Using Eggs to Foretell the Future

1915

The White of the Egg is Recommended

This is one of the least known of all methods of foretelling the future, according to the ancient, secret wisdom of prophetic insight. Yet it is one of the most interesting, and easy to perform — though, of course, like all methods of the kind, some skill and practice are necessary in order to interpret quickly and speedily the symbolic interpretations of the signs presented, writes Prof. Sothnos Lalillier in the New York American.

In order to practice this part of cabalistic interpretation, you must procure a fresh egg — as new-laid as possible — and carefully separate the white of the egg from the yolk. Nearly fill a tumbler with cold water and drop the white of the egg into it, a drop at a time. Now place this glass carefully aside for 24 hours, being sure to cover the glass carefully, and that the water does not become warmed by proximity to a radiator, etc.

When you again look at the glass, you will find that your white of egg has congealed into various odd-shaped figures — circles, squares, animals, trees, crosses, etc. — which are to be interpreted according to the formula that follows.

Long, wavy lines denote losses and troubles; straight lines, on the contrary, denote peace, long life, prosperity and happiness.

Squares denote peace and happiness; a ring, marriage. If a letter can be discovered near the ring this will be the first letter of the name of the person you are to marry. If clouds are about the ring, think long and carefully before accepting this person, even if he offers marriage.

If a leaf is seen, speedy good fortune will come your way from some unexpected source. If an anchor is seen, fidelity in love is indicated. If a dog is seen, this is a good sign, if near the top of the glass, denoting faithful friends; if near the middle, doubtful ones; and if near the bottom, enemies to be avoided.

A lily or similar flower foretells happiness, if near the top of the glass; disappointment if near the bottom. If a number of small dots or spots are present, money is coming your way, unless clouds surround them, in which case you will receive bad tidings and notice of losses. A heart denotes a love letter which you will shortly receive. The sun, moon, or stars denote happiness and success.

Value of Science on Modern Faith

California, 1922

Miracles are not in keeping with the scientific interpretation of life and the universe. Human ignorance, carelessness, vice and greed are the causes of most disease. The rules of sanitation are not observed and scores of innocent persons die. Supernatural belief, which may bar the use of simple medicine, is responsible for the death of many more. Physicians and surgeons are among the greatest benefactors of mankind.

These statements were made by Rev. Clarence Reed, pastor of the First Unitarian church, in a sermon on "Prayer Cures vs. Medical Cures," delivered yesterday morning.

"It was perfectly natural for primitive man to believe that the different diseases from which he suffered were imparted to him by evil spirits," Rev. Reed said. "He beheld from day to day what seemed to him to be miracles of cure, because he did not understand the laws of the universe.

"If a person accepts the literal interpretation of the Bible, it is natural for him to believe in the possibility of prayer and faith cures. But the person who accepts the scientific interpretation of life and the universe does not believe in miracles. If Christ and His apostles performed miracles there is no reason devout Christians cannot perform them today.

"Auto-suggestion has great value in the treatment of certain diseases. No matter what a person's belief or theory may be in regard to prayer or faith healing, most people have sense enough to send for a physician in case of serious sickness.

"Prayer has been valued in the past as a means to obtain material prosperity and health. The aim of prayer should be to help man develop himself by treasuring the highest ideals in his mind, and seeking the uplift of mankind."

—Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA, Aug. 21, 1922, p. 8.

Trouble Arises in Geneva Church

Iowa, 1914

Ackley, Ia., Jan. 9. — From Geneva comes the report that the differences existing in the Methodist congregation have broken into a fierce fight.

The trouble appears to have arisen through the refusal of Rev. T. M. Neilsen — who has been there two years — to move, according to church custom, he having been returned by the last conference. This did not suit a faction, but the parson used moral suasion in efforts to quiet the dissenters.

Now that the trouble is on Rev. Neilson very naturally feels that he should not retire while under fire, especially when the only complaint against him is that some members of his church object to his interpretation of the scriptures. The higher officials of the church, however, will probably order a change before the present two-year term expires, for the reason that it is their custom to move a pastor when local conditions prevent him doing effective work, and as a rule they pursue this course regardless of whether the pastor has been at fault or not.

In the meantime the row stirred up by the dissenting members is looked upon by the officials of the church as a case of insubordination, for the reason that they have done the best they could and think that there should be patience shown the men who have been elected to govern in these matters.

The Present Church Controversy

1923

By the Rev. L. W. Almy, Pastor
Marquette Park Presbyterian Church

Newspapers the country over are giving publicity to the controversy now on in church circles between "Fundamentalists" and "Modernists." What is the average church member to think of it? Should he be disturbed, and lose his faith in God and his church? Let us see. "Fundamentalists" represent the more conservative type of Christian thinking. They are devout, earnest men. They love the Lord Jesus sincerely. They accept the Bible "from Genesis to Revelation," And they tend to a literal interpretation of the Bible's language. For instance, in Genesis, chapter 14, we find the story of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, pursued by Pharaoh's army. It is recorded that the water was "a wall unto them on their right hand and on their left." The Fundamentalist pictures water standing in perpendicular walls on either side of the fleeing Israelites.

"Modernists," on the other hand, are also sincere and earnest Christians. They represent a different type of thought from the "Fundamentalists." Modern science, with its increasing knowledge of the universe and man, has given a wider range of learning which the "Modernists" accept as authority to a greater or less degree. And the "Modernist" holds that God is great enough to have created this larger world which scientists have shown us. But the "Modernist" tends to a liberal interpretation of the Bible story. In the Red Sea story of the Israelites he finds (Genesis 14:21) that "Jehovah caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land." Here, to the "Modernist," is a natural cause of the miracle; and God used the wind to sweep the water back. Perpendicular walls, in a world where water does not stand upright, is to him unnatural.

The average church member should do his own thinking. God spoke to the boy Samuel and the Apostle Paul directly, and He will speak to humble hearts today. If this controversy is the result of earnest desire to understand God, we can be sure God will lead us to a higher understanding of Him. It is a sign that Christians are thinking. We have not "decayed at the top," but are using our heads. And it speaks well for the spirit of the day. The average man, therefore, ought to take a keen interest in the discussion. He ought to feel that God's truth is eternally true, and science can't kill it any more than "conservative stubbornness."

A New Year dawns. It will be an epochal year in the history of religion in America. It may end in a progressive step; it can end in disaster. It ought to call forth Christian patience and tolerance on each side of the controversy. Each side is Christian. Each believes in God the Father and Creator of the universe and of mankind. Each believes devoutly in Jesus as God's incarnate Son. Each desires to spread the Gospel of Love and Purity, and Peace, through Him. Let us hope that next year will see more light and less heat; more patience and less denunciation; more tolerance and less intolerance. We shall then come through the discussion without harm to the churches, and with less to regret.

—The Merchants Telegram, Chicago, Dec. 27, 1923, p. 4.

Brands Higher Critics of The Bible as Judases

1907

Minister Attacks Biblical World and Professors Are Scored

St. Louis, Nov. 13.— At yesterday's session of the Bible League of North America meeting the conference's 13-inch theological guns were turned upon the Biblical World, one of the official publications of the University of Chicago. The indignation of the conference was aroused by the publication recently of an editorial in this magazine, in which the second advent of Christ was derided and the resurrection of Jesus denied.

The chief address of the day was made by Rev. W. M. McPheeters, D.D., instructor in the Southern Presbyterian Theological seminary at Columbia S.C. His subject was "Has the Influence of Radical Criticism Been Wholly to the Advantage of Religion and the Bible?"

This question the minister answered with an emphatic and indignant negative.

Criticism Kiss of Judas.

"Higher criticism is not the Roman's spear," said he, "which pierced the side of the Lord. It is rather the kiss of Judas, which, under the pretense of friendliness, aims at the destruction of religion. We, the adherents of literal faith in every work of holy writ, are contending today for the altar and the hearthstone.

"Radical criticism, such as that voiced by the University of Chicago proposes a complete change from Christianity to infidelity. It not only presumes to modify, but even, on occasions, rejects the truth taught by Christ, such as his resurrection and second advent.

"There are a few ambitious young men at the university, who, impatient of obscurity and meager pay, think to procure themselves better positions by attracting publicity. This aim they can accomplish best by sensational attacks upon what is holy.

"The editorial says that the expectation of Christ's second coming is based not on the historical but the imaginative portions of the Bible. But the second advent is mentioned in the Acts, a historical book. It is estimated that every twenty-fifth verse of the Old Testament refers to the second coming of the Messiah."

Uses Sarcasm as Weapon.

A paper satirizing the methods of higher criticism, by one of the ministers present, was read at the morning session by Rev. P. V. Genness. The author, by adopting the reasoning as he understood it, of the higher critics, sarcastically proved that the Declaration of Independence was not written until after the civil war.

Rev. Dr. C. J. Scofield, of the First Congregational church, Dallas, Texas, said that the beliefs expressed by the Biblical World, if generally adopted, would work the subversion of all religion.

"These young professors, said he, "have almost reached the point where they consider the Bible not a divine, but merely a human document."

The motto of the Bible League of America is "Back to the Bible." Its purpose is to renew faith in both testaments and to oppose the inroads of higher criticism.

—Fort Wayne Sentinel, Fort Wayne, IN, Nov. 13, 1907, p. 5.

Attitude of the Church Towards Science and The Higher Criticism

1904

By Rev. J. S. BRYAN, Sparta, Georgia
Methodist Church

The time has not been very long since freedom of thought was considered a crime, and every newly discovered truth which contradicted the church's standards of doctrine was condemned as heresy. The church attempted to suppress the spirit of free inquiry with rack sword and fire; but even these violent means proved ineffectual. Men endowed with Godlike faculties will think, and thinking will inevitably lead to new discoveries of truth. The church has been taught a severe lesson of wisdom and toleration by her former mistakes, and she must henceforth assume a different attitude toward men capable of original and independent thought. The church should be the friend and patron of learning, and should heartily encourage and foster the spirit of investigation and discovery.

She need not fear to welcome any new truth or fact from any source. No truth can ever be inconsistent with any other truth. There can be no real conflict between scientific and religious truth. Any discordance is only apparent. Mr. Spurgeon felicitously and correctly stated the harmony between true religion and true science as follows: "We may rest assured that 'true vestiges of creation' will never contradict Genesis, nor will a correct 'Cosmos' be found at variance with the narrative of Moses. He is wisest who reads both the world book and the word book as two volumes of the same work, and feels concerning them, 'My Father wrote them both.' " The extreme conservatism which is willing to remain content with present attainments in science or theology is an effectual barrier to all further progress. The world has outgrown ecclesiastical conservatism and dogmatism. Whatever truth can be demonstrated by experiment or established by sufficient evidence, the church must receive, or she will forfeit the respect and confidence of all persons of liberal intelligence. Traditional opinions and beliefs must be given up if they cannot be defended.

At the beginning of the last century, according to the accepted scriptural chronology, the earth had been created only about six thousand years. The discoveries of geology, then a new science, contradicted the chronology and demanded a much longer period. Thoughtful and candid men, like Dr. Chalmers, reread Genesis in the light of the new science and announced the reconciling fact that the book assigned no date at all to creation. Instead of six thousand, even millions of years might be conceded to the geologist without contradicting the Mosaic cosmogony. The medieval church believed and taught that the Ptolemaic astronomy was founded on the Bible. Bruno was burnt for denying it, and Galileo narrowly escaped the same penalty by a timely recantation. In the two instances mentioned above science has corrected erroneous interpretations, of the scriptures. As Mr. Spurgeon suggests, the world book and the word book should be read as two volumes by the same divine author.

The latest demands on the church for modification of her theological teachings are made by evolution and the higher criticisms. Radical and extravagant theories and speculations on either subject deserve no serious consideration, but every truth, or fact, that comes properly accredited must be acknowledged. As geology necessitated a revision of chronology, so evolution demands a revision of the traditional view of creation. Evolution is not necessarily atheistic. It is not a cause, but a mode of development. Mr. Spencer, its chief expounder, defines it as "a change from definite homogeneity to indefinite heterogeneity," etc. Now, change is an effect produced by some preceding cause. Mr. Spencer, true to his agnosticism, declares that the first cause is unknowable. According to Mr. Spencer's confession, the God of the Bible may be the unknowable cause of his philosophy, and evolution may be His mode of working. The Athenian philosophers ignorantly worshiped an unknown God until Paul declared Him unto them. Evolution is now generally accepted as a fact by leading theologians as well as scientists. Its proofs are drawn from various sources, such as astronomy, geology, embryology. It is constantly repeated before our eyes in the ordinary processes of nature. The oak develops from an acorn, the fowl from an egg, the animal from an ovum.

If evolution be accepted as a fact, what is the result? The church, again enlightened by science, must modify her traditional teaching in regard to creation, instead of separate, distinct, epochal creative acts, she must accept the doctrine of an original creation of matter and a continuous, connected development of all things under this universal law. Evolution, then, becomes the divine method of unfolding the universe. By its acceptance no essential truth or fact of scripture need be sacrificed. Theistic evolution does not set aside a belief in God, nor in an original creation. Neither does it lessen one's admiration of His wisdom and power as manifested in the grandeur and glory of His works. To the mind of the devout evolutionist "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth His handiwork."

The church cannot assume an attitude of indifference towards the modern criticism of the Bible. For a long time the Bible was held too sacred to be touched by the hand of the literary critic. To deal with it as with other books of ancient literature would have been considered sacrilegious. A fear to submit it to criticism is virtually a confession of doubt as to its ability to stand the test. John Stewart Mill, in his work on "Liberty," says we hold no truth securely until we know the number and strength of the arguments against it and know how to answer them. The Bible, as the basis of Christianity, forms no exception to this rule. The Book invites candid criticism: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."

It is but justice to say that generally the critics handle the Book reverently although they handle it fearlessly. The results of their investigations have been surprising and apparently revolutionary. Some of their most important conclusions are sustained by the best scholarship of the age, and their views have gained wide currency among the ministers and the intelligent laymen of all the churches. In many respects, our traditional beliefs have been rudely shaken, if not effectually overthrown, by these learned critics, but nothing essential or substantial has been taken away from us. These scholarly men are investigating questions mainly of authorship, dates, methods of composition, literary characteristics and moral purposes of the several books of the Bible. We should not hesitate to receive gratefully any reliable information which they furnish us on these questions. If there be poetical, legendary, and mythical elements, which we have long been accustomed to regard as prose, as history, and as miracle; if there be errors of science or history; if there be interpolations, inconsistencies and contradictions, as some allege, we desire to know the truth about these things. Let them be pointed out and proved. Let fact be separated from fiction, and truth from error. We should not be blind worshippers of the letter of the Book. It has long withstood the attacks of open enemies, and we should not fear the results of honest criticism by its friends conducted in a spirit of fairness and reverence.

—The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, Aug. 7, 1904, p. 8, back section.

About the So-Called North Pole!

1901

BY REV. BILLIMAN BLAGDEN.

Dear Sir: — An interesting Editorial in a recent paper, upon the subject of "The North Pole," suggests that the Scriptural dictum, upon the same subject may possibly be new and entertaining to yourself, and also to many of your readers.

It is as true as it is remarkable, that we can find something, at least, in The Holy Bible, about almost any important subject, that will give us "pointers," so to speak, respecting information, which we may be desirous of obtaining, concerning the topic under consideration.

And the subject of the North Pole, is a good illustration of the above statement, for in the Infallible, Inspired and Divine Word of God, "It is written" in Job 26. 7., "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing."

Hence we see and learn, that Almighty god informs us, that "The North," or the so called "North Pole," is "the empty place." So that to search for the North Pole, is useless, vain and fool-hardy, and all else to the contrary notwithstanding, because God's Holy Word, describes it to be, "the empty place!"

We have no knowledge, information, nor even report, that even the Wild Geese, ever seek this far North, which our God tells us in Holy Writ, is "the empty place!" And yet some men with brains, and originally created in the image of God, still show that they have less "instinct" than the poor Wild Geese; because some men will persist in going on a "fool's errand," in search of the so called North Pole! Too many precious lives, and too much good gold, have already been expended and wasted, in this senseless and fruitless hunt and chase, after a "Will o' the Wisp," and "ignis fatuus," namely, this self-same search for the North Pole!

Why sir, it is akin to the Nursery fable of telling little children to run after the end of the Rain Bow, for behold there, they will surely find a bag of gold! But, if in the Light of God's Word, wherein The Holy Ghost pictures the North and enlightens us, that the North Pole is the empty place" men will persist in getting up expeditions for the North Pole; well then, let it be done at the very least and minimum cost and risk of precious lives, and at the least criminal expenditure and waste of money! And to this end, only very wealthy men or Syndicates of millionaires, should ever think of undertaking the perilous and Quicksotte-ish task of searching out "the empty place;" who, in order to have any chance of obtaining any reasonable success, and above all, avoid and escape the wicked sacrifice, of many men by untimely death, can with their great wealth establish relay stations, as they advance into the Arctic regions, comparatively near each other, and fully and invariably provisioned with all necessary supplies, both of food and of men, for their sustenance and help in time of need. And these relay stations should be made, kept up, and abundantly sustained, just so long as they continue to advance North, and while any one remains in the neighborhood of "the empty place!"

To undertake to search out, or to advance toward "the empty place," in any other way than that, which will lessen to the minimum, the risk of sacrificing precious lives, to say nothing of the sinful extravagance of throwing away money, is to tempt Providence! And no wise Christian will dare to do that?

"Yea, the stork in the heaven knoweth her appointed times; and the turtle and the crane and the swallow observe the time of their coming; but my people know not the judgment of the Lord," Jer. 8, 7.

Now in order to marshall you, dear readers, to look this thing squarely in the face; and that you may be brought to hear, and love and obey God's Blessed Word, and for the good of your own and precious and immortal souls, we consequently throw down this gauntlet, namely, The Holy Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is "The Word of God," (see Rev. 19, 13); and in one sense, JESUS, because He is the Incarnate Word; and this Word of God is Infallible, Inspired, Divine and Supernatural; therefore we are to believe in, and obey It, as obedient and good children; for our Lord told the Great Apostles, that unless they were converted and became as little children, they could not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, Matt. 18, 3. And this self same Word of God, is interpreted by the Divine Institution, of all orthodox baptized Believers, who believe in, love, and obey JESUS, as GOD; Amen.

Therefore and consequently we must believe in, love and obey Jehovah's Holy Word, wherein "It is written," "He stretcheth out the North over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing," Job 26, 7.

The North Pole, is "the empty place."

And may the Lord Jesus, bless all the above, to all that shall ever see, read, or hear it, as to Him seemeth best, for His Great and Dear Name's Sake; Amen.

CHATEAU FRONTENAC, QUEBEC. 18 OCT. 1901.

—The News, Frederick, Maryland, January 11, 1902, page 4.

Nebraska Pastor Reads Bible, Finds God is Good

1922

A Nebraska Pastor Tells of God

A good many years ago I decided God was good. This conclusion was reached from two sources: The teachings of Christ and my own personal experience. As I studied the teachings of Christ and my own personal fellowship with God I decided my God is good. That faith has grown with years and I believe it more strongly today than ever in my life.

When I read in the Bible any thing which reflects on the goodness of God I do not believe it. All scripture must be measured by the life and teachings of Christ. When I read that God killed all the people in the world except eight with a flood I say that does not sound like my God. When I read that God told the Hebrews to kill all the Canaanites and take their property I say my God is a missionary and seeks to save men not to kill them. Why should I believe that story coming out of the dim past painting God as a cruel tyrant any more than I should believe that God told the Germans to kill the Belgians and steal their property.

When I was pastor at David City and we were studying the conquest of Canaan a girl asked me was it right for the Hebrew soldiers to kill the women and children? I said no. Then another girl said why did God tell them to do it then? I said God never told them do it. The writer was mistaken. I have been asked many times why God hardened Pharaoh's heart ten times and then brought ten plagues upon the innocent people which caused unsold suffering. For twenty-five years T tried to fix it up but always failed to satisfy the people or myself until finally I had the courage to say God never did it. My God is good.

When I read that God commanded David to number Israel and he did it but God was angry with him and killed 70,000 innocent men plague I must defend God against that charge and answer he never did.

When I read that a few men peeked into the ark and that God killed 50,070 people of a child race for that offense, I say it could not be true. When I read that story about Korah, Dathan and Abiram when they told Moses and Aaron that God would speak to all the people and not only unto them and God was angry with these men and opened the earth and it swallowed them up with all their families, sent fire and burned 250 men up who had offered incense to him, then in his wrath smote the people with a plague that killed 14,700 of them before Aaron could appease God with a burning incense I say this story can not be true for my God is better than Aaron, Moses or any other man. I cannot believe that God killed 185,000 of the Assyrian army one night, that he told Joshua to hock the horses, that be told the Jews they could sell spoiled meat to the gentiles but not to the Jews, that he commanded that if a boy did not obey his parents he was to be killed, that if a man gathered sticks on the Sabbath to make a fire he was to be stoned to death, that if any one worshiped any other God he was to be killed; none of these things are like my Heavenly Father. It is no virtue for a man to believe these things which paint a bad God even though they are found in the Bible.

One passage in the Bible — "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was believed so many centuries that it is estimated 353,000 people were killed because people believed that was the law of God; our own American soil was stained with the blood of witches. The Judge and the preacher who said we do not believe in witches neither do we believe that is God's law were condemned as infidels and enemies of God. The passage is still in the Bible but we do not believe in witches nor the law that killed them. How did we get our Bible? First a religious folk that produced a religious literature; second a religious folk that selected the Bible from that literature. Now we have a religious folk that interprets the Bible. I must stand with Christ and his teachings and with my own personal experiences with God and all Scripture must be measured by this standard. In all the problems and questions in life which are constantly meeting us must be settled on the basis God is good and all other questions adjusted to that standard. I can only believe in a good God. I cannot love, admire, Devote myself, worship, follow, obey only a good God. All theories of life must make God good or else I cannot accept them. — J. D. M. BUCKNER, Pastor M. E. church — Aurora, Neb.

—The Nebraska State Journal, Lincoln, Nebraska, June 18, 1922, page B-13.

Note: This is a poorly-written article and I tinkered with it in very minor ways. But I left this sentence entirely intact, which seems to contradict his point: "When I read in the Bible any thing which reflects on the goodness of God I do not believe it." To clarify, according to an online dictionary, "reflects" can have the archaic definition of "to bend back." So he means anything in the Bible that contradicts his ideas of God's goodness he does not believe, something that reflects the opposite of his ideas.