Once upon a time, quite a while ago, I actually composed a thoughtful post. Maalie made an equally thoughtful comment on a comment (see response to ESI) and requested clarification of my statement, “my whole point is that it all starts in the heart”.
You just have to love another scientist who leaves you the following comment, “The heart is a pump that circulates blood. I am not aware of any other function.” Indeed, his statement is factual to the core, testable and verifiable and shows that he is a scientist indeed!!!
Yet, this is not the only way that the Hebrew mind thought of the heart. To them, in both the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the heart referred to the seat of both physical and spiritual life. It represented the innermost being of a man, his emotions and his intellect, the things that make up the soul and make him unique among other men.
While this may seem a bit far-fetched and fanciful, something that a scientist might ignore as poetic language, it actually seems quite logical to me when I consider the role that blood, and therefore the heart, plays in the body. Physically, it is essential for all aspects of our lives, for without blood, not only does the body die, but also the soul as well since it looses its place of habitation. Without blood I am nothing because I am now no one.
Spiritually, blood was required for the covering of sin. While this notion of the redemptive power of blood is expressed for me most clearly in the book of Hebrews (9:22b), “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin”, it was instituted early in the Old Testament when God dealt with a result of the first sin, Adam and Eve’s awareness of their nakedness. He did not speak clothing into being as He did the rest of creation; He shed blood by killing an animal to cover them in its skin. Thereafter blood covenants were irrevocable. It is in this light that Jesus speaks of His own blood as being poured out to seal a new and better blood covenant to replace the old, providing for permanent forgiveness of sin (Matthew 26:28).
So yes Maalie, even as a scientist, the heart is more to me than just an organ that pumps blood. It provides for my very life, not just for my body, but also my soul; it allows the uniqueness of Susan to be expressed. And it is in the context of this soul, this source of my emotions, desires, passions - my intellect, my ability to understand, reason and choose – that I spoke when I said that all sin begins in my heart.
You just have to love another scientist who leaves you the following comment, “The heart is a pump that circulates blood. I am not aware of any other function.” Indeed, his statement is factual to the core, testable and verifiable and shows that he is a scientist indeed!!!
Yet, this is not the only way that the Hebrew mind thought of the heart. To them, in both the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the heart referred to the seat of both physical and spiritual life. It represented the innermost being of a man, his emotions and his intellect, the things that make up the soul and make him unique among other men.
While this may seem a bit far-fetched and fanciful, something that a scientist might ignore as poetic language, it actually seems quite logical to me when I consider the role that blood, and therefore the heart, plays in the body. Physically, it is essential for all aspects of our lives, for without blood, not only does the body die, but also the soul as well since it looses its place of habitation. Without blood I am nothing because I am now no one.
Spiritually, blood was required for the covering of sin. While this notion of the redemptive power of blood is expressed for me most clearly in the book of Hebrews (9:22b), “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin”, it was instituted early in the Old Testament when God dealt with a result of the first sin, Adam and Eve’s awareness of their nakedness. He did not speak clothing into being as He did the rest of creation; He shed blood by killing an animal to cover them in its skin. Thereafter blood covenants were irrevocable. It is in this light that Jesus speaks of His own blood as being poured out to seal a new and better blood covenant to replace the old, providing for permanent forgiveness of sin (Matthew 26:28).
So yes Maalie, even as a scientist, the heart is more to me than just an organ that pumps blood. It provides for my very life, not just for my body, but also my soul; it allows the uniqueness of Susan to be expressed. And it is in the context of this soul, this source of my emotions, desires, passions - my intellect, my ability to understand, reason and choose – that I spoke when I said that all sin begins in my heart.
206 comments:
1 – 200 of 206 Newer› Newest»Maalie was just being pedantic when he criticized your use of the word 'heart'. I'm quite sure he has whispered the word in various young ladies' ears during his lifetime!
Lorenzo.
Thank you for taking the trouble to reply. I shall consider my response when I have got my breath back from Italy!
I'm just off to catch up with my bird catching now!
Just don't let the birds catch you Maalie!
Many thanks for you response, and I feel sure you expect me take issue you with one or two of your points!
>To them, in both the writings of the Old and New Testaments, the heart referred to the seat of both physical and spiritual life.
I don't dispute that. I guess they also believed the world was flat, the earth was the centre of the universe, that bats were birds and dolphins were fish. They may even have cultivated some weird notion that the whole of humanity arose from a single couple beguiled by a talking snake. We all have our creation myths.
It is now verifiable that these things are not true. I can understand how primitive peoples might have assigned more significance to the role of the heart than a mere pump. After all, it can race pretty violently when provoked by fear, sexual arousal, to name but a couple. But we now know that the heart responds to stimuli received by our sensory organs (eye, ear, etc.) but it does not of course generate them. It is merely a muscular pump.
Lorenzo has a point, but we have to be careful between the use of verifiable fact and the use of metaphor. If a guy says "My heart races when I look into your eyes", that is clearly a true and verifiable observation (providing he's not just lying in order to get his wicked way).
But if he says "I love you from the bottom of my heart" that is a metaphor. It would not stand up in court or, for that matter, get past the editor of a peer-reviewed scientific medical journal.
So when you say "my whole point is that it all starts in the heart”, I would have given it more credibility if you had said something like: "my whole point is based upon independently verifiable evidence, logic and reasoning". Don't you agree?
May I respectfully ask you one more question (a yes/no answer will be plenty). As a scientist yourself, would you teach a child that a bat is a bird because it says so in the bible (in two places), and to ignore the extensive evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific literature that it is in fact not a bird?
Phew Maalie! At least you didn't say 'from the heart of my bottom'.
I would just like to say one thing though, that as a fella you might not have taken into account. And that is intuition.
You will say no doubt that this is not scientific, and maybe it isn't, but there is certainly another wavelength that some people, and especially women, seem to be able to pick up on and they KNOW by instinct that such and such is so, or such and such is not so.
Probably you will say that we pick up subtle messages that point to a certain conclusion. This is probably true, but at least we pick them up and don't ignor our base instincts and intuition. Even animals do this when in danger. I'm not sure what this has to do with the subject, except there are hidden and mysterious elements in life that seem to pull one along and make one act in a certain way.
One thing for sure is that fundamentalists are bad news, whether they be Christian, Moslem, cult groups or even dare I say, scientists.
I will try to do a new blog Susan. One has been kicking about in my mind for a couple of days now, but it means getting a few photos. Perhaps I'll pinch them from google.
Lorenzo.
> cult groups or even dare I say, scientists.
Not quite in the same bracket Lorenzo. Science advances from fallen hypotheses. Lamark's fell by the wayside, Darwin's lives on... The real difference is that science is based on evidence. The evidence is published in peer-reviewed journals and can be tested by repeated observations or by experiment. If the evidence is not verifiable is fall into disrepute, on stony ground. That is the basis of science. There are charlatans in all walks of life, and in science it maybe the easiest to expose them.
On the other hand the bible is believed by some because they were by chance born into a culture that told them as kids that it was true. Along with Santa and the Tooth Fairy. The latter two become disregarded with age for want of evidence, but there is too much vested interest and superstition in the bible for many to reject.
The life is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11)
> The life is in the blood
Are you implying that the heart (as a pump), brain, skin, intestines, liver and all the other organs and tissues are without life? Why just single out the blood?
Not all Christians are brainwashed as children. Some people have conversions later on in their lives.
Be that as it may, odd quotes out of context are not helpful, be they about blood or bats.
We have been given a brain and I think we have to use it. There are some very fine stories in the Bible and they are a pointer to the way we should be living our life.
Lorenzo.
p.s. Whatever happened to discernment?
L.
Be that as it may, odd quotes out of context are not helpful, be they about blood or bats.
Odd quotes? Out of context?
Come now...
We have been given a brain and I think we have to use it. There are some very fine stories in the Bible and they are a pointer to the way we should be living our life.
The "blood" speaks of atonement, and those "very fine stories" are all woven into the context of a need of redemption. It is not so much about a way to live, but the only One that can bring life, eternal life, from the spiritual death we are under. The "blood" being a metpahor for this, that Jesus blood was shed, therby making atonement for sin.
Maalie, you won't educate your way out of having a sin nature, and we will not morally evolve into sinless creatures. Man left to himself will never climb his way out of his own "heart". It is easily understood as to what "heart" means in the previous sentence. Call it whatever you will, what we are referring to is your nature, your essence, an immaterial notion, and so therfore described in material terms.
Practicing obfuscation by worrying over words used as metaphor, when you know perfectly well what this means, this won't get you "off the hook". Your bat is a bird defense doesn't change your need. You miss the forest from the trees. Is all this metaphor killing you? We know what Ingrid Newkirk meant when she said "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy", whether it was scientifically accurate or not didn't change the point she was trying to make.
Our problems stem from our "heart", not our blood pump, but our sin nature.
QED
> you won't educate your way out of having a sin nature, and we will not morally evolve into sinless creatures.
What absolute utter gibberish! "Sin" is a concept invented by man so that a few can exert control over many! What is considered sinful in one culture is a tradition in another!
Lets not equivocate; by "sin" I mean to say a moral wrong. Are you saying that there are no moral wrongs? Would murder not be a sin, then?
Oh yes, I agree. And we have institutions to deal with offenders. We call it the judicial system. Most civilisations have them, without reference to religious material.
In moat extant societies it is immoral to kill, or to have more than one wife, or to steal. But there are some in which these are not (or were not) unconsidered immoral.
But there are some in which these are not (or were not) unconsidered immoral.
Would that then mean that such actions would not still be wrong, even if not considered wrong within those societies?
Are you not arguing for moral realtivism? Who or what sets the standards of right and wrong? Each individual society? In a sense I can agree, lets say regarding to dress standards. But how about murder, as we proposed? If it were allowable in some society, would that mean it is not wrong? Are there not universallly accepted moral wrongs, and if so, based on what? Society's ever changing moors? That would mean that you would challenge my thesis that we will not morally evolve. Okay, but lets put the emphasis where it ought to be. In a civil and sociological way, yes, we make advancement. But our propensity and proclivity to do moral wrong will not change.
Even so: how do you feel about State sanctioned murder, i.e. executions? How many innocent people have been sent to death in miscarriages of justice? But so called 'moral' societies condone this.
How about sending troops to war on the whim of a president and prime minister? I don't approve of killing in the name of 'freedom' and I am a mere 'sinner'.
Lorenzo.
Moreover, the bible (the Word of God) instructs us to kill witches (Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live (Exodus 22 verse 18).
Do you condone the execution of witches, Even so?
I'm just wondering whether Even so condones all the smiting of the Egyptians during the time of Moses. How does he feel about the Egyptians who drowned in the Red Sea?
I wonder whether Even so believes in revenge. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek. Does that mean that he was telling us to ignor the law of the Old Testament?
Lorenzo.
Perhaps many people have been put to death having done no crime. I don’t like that, but that doesn’t change my answer. Christians are instructed to be in subjection to the governing authorities. This establishment has the right to declare war and to punish its citizenry, even by capital punishment. (cf. Romans 13:1-4)
The New Testament says nothing of burning witches. These laws were given to the Jewish nation and not to the church. Our instruction is to obey the laws of our land (Romans 13) and if we do not like them, there are peaceful ways to change them.
The harsh punishments for violating those rules was because such false practices could ultimately undermine the coming of the Messiah and thereby jeopardize the salvation of all people. This is why you see such harsh treatment by God upon so many in the Old Testament. Since God was using the Jewish people to be those through whom the Messiah would come, it was necessary to keep the messianic line pure.
Now, since the Messiah has come there is now no more threat to the messianic line and we are free to "turn the other cheek" and to love people as God loves them (Matthew 5:43-48).
Unfortunately, many of the Christians of the 1500's and 1600's did not apply love and kindness to those who practiced witchcraft. Instead, they used Old Testament law while abandoning New Testament grace. The result was that thousands were killed. They were wrong.
We could go on for days, guys, but that wouldn't change the problem, and won't give you an excuse.
> and won't give you an excuse
Not looking for excuses matey, but I'd sure appreciate a little evidence.
My goodness, look what happens when a sickly Su takes an afternoon off from work to nap!
Maalie, I would - and did - teach my children that bats were wonderful creations, mammals that could fly and had sonar! Actually, one of those children was facinated by bats and became a biologist!
As to "evidence", that will have to wait for another blog as my head is quite foggy at present, but do feel free to continue to discuss with my brother JD (Even So) as he is far more articulate than I anyway.
Evidence for what? That the heart means your nature, your essence, an immaterial notion, and so therfore it is described in material terms? Evident upon reading the biblical material.
That was the original question, and now you guys are tossing red herrings and building strawmen all over the place.
The problem is sin, from your nature, your "heart", and while many people have debated the veracity of the bible, that is another question. Why not give some evidence that you have never sinned?
Anyways, fun while it lasted, I appreciate you going with it, but now we are just going around in circles. You don't believe the bible to be telling the truth about sin, salvation, and the Savior, I do. I see evidence, you don't. I could direct you to sites that give evidence for the Bible and its Divine element, but you can find them pretty easily. If you want to go toe to toe with some better thinkers than I, I would suggest...
Triablogue.blogspot.com
Susan, thanks for your reply. Now, I think you would already anticipate my next question. Is there anything else in the bible that you would consider informing children is probably incorrect?
>Why not give some evidence that you have never sinned?
I have undoubtedly committed acts which you would define as sin (I may have had a few runcible thoughts as a teenager, for example. But I suppose I could eventually furnish evidence that I do not have a criminal record.
But first, I would appreciate evidence that the whole of the world's biodiversity has issued froth from what could be crammed onto Noah's boat (I think theologians put tat at about 4000 years ago, but will stand corrected). We have tangible evidence that upright walking hominids have been on earth from at least 3 million years.
Not just runcible thoughts as a teenager Maalie! I suspect they never stopped!
Sin aint just about not having a criminal record. Sin is also about the way we run our lives, our thoughts and petty little injustices as well as the mega sins like theft, murder etc. It's called integrity.
What always confuses me is why some things in the Old Testament can now be refuted (witches not being suffered to live) while others (creation stories, Noah etc.) are 'Gospel' as it were.
If one believed the teachings of the complete Bible, then surely we would all be following the dietary laws of the Israelites and all the numerous mind bogling rituals.
It always struck me that Christ used compassion and not the law when dealing with human situations. Stoning an adulterous woman was the law of the Old Testament but Christ very competently stopped the stoning. He mixed with prostitutes, thieves, tax collectors and all the rifraff that early Palestine could throw up. Was that according to 'the Law'?
Lorenzo.
> What always confuses me is why some things in the Old Testament can now be refuted (witches not being suffered to live) while others (creation stories, Noah etc.) are 'Gospel' as it were.
Exactly! You make the point very eloquently. What a hotch-potch of muddled accounts, contradictions, mis-translations and fallacies. Even the creation myth has two versions in Genesis. Compare for example Genesis 1 25-26; and Genesis 2, 18-19. Just what exactly is a humble man like me expected to believe?
Humble?
LtL
"Even the creation myth"
Hope you don't mind if I add in. I came over from JD's site.
How do you believe the universe came into existence? And if it's a big Bang, then where did that come from?
Wouldn't there have to have been nothing? Or was there gas in the begining, and always was gas?
These notions are absurd.
Christ came to earth, and He was real, and really died, and really rose from the dead. There is more evidence of Jesus of Nazereth written down for us than most other figures of History.
Jesus rose from the dead! He said He would, and Peter saw him, and it is written for us as truth we can bow to.
I cannot bow to a Big Bang, which people make up out of their own desires to explain God away.
Donsands: That is a totally irrelevant question. It's not a question of belief, it's a matter of evidence and understanding. The fact that science doesn't understand something now does not mean it won't one day. When I was a kid we didn't understand how genetic information was transmitted between generations. Now we can reconstruct the human genome in its entirety.
You seem to be arguing from personal incredulity, and that is not an argument at all.
> There is more evidence of Jesus of Nazereth written down for us than most other figures of History.
I have never denied that. But a lot of the so-called evidence is confused, contradictory and of doubtful provenance.
>Jesus rose from the dead! He said He would, and Peter saw him, and it is written for us as truth we can bow to.
Just hearsay, matey, just hearsay. Cannot be independently verified.
Man has been walking this earth for some three million years, we have a continuous line of fossil evidence. I have seen it for myself.
It puzzles me why it has to be one or the other. Life just isn't black and white. There are thousands of shades of grey.
Fundamentalists seem to believe everything per se without any doubt that some tales are just that: stories to illustrate a way of life we should be attempting to be living.
Scientists seem to need proof, the whole proof and nothing but the proof.
Surely there is a middle way where faith mingles with instinct mingles with logic mingles with compassion.
Personally I cannot believe or take seriously words spoken by people who approve the death penalty and war making.
Even so thinks it is ok to be in subjection to the governing authorities. I wonder whether he would say the same if he lived in a communist country, or maybe Iran, Afganistan, Burma, Iraq etc.
What would have been his attitude had he lived in South Africa during apartheid? Would he have taken the good Bishop Tutu's views or would he have gone along with the S.A. Government because St Paul said so? If St Paul had witnessed the attrocities committed in South Africa, do you think he would have changed his tune? Would Jesus have put up with that sort of nonsense?
Lorenzo.
1 Corinthians 7:21-24
In Paul’s day, and even up till today, we see the cruel context of slavery in some societies. Paul and the New Testament do not condone slavery; they were simply using it to teach that even under the worst of conditions, a child of God could radiate the light of Christ. They were free men indeed if they could feel their freedom in Christ while bound by the earths chains.
Even though most of the world doesn’t have institutionalized slavery anymore, this principle applies to employer / employee relationships and the like (Colossians 3:22-24). Looking at the context of Titus chapter 2, we see Paul stressing that Christlike behavior is a witness to show that all people may come to Christ regardless of social status, gender, race, etc. Whether younger or older, richer or poorer, slave or free, man or woman, or whatever the case may be, the salvation that is in Christ is to be modeled for all to see that Christians can come from anywhere, and that God will save anyone anywhere who will come to Him.
Just because a slave can and should please God doesn’t mean that Paul is teaching that God doesn’t want men to be free. Indeed Paul says that if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity (1 Corinthians 7:21). He meant legally and not by escaping of course. Just because you can glorify God in that dark place doesn’t necessarily mean God wants to leave you there, but your attitude must be that if He does leave you there you will serve Him by serving in that situation anyway. If you can be free, if you can be loosed, if you can be made whole, healed, helped or whatever then you should praise the Lord. If not, well, then praise the Lord too. In everything give thanks (1 Thessalonians 5:18).
Being an ambassador for Jesus in a context as cruel as slavery is earning great reward in heaven by honoring our Lord, who experienced a more dramatic drop-off in dignity than any of us on earth could possible face or even imagine. To be a shining light in a dark situation is to do the Lord’s work the Lord’s way. A slave whom God allows to continue in that is bound to be free. Bound in order to be free, bound in order to set others free, bound to be free at last. He, or we, may be bound because being free would lead him, or us, away from Christ. He may be bound but eventually he will be set free because death will bring him to heaven. He may be bound but no one is quite so free as the one who feels his freedom in Christ while shackled with the world’s chains. In other words, his chains are for the glory of the Lord. Others whom God is calling will see Christ.
The Apostle Paul found himself locked up in a Roman jail but God has used the letters he wrote while there to set people free for nearly two thousand years. The Apostle John was chained to a rock on the island of Patmos but he saw a Revelation of The Rock greater than any man in history. The mature Christian may be bound by some situation, but they know that they are bound to win, even in death. They are bound yet free, and we need to show the world the Truth, as living pictures of the Gospel, that Christ was bound up on that cross, setting men free from sin and death for eternity. We are dead to sin and self, and alive to God, and no earthly chains can bind our spirits while we trust in our Deliverer.
Keep your conduct among the Gentiles honorable, so that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation.
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme,
or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people.
Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust.
For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly.
For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.
For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps.
(1 Peter 2:12-21)
If unbelievers try and appeal to Jesus or say that you cannot do this or that because Jesus wasn’t like that, well, how would they know? “I’ve read the bible”, they will say. Sure. Anyway, 1 Corinthians 2:14 tells us they cannot truly understand it unless they are submitted to it. You can only exercise authority to the extent you are under that authority. Unless they quote chapter and verse, correctly understanding the context, then their rants are just useless interference and pure speculation. Why are they using Jesus as if they knew Him?
If they don’t believe in Christianity, why would they care what Jesus said anyway? For them to use Him as a reference against His own is absurd. What’s more if they think they know how Jesus would react or do something and it isn’t how we would do it, then what is stopping them from becoming a Christian? Why would they not follow Christ if He were so good compared to us? If they like how Jesus does it shouldn’t they call themselves true Christians?
Well we as true Christians know that He is so good compared to us and we don’t always do what Jesus would do or even know what that would be. But we are following Him and learn from Him, unlike those who just want to use Jesus as some sort of opposition to His followers when they have no real clue what Christianity is all about anyway.
>Scientists seem to need proof, the whole proof and nothing but the proof.
There is nothing further from the truth. Absolute proof is usually unobtainable. Scientists seek evidence. Some explanation for an observation is proposed and evidence is sought (either by further observation, or by experiment) to support that explanation. If evidence is not forthcoming, the explanation is rejected in favour of another one, until a conclusion is reached for which the evidence is so overwhelming that the explanation is probably right.
There is overwhelming evidence that the world's biodiversity could NOT have stemmed from what Noah could have crammed onto a boat. On the other hand there is overwhelming evidence that there has NEVER been a "great flood" as recently as the fundamentalists would have us believe. There would be geological and biological evidence everywhere. Remember that FitzRoy (Darwin's Captain) set out with the express intention of finding evidence of the Great Flood. He killed himself when all the evidence he found suggested exactly the opposite. But he was objective, not blinkered by blind faith.
"Faith" is just that - blind evidence-less faith. A delusion.
> Why would they not follow Christ if He were so good compared to us? If they like how Jesus does it shouldn’t they call themselves true Christians?
I don't know. You tell us. Same old story, metaphor, analogy and rhetorical questions. No evidence apart from a muddled book of doubtful provenance riddled with contradictions and fallacies.
Don't you remember Maalie all those interminable chemistry experiments we had to do with PROOF always written on the last line. Of course scientists want proof.
But my point is, does it really matter?
Anyway, I agree about the flood story. I've always thought it was daft to get all those carnivores in a boat with all the herbivores. If they had a few boats now, well that would make more sense. Mind you Polar bears could never survive in the heat of the Middle East, let alone breed and trot off back to the Arctic.
Nice story though, especially about Noah getting drunk!
Lorenzo.
There are some things that cannot be discerned by the light of creation, namely, such things as the Trinity, Jesus Christ as the God-man, his life and sufferings and atoning death for us, yet by the limited light all people have God is known as Creator and God reveals this fact through man’s inner light, his conscience.
Science is a window to God but we stop at studying the window instead of looking through it to God. We may see the world and absorb ourselves in the wonders of nature. Or we may look right through the world and see God behind it. The scientific way of looking at the world is not wrong any more then the window maker’s way of looking at the window. This way of looking at things has its very important uses. Nevertheless the window was placed there not only to be looked at but to be looked through; and the world’s purpose is to be looked through so the eye rests not on it but on its God. People would say we don’t have enough evidence of a Creator, but that is confusing infinite knowledge with knowledge of the infinite. One can have a finite knowledge of the infinite. Partial knowledge can be true knowledge as far as it goes. If we need to know everything to know anything, then we know nothing – which is self-refuting.
> Science is a window to God but we stop at studying the window instead of looking through it to God.
Oh lord, not another bloomin' meaningless analogy...
You are talking a bit more of my language now Even so. But tell me, and I am being serious now,
Is God just of this earth, or is He about the whole universe?
Lorenzo.
Stop it Maalie. He is talking poetry. And don't pretend you aren't artistic because you are.
Lorenzo.
> experiments we had to do with PROOF always written on the last line
Lorenzo: Ah! I see what you mean! "Proof" is often a misused word, when "overwhelming evidence" might be better used. Actual proof usually has a mathematical element. So, you can "prove" that the length of a spring is proportional to the weight attached to it. But you can't "prove" that global warming is happening. But you can have "overwhelming evidence" that it is and that is the best we can do.
We will never be able to "prove" how life on earth started. But we have considerable evidence how it probably did. And the real point is, it doesn't depend on the supernatural. I can give lectures on the origins and development of life on earth, using the geological/geochemical evidence that we already have, without invoking a "master plan", or any form of the supernatural. I can't "prove" it because we can never go back in time to check, but the evidence is overwhelming.
I think at this point we should ask Halfmom if she is happy about the way her blog is being used.
The Apostle Peter testified that he saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. John the Apostle testified that he saw, and handled Jesus after he was risen from the dead.
Actually Paul the Apotle says there were 500 people who saw Jesus risen from the dead.
Not to mention that it's recorded that Jesus Himself raised Lazarus from the dead, after he had been dead for 4 days.
The religious leaders hated that He did this, and not only wanted to kill Jesus, but also wanted to kill Lazarus.
Paul, who also saw the Lord, and along with the other Apostles died torturous deaths for the testimony of Christ risen, says, "The Good News of Christ is foolishness to the Greeks [non-religious], and a stumbling block to the Jews [the religious]."
Those who use their intellects, as the Greeks will think a Man dying on a Cross is silly.
And those who are religious, will look to their own good deeds as merit for being right with God, and there's no need for a Cross.
Of course this can be broader and wider in various ways of thinking, but these are the basic two rejections for Christ crucified and risen.
> The Apostle Peter testified that he saw Jesus after he rose from the dead
If someone claimed that today they would be offered psychiatric therapy. The problem is that the testimony is not worth a grain of salt because he can't be cross-examined.
I am not contradicting the claim, but many now would suggest that seeing his mate Jesus strung up like that would cause Peter to spiral into post-traumatic stress disorder and probably hallucinate. A much more credible explanation, don't you think?
Actually Paul the Apotle says there were 500 people who saw Jesus risen from the dead.
Clearly mass hysteria. Happens all the time, very common. That is not verifiable evidence.
There must have been a fair amount of hallucinating then as so many people saw Him.
They do say that John wrote the Book of Revelation on the Island of Patmos. It is interesting to note that Patmos is famous for it's mushrooms.
Lorenzo.
Can't be mass hysteria Maalie because not everyone saw him at the same time. Mary Magdalene saw him first in the Garden when she went to the tomb at Easter. She hadn't a clue at then that he had risen.
Lorenzo.
> It is interesting to note that Patmos is famous for it's mushrooms.
Point well made.
You need look no further than Princess Diana's death to see what mass hysteria can do.
Lorenzo, do you think anyone who uses abusive terminology like "strut your stuff" will be welcome in the Kingdom of Heaven? I think it's a bit sinful and we should pray for the guy.
"A much more credible explanation, don't you think?"
No.
Peter lived a whole life. Wrote two excellent letters to the followers of Christ. Very excellent man he was , this fisherman who loved Jesus, and served Him with all his heart.
Take time to read Peter's letters, and see if this man wasn't quite intellegent and sound in his mind, and absolutely confident and sure that Jesus not only died and rose from the dead, but is coming back.
> Peter lived a whole life. Wrote two excellent letters to the followers of Christ. Very excellent man he was , this fisherman who loved Jesus, and served Him with all his heart.
There are a lot of living men who could be described like that today. If he loved Jesus with all his heart then the post-traumatic stress would be unthinkable. Who knows what he might imagine.
Oh come on! Peter intelligent? He who betrayed Christ three times. He who squabbled with the other disciples who was going to be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven? Peter was an amazing bloke, but I don't think even his best friend would call him intelligent. But his bumbling about was part of his charm. One of my old ministers referred to his as 'a Wally'.
Lorenzo.
Maalie: maybe 'strut your stuff' isn't so offensive in America as it is over here.
Lorenzo.
Maalie,
You are very good with questions, but weak on the ultimate question for which you have confessed on my blog that you have no answer.
Why is there something instead of nothing? What is the uncaused cause?
Our answer is an intelligent supreme being. What is yours?
May I remind you that some of the greatist scientists in history such as Issac Newton were Christians.
llama,
Have you read Peter's Epistles? Sure he was a sinner, and he put his foot in his mouth, as I do so often, but he was brighter than you think.
He spent three years with the Son of God, and he was crucified upside down for the Lord.
I suppose many think of him as a dumb bloke, but I don't think of Simon Peter in that way.
"There are a lot of living men who could be described like that today."
But they weren't killed for their declaration of Christ, and knowing that Christ was indeed risen, because they saw Him, and spoke with Him face to face.
my goodness you all have been busy as bees in spring making a sticky mess of my blog wiht all the honey.
to donsands (thanks for visiting - I do hope you'll come back), Even So and Jazzy - you must remember that Maalie's world view and therefore how he interprets all of life is different from ours from the get go. The first question to be answered is what you will do with God. Our response is recognize and bow in submission. Maalie's is not. If I'm not very much mistaken, Maalie does not agree that there is actually a God there, much less one who created all we see. So, I would find it very illogical for him to track along with any of your arguments, good though they are.
ahh, Maalie my dear, what an argumentative one you are.
Interestingly, I thought you simply wanted to know my rationale for using such a phrase as "starts in the heart". I was not actually expecting you to take issue with me on any points, rather to disregard me entirely.
I must go to Jazzy's site and see what discussions you have been up to there - sounds fasinating.
My beloved LtL - you are a naughty girl to taunt you elder brother in such a fashion - off to Father Anne with you, young lady!
Donsands: No, you are arguing from personal incredulity again. Effectively you are saying "I can't believe things are the way they are without a divine plan".
Scientists understand much these days, like genetics and evolution, but reserve judgement on some things pending more study. I'm a biologist not a cosmologist so you will have to consult one of them.
Halfmom: Thank you for allowing this discussion (I've never had my name on a blog post heading before) but at this point I shall gracefully retire. You're not only tolerant, but Solomonian as well. A good biblical simile for you!
You lying hound Maalie! You've had your name many times on my blog postings!
Lorenzo.
ooops!
Leviticus 11:13,19 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. (cf. Deuteronomy 14:11,18)
Is this a biological boo-boo?
Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, modern classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly.
I am wondering if skeptics who make this objection are seriously proposing that when the Hebrews used this word, they actually had in mind the modern classification scheme that defines "bird" as a warm-blooded creature of a certain class who had feathers.
If this is how "perfection" is to be understood, that the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data, well then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. If the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong. Skeptics who make this sort of complaint don't want answers. The objection has no legitimacy.
It is the same sort of objection as your “heart” problem, which was answered.
From Tim Challies' site today:
Of course fundamentalist is such a lazy term to use. Most people just assume that if I believe something more strongly than you do or if I believe something deemed more conservative than you do, I must be a fundamentalist...
Do I believe what I do enough to be unashamed when people mock me? Am I afraid to be called a fool and to be looked down on for believing what the Bible says is true? Am I ashamed to have all these people show up who probably think I’m heading out today to picket the funeral of a homosexual or a solider killed overseas? Or can I be unashamed, undignified even, as I hear or read what people say about me?
I answered the "starts in the heart" question definitively and that was the end of that, no one brought it up after that. Then I answered questions about what I was asked, regarding capital punishment, war, slavery, burning witches, from a biblical world view, with scripture given and explained, etc. Yes we also went to philosophy a bit. All that was said after that in response was about strutting your stuff, as if these were really all that offended, and as if that would mean what I said was invalid. You don't have to try and win an argument from his point of view, you are to proclaim truth.
Proclamation of God's truth from His Word isn't wrong. And we should not be ashamed to defend it, and when we try and round off the sharp corners of the gospel in order to play nice, then we are indeed compromising...
> Obviously, modern classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy
You make my point rather eloquently. Neither was our understanding of genetics, geology, biochemistry, molecular and evolutionary biology available at the time of the writing of Genesis. We now have no need to invoke the supernatural to explain the origins and development of life on earth. By the way, what do you make of the recent interesting discovery of hominid fossils in Ethiopia? 4.5 million years old.
Yes, and a dirty great rat fossil was found in South America yesterday.
I was amazed when I read the last three comments from Even so. I really don't want to be rude or insulting and I hope you won't take this so, BUT aren't you being a tad arrogant?
Lorenzo
If the Catholic church can change it's attitude even in my lifetime,
isn't it possible for the Fundamentalists to stop being obsessed by abominations?
Lorenzo.
Susan
I'm listening with interest and impressed by 69 comments and counting... thanks for spurring conversation
First, thank you Maalie for the gracious comparison to Solomon.
Second, thank you all for your passionate opinions and reasonably civil discussions.
Third, I actually do have some comments to make about the interesting things you have said, but they must wait until my happy flasks of immune cells are fed, tucked in for the night and read to (i.e., I have an experiment that must be set up today and it will take several hours to do).
In the words of the wise king, “the end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride.” Ecc 7:8
Therefore, I will now ask that you cease and desist from further comments, waiting patiently until I actually have a chance to address some of the comments that have already been made.
Susan, we've been banned.
Lorenzo.
No my dear Llama - never banned - just slowed a bit until I can get caught up with you all.
Thanks for the comments on my blog Susan. No, it's not you that has banned us but Even so!
Thanks also about the nutritian bit. I read up a lot about this as it is really interesting. I have only had two alchoholic drinks this year! How's that? Being a vegetarian I am very careful what I eat and I never eat so called convenience foods. All my stuff is cooked from raw, or eaten raw.
Hope you won't be too cross with some of my flippant comments!
Love Lorenzo. xx
Oh no, he may be dogmatic (in a good sense, as he is presenting his dogma and standing by it) but he is not a "banner" at all. I am sure you would be quite welcomed at his blog as well. He writes very interesting and encouraging posts, but I will warn you, they are a bit long to get through sometimes for me.
Cross with you? Never let it be said! Of course I'm not cross, just a slower thinker than the rest of you so I need more time to think through things to decide how to respond.
Actually it wasn't Even so, it was the other one, can't remember his name. Maybe 'Mark'? The one who has a photo of himself with his arms folded. That one.
For protein I eat a lot of nuts, eggs, cheese, soya produce, quorn, quinoa and very occasionally I cheat and have a small piece of fish!
Love Lorenzo.
How very strange - there's only you, me, Maalie, Even So (JD who is smiling in his phot), and someone named Don Sands (who has an armload of grandchildren) - and one brief comment from Every Square Inch, who has no photo at all. I can't find anything on either your blog or Maalie's either from the banning person.
How very rude and uncalled for that anyone should think they can say what is, or is not, allowed on my blog!
You're right - I have no photo but the blogging world is better for it. ;-)
I can confirm that it is Mark, the blog administrator of "Bluecollar", that deleted all our comments and asked us formally to stay away. But I see others have joined the fray now.
I am afraid the turning point for me came from a line by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene asserting that we no longer need to invoke the supernatural to explain the development of life on earth. I knew in my heart (used perfectly metaphorically of course!) that he was right. It suddenly no longer involved an act of faith, but a matter of evidence.
We are leading this post way off topic. I would love to have a discussion with you about how we might formulate the statement "I love you from the bottom of my heart" in plain, metaphor-free words. I think we have recourse to the use of the organ "heart" to conceal our inadequacy in expression and, as Lorenzo points out, to substitute the word 'brain' (which would actually be more logical) doesn't sound romantic enough.
I guess an evolutionary biologist could say "I love you from the depths of my loins" which would be true but unlikely to have the desired effect, even if declared on bended knee with diamond 'twixt finger tips.
I'm still hoping you can get to 100 comments but all the action seems to be on Bluecollar now!
I'd like you to know exactly what I wrote that got me banned. I will go back to my post and write it there in my comments section. I won't do it on yours, just in case it offends you, but I think actually Susan, you would just laugh!
It will teach me not to be flippant on serious blog!
Lorenzo. x
And as the heart is the source of blood's flow through the body's members, so are the things we love the source of vitality--whether righteous and life-giving, or wicked and death-dealing (Romans 6:13-23).
A most excellent post, Susan! The heart of the gospel in so few words.
And a nice touch on this debate.
Thanks!
Maalie, and Lorenzo,
I enjoyed reading your interactions with the other good bloggers (meaning all of them, of course) and Susan.
hi susan...hope you are feeling better!
if you beleive in the Son of God,
then you will have your proof
So are you all trying to say that if the egg whites are not beaten correctly than the meringue for my lemon meringue pie will not rise properly? That's where I am going wrong.
Gosh! What a lot of comments Susan, thanks to Maalie's comment I now know where I have been going wrong with the chicks, I always thought the chat up line was I love you from the bottom of my heart and all these years I have been saying 'heart of my bottom!
It is good that your post has started such an exciting debate, I wish I could add some wise words but a comment full of such words as 'fab' and 'groovy' would not help, I only have a small brain and am not very good with wods... wirds... WORDS!
Byeeeeeeee
Halfmom, I nearly ell of my seat (thump) when I saw your comment on my blog! For several days I have been considering a post in EXACTLY those words: "From the bottom of my heart"! I was going to challenge readers to rephrase the words without any use of metaphor. I wonder if it can be done!
"Darling, what rubbish, you know that the heart is a muscular pump, now tell me what you actually mean...."
I shouldn't be wishing you luck with your experiments, it should not be a matter of chance. The French have a good expression: Bon courage, so I wish you fortitude.
It's absolutely bucketing down here, no fieldwork for me today (that's not because I'm scared of the rain but you can't handle birds in the wet as they chill).
I'm afraid I had to resort to a cardiac metaphor on my new post...
I see that Christians are now forbidden to speak to fellow men. What kind of world is that?
It is nonsense my dear, quite nonsense. We are to reflect the character of God and He is a gracious and loving parent.
As a parent yourself, you know that if your children were asking a question and just not quite understanding your answer, you would repeat yourself and change your language as many times as necessary util they got the point.
I believe that Mark has deemed you someone who is not truly seeking to understand why we believe of Christ as we do but someone who just wants to make fun of Christians and put them down for what they believe.
I saw your comment on Bluecollar, you were brave to defy the Mark's edict, thanks. No I really don't think I am trying to put Christians down. I think it is more to do with trying to assuage my incredulity than anybody in this day and age can actually and really really believe that the whole of the world's biodiversity has derived from what could be crammed onto Noah's boat. Accounts vary but there maybe up to 10 million extant species. Ship-building is a post-neolithic skill - incredibly recent. How could he and his wife have gathered up all that and stored them, even for a day, let alone 40 days. It simply isn't tenable.
I think Lorenzo has a much more relaxed attitude about this, but I don't seem to be able to let it go.
We have had non stop rain for weeks now. My poor garden is flooded, a bit like it was last year. My dog leaves mud everywhere and somehow has got it into her head to moult. January? Dogs should moult in March and October. My cat refuses to go outside at all. It is nearly 24 hours since he had a wee.
Maybe we should all start building a boat?
Lorenzo.
If I may add one more to your inexorable route to 100 posts, what I find perplexing to the point of frustration (almost desperation) is the arbitrary, even selective, view they have of science and scientists. They evidently happily embrace science when it involves the physics of the internal combustion engine (their cars), the physics of superconductors in their computers; the chemistry and biochemistry of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides in their food production; the ecology of photosynthesis and plant growth; and the biology of medicine and drugs. Happy to accept a life-saving medicine produced by industrial biotechnology processes but to reject the science of biotechnology. To accept the statistics of clinical trials, but deny the statistics of genetics, mutation and gene flow. To accept the science of DNA in crime investigation, but reject it in phylogeny. If I had any hair left, I would be pulling it out. In fact, perhaps that is where it all went.
I guess there may also be an element of vanity here somewhere too. I have been lecturing this stuff all my professional life; done research in it; handled the skulls. How dare these people, probably home-schooled and denied an objective delivery of the evidence, dispute the outcomes of the careers of thousands of scientists, so glibly with so little consideration of the evidence.
Help!
Susan, I'm showing my ignorance here, but what does WWJD mean?
Lorenzo.
Lorenzo, WWJD means, "What would Jesus Do?" This little diddy became popular a while back, and was put on bracelets, coffe mugs and the like. Very cheesy, IMO.
Maalie - I confess to having NO scientific knowledge. I've ALWAYS wondered how anyone can tell how old a tree or a rock is, especially claiming that something is millions or billions of years old. It's all beyond my comprehension. And quite honestly, the age of rock or fossil holds zero interest for me. But that's just me. I like to read and cook. ha!
I can only testify to the fact that salvation is of God, and it is a supernatural experience - much of which cannot be 'proven' imperically, rather, evidenced by my transformed life. At some point, God chose me for Himself, interrupted my life and changed my wicked heart toward Him - my complete testimony probably being too long for a blogpost.
But I'm always happy to try to answer whatever questions I can.
Oh Lorenzo, I remember last year when your lovely garden and yard flooded. The pictures were very sad indeed! More to you by email shortly!!
Dear, dear Maalie. I wish there were more time to write for I understand your pain and frustration so well. I cannot tell you how all the evidence that you have long studied and taught meshes with the kind and loving Creator of all that we see, even though you know I am well-trained in the basic sciences. I will have to refer you to others for that (two are physicists and one is a math professor, chairman of math and physics actually at a university close to where we live) - but as they do not blog, I will need to ask them directly. Perhaps they will have something you can read that has it nicely laid out - I know the responses to the questions you have been asking have been less than satisfying to your desire to understand.
What I can tell you though is my personal experience. While I do not know how the evidence fits with scripture, I do know the God of scripture, so it doesn't bother me so very much as it does you (It did worry quite a lot many years ago).
My explanation will be in simili I am afraid, but that is what you have come to expect from me, haven't you? There is a report of a man blind from birth in the 9th chapter of the book of John, see it for the whole story. But briefly, Jesus spit in the mud, make a paste and applied it to his eyes and then he could see. The Pharisees were quite unhappy and questioned him harshly. When he was asked about who this person was that caused him to be able to see again, he said he did not quite know, but he did know for sure that while he had been blind from birth, he could now see and it was a direct result of what Jesus had done.
So it is with me. I do not know how all the evidence fits together with the Jesus of the Bible, but I do know that before I came to know Him personally I was spiritually blind and dead and at a point where it hurt to just be alive. In my despair I came to a point that I believed He was really there and wanted a personal relationship with me, and I yielded the control of my life over to Him because I had lost all hope in my own efforts. It was at that moment that something changed and it was just as if I was blind from birth and then He opened my eyes.
There is a wonderful statement from Old Testament that I think sums it up quite nicely.
Jer 29:11-14a For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for wholeness and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me. When you seek me with all your heart, I will be found by you, declares the Lord...
So I trust that if you are really seeking to know and understand God, He will allow you to find Him.
So sorry that I must go work again - I just popped in over lunch and am running way behind in writing.
I will look forward to hearing from you later but will not have a chance to answer probably before tomorrow.
Susan
I knew Susan would 'splain it better than me! Susan, I love reading your words! You are so articulate and gracious.
"So I trust that if you are really seeking to know and understand God, He will allow you to find Him."
Amen, Susan. Maalie, As I'm seeing it, you're anything but indifferent to spiritual things! Perhaps God is in the process of drawing you to Himself. (Something I also thought about Clara and told her the other day)
Thank you ladies for your replies.
I suppose that what I need to hear is one of you say something like:
"Of course the story of Noah's Ark (or Adam and Eve, blah blah blah)is not to be taken literally. There is a story/parable/lesson/ in these accounts for us to heed and take guidance from".
And then, I promise you, you will have my attention.
Until such time, my experience of the world (not my belief) condemns me to incredulity. I fear that we seem to have come to an impasse.
Bringing this back "on topic", has anyone else noticed the sudden proliferation of stylised blood-pump images on greetings cards in shops recently? And, you know what, I even saw some stylised blood-pumps cast in chocolate and covered with red metal foil.
Any explanation?
Thank you gayla for answering the question WWJD.
Maalie, if you want to hear a Christian tell you that the Genesis version of creation, Noah's Flood, Tower of Babel and the rest of it is a story with a message, then you will never get the Christians who use Bluecollar blog to do so. You can argue the toss until Kingdom come, but they will never change their minds.
If you want to hear Christians tell you they think these stories are parables, as in the parables that Christ told, then you have to speak to Catholics, Methodists, Anglican and dare I say, Unitarians.
There are many different ways of interpreting the Bible. Every Christian does not necessarily believe everything in it, certainly not in the Old Testament, The Book of Job for instance is a poem. It did not happen. No-one believes it happened. I personally do not believe the Creation story. I believe it is a parable. It tells us that we had a perfect world and by our own foolishness and stupidity we messed it up. Christ was brilliant at parables. They were the only things a lot of the people of Palestine could understand. I think a lot of the Old Testament is the same. Stories to make moral points.
I think we each have to follow our own way. No two peoples' way is the same. And as Jesus says, there are many rooms in my Father's house.
LtL
Hello Susan again! If I've got my sums right you have made the ton!
Love Lorenzo.
Sorry - I didn't proof read it before I posted it. Here is a better try.
My goodness Llama dear - I do believe you are right and this will make 101!
Yes Maalie, I had noticed those pump organs covered with foil - I rather fancy the very dark chocolate ones to the literal pump organs though as they are so difficult to neatly wrap those in foil!
I do not suppose that it is necessary to believe the Old Testament as fact rather than allegory or metaphor, only the New. I was in that camp for a very long time in fact, for perhaps 30 years.
It is funny though, in an ironic sort of way, that your experience with the world is what you say keeps you from belief when it was my scientific experience, with the kidney as a matter of fact, that moved me from what would be termed an evolutionary theist to a creationist.
Good night tender pump organ'd man.
Congratulations on your centenary.
Last year was the first since I was about 10 that I didn't receive any blood-pump images or icons. When I was a lecturer my in-box used to be full of them. Ah, those were the days...
P.S. I see they are banning left right and centre on Bluecollar now. Even Gayla has submitted to their control, apparently because I used a scientific physiological word three days ago. I thought she had more in her.
Oh well, I've had enough of it, I feel quite disillusioned, just as I thought I was getting somewhere. Ho hum. The spring equinox will soon be here and then I plan to pay respects to the Midnight Sun in Lapland at the Summer Solstice.
maalie,
(This is in response to some of what I read over at bluecollar, they didn't allow anonymous comments and I don't have a blog. I knew halfmom wouldn't mind my comment)
Please don't judge all Christians or all Americans according to what you have experienced here on this blog or the others
Continue your search for answers, but seek God first before man. Ask Him your questions first(even if you don't believe He is there). If you seek Him He will be found.
Praying for your search,
Dianne
"P.S. I see they are banning left right and centre on Bluecollar now. Even Gayla has submitted to their control, apparently because I used a scientific physiological word three days ago. I thought she had more in her."
Now, now Maalie. It's a matter of respecting a person's home or personal space. BC is Mark's blog, which is in effect his "home." He has the right to conduct it however sees fit, and I will respect the rules he puts in place. I'm happy to discuss with you here or on my own blog. No problem.
Re: your comment about "we may be getting somewhere..." in reference to my saying that Jesus isn't a literal lamb.
I guess you'd probably guess that I believe the story of Noah and the flood is a factual, historical account. :)
Please feel free to pop over to my blog anytime. Comments are always open.
Diane, of course your comments are always welcome- and even coveted! I love you!
Maalie - I agree with Gayla. It's their blog so they get to make the rules. I acknowledged as much when I respectfully withdrew from the blog myself and encouraged you to do likewise.
Jazzy - I had already read both Rex's comments - they come to my email box as they are posted off of some blogs. I do not think that they were directed mostly to you, but to Mark, although you posted the "reviled" post, didn't you?
Honestly, as painful as it spounds, I can easily see what precipitated Rex to say what he did. I do not necessarily agree with all of it but I certainly recognize how a non-believer could come away from your joint blog feeling that way. In many ways, I was trying to tell you this when I posted to you and Mark. And by the way, I do not find either of Rex's posts offensive, just very, very sad that we had a chance to present the love of a king to him and we all blew it.
I guess my question is who do you blog for - if it is just each other and other believers of like-mind, then so be it. But, if your purpose, as I believe the primary purpose of all our lives should be, is to present the good news of the gospel, then you've got a ways to go on your presentation. Even I was offended by what was written and tried, as you have said, to gently tell you that and to back it up scripturally.
Lucky for all of us that our salvation does not rest on our presentation on blogs or on our own righteousness but on Christ's!
D.E. - I really do love you, I promise - even if I did just spell your name wrong!!!
> It's their blog so they get to make the rules.
Yes, I do understand that - I have deleted unwanted comments from my own from time to time. But I have never "banned" anyone. Some of my comments were actually responded to with a question, to which it seems only courteous to reply back, and so it escalates, and possible gets out of hand. I would love to know what T. Rex said that was so final!
Oh, OK, I see now, Jazzycat has pasted it in, I thought it was all him.
Wow! And that is one Christian to another! I think it's a pity they didn't leave it up in order to see how Mark defends himself.
I must say that I agree with You appear to write like an automaton.. I admit I thought that too, hence my use of the word "incantation".
You know guys, all this is just part of my "experience". I can't envisage that a truly almighty everlasting heavenly father would allow such bitterness; man hating man in His own Name. History is littered with it. Graveyards are full of it.
> tried, as you have said, to gently tell you that and to back it up scripturally.
With great respect, Susan, I would prefer to back it up my assertions with evidence from the peer-reviewed literature.
Well, I've just read Rex's comment and knowing him as well as I do, I'm impressed by the restrained and balanced view of his remarks. Because of my own background and personal life experiences I find all of this stuff very saddening and wearying and hope that we can just all agree to be the best human beings we know how to be and leave personal spiritual beliefs to the individual.
Well said Magdalene.
I must say I was impressed by Rex's comments. I thought they were clear cut and honestly I have to agree with him. That is why I won't go back to their blog. It is a shame, as you know me Susan, I am genuinely searching, but these people, except Gayla can teach me nothing.
I also agree with Maalie on his comments on such bitterness.
To be kind to Mark, I have realized that he must have had some terribly traumatic childhood experience to make him as he is.
I don't judge him, just his actions. We had said vicious lies about my language and has judged me.
Lorenzo.
To All,
I think we digress from the main purpose of this blog - to discuss Christ, His teachings and their practical application in life.
I would very much appeciate it if all comments about other people are stopped immediately. There have been some rather large and unfortunate misunderstandings on both sides and a lot of accusations are flying about that need to stop.
This blog is intended to be an extension of my home, open to those who are truly seeking to understand either the teachings of Christ or who I am,personally, as a follower of Jesus Christ - which means what I believe and why. I want it to be open to questions as welll as answers and a free flow of converstation among believers and non-believers alike. However, I do not intend to let it turn into a bashing of anyone, so please cease and desist with derrogatory comments.
"we can just all agree to be the best human beings we know how to be and leave personal spiritual beliefs to the individual."
Do you think Christ allows for a variety of "spiritual beliefs" and has many so-called beliefs, or is there only one genuine "spiritual belief" which Christ adheres to?
For instance: Are there many ways to eternal life? Or are there many views of Jesus' being killed and resurrected? Or can Jesus be the almighty God of creation, and at the same time be just a man? And is Jesus alright with all this?
Be interested in your thoughts?
My, my, but we have been busy here, haven't we?
Susan. About the quote that was put on my blog.
Those nuns did not know what they were doing. They were good people, but they just didn't understand what damaging fear can do to a child's mind. They had no idea the damage they were causing.
This is why I am so very much against teaching children about hell. Is hell actually biblical anyway. There is nothing about the actual 'fall' when Lucifer left heaven. Jesus mentions hell when he talks about Lazarus and the poor man at his gate, but that was only a parable.
I just wish these people would be careful what they tell vulnerable little children.
> they just didn't understand what damaging fear can do to a child's mind
With respect, I think they knew all too well. It's called brainwashing. Now, what is it the Jesuits say?
Don't know - only work at a Jesuit Medical School - they don't require me to follow their theology - which is a good thing because they might fire me if they knew they had an evangelical Irish woman in their midst!
Ah, Halfmom, I thought that quotation by the Jesuits was so well-known as to be axiomatic. It is:
Give me your child until he is 9 and he will be mine for life".
Many folk equate this to brainwashing.
Guess it would depend on whether the child also was taught to think, to reason and to observe.
I guess that's why many people home-school in USA "on biblical grounds" to prevent exactly that.
Anyway, it's not my quotation, it's the Jesuit's. It comes up on Google very quickly.
Oh come, come, come Maalie. A Jesuit happens to be one of my role models. He is a priest called Antony de Mello. He is an American but has spent most of his life in India.
He mixes his Catholic faith with Eastern phylosophy. At one time he was excomunicated, but I believe they reinstated him.
He died a few years back. He tells wonderful stories based on Hindu and Buddhist history. He has a brilliant sense of humour. I actually have a tape of the great man himself speaking!
Lorenzo.
Actually Maalie, I homeschooled 3 of my 4 for about 3 years.
Now, knowing me as you do, would you even suggest that I didn't do it with excellence, teaching them to listen, observe, learn, think, argue, apply, choose - as well as play baseball, soccer, cook, sew, grow their own vegetables and flowers.........?
phew.. I have just read these comments...
Maalie I agree with you utterly..
Religion is a load of crap.
Christian/muslim/jew etc does not matter what it is...
The world would be a better place without it.
Frankly, it's just business.
I said "many people", I didn't say "everybody". I have corresponded with a number of "home-schoolers" who state explicitly that their motive is to prevent their children becoming exposed to modern science.
I wonder if you took your children to Natural History museums and helped them to interpret in an objective way the fossil evidence and other material displayed there? Maybe you did, but I know of lots who wouldn't. That amounts to deprivation of a balanced education and, in my view (and that of others) is tantamount to child abuse.
"is tantamount to child abuse."
Man! If you don't take your children to see fossils you can go to jail?
That's quite a judgement to make Maali.
I didn't say that. It has widely been asserted that denying a child a well-balanced education is tantamount to abuse.
"denying a child a well-balanced education is tantamount to abuse."
That's a bit different, and less judgemental.
I know the Baltimore city public schools are not well balanced, and not only that, the students rule in some off the high schools.
There's no discipline from the teachers.
It's a shame how bad it's become. The schools used to be solid back in the 50's & 60's.
My sister has taught in the city schools for over 30 years, and she says it gets worse and worse each year.
What do they do to fix it?
Use human wisdom, and pump millions of dollars into the system. It really stinks.
Homeschooling is a great system, if you have the skills. I know many homeschooled kids, and they are very intelligent, and excellent citizens. Some are fine parents, and on and on.
It's because God is with them. Of course they have told God to get out of the public school system in 1968 I think it was, and it now look at the schools.
But the parochiol schools are fine, but they're very expensive.
Justa few thoughts I had on schooling. Hope you don't mind.
Of course they went to natural history museums - and art museums too - and searching for arrow heads and shark's teeth and anything that might look like a fossil. The youngest wanted to grow up and be a "dinosaur bone digger" - dinosaur's being her favorite animal (besides Calvin and Hobbs that is) and that of her oldest brother too.
And they were presented with all versions of how the world came into existence - both at home and at school and university.
Were you brought up Catholic or Protestant?
> Were you brought up Catholic or Protestant?
I was brought up a Catholic. Then I married a Congregationalist Minister's daughter (he actually married us in his chapel in Wales) and then I became a protestant (Church of England) as a sort of compromise. But I never ever believed in Adam and Eve and talking snakes and Noah's Ark, and neither did my Father-in-Law, who was a very senior Minister in his organisation. And neither has any of the various priests and ministers that I have associated with during my life.
It has widely been asserted that denying a child a well-balanced education is tantamount to abuse.
As Don has testified and I also for many schools in my area, the public education system is guilty of child abuse in many (a very large number) areas of the United States if this is true. Google home schooling statistics and you will find home schooled students fare better on college entrance exams than public educated students.
The following things were first started in America because of the Christian religion: colleges, hospitals, all kinds of personal freedoms, many charities and mercy ministries, just to name a few.
Maalie, you might check the influence Christianity has had on higher education in Europe and the U.K. and check back with us as to your findings.
as a former worship leader in a pentecostal church (and yes... I could lay 'em in the aisles and heal blah blah blah)..did it for years
I just want to say sadly that religion has hoodwinked a lot of people who either have such low self esteem that they would cling to some load of poppycock...(and then speak as if they have the toungues of angels, even though they lack even basic theological education because "god spoke to me as if a dream..." blah blah blah....)
Or they do it for traditional reasons.
What I laugh about is- when they close their doors at night they live the very life of "sin" they so claim as having been saved from.
The truth is I have never met a "chrisitan" who lives christ like or even comes close to it.
Just bitter people who use it as a crutch..
Chrisitanity did a lot of good things? I bet when you add it all up... more people were murdered, butchered, abused in the name of god than in any period of paganisim.
I think we should all move on. Embrace paganisim! enjoy your easter eggs, and Christmas trees etc... treat your fellow man with respect... recognise that we are basically just carbon and move on...
I did..
Hello there people, particularly Susan.
Fresh from my kudos building banning at Bluecollar, (waydago, boy) I pretty much promised myself that out of some hopefully not misplaced respect for one or two of the 'gentlefolk' who write and run it, I would not return more than once. This is for a variety of reasons, a couple of them are here.
1; Those guys can't hear me whatever I say and however I say it. Attempting to discuss any point would have been fruitless.
2; It's just a question of time before my patience with people I regard as bigots runs out and I do NOT wish to alienate myself from this debating forum.
3; If I'm gonna LEARN anything from anybody, I'd prefer it to be people with relatively open minds and a grasp of what real debate is about.
That's enough of Bluecollar stuff, but I did have to say that here halfmom because this is where an astonishing number of comments in a short space has accumulated, and much of the heat in the debate has involved what I feel very strongly is their ludicrous over zealousness.
Thank you for understanding what I was on about with dignity and grace, which is no less than I expect from any person. Also for at least trying to talk to them somewhat on my behalf(?). There is a chance they may listen to you without 'hanging up'.
Susan, I'm going to try to be as tactful as I can here. I doubt that I'll visit this site much, not because it wont be full of interesting observations, but because it just may not interest me much of the time. I don't read much. It's odd for somebody who is inquisitive. If I may, I'd like to ask the occsional question. So here goes for my first question.
Did you personally agree that you should obey all the laws of the land as is written somewhere in the Bible?
If so, what about this dilemma. I don't know about the States, but over here the govt are thinking about introducing changes to the mental health act which effectively make compulsory the taking of psychoactive medicines on pain of losing your liberty if you don't. If that were to become law, many people who have sought to manage their own symptoms with great courage and intelligence,( and maybe even through faith??) would just have to take the pills or get banged up. Some of these pills may have addictive qualities and very damaging side effects, though I can't name any that do cos I can't be bothered to look them up at this late hour.
I have read very quickly your piece on addictions, another interest of mine since I have a few. If the state forces an addiction onto somebody, are they then to be held accountable for all the major problems that person is likely to encounter as a result? No hurry for a reply, just in your own time. Pop over to my 'pad' whenever, all comments welcome ;-)
"The truth is I have never met a "chrisitan" who lives christ like or even comes close to it."
I have. Not that I've lived up to the life that Christ lived, when in fact no one can really.
But I know some who love Christ and are quite wonderful humans.
But the Lord is the one who is to be tasted, not the Church. The church may leave you witha bad taste, but the Lord Jesus never will.
"O taste and see that the Lord is sweet, and blessed is the man who trusts in Him!" Psalm 32:8
Donsands and Jazzycat: I think there may be some misunderstanding here and talking at cross-purpose, and you are raising straw man arguments.
We know there are good schools and bad schools everywhere. My specific and single point is that I know that some American parents home-school simply on "biblical grounds". They have admitted that they do it because children might be told at school (evolution is the topic of the moment) that might conflict with what the parents believe from dogma. This is nothing to do with the quality of a particular school, it is based on dogma.
Now, it has been alleged that deliberately to deny a child its right to a complete education (even in a good school) on a point of dogma is tantamount to abuse.
[Apologies, my deletion, gross typo]
Simon said:
>more people were murdered, butchered, abused in the name of god than in any period of paganisim
And you have the ludicrous scenario, oft repeated in history, in which opposing armies in the same battle are praying to the same God for a glorious, just and holy victory.
Public education is very much in the dogma pushing business. Much leftist 'politically correct' dogma is pushed and promoted in a big way, so I guess they are guilty of child abuse on that count as well. Let me name just a few: abortion, homosexuality, radical environmentalism, radical animal rights (PETA), extreme global warming dogma, and leftist political propaganda. I might add that much of the political propaganda includes blaming the United States and capitalism with all kinds of evils including the end result of promoting hate and hate speech. (and I am talking about in America) For example: the right to “politically correct” free speech is defended and championed by leftists no matter how vulgar or hateful it gets (see Ward Chruchill). Yet non-politically correct free speech must be stopped and is stopped by shouting down and even throwing food such as eggs, etc. Ask Ann Coulter and other conservative leaders.
Jazzycat, rant on, my good fellow, I am not disputing a single word you say. Again I repeat my single point: I have been informed explicitly by some (not all) home-schooling parents that their exclusive motivation for home schooling is on "biblical grounds", in particular to avoid the risk of their darlings being exposed to such "heresies" as evolution.
To wilfully deny a child the opportunity to experience a complete education on such grounds has been alleged to abusive.
Rex, thank you for visiting. You are certainly welcome here.
I will be back soon, I hope, to answer your questions. But work is calling right now and I'm on my daughter's computer, mine having suddenly forgotten how to turn itself on.
Jazzy and Maalie - if you don't quit endlessly arguing with each other on my blog, then I'm going to be quite miffed with you both.
Susan,
I apologize for challenging Maalie on your blog. I only wanted to support and encourage Don for his efforts in offering rebuttal, but I will back off and leave Maalie space for his rants (his word about my opinion which applies to him as well).
"darlings being exposed to such "heresies" as evolution."
You may be right. And this could be deemed as good in the sight of the Lord. But it depends on the parent's hearts I would think. Or understanding what they think is best for their children in growing up in the knowledge and grace of Jesus Christ.
Some hearts could be bad, and deceide this, and some could be well pleasing to the Lord. Maybe not to the world as a whole, but to the Lord is much more imperative to some parents.
An example would be the Amish community. Are they all good citizens and people? For the greater part, yes they are. Very good citizens, and good hard working people, who care for one another.
Thanks for letting me share my heart (understanding).
Thanks Wayne.
maalie,
I have been reading your comments here (Susan is a friend of mine) and on the other blogs. I don't think you have been treated with a balance of Grace and Truth. I am wondering if you realize that you are coming across the same as they are, only on the other side of the fence. Is it the argument you seek? or something else?
I am a Christian, but I won't throw Bible verses at you to "make" you believe. Sharing the Truth in Grace is my part, the rest is up to you and God.
I want to add about the homeschooling. I choose not to home school, I choose to public school my children. It is my choice and I do not live in a great school district. Choice is a beautiful thing. Choice to homeschool or public school. Choice to believe or not believe.
Again I ask, are you continuing the conversation for the sake of argument? or something else? If it is for the sake of argument it will go on until the end of time. If it is for the sake of something else, maybe you should change your questions.
Praying as you search,
Dianne
Dianne - well said indeed.
Now - for those of you who do believe in a God who actually loves and helps us in our daily lives - I could use a few prayers for efficient and effective use of time to get work done and grants in by next weeks deadlines -
or I may never be able to post something new and we will all be stuck here forever
"We can cast our cares on Him, because He cares for us."
Praying for you.
My dear Halfmom, I have decided to make my valedictory comment, and I have put it on JD's (Even So's) own blog.
I shall bother you know more, I have found out what I need to know.
Best wishes.
Oh my dear Maalie, I will be very sad if you go, for I have enjoyed your company.
I do hope you'll be back here and will not mind my presence on your blog, for I do so enjoy seeing something of your work and travels.
Besides, we haven't finished our "I love you from the bottom of my blood pump organ" scenario nor have dark chocolate blood pumps wrapped in foil arrived on my blog or doorstep!
Oh no, don't get me wrong, I mean on this particular line of discussion! I shall certainly join the fray on any new topic!
Very well then...
Now, about those foil-wrapped blood pumps, they come in quite handy during grant writing season!
I think I might have beaten you to it on Maalie.... have a go, anyway!
153 comments! You popular little so and so sexy Susie, gosh! sorry it must be the dwink dwunking my bwain. Do not tell lorenzybum I said sexy Susie otherwise she will come out in a rash. Oh go on then, I give you permission to delete this comment.
Have a good weekend!
Oh dear, oh dear oh dear oh dear.
In the cold light of day I realize what a naughty boy I have been.
You runcible fellow, Martin!
Looks like You're in the coldshower room with Meta and Lorro. It's gonna get mighty packed in there, Hope you brought your speedoes and birch twigs.
Susan; cheers mate, cu l8r
157 comments? Is that for real?
I lost track of what I was going to say.
Susan
You don't post often but you sure know how to keep a conversation going!
You've moderated this discussion rather well. While I've nothing helpful to say, I'll say this -
Faith is a gift.
Maalie...if you're still listening in...I'm certain that you are indeed a very intelligent person but you are incorrect to assume that others who believe and follow Christ do so because they have thrown reason to the wind or are less intelligent.
I've been in the high tech world for 20 years and some of the very brightest folks I've met are Christians....some even homeschool their kids.
>you are incorrect to assume that others who believe and follow Christ do so because they have thrown reason to the wind or are less intelligent.
I agree, and I have never (ever) asserted that there is a question of intelligence at stake. What I DO suggest is that some people made a life choice of not to follow science in their education. Without a grounding in science they do not have the means to understand the principles of chemistry, physics, biochemistry, molecular biology, genetics, geochemistry and so on required to understand the processes involved. And many (I'm not suggesting you), being incapable of understanding it, resort to personal incredulity: "I do not understand it, therefore I do not believe it, therefore God did it". But that does not really get us anywhere because it is impossible to prove that God did NOT do it. It's just that there are more plausible explanations that do not invoke the supernatural that scientists (i.e. contributors to the peer-reviewed scientific literature) prefer to adopt.
I don't understand science. My brain has never been noted for it's logic. I do tend to trust the conclusions of scientists, certainly about evolution and global warming. I think you would have to be totally closed off mentally NOT to believe in them. I don't always trust the motives of scientists though.
Are you trying for the double-ton Susan?
Lorenzo.
Rex - I have not forgotten your question - and I will answer here and post it to your blog as well as I actually do have an opinion on when it is allowed to disobey the governing authorities.
LL and LtL - not going for a record of comments - just no time to post anything thoughtful, so no one has had anything else here to comment on - and they seem to find responding to each other either enjoyable or amusing - so I have left it open for comments.
ESI - I think it took on a life of it's own having little to do with me and much to do with a forum where (as long as they were civil to one another) they could express themselves openly. I always appreciate your presence, even if unspoken, for I know it to be a voice of reason as well as faith.
Maalie - and some of us, not I alone, have made a life choice of following science. I have the basic grounding (one would at least hope so with two graduate degrees in basic science and more years of postdoctoral training than I care to admit to) to understand the scientific principles required to understand the processes involved in evolutionary theory - note I said theory because it remains that as it cannot be tested and validated.
Finding myself capable of understanding the theory and even having spent some time studying and thinking through it, I find that I respond, not with personal incredulity, but with awe at what I see around me in the natural world. Surely you still respond in awe when you see an incredible sunrise or sunset or a bird that you have never seen before, or a setting of such intense wild beauty that it makes your heart stand still for a moment.
I still do not understand it - how the scientific records and God - all fits together, but I trust God does and this is sufficient for me. It is rather like a jigsaw puzzle that I know is too difficult for me to put together because I don't have the box top with the picture of what it is supposed to look like. It doesn't stop me from wondering about it and looking wistfully at the pieces spread out on the table before me every so often to see if the shape of this might fit with the shape of that - and sometimes it does; sometimes there is an insight that puts two very small pieces together. But, on the whole, I am satisfied with the sure knowledge that the God I know and love, who knows and loves me - personally - does know how it all fits together and this is sufficient for me.
Simon - thanking for coming to my blog. I want you to feel free to express opionions there but I ask that you do it in a respectful way - your comment tonight is over the edge in treating someone else with respect. Your comment to Don Sands is out of line.
I'm truly sorry you feel like you've been treated poorly by people who have claimed to be Christians and feel like they - and that would include me - are hypocrites. Those are not the people I know though. Although they may slip and fall sometimes, it's not a chronic thing and when they do, they readily confess it, ask forgiveness, seek restitution with the ones they have hurt and move on. I'm sorry thesse are not the people you associate with the title Christian - and thruthfully, the ones you're talking about don't qualify because Christ said, "if you love me, keep my commandments".
"Nothing worse than a reformed Christian who knows the truth."
Sorry you feel that way.
I thank the Lord Jesus for saving my soul. He truly is the Lord and Savior of this messed up world. He is pure love, and He proved His love by dying on a Cross, and three days later coming forth from the tomb.
This is the Gospel for us all.
Feel free to come and visit me any time.
Sorry to disappoint Simon, but I'm not a reformed anything -
I'm someone brand-new, born-again to a living hope - I just have to live in this old body long enough to get ready to go home and then even the body will be new.
> . Surely you still respond in awe when you see an incredible sunrise or sunset
But of course. However there is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain this. Are you saying, in effect: "I don't believe that such wonderful spectacles could arise without the presence of an almighty everlasting Heavenly Father"? If so, you are still arguing from personal incredulity. If they are God's work then so is the misery caused by other climatic and geological events: floods, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions that can decimate a whole generation in a trice.
>a bird that you have never seen before, or a setting of such intense wild beauty that it makes your heart stand still for a moment.
Are you suggesting that this "beauty" would not be possible without an almighty creator? I put it to you that is also arguing from personal incredulity. There really isn't any need, it is all perfectly explainable without invoking the supernatural.
For every delightful bird or animal alleged to be the work of God, there is also a vicious parasite, like the aquatic nematode worms that burrow into the eyes of thousands of African children every year and turns them blind. These, in your view, appears to be also the wondrous work of a creator.
Wherever a vacant ecological niche arises, an organism will evolve and adapt to fill it. It's called natural selection and there is no need to invoke the supernatural to account for it. There is overwhelming evidence to support this.
But of course, I cannot deny you your right to invoke the supernatural if you want to, but I fear that it is merely a delusion.
Maalie - I was actually asking you about your sense of awe and wonder - where do you think it comes from and what it means to you; what does it do for your soul. How or why would we evolve emotion, especially differently than other mammals; what is the apparent benefit for survival? I also wondered if this sense of awe you feel strengthens what what you believe each time you feel it or perhaps, does it cause you to wonder?
As to why evil, bad, destruction - I will have more to say on that later for it is a good point that you raise. If we give Him credit for the wonder and good we see in creation, do we also give Him credit for the bad and evil - but that is for another post.
Your condescension allowing for only your beliefs being logical and mine being delusions is duly noted.
Every Square Inch's comment on faith being a gift is something to think about, as is this tag line from another blog that I'll leave you with as I go back to scientific writing (please do not tell my reviewers that I am not capable of logical thought, only delusion - it's bad for funding)
"In the end, the only question that really matters is whether Christ is telling the truth."
Firstly, let me say that I do not acknowledge the existence of a soul, other than in a metaphorical sense. It can be said: "I know in my heart" or "I know in my soul" with equal facility, both metaphorical. The relevant organ is the brain.
No, I definitely do not feel awe at a seeing a sunset. When the sun is at or about the horizon the shorter wavelengths of the visible spectrum (blues and greens) are more easily scattered and diffracted, leaving a predominance of the longer wavelengths (reds and oranges). If there happens to be some altostratus or altocumulus cloud formations a scene that is pleasing to the eye me be generated. I have a wonderful print of Turner's "Fighting Temeraire" as a centrepiece in my living room. It is Turner's skill in depicting the sunset that I find awesome.
There is no reason why there should not be a selection pressure for cultural appreciation, so long as it is governed by a hereditable gene(s). I understand that the part of the brain concerned with language, logic and reasoning and probably also aesthetics, is the cerebellum (the cerebral cortex). It is argued (and you can peruse the peer-reviewed scientific literature on this as easily as I can) that development of the cerebellum was selected for to enhance eye-limb coordination when primates evolved and adapted to occupy the new arboreal habitats which emerged during the Paleocene Epoch of the Caenozoic Era. Logic and reasoning may have been a fortuitous by-product, that is perfectly possible.
We know that even that progressive Australopithecus primates (earlier than about 3 million years ago) had a cultural environment from the evidence of their stone artefacts. By the time Homo habilis and Homo erectus evolved there was a high degree of cultural sophistication. There is absolutely no biological reason why this propensity could not be selected for in the normal way if it conferred an advantage to the individuals in a population who had it.
We have ample documentation to rule out any requirement for the supernatural.
>In the end, the only question that really matters is whether Christ is telling the truth
May I ask, in all humility, because I do not know the answer, did Jesus actually write down anything on papyrus with his own pen in his own handwriting? Do we have a sample of his handwriting?
Yes, you did tell me the book is on it's way. Thanks Susan, I'll look forward to receiving it. Maybe one day I can return the compliment with a book, or a pot!
I really just meant about my comment on dinasaurs, that as fundamentalists believe the world is only about five thousand years old, then dinasaurs cannot have existed as we have been taught.
Lorenzo.
Dear LtL: "fundamentalists" as you call us, do not all believe the same things. Some think the days of creation were 24 hours long and some think that they easily could have been eons long. I would think this might make a difference in the relative age of different parts of creation.
This, of course, is besides the fact that, if we're talking about a God who could create life with a spoken word, He could easily make an "old" world as well as a "new" one. And truthfully, He actually might have done it just to fool with Maalie.
Humm - a pot from a friend who lives far away - how fun would that be?? I do fancy pots I'm afraid - and if I took a picture of my fireplace which has shelves on either side, you would see quite a few pitchers. And if you took a bit of a look at the open shelves in the kitchen, then you'd see my fancy for lovely bowls! Of course, you may not fancy the book and then you might throw a pot at me - perhaps I'd better learn to duck!
Dear, dear Maalie. I am sorry for your loss - the joy of a sunrise or sunset or your soul for example. However, if you don't think you have one then I would imagine that takes away the fear some people have of the devil stealing it.
You have your brain regions a bit twisted, I'm afraid - you will find that the cerebrum and the cerebellum are distinctly different parts of the brain. The functions to which you refer occur mainly in different regions of the cerebral cortex (cerebrum), although the cerebellum does participate in some key cognitive functions such as processing of sensory temporal stimuli - but I'm sure you can either go to the peer reviewed literature or Wikepedia to straighten yourself out. My question was, what did you see as the possible advantage to development of those attritubes believed to belong to the area of the soul - love, fidelity, faithfulness, joy, awe?
No, Jesus did not write anything that I know of. Interestingly He didn't baptize anyone either. His story is written before it occurred by the prophets and afterwards by the gospels. In like fashion, much of the work of Paul was not written in his own handwriting either, but dictated to a scribe.
This veracity of these stories is of little concern to me - not only do they agree with each other in a fashion that one would expect of 4 friends retelling the same story, many of the occurances they tell about are documented by secular historians of the time, such as Josephus.
Interestingly, I do not doubt the veracity of Homer's work either. However we have none of it in his handwriting either; I believe the earliest copy of his work that we have was not made until 500 years after it was written. It's nice that we have many copies of the New Testament that date to within 50 years of the actual occurances.
Now, do tell me, how is it that you can format your comments to contain italics and bold? I have not at all figured out how to do that - I am quite jealous.
Italics
carrot point left
the letter i
carrot point right
text
carrot point left
/
the letter i
carrot point right
Bold
same process just use the letter b instead of i
(i)this is how it is done(/i)
but use < or > instead of ( or )
Where did the other blog go? You were here, gone and then at another blog, then here again. Am I going insane? Anyway 'DOH!' is what Homer Simpson says EVERY time something goes wrong, like deleting your whole blog for example. It was mildly amusing to start with, perhaps not so much now, eh.
My dear Halfmom,
>I am sorry for your loss - the joy of a sunrise or sunset
Please do not fret on my behalf. I assure that I do derive immense pleasure from a good sunrise - it is my favourite time of day. And my fulfilment is the greater because I understand the physical principles involved and do not need to ascribe it to God's own paintbrush.
I accept your information on the structure of the brain, I am a biochemist/ecologist, not a neurologist. But I think that is comparatively trivial, the selection process remains the same principle.
I am slightly concerned that we have no direct evidence of Jesus' own hand. That rather makes the account hearsay, don't you think?
But what really gets me (and I feel sure you understand this already) is the "all or nothing" aspect of Christianity. Now, I could happily fall in line with many of the teachings of the New Testament, it makes good sense. However, I will never ever ever ever believe that a pair of Koalas swam several thousand miles across the Indian Ocean from Australia to India (presumably carrying with them a stock of eucalyptus leaves, their exclusive diet), and then bumbled across the Indian sub-continent to the Middle East, passed 40 days there and then made it all the way back to Australia. And this phenomenal migration was repeated by some two million species from the far-flung corners on the globe, to Noah's Ark, and back again.
I simple don't believe it happened that way, it couldn't have and it didn't. Now, because of the "all or nothing" scenario, I am now obliged to reject the rest of the bible. I will plead guilty to the charge of "personal incredulity" but my incredulity is based on a lifetime's study of ecology and animal migration. I appear to be condemned. And the sad thing is that, because God is omniscient, he knew form the beginning of time that this was how it was going to be for me. I am not in his chosen few. Jesus does NOT want me for a sunbeam.
Oh come off it Maalie, you can't reject the whole of the New Testament because of koala bears!
You know it is only a story and you are just having a good stir!
Lorenzo.
Lorenzo: No way. On Bluecollar and The Voice of Vision they have oft repeated that you have to believe it all the bible in order to get God's grace and be saved and join His everlasting Kingdom. They are quite clear about this. Those Koalas are an important example. This may condemn me to hell, but so be it: they never swam from Australia to the Middle East and back again to recolonise Australia. apart from the migratory impracticalities, the limited gene pool of only two individuals would have resulted in almost immediate extinction by in-breeding. It could not have happened that way. I am doomed to swim around in the lake of fire, they said so on Bluecollar.
I agree Maalie (And with Magdaline).
You either have to believe the lot of it or none of it.
My experience has been that most Christians (when under pressure) switch their defence over to " Oh I have a personal walk with the lord" and I am sure my interpretation of that scripture is right....
Just imagine if we did not have jewish faith/muslim faith and christian faith... (or oil use for that matter)
The middle east would be a quiet and peaceful place.
Many people would make more effort to take care of theis beautiful resource called earth realisiing that we only have one life and no after life to escape to... we would be more considerate and real "doers" not talkers...
However if your faith has truely made you a better person ( peace loving, kind, forgiving, considerate, slow to anger etc) then good for you.
I guess its like doing Pilates or tai chi, or buddisim
BUT as I said I met none- just normal people hiding behind a veil.
(there. Was that respectful enough Susan?)
Maalie and company,
What Scripture gives us, as it self attests, is both a human and divine witness, and really a story, the Story of God. And it doesn't fill in alot of details or give data that even some of us Christians claim it does, I don't believe. For example Genesis 1-3 I believe is very true, but it's poetic. It tells us the story even in detailed ways, yet so as to communicate creation, fall and the beginning of redemption. Not to tell us in scientific terms what happened.
Science is the observation of nature, observing, hypothesizing, testing, further hypothesizing, etc. (you can tell I'm not a scientist, though I admire science and those who talk about it, like you, Maalie)
When science conjectures about the full scope of reality, then it is moving in an area of faith. It's an assertion that what is observable is all there is. Of course even in science itself that is mind-boggling. But the point here is that science needs to be true to what it is; otherwise it is no longer science.
For science to assert there is no god, no creator, to assert it all happened by naturalistic evolution- okay, they may be getting some of their thinking from their scientific work. But they're moving into a realm of faith, getting into a field that is out of bounds, making faith statements like "there is no god."
Faith statements can't be judged scientifically, even though Scripture and the story given, is historical in nature, as well as pointed in a direction to communicate creation-fall-Israel- redemption-new creation.
Scripture does call us in the name of "God" to faith, and it does provide stories, humble in their place, yet gripping in their portrayal of what happened and resonating with people to this day, even from the world of that time.
One must look at Jesus, get a serious look at him, as given in the gospels. Let it have its chance to change us, to change all things, because we believe through Jesus this change is beginning even now, in us in him. And that the change will in the end, by judgment and grace, make all things new- in Jesus. All will be united in him- back to a garden and a city.
thats the point "there is no god!"
>getting into a field that is out of bounds, making faith statements like "there is no god."
No, I don't agree that it is exactly like this. What scientists say (and I commend the writings of Richard Dawkins on this) is that the likelihood of a divine creator being in control of everything is so remote as to be not a realistic consideration. At a pragmatic level, it is argued that since our observations about the origins and development of life on earth can be explained without invoking the supernatural, then there is no need to do it. In science it is conventional to adopt the most parsimonious hypothesis until such time as the evidence precludes it. Invoking the supernatural is not, at the moment, the most parsimonious hypothesis because it makes an assumption about God that is not required.
I know many vicars, chaplains, pastors and preacher men who do not take all of the bible literally - good people who have done much in charitable work. According the Christian Fundamentalists they are all damned to swim in the lake of fire.
Mallie, Wow, This is a crazy thread to comment on. Had to bring her site up on another window to see your comment.
Thanks much. I can't track with you in your science, though again I enjoy every minute I can learn science.
Haven't read Dawkins, but from what I've heard an agnostic say (he's a prof at Harvard, Harvey? whatever, not sure the name) he leaves something to be desired in his analysis.
But for me, this is religious talk, this atheistic talk of Dawkins. Just because scientists think they can explain everything by observation of nature doesn't mean they really did. And their faith explanation rests on naturalistic assumptions (had the right phrase in my head a few seconds ago, but lost it!); it's a faith explanation to insist that there is no dimension beyond our own dimension, or nothing outside the dimensions we know. All that is faith, and Dawkins seems to me to be a very religious man, but alot of what I hear from him, or about him is not science, I don't think.
Though it's fine for Dawkins, and for you, Maalie, to make faith statements. I read and hear of scientists who study nature and think there has to be some kind of power and intelligence behind what they're studying. Don't they deserve equal time with the likes of people like Dawkins?
As to the Bible thing, I don't think inerrancy as stated by evangelicals is necessary nor even necessarily warranted. For though I believe the Bible is true as to what it purports to be, the word of God -along with the words of the humans through which he gives us his word- I also believe that the way people stated truth and history was markedly different then than in our time. What we might see as an error, they would say was true in some kind of general sense. Something like that.
I would say, Maalie, with the wonder of who you yourself are, an excellent scientist and professor, who maintains a love for studying birds, etc., just look at yourself. How can you just say it was all an accident. Random activity at a small level. Sure, you can explain alot that way- matter, etc., but there's so much more to you than that, which I pick up from your good and kind words, oftentimes, along with something of your personality that comes out in them.
(don't have time to really proofread this, have to get around, you know it's early morning here)
Ted, I appreciate your thoughtful response. However:
>just look at yourself. How can you just say it was all an accident.
Well, I don't see why not (though I would prefer the word "chance" than accident).
Since we know there was a smooth and continuous transition through the Pleistocene era (you may spell it differently in USA) from Australopithicus afarenis through Homo habilis, Homo eructus to Homo sapiens (the fossils have been discovered and described by scientists including some of the best from USA) I find it hard to know exactly at which point this alleged d "fall" of man occurred. I have seen the fossils and some of the excavations, nobody can deny that of me. I am told constantly that I should repent, but I'm not sure what I should repent from. I live a pretty decent life, as best I can. I commit no crimes and try not to hurt anyone.
:o)
Maalie,
Glad I caught your response before I'm submerged into my workaday activities.
I wouldn't deny the fossil record, and let the scientists conject what they like. I might be a little sceptical at the macro-evolutionary hypothesis, but that's all well and good for science to keep working on and conjecturing about.
Good science as to its theories does keep changing at least in the sense of getting a better picture of the bigger whole. So that what science said 100 and more years ago is in contrast to what science says now, though with much that is compatible, both continuity and some disconnect.
Scripture and God's special revelation in it and in Jesus is not dependent on whether or not macro-evolution occurred or not. If so, then I take it that's how species are after their own kind, according to Scripture, today.
C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" posited a kind of theistic evolutionary position. So Lewis respected the science of his time, and having converted to Christ from atheism, accepted by faith the testimony concerning Jesus Christ- his life, work, death and resurrection, and all the ramifications that go with that.
Science can try to deny that, but then you're getting into faith, are you not?
Of course when I look at myself in the mirror at times, I think in terms of catastrophe! But you get the point I'm trying to make.
Where does LOVE come from? Why do we ENJOY doing certain things? Maybe even blogging among them.
Yes, there's naturalistic answers, and maybe they're good insofar as they go. But we believe that there is a story going on, that each of our lives is a story, and really a part of this bigger Story. And the key to it is found in Jesus.
I'll try to look at whatever response you might leave, Maalie. I appreciate all you say as a scientist. There's reason and sense (sense and sensibility?). Einstein saw science as art and like music; he loved to play Bach on violin. He thought you had to be that way to do the best science, and he believed in some god behind it all.
(must run)
Another thing (I'm at work and going on my memory with reference to your last comment, Maalie)-
Humankind is wonderfully made but flawed in a dramatic way. I see that in myself, wonderful things in me, but dramatic flaws as well, that have showed up in my life.
Bible posits humankind made in God's image. And that God's law, thus, is written on each heart. We see this possibility in cultures like Hammurabi's in which law is formulated as to what's right and wrong. You can call it mere custom, but all we really think, say and do, I think flies in the face of denying there is a god and that there is more to us than the ground from which we come.
Again, Maalie, got to run. I'll try to keep up on whatever you post, and no matter what, I love your work and your love for what you do. Keep at that, of course.
>And that God's law, thus, is written on each heart
But it is not literally written on our blood pumps (see my current post)!! Surgeons have never seen it written there. Therefore it is, axiomatically, a metaphor. So, my point is, how much else in the bible may be regarded as merely metaphor?
If I may assume that a pair of Koalas made their way from Australia to Noah's Ark in the Middle east (taking all their exclusive food with them) and all the way back again, as a metaphor, then I might make progress here. But Bluecollar and his buddies won't allow that. I see now that they require me to "season my prayers with soul food". For goodness sake, what's that all about?
Not that I should be telling you what you're to do. It's great you can do what you enjoy, and we can enjoy what you do!
Jesus is the gate for the sheep, the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, we're like sheep going astray, Jesus is the way/road, the truth, the life. All metaphor, and more, but true.
But not all in scripture is strictly metaphor. People as real as you and I, of course.....
Ted: on that note, I suggest we call it a draw and let others take Halfmom to her double century! LOL!
'Bluecollar and his buddies'. They never did answer your question about whether they wear mixed fibres in their clothes? I wonder whether they eat 'Black Pudding', eat corn from fields that have been harvested right up to the edge, follow all the rituals in the temple, etc. etc. I still get the feeling that Bluecollar would have a 'reasonable' explanation.
Lorenzo.
Hi Lorenzo,
Those were special laws to help the people of Jacob/Israel know that they were called to a special calling as God's holy people on earth, meant (promise to Abraham) to be a blessing to the world.
Some laws remain like Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor- but many seem to apply only to God's people under the old covenant.
Best answer I can give at moment. Off to lunch with a busy day!
Ted
>Some laws remain like Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor- but many seem to apply only to God's people under the old covenant.
Ted, might I ask how we are to know the difference? In England we would call that "cherry picking", that is adopting the bits you like and assigning the ones we don't like as applying "only to God's people under the old covenant".
maalie,
you said** And the sad thing is that, because God is omniscient, he knew form the beginning of time that this was how it was going to be for me. I am not in his chosen few. Jesus does NOT want me for a sunbeam. **
Oh maalie, I don't believe this for a second. Consider that maybe this whole conversation is God inviting you in. Granted you were not treated well by us flawed humans, but at least consider that God DOES want you. He wants NONE to perish. Even you. But back to that gift (or curse) of choice. You can choose to step out in faith or not. Your choice. Start with believing what you can believe and not what bluecollar tells you you must believe. It is not about bluecollar. This is about you and God.
Praying for your search,
Dianne
Dianne, I really like your comments to Maalie.
Lorenzo.
Only two comments to go! Who'se going to make the 200th?
LtL.
It's me! It's me! Congratulations on your double century!
Thank you Diane a voice of light to lighten the darkness.
Maalie,
I can't give you a good answer on your good question at the moment as I must hit the road and take our daughter to school.
You have to read the Old Testament Scriptures in light of the New and in light of what Jesus said. For example Jesus made all foods that were unclean in the old covenant, clean in the new covenant. His coming is the fulfillment of the old, as was promised in old covenant passages.
But matters you bring up are much more difficult to parse except to say one has to read them in context and note that they are given specifically to the children of Israel during a certain period in their history. And not even all of them were kept later on.
This is all like life, not neat and clean, but messy.
Just my two cents worth right now.
frankly:- there is no god , no heaven and no hell.
I think you should all come over to my side and join the masons and illuminati (and let me tell you about my russell blood line) ;o)
I find it simply incredible that anyone religious could even argue from a logical point- as if their faith gives them authority and education as if it is based on fact..
When even believers admit that it's just poetry and prose.
There are even Christians who believe that the world was created in a literal 7 days, other in about 7000 years. So if you lot cannot even agree where the unity in your ranks?? oops! I forgot you can then use the arguement "god has written it on my heart" Or I prayed and I heard gods voice... nonsense!
As I said before I was a worship leader in a Pentacostal church, witnessed fools being "blessed" by the toronto blessing and other things, had grandparents who were high up in the Baptist church, Was educated in the Church of England. for years lived ate and breathed an upbringing in the church. Waste of time! when you sit in the back rooms with the money counters and see the policies that run the machine called church....
Even in business today I deal with the church groups- and witness theft, cheating, lying and stupidies. NO different to the world.
All hidden by false smiles and false love.
( and here comes your arguement weak as it is- Oh Simon I am sorry you have never met real chrisitians. Too right! they don't exist not even by your own measurement)
Churches are rife with corruption. They are NO light to the world. No different to the Pharrasees of jesus's day.
Why do you think other religions are growing faster??
Bible? Its a bit like using Harry Potter or Star Wars as a "proof"
CS Lewis? he wrote stupid stories about lions and witches and wardrobes.. on par with other fiction.
Guys the ONLY reason why they want you in a church is to get you 10% of your gross income, for you to contribute to their money makng spin machine-
All so you can have a "relationship" with an imaginary person ( cause you probably cannot have one here)and feel good... because you don't feel good about yourselves
Someone who frankly wandered in and was critical of the then church...
Maalie there is no point in having this debate- It would be like you talking to me about the proof fopund in science, and me replying Oh yes! but Darth Vader says in star wars chapter to " I find your lack of faith most disturbing"
And you need to submit to the dark side
utterly ridiculous!
Now- don't get me started on the stupidities of American world Politics and that "great" leader you have!
;O0
BTW Susan Scorpios and Pisceans are supposed to get on really well!!
:o)
Simon, I think you should try a performance based prayer theology, and you should season your prayers with soul food.
Simon,
I too have seen plenty of hypocrisy among professing Christians, and in myself at times.
But this just goes to show that there is truth in what Christians are saying, doesn't it? Hypocrisy is play acting or pretending when the heart (woops, Maalie!) is not in it, or rather contrary to it.
Christians don't give up and give in forever, only because of the one we follow, Jesus. Jesus, if the New Testament witness is true about him, displays God's full commitment to humanity. How that plays out in full in the end, we don't know completely, but in the present it means for me that I seek to follow on. Grace keeps me seeking to follow Jesus, in spite of oh so many things, in and outside of myself. If it just depended on those things, I'd have left the faith many years back. But it's something that beckons us on.
And with that is the hope/promise of the new creation. That someday all peoples and all nature will be united in Jesus. What happens is a new material world, as I see it.
But explanations aside, I simply follow on, seeking to walk in faith in Jesus, and seeking to do so with others. And seeking to do so no matter what. Which means I need correction and help along the way.
But in this process I believe I'm becoming a better person, more human. And I live as one not enamored with the world's ways of life, including any nation's way. But only in the Jesus way. That's what I'm about, that's where I want to be, and go.
Maalie and Lorenzo,
One explanation I agree with, which you may be aware of, regarding the different laws in the old covenant (Old Testament, of course) is that "God" was preparing a nation that would be a holy nation, his servants to bring his light and life into the world. And God dealt with them where they were at. And also in some ways they would likely never understand, but to help them come to trust him through everything, because God is god, and therefore humans aren't going to track with him always.
This is sort of like parents and infants and toddlers and their children through different stages of their development. At the start parents have to deal with them in different ways, than they will later on. It's to help them grow up and mature and become responsible adults.
So this is part of what's going on, I believe, with all the laws God gave Israel at Mt Sinai with Moses. To fulfill the promise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed.
And this blessing comes in Jesus by his coming, life, death and resurrection to bring all who by simple faith will come, into a new relationship with him.
This does get very personal, this faith of ours. But not to end there, as it's all about a new humanity in Jesus, the true evolution into his image. The place where all humankind by judgment and grace, is going. By virtue of the judgment God in Christ, Jesus took on himself. So that we can personally enter in and become a part of this new humanity. In this world but not of it, in Jesus.
Hope I don't sound preachy. It's only what my life, flawed and broken as it is, is all about. I want to follow on and be a part of this, in Jesus. And am so even now, I believe, and it's good, while at the same time dynamic and ongoing- wouldn't an evolutionary process, especially one heightened in this way as mattering over the few years of our lifetime, be like that- good, but challenging?
Maalie yes...
Ted I do not agree with you at all. You are basing your commentry on "god" and I say there is none, so your entire arguement is flawed from the start in my opinion.
I see no evidence of god anywhere. certainly not in the behaviour of man.
However (as said before) if what you believe has made you a better person-go for it.
We are simply made of carbon dna few other elements- when we die we simply convert back to what we are made of...My hope is that I can push up a few daisies or a tree would be nice.
Post a Comment