.