My daughter and I are in Richmond VA for spring break, visiting family and friends. Although not a total vacation for me as I had to bring work with me, it is a glorious break from Chicago.
Richmond in the spring is a lovely sight to behold. Though it is still early in the season, the sun is warm and there are flowers and trees blooming. It is actually warm enough that I, though cold natured, am sitting outside with my laptop. Since Chicago is blanketed by several inches of snow, it makes this Saturday morning even sweeter!
Spring, the renewal of all things after the cold and dark of winter, is a wonderful thing both for my body and my soul. I love snow and the beginning of winter, but it's not too long into the dark days of Chicago's winters that I begin to yearn for spring with its sunshine and warmth. In a similar sense, I wait for Resurrection Sunday each year in the same way I wait for spring, knowing that it will come each and every year. Yes, Easter Sunday is a day I look forward to with great anticipation! I suppose it is only a day of special remembrance, but I still love all that it represents.
In the same fashion, I also look forward to that day when Christ comes back again. The winter that all of creation has endured these long years will be over, never to dawn again - no more pain, no more tears, no more darkness or sin.
A blessed Easter to you all - for He is risen - He is risen indeed!
122 comments:
It sure looks nice in Richmond! And we are having a wintry Easter in England, been snowing today!
The tulips are lovely indeed. Red passion for the sun that has called them forth.
My goodness. Did you take that picture?
Eliot says April is the cruellest month. But we know better. Renewal is real.
I wish that I had taken it but it is from the web - Easter is early this year so spring is not quite that far along, though there are flowing trees in bloom, daffodils and camellias to name a few!
Happy Easter Susan!!
Love and xx
Llama, Lorenzo T.
" ..no more pain, no more tears, no more darkness or sin."
And He will wipe away the tears. Thanks for sharing your heart Susan.
Thank you Jesus for becoming sin for us, and cursed for us, and enduring the Cross. "It is Finished!"
Hey, BTW, I'm just a 150 miles north in Baltimore, if you want to stop by.
And, have you ever been to Charlottesville? That's where Monticello is. Lots of Tulips for us Reformed types to enjoy, and for everyone really.
Spring!! Oh, how wonderful. Have a blessed Easter -- He is risen indeed!
Beautiful photo. I love those flowers.
And yes, great words, Susan. What a day that will be! We have much to look forward to through Jesus as we share in that resurrection to come.
And yes, don't we look forward to Spring! I was shoveling longer last night than perhaps I have all Winter, a most heavy, wet snow.
Most blessed Easter and celebration of our Lord's resurrection to you and yours!!!
And yes! The Lord has risen indeed!
The Lord is risen indeed!!!
we live about 20 minutes drive west of a town called Richmond in NSW....
Anyway- just back form an amazing trip into the desert regions of Aus- flash flooding, Mungo National Park, Black kites, Whistling kits, Wedge Tailed eagles,
Flash flooded creeks, broken bridges..... etc etc winching vehicles out of bogs.... lightening storms.....
and the BEST way to know you are alive! :o)
"..no more pain, no more tears, no more darkness or sin."
I struggle to imagine how unfilfulling life would be without pain, tears or sin... it would certainly rule rugby out, that's for sure!
In any event I have consumed far more than my fair share of chocolate ovoids. And whether they be a symbol of new life according to the ancient pagant tradition, or tombstones as more recent religious doctrines would have one believe, either wya I need to cycle more.
W
You and me both TCA!!! I have a sore knee and have not cycled much- sadly putting on weight as a result!
Litl Luther seems to have gone away, but if he returns, I take issue with him (re. comment on the previous post) about our darling Diana, Princess of Wales. No, she wasn't drunk - she had been having dinner, as many people do in the evenings. It was the driver who was drunk, and the paparazzi who were chasing her. And I am confident that the mass hysteria that followed her death is an excellent example of the way that masses can react to the loss of a charismatic figurehead.
100% with you Maalie!
sorry gentlemen, if you think a response to Christ is mass hysteria -
I've never known Diana, beloved though she is still, to have radically changed a single life from the inside out like Christ has mine!
Sorry everyone. I leave for Thailand this coming Monday and have had to get a research paper written before I go. I'm not sure how much internet access I'll have while I'm away. My first few days in Thailand I’ll be enjoying the beach. I’m looking forward to that! Then the follow two weeks conference is at the Royal River Kwai Resort, which is supposed to be nice. It’s going to be busy, though, morning till night. But I'm sure I’ll check in with you guys now and again and join in the fray!
Maalie, I did not mean to malign darling Diana. I know she was beloved by many. I'm sure she was a wonderful woman—perhaps a British saint, but even saints are sinners saved by grace. For Diana (or any other human being for that matter) to have any hope of salvation, she needs Jesus Christ.
Litl Luther, have a good time in Thailand, enjoy your vacation and I'm sure your presentation will go well.
Halfmom, I don't really know what to say. There has been no authenticated case in medical history of a dead corpse coming back to life, so we need to seek an alternative explanation for the "resurrection". One of your USA psychologists (sorry, forget his name) offered a perfectly reasonable suggestion. Jesus was obviously an influential and charismatic leader of a flourishing movement challenging the supremacy of the Romans; that is why he was killed, I believe. He was clearly loved by his followers, to the point of adoration and worship. It is easy to see how he might have even have been regarded as a 'God', as some of the Roman Emperors were considered to be.
Now, with the loss of such a leader the movement was in danger of collapse because nobody else carried such esteem and authority. In order to keep the momentum going some of his disciples created a conspiracy of deception by rumouring that they had witnessed Jesus being resurrected. In the hysteria of their grief, the rumour could have spread like wildfire among the movement. It would be even more powerful because it was now in the realms of superstition, and the followers would have believed that "bad things" would happen if they failed to perpetuate the movement that had been led by a man who now looked down on them from space.
Now, this isn't my theory, but it seems to me to be immensely more credible than a dead body springing back into life. You don't have to consider just Diana to see how mass hysteria works; look no further than Billy Graham.
"There has been no authenticated case in medical history of a dead corpse coming back to life"
Amen to that.
That's what makes Jesus' resurrection so authentic.
Paul said 500 people saw Him at one time, and then Paul says, there are some who are alive EVEN NOW who saw Him alive. Why would Paul say this if he was making it up.
Not to mention all the Apostles being tortured and killed because they say they saw the Savior Jesus Christ alive.
Why not say, "I was just kidding guys."?
There's more proof here then can be imagined if you need proof.
However, it does finally come down to faith, doesn't it. Because we haven't seen Jesus.
Jesus said to Thomas, when Jesus appeared to Thomas, "Put your finger in my hand, and put your hand in my side Thomas, only believe".
Then he said, "You have seen me risen, but more blessed are those who believe and have not seen Me."
I know you don't really want to hear the Bible, but it does me good to share the truth. And I figure, you never know who's looking on and may come to believe in Christ.
Have a blessed day my friend.
>Paul said 500 people saw Him at one time
But isn't that what YOU would say if you were trying to perpetuate a movement based entirely on the charisma of a single person who was a legend in his own lifetime and who is now dead? Tell as many folk as you can that you have seen him alive, and you may perpetuate the legend.
It all seems so simple, but I must emphasise, I do not claim credit for the idea, that is due to an American psychiatrist. I am trying to google the reference, but I forgotten the name.
The point here is, that the 500 Paul is talking, many of them are still living.
Paul says some have fell asleep, or died, but many of the 500, who saw the risen Jesus of Nazareth, are a live and kicking.
So, if you want to know if I'm telling the truth you can go ask, John, Jim, Derek, Joan, Maria, and on and on.
if Paul was making it up, then he wouldn't have mentioned all these people. It would be dumb to do so.
Or he would have said 500 people saw him, but they are dispersed and most are deceased.
I think this is a strong point to prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
But like I said, it still comes down to faith, because some saw the Lord work many miracles, and even raise Lazarus from the dead, and would not trust His words to be truth.
Which is why He came, to bear witness to the truth.
I appreciate your response.Have a nice evening in England.
Thanks Maalie,
I appreciate the encouragement.
Hey guys, besides obviously Jesus, I have personally met two "corpses" who came back to life.
The one was the 4 year old son of a former Hindu guy in a place called Kinnaur in the Himalayas in northeast India. His son was very sick. He took him to the pujari (Hindu witchdoctor) to be healed. But his kid died there on the floor, and there was nothing more the pujari could do. He left that house with his dead son in his arms, and then he remembered that he had heard “the god of the Christians can heal”. The only Christians he knew anywhere near that area were way up the mountain, so he started hurrying up to their house. It took him an hour he tells me to climb the mountain. I’ve been there and can assure you, for him to make that hike in an hour, he was literally running with his child in his arms up the mountain. It would take me 3 hours if I was hurrying.
He got to the house, completely out of breath and couldn’t get the words out. When finally he could speak, he begged the Christians to heal his dead soon. They said “You pray for him.” He got angry with that response and they further said, “If you put your faith in Jesus he can do anything. Pray to Him!” He began to pray “Jesus, if you are really who the Christians claim you to be, please give my son’s life back.” Soon after his son began to revive. That was his testimony of why he became a Christian, and he told me it as his 5 year old was playing on the floor in front of me. The only reason he gave his life to Jesus is because Jesus brought his son back to life. And this man’s faith was so strong. It is not easy to be a Christian in Kinnaur. Many have suffered for their faith.
Another example is a young Nepalese woman (about 20) right here in Kathmandu who was one of my students at a Bible college. Her testimony was that when she was a baby, her aunt, who was already a Christian, came to her village and led her mom to faith in Jesus. Immediately after her Mom gave her life to the Lord, the mom’s baby (my student) died! When her husband found his baby girl dead and found out what happened, he started to literally tear the house apart! He believed that his wife had brought a curse on the family for becoming a Christian. With windows breaking and all the noise, the whole village came out to see what was going on. At least 100 people were there. Everyone saw the dead girl and everyone was blaming the mom for bringing a curse on the girl and the village for becoming a Christian. More than one hour went by as the villagers berated the mom and aunt. And finally the aunt (who everyone saw as the cause of this mess) spoke up loudly in prayer for all to hear: “Jesus, you have to do something for the sake of your name! and for me, your daughter who has only shared the truth about you. Please bring her back to life so that you will not be dishonored here!” After this prayer, the girl began to breathe and everyone saw it. Like I said more than an hour had gone by and everyone knew her to be dead. It was such a dramatic miracle which everyone witnessed with their owe eyes that every single villager gave their lives to Christ. All who previously berated, including the dad, became followers of Jesus to this day. Come to Nepal, I’ll take you there. You can ask around and they will confirm what I’ve said. Even today Jesus still raises the dead, like he did in the case of Lazarus.
Kinnaur is in northwest India....Typo
>The point here is, that the 500 Paul is talking, many of them are still living.
No Donsands, that is something I'm afraid I will never be able to accept. Any more than I could agree to the existence of inter-continental swimming kangaroos.
We have the written word of individual persons (Paul in this case) and we have no way of cross-checking his claim. "Conspiracy theories" are popular now, they could easily have been then!
>Soon after his son began to revive.
Little Luther, that is a wonderful story. I believe that it happened, but I am unable to believe that the child was actually dead. He was probably in a coma. Without the testimony of a qualified doctor we can never resolve this paradox. I have heard a number of such stories but they never hold up when scrutinised critically.
The "power of suggestion" is a wonderful thing.
"Conspiracy theories" are popular now, they could easily have been then!"
I don't think this was a conspiracy from Paul. No way.
However, you see it the way you see it. And that's where we must end our discussion I suspect.
Have a pleasant day.
Some amazing discoveries described here.
By the way, does anyone here have an idea as to which "ethnicity" Adam and Eve are supposed to have belonged to?
That Fossil looks weird to me. Is this a theory, or a fact?
I'll have to get back to you on Adam, God's first son.
How about checking this out, if you haven't yet. It's a new movie coming out with Ben Stine: http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php
Donsands: LOL! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! I think it is beautiful and we should treat it with respect, it may have been your forefather (or mine). As an object, it exists and is tangible and I suppose therefore it is a fact. I mean, it is there. It fits nicely into a succession of hominid fossils that indicate the evolutionary lineage of man.
Evolution is of course, like other science, a theory, in the sense that it cannot be "proven". All theories are subject to revision as new evidence emerges - that is the nature of science. However, evidence from all branches of science all intertwine to suggest that evolution is now so incontrovertible that it is very unlikely to be modified.
Of course, that is a perfectly standard response from creationists: "Ah, but it's only a theory!" It is an explanation that accounts for all the known evidence, is beautifully simple and, importantly, doesn't require the intervention of the supernatural. (But it does require time, and there has been plenty of that, tens of millions of years).
Attempts can be made to ridicule or invalidate scientific evidence, but it won't go away - t gets stronger by the week, whereas the bible has stagnated just as it was written some 2000 years ago. We have moved on a bit since then.
And I will add a third miracle Maalie -
my cousin died last year. Her heart stopped for 8 minutes. she has a pacemaker that records all heart signal - it showed the 8 minute non-signal even during physical and mechanical resusitation efforts and they pronounced her dead on the way to the hospital.
And that's when her heart started beating again. She was in a comma, of course, and they said she would not come out of it and if she ever did regain consciousness, she would be vegetative.
But, she's not - vegetative that is. Her heart is still pretty bad but her mind is just fine thank you.
And by the way, the download from the pacemaker and pacemaker recorder function verified that it was recording perfectly all through the ordeal - there was just no heart beat.
And that's just somebody's body - you should see what Christ did in resurrecting my soul!
The miraculous is all around you Maalie. For instance, you and Don keep talking about the Apostle Paul and his 500 witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection. But even do a study on Paul himself. He clearly was formerly an enemy of Christ and of Christians. He was doing everything he could to stop the spread of Christianity. No one can deny this. What transformed him? What made him willing to suffer more severely than any of the other Christians for a faith he once tried to destroy? Like Susan, his soul was resurrected when he met Jesus. And he was never the same afterwards.
My testimony is similar. I was determinately walking the opposite direction away from God, from Christ, and I thought all people fools who wasted their lives in religion. What made the difference in my life? Christ intervened powerfully in my life and resurrected my soul. You could go back and talk with all my former friends and drug-buddies (those who are still living anyway) and they would confirm I wanted nothing to do with God.
Each of us Christians are living testimonies of the power of God who can bring life from the dead. We were each spiritually dead and He made us spiritually alive—which is really just as incredible a miracle as raising Lazarus’ literal body from the grave. Each ‘genuine’ Christian is a testimony of the miraculous power of God.
"Attempts can be made to ridicule or invalidate scientific evidence, but it won't go away"
I honestly want to know the truth, and the Church needs to acknowledge the truth as well. The Church did fail in the past at times, as it did with Galileo, but many who follow and love Christ are willing to look evidence right in the face.
If this is a 4.3-4.5 million year old bone (and BTW, why do they allow for 200,000 years, that's a lot of years), then I want to know how they know.
You say "it does require time".
So let's say we plant a oak seed, and it grows an oak tree, then we do the same thing from this same tree for a million years, and in a million years this Oak Tree could become an Elm Tree, or even a Living organism, like Tolkein's Treebeard perhaps. I could never believe that, and neither of us can live for a million years to test our theory.
Actually I am very weak in science, and am simply airing out my pea brain head, but it has been a good discussion, and you have challenged me to check these things out a little more.
Have a nice weekend.
I agree that there are plenty of wonderful experiences that can be told. You will not be surprised by now that I would welcome the opportunity to read any authenticated accounts of dead corpses coming back to life that are described in the mainstream peer-reviewed medical research literature. I'm afraid it is the only type of evidence that I am trained to accept.
Donsands, you are absolutely right not to believe that, it doesn't happen that way. I have read mis-information like that put out by the creationist literature asserting that cats don't turn into dogs therefore evolution is nonsense. Natural selection takes place at the population level, not at the individual. You should consider the fate of, say, 1000 oak saplings, not just one. Not all of theme will survive, so only those which have some hereditary feature (e.g. resistance to some adverse condition) will survive to reproduce themselves. Farmers have been undertaking "artificial selection" on their crops for centuries by selecting for propagation only the seeds from individuals that have the characteristic they want to enhance. Modern wheat or rice looks nothing like the wild ancestors. In nature, the environment does the selection, not the farmer. It works at the population level, not the individual and works over successive generations, not to an individual.
I don't want to hijack Halfmom's blog by taking space that would take me a semester's lecture course to explain properly, but there is a fairly simple explanation here which you may like to start with and progress from there. I'm sure Halfmom or I could help with any of the technical words you might not be familiar with.
I hope you also have a good weekend with your family. I guess you can easily distinguish between your children - that is an important factor in evolution, that not all individuals in a population are exactly alike. It is the variability which permits the process of natural selection.
I understand how it might be hard to reject a religious philosophy that you may have had all your life, but once the evolutionary process is understood it is so beautifully simple that it just has to be correct. You will feel born again with a fresh outlook on the world, I can promise you that. It is worth the effort to study it. But I'm afraid it is not as easy as quoting a couple of verses from Genesis and saying "That's it!"
"I guess you can easily distinguish between your children - that is an important factor in evolution, that not all individuals in a population are exactly alike."
Yes we all have our own personalities, and i believe they are God-given.
For we made in His image, and not made from chance, slime, nor even an educated ape. Just don't see it Maalie.
I will look at Creationism vs. Evolution though. I'm really looking forward to the movie "Expelled", by Ben Stein.
>not made from chance, slime, nor even an educated ape. Just don't see it Maalie.
Well, I'm not surprised; what is all this about slime and educated apes? That is just more of the quasi scientific misinformation put about by the creationists in order to discourage you from leaving their cult.
Your doubts seem to me to be based on personal incredulity and personal ignorance of the processes involved. I don't mean that in a patronising way, merely that you evidently chose an educational path that did not include sufficient science to understand the process. Of course this is largely self-perpetuating in America because of "home-schooling" which ensures that the little darlings are not exposed to dangerous scientists.
I honestly don't wish to sound abrasive on another person's blog, but personal ignorance and personal incredulity carry no weight at all in a discussion. It appears you have already made up your mind to stick with a book that was written some 2000 years ago that is simply out of place in the twenty-first century.
I beg you to do some serious study, it might take some weeks but it will be worth it, you will be born again, I promise. Or perhaps that is what you are scared of?
"Or perhaps that is what you are scared of?"
I'm not scared of the truth. All these scientist you put your faith in don't do a thing for me.
many have lied in the past about the bones they have found, just to make a name for themselves.
The earth is full of persons who have no problem with telling half truths.
Sure they are in the church, and in abundance i might add.
But they are also in the secular world as well.
Tell me, how do find yourself trusting in man, who is an educated evolved ape. There's truth here, am I correct?
And we are simply evolved from slime, or mus that was hit with lightning, and then life began.
I'm not being sarcastic, but simply stating what Evolutionist believe.
I did say i was going to check more into Creationism vs. Evolution, which I will do.
I need to understand the whole subject better, and hopefully I will find gifted people I can trust, even the ones i disagree with.
Actually Maalie, I believe you are speaking from the heart, and I appreciate that.
But I need more evidence from your side. I have great evidence from the 2000 year old book; much more evidence than in so many other books. i tried reading Carl Sagan's, "Cosmos", but it told me nothing really, except what this man thought.
May you have a good evening.
>simply stating what Evolutionist believe.
That is a misconception. It is not belief, it is a rational explanation of the evidence. As further evidence evidence comes to light, the explanation may be modified. It is not enshrined in doctrine, as is the bible.
>how do find yourself trusting in man, who is an educated evolved ape
It's nothing to do with trust. It is to do with observation of the evidence. I trust in the peer-reviewed scientific process.
And we are simply evolved from slime
No, not "simply"! LOL! It has taken a couple of billion years!
many have lied in the past about the bones they have found
That is why science is based on the peer-reviewed process. True, there have been a FEW hoaxes (e.g. Piltdown Man) but because the evidence is in the public domain, (i.e. the peer-reviewed scientific literature) these hoaxes are always exposed.
and hopefully I will find gifted people I can trust
Look no further than your own brilliant American anthropologists. Don;t confuse that with the quasi-scientific mis-information put about by the creationists.
It is not my place to give biology lessons on another person's blog.
I believe you are speaking from the heart, and I appreciate that.
LOL! Not that again! I give you an absolute assurance that my heart has no other function that to pump blood! I speak from a conviction of my experience and witness of the evidence.
The evidence will never go away, Donsands, it just gets more compelling as more is discovered.
I presume that you trust your physician when you go for a consultation. His/her knowledge is based on Medical science is a branch of biology. It's all the same stuff.
I say again, you are arguing from personal incredulity, not from a ground knowledge and understanding of the evidence out there.
I don't think you will ever be convinced, however. I think you may have invested too much of your life in a 2000 year old book to even want to think alternatively. But try it, Donsands, you may be amazed at how obvious it all is!
It's such a shame that I can't spell and forget to edit. Let me try this again!
Maalie - you said to Don Sands: "Your doubts seem to me to be based on personal incredulity and personal ignorance of the processes involved."
But doubts mine are not, and you know that right well! So stop this nonsense of pretending that there are no well-educated people who have examined the evidence of "evolution" and found it greatly wanting. They certainly do exists; and as I, they find the "evidence" to be less than credible. Don will not have to look far if he is interested. Dana has provided the names of quite a few and their arguments - and their credentials are quite as good as yours.
I might add that you are speaking from personal incredulity that any of us could possibly believe differently that you do. I believe you may find ego rather than scientific prowess behind your own incredulity.
Now -that 2000 year old "book" as you call it is precious to me - it directs my life and transforms it, for which you should be glad else we would not be friends.
>I believe you may find ego rather than scientific prowess behind your own incredulity.
Halfmom, don't shoot the messenger. I am only reflecting the opinions and the work of some of your own brilliant world-renowned scientists.
You are mistaken, I do not have credulity or incredulity. I simply have evidence and it won't go away, no matter how distasteful it may seem to you!
Oh Maalie my dear - you only have observations - not really even data because the "experiment" may not be repeated once, much less thrice for evidence.
I, on the other hand, have a changed life - as do so many thousands of others over the course of history - data points that are repeated over and over again.
I have to say:- A well respected Business man ( and listed in the top 100 most wealthiest in the world)
Died for 20 minutes.. no heart beat, nothing...
Then he woke up. ( amazing what modern medicine can do)
Guess what he told his son?
" Enjoy your life, because I have been to the other side- and guess what? There is nothing there..."
" Enjoy your life, because I have been to the other side- and guess what? There is nothing there..."
What did the other side look like for 20 minutes? Shouldn't he have not been able to see nothing, because there's nothing.
In other words, what is the other side?
Going to agree with Don - how did he know it was the other side if there was nothing there?
I, for one, will be glad for heaven - although when I say so, my daughter tells me, "I look good in black, but you can't quit on me yet. I need you.".
Back to work - a sucky thing to be doing on a Sunday night when I'd rather be reading or sleeping!
I see, all the biology departments in universities all over the world have got it wrong. Someone had better tell them!
>I, on the other hand, have a changed life - as do so many thousands of others over the course of history
Oooh, you are talking about scientists, just like me when I was 'born again' into the real world! It was when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of DNA that there was no turning back.
Well, I think it is time I dip out of this now before we all drive each other crazy. I shall continue to live my life in a world of factual evidence (it's not going to go away, you know!) and you can live yours in your comfortable reassuring world of delusion!
Yes Maalie - I am talking about scientists.
But no, I am not talking about scientists like you.
I'm talking about scientists, myself included, who look at the "evidence" and find it wanting.
However, when we look into the face of the risen Christ, we find nothing wanting at all.
>I'm talking about scientists, myself included, who look at the "evidence" and find it wanting.
I would be genuinely interested to know which evidence you are referring to.
geez i go away for a few days and things get pretty heated in here:)
i can see we are back to the same argument. and i will again make the same point. we can argue till we are blue in the face about evolution vs. creation vs. science vs. scientists who are christians or whatever the specifics are in that particular moment. but it all doesn't matter outside of the person of Jesus, His death and resurrection.
there is proof that Jesus was dead.
after his death, a soldier pierced his side and water came out with the blood. or as an anatomist would put it:
"blood collected in the pericardium, where it would
separate into its solid and liquid constituents, technically called
crassamentum and serum"
more simply put, Jesus suffered from hypovolemic shock and then pericardial effusion and when pierced on his side, likely hitting his lungs and heart, water and blood came out. all signs point to dead.
also, i read this in a comment:
"In order to keep the momentum going some of his disciples created a conspiracy"
actually, after Jesus was crucified (if you read the accounts) his disciples gave up, went back to being fisherman. it was a woman who first saw Jesus alive. a fact which any scholar would tell you is significant in the point that if one were trying to perpetuate a "conspiracy" having a woman be the testifier would have made that testimony null in void at that time in history as women were not allowed to testify to anything.
so if these crazy conspiracy mad disciples as you see it wanted to create a false movement around their dashed hopes, they would not have based it on the statements of a woman. they would have picked a man at the very least.
anyway, if Jesus died and rose again then whether or not the earth is 4000 years old or billions of years old doesn't matter. what matters is God came to us, like a playwright who wrote Himself into the play. He came to show us who He is and He died and rose again.
for all of us. even the inter continental kangaroos. :)
>inter continental kangaroos
Inter-continental swimming kangaroos!
Are you a diplomat, or what, Dana?
you are right maalie swimming, sorry about that!
not a diplomat, no.
why, do i seem diplomatic?
my actual job title is "midwest regional director".
not sure how familiar you are with the states, but suffice it to say that the midwest is the very flat middle of the states.
>not sure how familiar you are with the states
I know the Everglades well, I have been twice, beautiful! I hope to go again before too long!
The midwest isn't as beautiful as the Everglades - or my beloved Blue Ridge Mountains -
but it might have some drawing points named Ted, Dana and Susan!
the "mid west" of NSW is also very flat- and brown
Ahh - but spring is coming
(well, I think it is - it is Chicago afterall and if you don't like the weather you can just wait a day and it will change - dramatically)
spring is coming - and it will no longer be flat and brown!
Now that the tension here appears to have diffused a bit, I'd just like to come back simply to correct what seems to be a misunderstanding.
"Evolutionism" is not a doctrine, like Christianity. In principle, biologists do not "believe in evolution" as people might "believe" in miracles, the tooth fairy, Santa, or a flat earth. Evolution is simply a provisional explanation (hypothesis or theory) for the state of affairs that we observe on earth ("the evidence"). If the evidence changes, then the explanation is modified or even rejected to take into account new observations. There is no fundamental doctrine or dogma involved.
With Christianity, however, there is a belief, or faith, that something is the way it is the way it is because God decided he wanted it that way. There is no room for discussion because it is, by definition, dogma. So when Christians are confronted with "evidence" that appears to contradict their belief that "God did it" they presume that the evidence is wrong and need to discredit it. Things I have heard are "The fossils are hoaxes"; "the scientists invent it for their own advancement"; "we can't really date the rocks"; "carbon-dating doesn't work"; "a living seal was dated at 10,000 years old"; "natural selection doesn't explain the origin of the eye". There is a whole industry based on publishing mis-information like this.
Or they may appeal to foster personal incredulity ("you don't really believe that life grew out of slime, do you?) or human vanity ("you don't really think we are just an ape, do you"?); but most of all they capitalise on ignorance ("it's only a theory, you know"), because many people are simply not aware how the genetic code works, or how chemistry, physics, genetics, biochemistry, ecology, microbiology, molecular biology all integrate to reinforce the more physical aspects of the evidence.
It is true there have been hoaxes; it is true that some scientists have told lies to serve there own purpose (Donsands makes a food point here) but the whole point of the scientific system of peer review in the public domain means that these fallacies are rapidly exposed. Personal incredulity arises because a mind is already made up ("I don't believe it could happen without a supreme intelligence"); and ignorance is partly fostered by parents who home-school "on biblical grounds" (I quote). And of course a reluctance to learn for fear that knowledge and understanding will challenge their cherished faith (which is probably true).
Evidence is evidence; observations are observations; fossils are fossils and the genetic code is the genetic code. It is not the evidence per se that is wanting, but it may be felt that the explanation requires modification. That is how science works.
Evolution is the best theory available to explain biodiversity that fits all the available evidence. If anyone feels that the explanation should be changed in the light of some new evidence they have, please publish it in Nature so that the world may see it and review it.
Having said all that, no scientist can prove that it wasn't all down to God. A truly omnipotent God could do anything he wants, even plant misleading 'evidence' to confuse us). But the theory of evolution doesn't not depend on the supernatural to explain the state of affairs, therefore it is more parsimonious (fewest assumptions) and thus scientifically more acceptable. At the moment, a concept of Adam and Eve and inter-continental swimming kangaroos is incompatible with the biological facts as we know and understand them right now. Things may change of course.
"So when Christians are confronted with "evidence" that appears to contradict their belief that "God did it" they presume that the evidence is wrong and need to discredit it."
Some do. And some, like me, will be confident in the truth of God's Word, and take a hard look at any evidence that appears to show whatever the evidence is to show.
One question. When a fish in the ocean dies, what happens to it? I thought when fish, lobsters, and star fish, or any animal of that matter, dies it ends up being consumed. It basically disintegrates.
So why the fossils? How about a world wide flood. And then rapid dissapation.
Donsands, a fair question from someone who may not have had the opportunity to study geology.
You are quite right of course, most dead things decompose and become part of a heterotrophic (detritvore or decomposing)) food chain, but there can be some circumstances when this is prevented.
You may find some useful information to help you herehere.
I am more than pleased to help you interpret technical terms to anyone who is sincere about learning.
maalie you might be interested in the book "the scandal of the evangelical mind" by mark noll. it is basically an indictment of evangelism and it's often times neglect of intellectualism.
that said, if i can say "my God is big enough to include discoveries and evidence here on earth" then the scientist should also say "my science is humble enough to admit that over the course of time we knew things that have since been disproven"
i just don't think acceptance of evidence and belief in God are mutually exclusive.
which is why i still say, it all starts with Jesus.
Are there any fossils that show a half-lizard/half-mammal? And three-quarters-lizard/one-quarter mammal? And so on.
In other words, are there fossils that show a reptile becoming a cat, or a fish becoming a otter perhaps?
Yes Dana, I agree, it all starts/started with Jesus but not with Jesus as the man, rather with the Son as part of the trinity as the Word.
But more than that, I think it starts with the triune Godhead and who you believe Him to be - or if you believe that He exists at all. That belief, or lack thereof, underpins all that we think or do.
For a naturalists, the physical world is all there is and all hypotheses must fit within the physical world and its laws as they are currently understood. If they don't, as scientists, we are comfortable knowing that we can put the things we don't understand in a black box that will sometime, through scientific discovery, eventually be filled in. But the underlying truth is that whatever is observed must fit within physical laws because the presuposition is that there is no supernatural, no God - or at least not the One that we believe in (some might agree to a "higher power", not really involved in human/physical life at all.)
So, I would rephrase your statement and say it all started/starts and finishes with the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us as the man called Jesus.
Maalie - "evidence and find it wanting" - why the data dear - the fossil records, the experimental self-assemblage (is that a word?) of amino acids, the lovely sulfur centers that provide such a nice scaffolding for DNA to assemble
Have a missed something? I do try to keep up with some of the current fossil finds and the experimental processing underlying self assembly of molecules, information processing and the like - but there's only so much a scientist can read and stay up in their own field - which at the moment is defective digestive physiology/nutrition.
And - just out of curiosity, what tension did you preceive that you now say has diffused? I guess that I did not perceive any.
i more than agree halfmom:)
in the beginning God.
what is striking for me to think about is that science evolves, new discoveries replace old theories, etc. but God is unchanged.
when galileo made his discoveries or when we figured out the earth was round or that the sun was the center not our earth things were upheaved, religious leaders reacted in fear.
but those discoveries did not shake the foundations of our faith, which (obviously) remains today.
so i don't think discovering geological evidence or fossils showing points of evolution are going to shake the foundations of faith either.
because the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
To change to subject slightly, I understood that one of Adam's ribs was taken to make Eve. Isn't this some sort of cloning, and isn't the church against all forms of cloning?
>In other words, are there fossils that show a reptile becoming a cat, or a fish becoming a otter perhaps?
No, Donsands, evolution work that way. Something doesn't "turn into" anything else. Think interms of a common ancestor. Natural selection works at the population, not the individual level. I think it is possible that you did not read this that I suggested before.
I think you may be a victim of the quasi-scientific literature put about by the creationist publishers that seeks to discredit the evidence.
>And - just out of curiosity, what tension did you perceive that you now say has diffused? I guess that I did not perceive any.
Halfmom, I am sincerely pleased that you say that. Maybe I am slightly paranoid in being in the minority here!
May I please forestall further questions on how evolution by natural selection works by saying that I cannot imagine a question that has not already been asked and accounted for and explained. There is no natural biological process that has not been explained by natural selection. There are some excellent accounts out there if you really want but of course nothing will make you accept it if you have already chosen to believe something else.
You didn't answer my question about the rib!
"You didn't answer my question about the rib!"
Hey llama, it may not have been a rib. In the Hebrew it simply says side (tsela). Of course it could have been a rib. The word does mean side, but also could mean curved.
I think it's a difficult word to interpret.
It has nothing to do with cloning however. God created Adam, and then made Eve from him. She was then bone of his bone, and flesh of his flesh.
This is the standard for marrige from the getgo.
Paul the Apostle uses these verses to speak of marriage, and of the Church and Christ, and their spiritual union.
God made man and woman. It's the crown of His creation, for we are created in His image, male and female.
>the lovely sulfur centers that provide such a nice scaffolding for DNA to assemble
Hooray! We agree on something! (Except of course it is really spelled sulphur LOL!
Yes you are right of course. The book that Watson and Crick published ("The Double Helix") still remains one of the most exciting things I have ever read (after Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, of course). It was one of those epic scientific revelations that are so beautifully simple, it just has to be right. And of course, Darwin's theory of Natural Selection is in that category too, and Einstein's theory of relativity.
However, you should agree that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". One person's calm beautiful sunset is another's foreboding of a storm. One country's reassurance of nuclear power as a source of keeping their kids warm is another's terror of nuclear holocaust.
Beauty is very subjective. And you know perfectly well, my dear Halfmom, that Simon and I are in bitter dispute as to who has the prettiest face on this blog. (No it ain't that Llama, and not Litl Luther either). In fact Simon and I have already decided to resolve the dispute with pistols at dawn when I go over to meet him in Australia later this year.
Aren't we Simon?
I think Estelle de Chevallier has the prettiest face on the blog.
No, I've got the prettiest face on the blog.
What are you people on about? Everyone knows I have the prettiest legs on the blog.
welcome back Lorenzo - we have missed you! I loved your comment about cloning - it made me laugh so hard that my daughter came in and demanded to know what I was laughing about!
and sweet scaredy cat, you are a lovely kitty, achooew! Excuse me dear, your presence is more than welcome here, I'm a fan of cats, just a bit allergic!
"the theory of evolution doesn't not depend on the supernatural to explain the state of affairs, therefore it is more parsimonious (fewest assumptions) and thus scientifically more acceptable"
Dawkins takes that point further and says in God Delusion that Christians and theologians have "the dubious luxury of arbitrarily conjuring up a terminator to an infinite regress".
but as Richard Swinburne (oxford philosopher) points out - science does have the capacity to explain itself as well, and that ability itself requires explanation. he goes on to point out that the most economical and reliable account of this explanatory capacity does lie in the existence of a creator God.
Swinburne argues that explicability itself requires explanation, and the more science unearths and the more we understand the universe the greater the need to explain that success.
a Creator is more than an acceptable explanation for the improbability of our existence.
and the improbability of our existence is something that Dawkins himself has argued many times.
Yes Maalie, sulphur and phosphorous? Is that correct?
I wrote my entire master's thesis with this spelling and then had to retype it. All the pertinent literature said phosphorous, so who was I to know, poor speller that I am, that my committee thought I should be writing phosphorus?
Yes, Estelle, based on your photo you most certainly do have more beautiful legs than I, even in my best and younger days! So, I shall gladly yield that honor (or is it honour?) to you!
Dana, Richard Swinburne is an eminent philosopher and as such I have an immense respect for him. However, he argues that God is a being whose existence is not logically necessary, but "metaphysically necessary". Do you understand that? I'm not sure if I do, to be honest. I do not agree with some of Swinburne's opinions, including those on the Jewish holocaust. His philosophising has always seemed to me to come from "thinking about things" (ok up to a point) rather than having a direct link with original research of his own. I'm afraid he loses some credibility in that respect for me. But he was a brilliant academic, I do not dispute that, but arguing Christianity from a philosophical standpoint rather than evidence based, does not convince me. When Swinburne and Dawkins are debating it reminds me of two giants locked in combat. It is very unlikely that either is 100% right or 100% wrong
It is not so much Dawkins' views on atheism that interest me, but his wonderful communication skills and ability to convey complex concepts simply. We have already mentioned some of his works before and I regard them as essential reading for any student of biology. In his book The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins asserts that "we now no longer need to invoke the supernatural to explain the origin and development of life on earth". On this matter he is so obviously correct, and that moment represented my 'rebirth' and I lost the last vestige of any "faith" that might have been lurking within me. Of course Dawkins (and I) do not assert that life developed in any precise way (taxonomists will always argue about the relationship between species, especially fossils) but it only has to be demonstrated that it could have happened without the intervention of the supernatural, and then creationism is no longer the most parsimonious explanation. Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection remains the most plausible explanation for the biodiversity that exists (and has existed) on this planet.
yes mate- but I thought it was a beer can throwing competition!
Simon: OK mate, you're on! So long as it is warm beer. First one to down a case of Victoria Bitter wins?
Halfmom, your comments are going up in tens again! LOL!
But I'm off to bed now, have to be up before dawn (no, sadly Dawn isn't my bed mate) I have fieldwork to do.
Fun talking to y'all. Catch you tomorrow.
but surely there are questions that go beyond an explanation for the biodiversity that are equally important? is that is the only thing that you deem necessary to explain? what about transcendent questions that cannot be answered by science?
i mean look to Peter Medawar (oxford again, immunologist) who concedes that fact.
can science answer why we are here, or what is the point or purpose?
and surely you can't dismiss those questions as unimportant.
Dana, ah, just caught you before I logged off...
>can science answer why we are here, or what is the point or purpose?
No, you are right, it can not. But those seem to me to be questions of philosophy, not science. Now, it has always seemed to me to be a little arrogant (not you in person, of humanity in general) to suppose that there is an absolute purpose to our existence. That must be something that was first considered by the emergent Homo sapiens sitting round their fire in a cave, and possible represented the dawn (there she is again) of our culture. They were also carving up jobs for people to do and assigning appropriate names, but I think Halfmom may have more to say about that).
Personally, I do not think we have an absolute "purpose" any more than the ephemeral mayfly (whose scientific name is Ephemeroptera, a name I am particularly fond of!) that hatches, mates, and dies. I am actually a signed-up fee-paying card-carrying Unitarian (I bet that surprises some people!) and any notion of the purpose of life is what we make it to be.
The bottom line (do you use that over there) is that we are bags of biochemicals and we have to make the best of our lives on earth as possible, while we are custodians of that little package of sunlight that comes through our food and wehich we store until our cells wear out and the minerals recycled. I try to live my life as charitably as my selfish genes will allow.
I have two sons, and they each have a child, maybe more to come. My biological function on earth has been fulfilled.
Sorry if that shocks you. Now I am going, I'm holding my eyelids open with the metaphorical matchsticks!
Peace, my friends...
I am .....gone...
but surely via the process of natural selection, the species should have evolved away from the "nonsense" of a notion of a Creator God or a unique purpose for life.
the fact that humans have always looked to the heavens and thought "why am i here?" and that the question has neither been answered (by science) nor weaned out (by evolution) is evidence that there is more than merit to wondering about it.
no wonder they call the Gospel the Good News.
>he fact that humans have always looked to the heavens and thought "why am i here?
But aren't you presupposing that there is a reason? There may not be and the fact that we can ask that question does not necessarily indicate that we ought to. I agree partly with you that the authors undoubtedly wrote the bible to fill this void, and to explain the unexplainable at the time. Of course much of the unexplainable then (e.g. how is genetic information transmitted through generations) is now perfectly well understood.
I'd like to pick up a good point that Donsands made (8.59 on 29th March):
>If this is a 4.3-4.5 million year old bone (and BTW, why do they allow for 200,000 years, that's a lot of years), then I want to know how they know.
This suggests to me that you may not have had an opportunity to study statistics.
That is the "margin of error". All scientific estimations have margins of error applied (and so do other estimations like opinion polls, if they are correctly reported). Now a 5% margin of error (or "standard error" to be strictly scientific) is considered a very acceptable level of confidence (I feel sure that Halfmom would agree with this, 95% confidence intervals are widely accepted).
If we say 4 million years, that is 4,000,000 years, then 200,000 years is exactly 5% of this. This makes it good science. It has been peer reviewed and is in the public domain. The original material is described and is safe. If anybody accuses those scientists of hoaxing, it can be independently verified. That is the beauty of the scientific method. How do they know? They were using established dating techniques which, again, have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, available for cross-checking but doubters. If you really want to know, the stuff is available out there for you to cross-check.
Yes, two hundred thousand years seems a lot of years, I agree. But it is only 5% of four million. It just goes to show just how much time there has been available for evolution to take place.
May I ask how you regard this evidence? Are you suggesting that it is a hoax? Or they have come to the wrong conclusion? How would you interpret the discovery in a rational, anthropological way? The information is in the public domain, you are free to challenge the conclusions of the authors.
Sorry I make you sneeze halfmom. I am extremely fluffy.
I will just remember not to touch my nose or run my eyes after petting you scaredy!
Cats are horrible. They eat birds.
trimatu!
What happened? Are you still in Richmond? ;-)
Just testing your time zone.
"Cats are horrible. They eat birds."
I'm watching the different kinds of birds on my back deck eat there dinner, which God has supplied, and a thought came to me:
Hey, how come some birds eat worms, like Robin Redbreasts, and BlueJays eat peanuts, and Cardinals eat sunflowerseeds. Why doesn't the Robin simply come over to my birdfeeder an get some nice bird seed?
Maybe he'll eveloved to do that some day, and the Bluejay will start eating worms.
Just wondering about all this because when I see a nature show and they show how this or that animal, or fish evolved so it could blend in or so it wouldn't get eaten, and such and such, why don't all the fish, animals and whatevere just do the same thing?
Maalie can answer that for you Don Sands.
He will even tell you about a bird thats beak has been so finely evolved that it can only eat one type of snail... if the snail become extinct (as a result of pollution) so too does the bird!...
I am pleased that you see these birds and ask the question..
The have just discovered a bull nosed dolphin that has evolved to live in the shallow waters of our northern rivers here in Australia.. They have a highly specialized diet and again, like the bird, run the risk of becoming extinct if the food chain in their environment changes.
The animal does not make the "choice" to evolve but natural selection does.... ( I hope I have that right as a non scientist)
Susan- You do need to get yourself a husband so you can feed him the Lorenzo diet of "love" ahahahahahaha! ;o)
My goodness Simon - were you offering to fill the spot?
I'm not sure what can get oneself a husband without having a date first. My mom always said that it was manners to wait until you were asked - sigh! And no one asks.
The scientists that are single are not believers and the believers are freaked out by a woman scientist - especially one with more degrees than they have.
So, I have always said that God will have to drop someone special right down in the lap of one of my friends husbands!
Donsands, I am puzzled as to why you think God provided your back deck?
Simon is essentially right. The driving force for evolution by natural selection is "adaptive radiation" in which vacant ecological niches tend to become occupied by something that is adapted to exploit an otherwise un-tapped resource (food, spce, etc.). It is the Everglade Snail Kite that Simon is referring to. It is one of my favourite examples of adaptive radiation and is one of species that has "painted itself into a corner" (do you use that expression?). It has become so specialised that it can't adapt quickly enough to a changing environment. I have been to your beautiful Everglades twice to see it before global warming wrecks its chances, and plan to back in the next year or so.
It was of course adaptive radiation in the finches of the Galapagos Islands that forced the genius Darwin to reject Creationism and write his work on the The origin of species. You can find stuff on Darwin's Finches here, you might like to study it in detail. It will explain why your own birds are adapted to eat different diets. Of course, I cannot prove to you that it isn't that way because "God wanted it like that" but it is not the most parsimonious explanation.
>My mom always said that it was manners to wait until you were asked - sigh!
Halfmom, well I think women have a sex-linked heritable gene that enables them to "ask without asking", if you see what I mean. Have you never said something like "Sorry, too busy right now, can we take this up later over a coffee?".
I can't believe that with your good looks that you have never been approached, but I admit that is just my personal incredulity! LOL!
Donsands, continuing from above, next year (2009) is the bicentenary of the birth of the genius Darwin. There is to be a huge festival in Cambridge UK next year to celebrate the event, with scientists from all over the world. Simon has said he will come over to join me at it, so why don't you come too and bring some of your mates from Bluecollar? Richard Dawkins is one of the guest speakers, I'm sure you would all enjoy heckling him.
Halfmom:
>So, I have always said that God will have to drop someone special
My own late mother used to say "God helps those who helps themselves". Why don't you come too, I will look after you well and treat you like a Queen. And Simon will vouch for the quality of Mabel's pies, won't you mate? (Lorenzo will vouch that I am not an axe-murderer).
"global warming wrecks its chances"
It's looking more and more like global warming is a hoax. Some of the articles I've seen suggest such.
But if you disagree with global warming, people look at you like your some kind of kook.
I'll pray for Dawkins. What I've heard from him is quite arrogant and rude, and even hateful to Christianity.
>It's looking more and more like global warming is a hoax
Hoax? Rubbish! You are trying to imply that the world's elite scientists, many of them from your very own justly world-renowned universities, are engaged in some sort of pan-global conspiracy to invent a trend in average global temperatures over the last 100 years? It doesn't stack up Donsands.
I have heard t reported that religious fundamentalists are axiomatically opposed to global warming because if they believed the scientists on that, they would have to believe them on evolution and such.
I will listen to your comments on Richard Dawkins when I know that you have studied his works and heard him lecturing. At the moment you are speaking of hearsay, not bearing witness to your own experience. It is obvious that a religious fundamentalist would despise him.
The article you hyperlinked was very interesting Maalie (you must teach me how to make hyperlinks and italics in the comment boxes sometime, I have never been able to master it!)
and you know I love little birds - but I think the point is, they are all still little birds. They did not cross species and become something other than small birds.
I think this type of microevolution is acceptable to all, or at least I would certainly think so. I do not think this is what non-evolutionists argue against.
I don't know Maalie - in your book I might come pretty close to being called a "religious fundamentalist" and I don't despise him - I just disagree with him.
And I haven't made up my mind about global warming. It's not that I doubt that it exists, it's just that I don't think I come to the same conclusions as some.
If I understand the evidence correctly, we've already had at least one ice age so wouldn't it stand to reason that there would be periods of thaw too in the natural cycle of things?
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2561
Let me know what you think of this video of Dawkins Maalie.
I don't despise Dawkins. Christ charges us to love our enemies. He's an enemy of the Cross, and therefore my enemy, and yet I must show him due respect, even if he doesn't show me the same, not me personally, but Christ in me.
Christopher Hitchins is the same kind of guy. And I like to listen to him, but he sure does hate Christ.
Check the following for the latest scientific info on global warming hoax.............
Latest data on the earth cooling:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/23/earth-a-little-more-resilient-than-computer-models/
The oceans are cooling:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/19/new-nasa-data-indicates-ocean-temperatures-have-cooled-slightly-since-2003/
NASA quietly fixes flawed temp. data:
http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/
Maalie,
I hope you will return to Bluecollar and answer some of the tough questions on the origin of the universe that you have failed to address...........
Surely you are not going to run away again without answering these questions.
Jazzycat, I'm sorry, I'm a biologist, not a cosmologist. I have already provided a link where you can seek the information you require.
Maalie,
You are not a theologian either, but you do not mind commenting on religion....
Again my question does not require knowledge in cosmotology. Here it is:
If science does not know how the universe started, then why is the God hypothesis summarily rejected as being a possible answer? Why is a creator and intelligent design ruled out when science has no clue on any other clause? Why can't the God hypothesis at least be a theory?
You seem to always hit an run. You come in with insults and then retreat when the discussion asks legitimate questions of you. You should at least one time finish instead of claiming ignorance and running.
Even if evolution is true, it does not disprove intelligent design. It is possible that God used evolution in creation. The real question atheists have to answer is where did matter/energy come from?
I am well aware that you do not like that question, but that is tough because that is where the rubber meets the road....
Halfmom: An excellent suggestion from Maalie! Please come over here. Maalie and I can share the pleasure of looking after you! I promise Scaredy will be a good little cat and not make you sneeze!
Do please say you will come sometime?
"You are trying to imply that the world's elite scientists, many of them from your very own justly world-renowned universities, are engaged in some sort of pan-global conspiracy to invent a trend"
didn't you suggest that a small group of humble fishermen tried to invent a conspiracy that Jesus is the Son of God and died and was raised?
:)
but that said, maalie, you may consider me a "religious fundamentalist" (i'm not sure, i haven't asked you) but i do not consider global warming to be a hoax, nor do i think "believing" it forces me to "believe" anything else.
and i have read Dawkins and Hutchison. and Dawkins is typically brilliant, but oddly seemingly angry and antagonistic in God Delusion, though i wouldn't say that about his other writings.
maybe we can all discuss it over drinks in cambridge sometime? i do love england - it's my favorite place i've visited (and i've visited a lot of places) and i sometimes find myself jealous that you get to live over there:)
what a funny unlikely group that would be:)
Dana, Yes! Come over to England next year with Halfmom and Simon! Me’n’Lorenzo will host a “Halfmom Fan Club” party! Fancy dress, Lorenzo will come as an Earth Sprite, Simon will come as an inter-continental swimming kangaroo and I’ll be a Maalie!
I agree with you on both counts. Dawkins is stunning in his clarity in explanation of Darwin, and in his exposition of concepts like the selfish gene and the evolution of altruism. In fact I made those books compulsory reading on my biology course and always set an exam question to make sure they read them!
And I agree that he seems angry in his ”God stuff”. But I think he would protest that it isn’t simply Christianity he is angry with (as Donsands suggests) but fundamentalism of any species. He wrote a particularly revealing article about: How would you persuade an adolescent Islamist to blow himself up, taking untold innocent victims with him”? Easy. You promise him that God will put at his disposal 24 virgins to attend to his every need for eternity. To the boy, this is as real and holy a belief as to say to a Christian that God has elected only those he wants in heaven.
Donsands: It is a matter of historical fact that many ground breakers (Galileo, Einstein, Darwin, Rutherford, Bohr, Watson, Crick, take your pick) were accused of arrogance. People are usually resistant to new ideas. Even great artists have been labelled arrogant: Wagner, Shostakovich, Kodaly, the list goes on (did you know that the Russian Tsar at the time ordered all of Shostakovich’s music to be destroyed?). Masterpieces, whether it be Darwin’s Origin of Species or Shostakovich’s music cannot be suppressed forever.
You speak of hatred. It is nothing like the hatred I have witnessed within and between Christian factions. Take a look at here, for example. Those Arminians really don’t like you, do they?
I think it is this sort of division within Christianity that I see: Christian killing Christian; opposing Christian armies on the same battlefield praying to the same God for a glorious and holy victory that converted me to atheism as much as the science. Did God really preordain a stage where that play can be acted out? If he did, it is a farce.
Jazzycat, I think you have already decided what your answers are, you don’t really need me to comment further. LOL! You know, ad hominem attacks are never very convincing.
Halfmom: I will email you laterwards to explain about HTML formatting.
Well folks, I’m off for the weekend camping, to get closer to Mother Earth.
Dominus vobiscum
... et cum spirito tuo.
'Laterwards'? What sort of word is that Maalie?
Dana - Welcome to England again. Come and stay and I'll take you down to the deli to meet that rogue Berkant.
Now, now Maalie, not all Christians hate other demonations. We are extremely ecumenical here in Poynton, and have something called 'Churches Together in Poynton' where once a month the Priests, Vicars, Ministers, Pastors of all the local churches get together for a bit of a beano and knees up, discuss things things religious concerning the village, even going as far as organising 'litter picks'. I get on well with loads of different people from different churches and have attended every Church in Poynton. OK, it maybe a bit of a spiritual pub crawl, but it's fun going to other churches now and again and seeing how other people do things.
Point very eloquently made Scaredy. I ought to have said some Christians hate other Christians over some minor interpretation of some abstruse point in an archaic book written some 2000 years ago. It is truly incredible.
For example, just how sovereign isGod? And are aborted foetuses elected?
No, no, please, I didn't want to open up a discussion on that! HELP!
Maalie:-
I'll vouch for you mate! and Mables pies are the BEST in the world!
BTW re global warming:- I know some fundamentalists who claim ( and mate you know from where I get my information) that the world is in fact COOLING!
They are putting forward the reason for the conspiracy of warming is because there is an underlying group of senior world leaders ( illuminate- catholics etc) who want "one world government" and by "controlling the poulation by the weather ( ie fear) they can control the world/ or influence it at least... Once this takes place then you can take the "mark of the beast" i.e a bar code... and then you will be rooted ( by christian standards)
Then the devil takes control (i.e. the anti christ)- then jesus comes back and raptures the true believers then there is a HUGE fight good v evil..... and we will live in golry for ever...and those who took the mark will go the hell!
( well thats it in a "nut shell")
And that is why a lot of fundamentalists don't really want to look after the world becasue the sooner this happens the better for them and its the proof they need to be found "correct"
Can you imagine!!! so much energy wasted on such a theory.. :o)
What one found disturbing was the evidence of global warming at Mungo National Park.
Btw, I answered your question on Seedlings, with a new post. Because several people had the same question.
dear Susan, you exemplify so beautifully what a Christian should be. You speak the truth, but bathed in love.
"I ought to have said some Christians hate other Christians over some minor interpretation of some abstruse point in an archaic book written some 2000 years ago."
Not all Christians are Christians. Jesus said you will know them by their fruit. The fruit is love, peace, joy, goodness, godliness, righteousness, gentleness, kindness, self-control, long-suffering, and charity.
Now do i have this fruit in my life? Yes I do, to a degree. I have seen this same fruit in many Christians lives.
And the reason this fruit is in their lives is because of Christ's love and grace.
His grace is amazing, and His love is sacrificial. Jesus loved people how spit in His face, and hated Him.
Three more fruits in the genuine Christian are: humility, honesty, and boldness. The authentic follower of Christ will have a humble boldness for His Savior, not for himself. His confidence is in Christ, and His gift of the Holy Spirit, who abides with each and every child of God.
Have I lost my temper? Yes. Have I lusted? Yes. Have I been proud? Surely.
But by the grace and mercy of God, I have been able to confess my sin, and even overcome it, when I trusted completely in Him.
This life is fruit for the glory of God.
My salvation is complete in Christ. He died for every one of my sins. They must be in the tens of thousands by now, and are still counting, but Jesus' death and blood was the love sacrifice that bore them all.
What a Savior He is! He died and rose, and He lives indeed.
Maalie, I have enjoyed your comments. I disagree, but you speak from your blood-pump, and I appreciate that.
have a nice camping trip.
Lorenzo - I would LOVE to come and visit you! What fun that would be if we were all together for a conversation and a drink - an excellent idea!
I personally would love to see Dana and Maalie in conversation - she is much quicker than I!!! And pie with Maalie - and maybe even some bird-watching and you could introduce me to Father Ann!!! Simon could sing to us too!! How fun would that be!
And I would be sweet to Scaredy - just remind me not to touch my face after I pet him (her?)!
yes It would be a plan Susan!
Don Sands- you have Lusted? you runcible fellow!
I'm afraid we're all runcible my dear Simon - from the get go! Do you have children? If not, ask a parent about the first time they ran to their infant who was crying as though a diaper pin was sticking through their heart - only to find that the child was smiling and cooing a moment after they entered the room - obviously not in any pain at all. Even the ability to lie to get what you want appears at an early, early age!
Yes, we are all runcible indeed!
And I thought I wrote too much! I am amazed at how much good debate has gone on in the last several days!
Hey Maalie,
How about emaling me regarding HTML Formatting, too, as you did for Susan. You could put it at my site or email me: triston_jaya@yahoo.com
Thanks!
Simon has never lusted in his life. He is the least runcible fellow I have ever met.
Halfmom: Scaredy is a boy. He is very pretty and has never bit or scratched anyone, even when the vet was doing unpleasant things to him! Now Spring is here he is behaving more like a cat should and spends time climbing bushes and trees looking for birds. Badger adores him and wants to play, and if Scaredy is feeling kittenish he will chase Badger round the garden, but most of the time he ignores her. Have you visited Scaredy's blogsite?
I would love it if you came over here. Make it real, not just a dream!
Yes, it would be great fun, wouldn't it!! And perhaps only dreams that are dreamed do come true - so we shall have to start dreaming for real about this one.
I think Badger and I would be great friends - as I'm great at throwing sticks to be retrieved!! It gave me a funny mental image of Scaredy chasing Badger about the garden!!
Great pic of the Botanical Garden! It's funny how a newcomer's eye can make someone see more of the beauty that's already been there all along.
Susan- I have 6 children ( oops I mean 4)!!! ahahahahahaahhaahahahah
a 21 year old, a 19 year old, a 16 year old, and an 11 year old... :o)
( oops were you refering to the act as runcible?? or did you mean the children themselves??)
Lorenzo! yes see I AM the living proof of the least lusting, non Christian, all round SUPER DOOPER nice guy the world has ever met- hard working, ( 70 hours a week) slow to anger, peace loving, charitable, forgiving, humble, live the quiet life, I have NEVER broke ANY of the TEN commandments..
I cook, ( yes true!) wash, clean and sew.... break in horses, catch pythons- and when I am not doing ALL of this- I am in deep reflection recording some of the worlds most beautiful music.....
( and then I woke up...) ( LOL).... :o)
Runcible, each and every one of us Simon - from the get go - from life's first breath!
My goodness, they are young - I bet they keep you QUITE busy! my youngest is 23 and she is the only one still home - or rather I should say back home as she was away for three years and now back for almost 1.
Susan, I got your check today and your beautiful letter. However, I'm on my way to the Calvin Festival tomorrow morning and will be gone until next week.
So, I'll try to mail out your books on Tuesday. Thanks for your patience! :)
Post a Comment