That it would take more than 10 minutes and hard study of the written directions and the remote control for a reasonably intelligent woman to change the time on the DVD player!
But, I am sad to say, this is the total truth!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
107 comments:
Yes but you did not know what hmakas meant either in the last post!
Half Mum AKA Susan....
ahahhahahahahhah
You are totally right Simon - now it makes perfectly good sense - but then I was looking it up on google!
Clearly, not only am I not good at gadgets, I'm not good at word puzzles either!
You only took ten minutes (or so)? I can't do it AT ALL!!!
well then King Maalie - I feel comforted indeed!
I never did master how to set the video machine. I had trouble even playing a video. I know how to click onto your blog though!
LtL - for which I am VERY glad!
What are you like Susan! Now that you know how to do it can you do mine?
Hope you are well!!
Just kinda goofy I think Martin - and clearly not very clever with mechanical gadgets!
I'm still not sure exactly what I did to get the time right either - a significant problem when our time changes again in the fall.
Do you have daylight savings time in the UK?
Yes, we advance our clocks an hour in a couple of weeks, more or less coincides with the festival of Ostara, the Spring Equinox. I shall be celebrating (like at do at Yule and the others), just watch my blog on that day! LOL!
P.S. You can take a peep here
I agree with Maalie. Ten minutes or a little longer is better than I could ordinarly ever do.
What is your point Maalie? Is it that you are willing to worship the Sun-god, rather than He who created the sun? I'm confident you can't be that foolish. Is your joke about the eggs and rabbits? To use Simon's Aussie slang: The CRAP that blind, spiritually dead, ignorant, reprobate fools have tried to include alongside Christian special days (i.e. Santa Claus, Easter eggs, etc.) have NOTHING to do with Christianity, and those who think they do, prove themselves ignorant of the Christian faith.
I suppose even a PhD cannot prepare one for the settings on the dreaded DVD....
I'm reminded of TCA quizzing poor Susan on her educational credentials. Yes TCA. I imagine most everyone on this blog has received some level of higher education. But you know what they say about degrees don't you?
"Even rectal thermometers have degrees, and you know what we do with them!"
I'm thankful for the education I've received. It has served me well. But I'll take a dumb yet genuine Christian by my side any day of the week over a genius who's agnostic.
Litl Luther: No I don't worship the sun. I simply acknowledge its reliability and it being the source of energy for all life on this planet.
Except of course for the chemi-autotrophic communities that thrive in the abyssal depths of the oceans which survive on geothermal energy or the oxidative properties of chemicals other than oxygen.
Woah!!!!
Ltl luther! you are "pumped up"
rectal thermometers really!
What happened to "slow to anger?" What happened to "forgive them for they know not what they do?"
See, you cannot hop from old testament law and behavior to that of the new testament "freedom in christ" and back again.
Old testament is only a signpost to the new... isn't it??? the proof that jesus is who he says he is???
Jesus rescued us from the law didn't he?? because we cannot live by law..
Jesus forgave those who crucified him, and never once gave into the devil whilst in the desert.
The only time he got angry (from memory) was with the money lenders and traders in the temple????
did not even get angry with judas.....
So ( I am suggesting here..and may have misread your words utterly)...
But it seems you detest the people who debate here...and that is not right nor fair...
Maalie has been calm an logical so was TCA.
Surely gods love is unconditional and therefore surely yours must be too? that is what should separate christians from other faiths-
BTW on the subject- if gods love is unconditional- how come it was ordained that Judas would be the one who betrayed jesus? if god created all things, knows all things, see all things- did judas have a choice? I mean the whole principal of the crucifixion hung on that Kiss.... so should we see judas ( the money keeper) as evil, or simply a sacrifice.. that god saw as needed???
AND why did god make the tree of life- he would have known the outcome... before it happened?
Now don't use the argument of free choice as humans- because some faiths argue that makes us as Gods....
And don't use the argument that god loves his "children" as we humans love ours, but we need to punish them sometimes- because before the "fall" there was no sin and no need for punishment...
I certainly hope god did not plan the fall so he could spend time punishing us! that would make him a nasty fellow...
Just a thought-
anyway I am off today to see the worlds greatest Ballerina Slyvie Guillem at the Sydney Opera house.....
I really do lust after this girl! such legs! ;o)
Rather worship those. ( smile)
let me know your thoughts!
.
Simon,
I don't detest Maalie, TCA or anyone else at this site. I don't know the first thing about TCA, so I can't comment, but I've come to know Maalie a bit from his comments. I respect him a lot. He's got a great deal of knowledge. No one could deny that. My comment was not to demean these fellows who I admire....I guess my comments come out of life in Nepal. I have been around the most ignorant village people sometimes. I remember a 20 year old girl once looking at my water bottle like a two year old discovering something for the first time. It is amazing that there are still people on this earth so isolated and backward, yet there are. Despite that, however, I've met people who lived in those conditions, who could not even write there own name, but who came to faith in Jesus. And though by all outward appearances, one would think they have no wisdom to offer, I have on occasion heard pure genius come from their lips. The kind of understanding of the meaning of life that did not come from any formal education but from the Holy Spirit who has come to dwell in them enlightening (give wisdom to) their minds.
Another example is how faithful the Nepalese Church is to the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. The first Nepalese Christians who propagated this faith had no education. In fact, without a miraculous work of God at that time, we should not hope that the Christian faith of Nepal should be anything but heretical. Yet, it is incredibly biblical. I'm still amazed when I think of their history and yet how God has somehow kept them quite pure in doctrine.
Simon, you are barking up the wrong tree with me if you are looking for some sappy answer like freewill or something like most Christians would give because I believe "God made all things for Himself. Yes. Even the wicked for the day of doom." (Proverbs 16:4) Moreover, Judas was the son of perdition, doomed to destruction, so that the Scriptures would be fulfilled. (John 17:12). Does that mean God violated his will? No! God used Judas to fulfill His purposes, and Judas did exactly what his own wicked heart and will desired to do. Judas was condemned, and it is just and right. God gave him “justice” not mercy, which He has every right to do. God is not being unfair. He simply gave Judas was Judas deserves.
Do a study on the glory of God. Everything comes back to God’s glory: The reason why God created people was for His glory. He shows grace to some, which gives Him great glory for being merciful. And He will also be glorified for showing justice in condemning those who reject Him, for that is what they deserve. It is what I and all people deserve in fact, so by showing justice to some, it magnifies His glory even more that He would show mercy to any.
I could go on about your other point about Jesus not getting angry much. Rather, righteous indignation rose up in Jesus as well as in Stephen, in Peter, in Paul and James. Zeal for God does sometimes lead to anger. That is not to say anything I wrote qualifies, however. I may well have sinned, and if so, forgive me. I want to stress again, I sincerely respect you guys and have no interest in demeaning any of you.
>The kind of understanding of the meaning of life that did not come from any formal education
I have no evidence that there is an absolute fundamental meaning of life. Life has different meanings to different people, just as the bible does. One has to establish one's own meaning for life. I have no evidence that education (formal or otherwise) provides a meaning for life, but I do have evidence from my own experience that it can help you to maximise the fulfilment of the precious life that the vagaries of chance have given you.
I guess there are some that do not ever find a meaning for life.
LTL- your last line- cool mate. thanks for that in itself.
Don't agree wth the judas reply though :o)
Maalie I agree with you mate... :o)
I would like to capitalize on one key statement Maalie made:
"I do have evidence from my own experience"
Maalie, if you are able to gather what you as a scientist view as "evidence" from things you have experienced, how come you don't seem to take any stock in the several intelligent men and women at this blog who have also gathered evidence from a daily, genuine experience of the historical Jesus who lived some 2000 years ago, died, rose again and has entered our lives today? My experience is evidence to me that Jesus is alive and who He claimed to be. Each Christian at this site is a witness to you of our common experience with the resurrected Christ. He is real. He is alive and He changes lives. How come you don't take stock in what we tell you when you admit yourself that experience can equal evidence?
So called "spiritual" evidence can't be independently verified.
>died, rose again and has entered our lives today?
I have no evidence that he has entered into my life. Jesus doesn't want me for a sunbeam, it would appear.
I disagree with you Maalie -
I think what LLuther is trying to tell you is that for each of us, Ted, Dianne, Dana, LitlLuther and the various other believers that have conversed with you here - and I are independently verifying for you that by different routes at different times we all came to know the same Jesus Christ personally as Lord and Savior -
and that this one occurrence has radically changed our lives forever.
We did not come by formal education; we did not come by wisdom; we came because He drew us and we yielded to Him.
As we remember today His triumphal entry into Jerusalem as king over 2,000 years ago, we also await His triumphal return and reign here on earth. We wait expectantly and in the hope that, not through our words but by the weight of His presence on the human heart, that many will join us.
Me thinks though doth protest too much my dear Maalie ....
No Maalie, Jesus doesn't want any of us as sunbeams - He has already made sufficient of those. Jesus wants us as brothers and sisters - coheirs with Him in His kingdom. It is your choice to refuse and it will be your choice ultimately that matters for He calls to every human heart. The question is will you hear.
Today, on Bluecollar, a person called Baptist Girl wrote in a comment: "We can never thank Him enough for what He suffered for us, his Elect".
How does she know she's been elected? (There is no point in me trying to ask over there, I just get deleted as if I'm a nobody). It sounds a little arrogant, to me. She can live her life with impunity, knowing she is elected to go to heaven. Me and Simon and TCA have NOT been elected. We are doomed to swim round and round in that lake of fire they threaten us with over there. So we will just bimble along in this life trying to be as good and kind as we can, and take our chances. Does anyone know where that lake is supposed to be?
You know my feelings about Bluecollar's intolerance to your questions.
Baptist girl is a professing believer in Christ - meaning that she has acknowledged that nothing she can do would ever merit heaven and that she has trusted in Christ's imputed righteousness on her behalf to get her there (well, there is a lot more but that's the brief answer).
Therefore she assumes - as would be correct - that she is a member of the elect.
Yes, based on your own merits you are doomed to hell (where it is I have no idea, I only understand that it is hell because it there is the total absence of Christ and therefore hope - which is why it is hell).
But you're not on your own. Based on our own merits, we are all doomed to hell. No one is righteous enough or good enough on their own no matter how hard they try to be because you would have to be perfect to be good enough. Fat chance as we say here.
But that is why Christ came and died and offered Himself as our righteousness - and why He could and it was acceptable to God - because He was perfect, no sin - He alone has the righteousness needed to earn heaven.
He is willing to share - that is why He came - He wants ALL of us there with Him - that is what scripture says that He would not have any perish and that He will not turn away any who come. And since this is how He feels, He made a way we could all be there. He took the punishment for all.
Now Maalie my dear, as much as I hate to end my part of this discussion, it is time for me to get ready to leave for church.
You have some time on your hands I would imagine - and based on your knowledge of scripture you probably have a Bible lying about or in a box somewhere - please read the Gospel according to John. It will explain it so much more eloquently than I can - and listen with your blood pump, not your head.
We do not come by reason; we come by faith and faith comes by hearing the Word - whether it is spoken to us by another or we read it - or He speaks it into our hearts Himself.
You seem to have lost me here Halfmom. Yes I know all that stuff in John. I read the bible right through once.
the several intelligent men and women at this blog who have also gathered evidence from a daily, genuine experience of the historical Jesus
Litl Luther, if you tell enough people from childhood that if they don't believe what is written in an unverifiable book they will suffer eternal hell fire, some of them will believe you and may seem to share similar deluded experiences. You could call it superstition, mass indoctrination, brainwashing, whatever you like. Fortunately I was saved, born again, saw a great light (describe it how you like) and emerged from my delusion in good time.
I think I better make a tactical withdrawal from this conversation before I upset anyone still further. Reverting to the topic of this post, Halfmom, did your player successfully record what you timed it for? I guess you are an expert now!
I am with you Maalie...
Actually I am going to adopt the instruction manual for a digital recorder as my book of life...
Maalie - you are quite wrong. The spirit is quite resistant to brain washing - at least mine was. I was having nothing to do with what my parents thought or taught.
In large measure, I rejected it because what they taught wasn't what they lived. So, you see, I knew something of what Simon talks of when he talks about hypocritical Christians.
In fact, I rejected it all and went about my merry way making a nasty mess of my life.
That is until August 6, 1980. That day was a different day and I have spent all the years since learning about the true Christ and His kingdom. That was the beginning of His changing me from inside out - a new creation - something totally different than who I was before.
The change was so very dramatic that people who knew me before would take one look at me and ask what was different because it even showed in my face. There was a joy and a peace that had never, in 26 years, been there before.
Now – as to the DVD programming – I wasn’t trying to do something difficult like record a program – I was just trying to update the time since we recently changed back to Daylight Savings time!
Maalie,
I'm not offended by anything you said, so I see no reason for you to withdraw from the conversation.
You can't cough every Christian's conversion up to religious upbringing. So many testimonies are of people whose parents did not believe, did not raise them in the church, etc. I mentioned before how half of my wife's family are Buddhist. Her parents were (and still are) Hindu however. My wife, Jaya, at only 10 years old prayed to Jesus and asked HIm into her life. She had never even heard of His name before that time. Her parents were outraged. And her father told her, "Either stop this Christian nonsense, or leave my house with the cloths on your back! You are no longer my daughter." She went in her room perplexed. She didn't have anywhere to go. The pastor of the church she had visited said he and his wife couldn't take her because it was illegal to be a Christian at that time in Nepal (1989). You could go to jail for 6 years just for baptizing someone at that time. What would happen if you take a 10 year old from her Hindu parents?! She cried out to Jesus and He comforted her with a text of Scripture, so much so, that she knew when she walked out her parents’ door that God would take care of for her. And He did—immediately after she made the commitment to leave her parents! God changed the heart of the pastor and they took her in. Jaya's parents had nothing to do with her for 7 years! Her mom tried to coax her back with gifts and stuff. But coming back meant leaving Christ. And even at 10 years old Jesus had become so real to her that He was more important to her than her parents (and He still is!).
I could list off literally hundreds of people I've known right here in Nepal who lost everything: family, possessions, inheritance, etc. because Jesus had become that real to them and more important than any of those things. I myself used to think preachers and all were fools, wasting their lives. But then Jesus came into my life and I've never been the same. He is as real to me as any person I've known. And just because you haven't known Him yet doesn't mean you won't or that you are not elect. I spent years spitting in His face and had nothing to do with him, until one night (April 11th, 1990) I fell on my knees in a moment of clarity and begged Jesus to forgive me and to come into my life, and He did--instantly! He is that merciful. And it really doesn't matter how opposed to Him you may now be. I was the same. And He forgave me in the snap of a finger when I called out to Him! The same could happen to you. Don’t take my word for it. Call out to Him and say “If you really are who these Christians claim you to be, please come into my life.” Gather your own evidence from experience Maalie, Simon. I pray He shows the same grace and mercy to you than He has shown to me and to several others at this site.
Litl Luther, I really don't have much to add here. I remain in the position that there are more convincing and evidential-based explanations for the origin and development of life on earth than invoking the supernatural. The bible was written so long ago that even most clergymen now accept that our knowledge and understanding of natural processes have advanced beyond the realms of the imagination of those ancient scribes. I have found my own ways of dealing with my mortality.
Halfmom, I can easily appreciate that some revelation happened to you on a date that you recall. I don't record my own date, but it is just as clear. It was the announcement that a couple of nucleotides (purine and pyrimidine based) had been chemically synthesised in vitro from inorganic precursors using the energy sources (irradiation, electric arcs) and physical conditions (temperature, pressure etc) for which there is evidence existed in pre-life times. Richard Dawkins said "We now no longer have to invoke the supernatural to explain the origins and development of life on earth" and in a flash of realisation I knew in my blood-pump that he was correct. It suddenly made nonsense of inter-continental swimming kangaroos and put everything in a nice orderly evidence-based perspective. I know what people mean when they say they are "born again" for I feel I was born again into a world of reality and I felt I could at last try to be "a good person" because I chose to be and not because some tyrannical overlord is threatening me with lakes of fire.
Okay Maalie. Fair enough. I'm not going to keep pushing you.
The only thing I wish to point out is that no Christian that I know became a follower of Jesus to keep their selves out of Hell. That is the one thing that non-Christians, no matter how bright they are, misunderstand. None of us believe we can please God by the supposed “good” things we do. Rather, we wish to be good people and serve Him and serve the human race out of gratitude for His kindness toward us, not out of fear of reprisal. Many religions (such as Hinduism) serve their gods out of fear of retribution. We serve the One True God out of simple gratitude. We love Him because He first loved us by giving His Son to redeem us.
Luther, were you already a Christian when you met your wife?
Maalie,
"It was the announcement that a couple of nucleotides (purine and pyrimidine based) had been chemically synthesised in vitro from inorganic precursors using the energy sources (irradiation, electric arcs) and physical conditions (temperature, pressure etc) for which there is evidence existed in pre-life times."
How do things pre-exist? How do living things have pre-life? How is it even remotely possible that living beings in essence created themselves? Where did the inorganic precursors and energy sources come from? How were physical conditions (temperature, pressure, etc) determined?
It seems to me that pre-life can only exist in the twinkle of a creators eye...
Well said LLuther - it is surely out of my desire to please Him that I even want to do good, for I am a selfish and wilful creature indeed.
My choice to turn my life over to Him had nothing to do with avoiding the eternal fires of hell and everything to do with the hell in my heart that day!
Hi Lorenzo,
Yes. I became a Christian in 1990 when I was 20. I was (and still am) amazed that Jesus could forgive me. I knew if He could do that He could forgive anyone. So I immediately got real involved in ministry, so that people could find the same grace I found. Six years later I went to Pakistan to live and a year after that in August 1997 I first came to Nepal. I saw Jaya a couple weeks after I arrived. I met her at a Nepalese church I was attending. Besides being very beautiful, Jaya caught my eye because she was the most active woman in the church, except for the pastor's wife. We got married in March of 2000. BTW: It's the same church and same pastor who took Jaya in when her parents disowned her that performed our wedding.
Thanks for asking!
"There was a joy and a peace that had never, in 26 years, been there before."
Thanks for sahring your conversion Susan.
The joy that God gives us through His Son, Jesus the Christ, is not the same as happiness, is it.
There may be days of pain and down right mean and nasty people digging under your fingernails, but the joy of knowing Jesus loves you and died for you keeps your mind and heart from total despair. And of course this is His garec, which is always sufficient for those who love Christ.
I have enjoyed the dialog and discussion here.
I hate technical stuff. I mean I love it, but I hate it too.
have a blessed day.
So many profound questions and comments! I have been passing through now and again, but I simply do not have the time to invest in regular conversation here.
I would like to say one thing. I do not consider it arrogance that one is grateful for his or her election. It's quite the opposite. It is acknowledging that salvation is not of our own doing or worthiness, but instead, it is an act of God's grace.
Very interesting reading, y'all.
P.S.
My wife's family makes fun of me for always reading the owners manuals and assembly instructions. That's okay; their clock is still blinking 12:00 while mine has the right time. ;-)
Dana, thank you for your question. I wasn't going to come back here, but you have led me into temptation, you runcible thing.
There have been huge advances in the science of cosmology in recent decades, not least due to your brilliant American scientists as well as ours in Europe. It is now becoming all very mathematical and the days of peeping up into the heavens through optical telescopes like Galileo are of course long gone. The conceptual science is way over my head and I, for one, cannot visualise how the universe is considered to be an energy-time-matter continuum, or how the Universe probably has other dimensions (some say up to 11) in addition to the three we are familiar with. All this stuff can be found on the internet to save Halfmom's space here.
We do not know how the energy-time-matter continuum started. It may have been there for ever, or it may contract and "disappear" again in a sort of oscillation. These are concepts that our brains may not have evolved sufficiently to ever understand.
However, I do think Creationists often resort to arguing from personal incredulity. In other words they seem to be saying something like "I do not know (or understand) how life on earth started and developed and I don't believe it could have happened like this without a creator with a master plan, so I shall attribute it all to a supernatural entity that I call God".
There have been huge leaps and bounds in the understanding of the natural world in the last couple of centuries. Personally I have no doubt that some time soon (probably not in my lifetime, but maybe in my grandchildren's) we will reach "an answer to everything". That is not an act of faith, but based on my experience of the rate at which scientific advances are being made. I was a student when Watson and Crick announced the structure of DNA and the atmosphere in the university's Science Faculty was like electric. A very few decades previously we had no concept of nucleic acids at all, and now we have elucidated the entire human genome. There is nothing supernatural about this - it is just chemistry and physics.
Until we do have an answer to "how did the time-energy-matter continuum arise" I have no way of proving it wasn't due to God. However, my judgement based on witness of the main-stream peer-reviewed scientific literature is that it is so improbably that it is out of the frame for consideration.
Maalie, thanks for your honest (and helpful) response.
One more question, from your response. You said "That is not an act of faith, but based on my experience of the rate at which scientific advances are being made."
Some might argue trusting and believing in something you don't yet know for sure is in itself faith. How do you define faith then? If it's faith for a Christian to believe in a Creator despite no "proof" (and I use that word very lightly), isn't it also faith for an atheist to assume that some day we will "have an answer to everything" - despite no "proof" (again lightly)?
Regardless, whether I am runcible or not (ha), I hope you do come back.
who made god? "
it seems to me that only pre life can exist in the twinkle of gods eye..."
Dana really?
Thats an emotive arguement. all we are doing is shifting the "god made it" arguement further back in time and in smaller bits.....
So god, sitting in "nothing"- twinkled his eye and "abracadabra"! there was suddenly 'somthing"
P-l-e-a-s-e!!
Like Maalie I am so greatful for the release from bondage the christian faith had...
I am accountable 100% for who I am, not some "devil" with horns.. not some "god" wearing a star spangled banner (or whatever)
I choose to be a nice guy, because its what I want.. its not luck, or design or anything....
I love this earht because its all we have got.
cristians seem to have this comic strip Sunday school vision of god on in heaven.
It emotive nonsesne
:o0
Question
if genisis is literal i.e earth was made in 7 days... does that mean only 144,000 will make it to the kingdom of heaven....
or is that a matter of interpretation....
I choose to be a nice guy, because its what I want.. its not luck, or design or anything....
Simon, where did the concept of "good" or "nice" come from?
From an evolutionary view, the strong survive and the weak can and should be weaned out and we should strive to ensure our genes go on.
However, people in general (in all cultures) believe that taking care of people and helping others weaker than you and "doing the right thing" are admirable. More than that, to risk their lives for someone else is hailed and celebrated.
Saving someone from drowning (putting my life and genetic make up at risk) does not make sense from an evolutionary viewpoint.
People, regardless of their culture or beliefs, are naturally inclined to help the weak, risk life and limb to help others. Why? Evolution says we should not have evolved that way if left to the natural processes of evolution.
So why do we live this way? Why do you choose to be nice, and how do you know what "nice" is? Why do we choose to risk our lives for the sake of others, for strangers? And why is it admirable?
Could it be because there is a God who thought people should live that way and therefore hardwired us with a notion of "right" and "wrong" to behave as such?
Or is evolution wrong? Or is it right, expect in this case?
No Simon - not in the twinking of an eye, in a spoken Word. He spoke and it came into being.
I love the part of Genesis where it says God's spirit hovered over the surface of the waters, while the earth was still without form and was void - and spoke and there was light.
AW Tozier says that it is still like this when a person is reborn; the Spirit hovers over him and speaks a new creation into being. I can identify with that, my soul being without form and void and then having light spoken into being in it!
The protection of the poor, of widows and the fatherless was a common Near Eastern policy, prevalent in Mesopotamia from Sumerian times as well as throughout Egyptian history and at Ugarit. This was long before Moses gave us God’s Laws 3300 years ago. Moreover, of the Ten Commandments, seven were perhaps binding on the consciences of enlightened men prior to the days of Moses: murder, adultery, theft and false witness were already treated as crimes among the Babylonians and the Egyptians; and intelligent men knew that it was wrong to dishonor God by improper use of His name, or to show lack of respect to parents, or to covet the property of another. The reason for this is like Dana points out, God hard-wired us with notions of right and wrong. Romans 2:14-15 tell us that God has written His laws on every human heart, and it is for this reason why there has always been universal standards of right and wrong. Yes, the sinfulness of the human heart often causes moral decay in societies. But the fact remains as Dana points out that there is and always has been a universal understanding of right and wrong—which gives evidence of a Creator and stands in direct opposition to what one should expect if evolution were true.
Susan: I love your explanation of the Spirit hovering over and making a new creation in us!
Dana there is no god.
I think that even animals are hard wired to help other animals. Lion and cub as an example. Elephants are another good example. Some animals are better than others too. I just think its instinct. and I have seen example of animals helping another.
How do I know what nice is? well again by my own definition not by what some "book" says. I was nice before I was a christian. Hard wired to it, Sure I have choice and sure i make mistakes... Most christians I have met (and I work with major church groups in my business today) are as corrupt as any organisation. In fact I see NO difference in their behaviour at all.
Now don't use the "oh but REAL christians are not like that" Because they are. Because by definition it is only by grace in which you are saved.. not by works or actions.
( Susan- Keith Greens song about this is really beautiful BTW)
AND Of course Susan creation by the spoken word or sound if you like. Why do you think musicc moves your blood pump?
Big deal.
I have heard it argued by people that it was sound waves (or vibration of particles) that was the cause of the Big bang too. Frankly its clear that the bible was written by man in his own language at the time... the numerology in it is no more exceptional than the numerology of the pyramids/druids/ etc etc etc and there are plenty of cultures who demonstrate the same.
So the "word" in the beginning means nothing to me either.
I ask again- is the Bible literal or not? Was the earth created in 7 days or not? is each 'day" a thousand years or not? Are only 144,000 people going to heaven ( as some christians believe in the rapture) or not?
Seems it all bends and blows in the wind to suit those that read it and interpreti it to suit themsleves.
If God see alls thing, knows all things, then he MUST have known the outcome of the garden of eden, known the outcome of the cross and of Judas betrayal. Therefore as ultimate creator he created the very thing you struggle with SIN! so god is both GOOD and EVIL? for surely Satan did not come up with this by himself..
Again I say this- if he really gave us free choice then he gives us "god like" status and that to me is repulsive.
Oh! But you can argure that he had to give us free choice so that he could have a "true" relationship with us- I do not buy that either.
Its not a wild west movie where you guys are on the sheriffs side and I am on the gunslingers side.
Scary! I think we should have moved on from this a long time ago.
Born again? no such thing. If you work towards improving the good things in you and remove the negative things, then your journey would be more rewarding, instead of worrying about the destination.
:o)
Anyway. (((HUG))) for you all.
BE cool. and go an listen to Keith Green sing "The Lord is my shepherd" beautiful.....
That is one of my favorite Keith Green song Simon - I'm glad you like it too. May that guy could play a piano! He was the first contemporary Christian artist I listened to - and he was already dead when I first "met" him. But his music has an eternal quality, dont' you think - it continues to move and minister to people so very many years after his tragic death.
Moved on from this topic - heaven's no! This is a topic for eternity - and I am glad to enjoy it that long.
I just heard the coolest program on elephants - and you're so right, they are hard wired to care for their own. A famous scientist (can't remember her name, sorry but she worked first with humpback whales for 30 years and first discovered that they were actually creating songs and teaching them to each other)told the story of watching a young calf come into a clearing and dye. All day long the elephants went past her. About 25% of them stopped. Many tried to lift her up again. In fact, one young male elephant tried and tried - some 50 times. He left and returned multiple times to try again. How cool is that this young male elephant that wasn't blood related to the calf just kept trying to lift her up, to help her. So hard-wired - oh yes, hard-wired for something that has no survival benefit at all. But it has soul level benefit and certainly would be a good lesson for we humans to listen too!
Literal 24 hr days - I don't know - perhaps days then were eons long - the Bible does not specifically define a day except to say the rising of the sun to the setting of the sun - so who knows. Yes, some parts are meant to be taken literally - don't think much interpretation is needed with the 10 commandments. But Revelation - there's a lot of metaphorical language there so I would be far less likely to take it literally.
Hugs back to you Simon - I hope you are doing well and that your pain level is decreased some over the last week.
LitlLuther - I wish I could claim the image as my own, but it belongs to Tozer - it just struck me as so appropriate to my salvation experience - and to times of significant diffculty (and therefore spiritual growth of course)in my life - the sense of Someone there, hovering over my life speaking life into the evil and wrong situations, bring good from evil.
The 144,000 to be saved: the only people I have heard to strictly keep to this mumber are the Jehovah's Witnesses, and there is some controversy whether they are Christians anyway.
I'm with Simon. I would like to know how those who believe the Bible is literal can explain why only 144,000 people can be saved.
Simon,
What gives animals their instinct? What causes salmon to swim up stream back to the place they were originally spawned? What causes birds sometimes to travel thousands of miles to the same destination and then return again? What causes a blind new-born puppy to craw to its mother's belly for milk? What "intelligence" do any of these creatures really have that would cause them to do such terrific things? The more reasonable answer is that God gave them their instincts.
In the Systematic Theology of Wayne Grudem he provides an excellent explanation of an old-earth theory which Christians can embrace. I have it in my computer if you want to take a gander at it. I'm not offended by the idea of an old earth or non-literal 7 day creation theory any more after reading Grudem’s work.
Like Susan said, you are going into the Book of Revelation, where it says so many obviously non-literal things (like a sword coming out of Jesus' mouth, for instance), that the 144,000 are not necessarily literal.
Simon, I don’t mean to belittle you, but if you had actually taken the time look at the passage you keep referring to of the 144,000 (Rev. 7:4-8), you would see it is talking specifically about the 12 tribes of Israel, and so if we should really take it "literal", it is 144,000 Jews that God will bring simultaneously to faith in Christ. Moreover, if you had taken the time to read that passage, you would see that the very next verse (vs. 9) speaks about a “great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb.” So obviously, the 144,000 and the incalculable number of redeemed Christians in heaven are two different things. It is all quite clear in the context. Anyone who reads the passage will see it.
BTW: The idea of the 144,000 redeemed Jews goes quite well with Romans 11:26 where Paul prophesied about a great number of ethnic Israelites coming to faith in Christ at the end of history, so it might well be a literal number, but it has nothing to do with the number of people who will go to heaven, which is described as incalculable.
>Some might argue trusting and believing in something you don't yet know for sure is in itself faith
My key word here is improbable, which I will accept is a bit of a let-out clause. Scientists rarely talk of certainty as explanations can change as new evidence comes to light. I didn’t say I trusted and believed, but I do have “confidence”, and you can assign degrees of confidence (95%, 99%) or be more qualitatively “highly confident” (Halfmom will verify all this). So I am highly confident that we will have the “answer to everything” in a couple of generations or so. And my confidence is based on the evidence I have witnessed of the rate of growth of scientific knowledge, which is self-evident to everybody (my tiny hand-held PDA has more computing power than was available to the Apollo crews).
So what do I think faith is? I think it is best explained axiomatically. People like Little Luther have “faith” and they are proud of it. Somewhere along the line they made a personal decision to believe that the bible is true, every word of it. They have pre-judged the explanation for everything, based on what it says in the bible (they are quite literally “prejudiced”). Even taking into account the advances in our understanding of the natural world since those ancient scribes put quill to parchment. No matter what contradictory evidence is presented, however incontrovertible, they have retain their faith. They will contrive scenarios that deny invalidate the evidence in order to uphold their “faith”.
For example, they believe that all of humanity stemmed from Mr Adam and Miss Eve (by the way, what “ethnicity” were those two? First-grade genetics will tell you that it would require 2-3 million years for humans to genetically diversify in the way they have). They believe that there were inter-continental swimming kangaroos that made their way from Australia and back to escape the flood (actually, swimming across the Indian Ocean from Australia to the Middle east would take longer than the duration of the flood, so they might as well have stayed where they were treading water).
There is more I’d like to say about good and evil, and migratory instinct, neither of which, in my opinion, requires the intervention of an entity they call God.
Halfmom, how much space can you allow me?
But I have to go to fulfil a request from a friend to give her a neck/shoulder/back massage and I have to pick up some lavender oil on the way. Simon, don’t get excited mate, nothing runcible, it really is just neck shoulders and back.
What gives animals their instinct?
In two words (for now): natural selection.
from a psychological viewpoint, humans are more than adept at "finding" or "tuning into" "evidence" that backs up their already in place beliefs. regardless of if the beliefs are religious or just mere opinions.
i would say non-believers are just as "prejudiced" as believers. there is evidence that backs up the claims of the bible. evidence of a world wide flood and instant climate change. evidence in mathematical studies of population growth. evidence of the veracity of the gospel account of the person of Jesus.
when non-believers hear evidence that can back up the bible they knock it down with explanations from their own experience.
that is just as prejudiced as a believer who hears evidence "against" the bible and chooses to believe in God anyway.
faith leaps - either way. or leaps of "high confidence". but still leaps nonetheless.
Maalie,
If there's nothing runcible going on, I'm getting in line for a neckrub!
Now, not to argue semantics with you, but you do have something quite wrong. I feel free to speak for Litl-Luther here, as well as for myself. He is not proud he has gotten faith, he is delighted that he has been gifted with faith, for even the faith to believe comes from God. I can say this for both of us, for scripture speaks quite clearly that even the faith to believe is a gift from God, not something we can work up for ourselves or that we can earn. Now, before you give me your foolish sunbeam line again - faith is a free gift - freely offered to all; sadly, it is not freely received by all when it is offered.
Now, as to Litl-Luther's definition of faith - that is also clearly given by scripture itself. It says that, "faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". The Greek word used for faith means conviction of the truth of anything and the root word of this word is persuasion. Therefore, we have been persuaded of the truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus said of Himself that He is the only way to the Father.
And of this my dear Maalie, the Rsquared of my confidence is 1!
>humans are more than adept at "finding" or "tuning into" "evidence" that backs up their already in place beliefs. regardless of if the beliefs are religious or just mere opinions
Dana, I absolutely agree with you. That is the very reason science operates a system of peer-review. Nothing is cast in tablets of stone in science. Theories that once seemed unassailable (e.g. poor old Lamarck) get thrown out as more evidence comes to light.
Halfmon:
> He is not proud he has gotten faith, he is delighted that he has been gifted with faith
Fair point. I accept it.
>when non-believers hear evidence that can back up the bible they knock it down with explanations from their own experience.
If the evidence stands up in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature, it will not be knocked down. I'm not saying that everything in the bible is not true. There are clearly some historical fact there. But for me, and a growing number of others, it is a problem of distinguishing fact from mythology, which a great deal of it patently is.
I would be extremely grateful to hear of evidence relating to Adam and Eve of inter-continental swimming kangaroos! :-)
>there is evidence that backs up the claims of the bible. evidence of a world wide flood and instant climate change. evidence in mathematical studies of population growth.
Dana, please could you put up some internet links to this please (if Halmom is agreeable)? I would seriously love to study them in detail (accredited University or scientific journal sites only, please, not religious literature).
Many thanks.
swimming across the Indian Ocean from Australia to the Middle east would take longer than the duration of the flood, so they might as well have stayed where they were treading water).
Oh I do like this Maalie! I love the idea of lots, whoops sorry, two kangaroos treading away like mad for 40 days and 40 nights!
i would say non-believers are just as "prejudiced" as believers.
Dana, I have always found that atheists are extremely evangelical.
>i would say non-believers are just as "prejudiced" as believers.
We're (or at least, I) am not talking about non-believers per se. We are talking about science. Science is above the opinions of individuals. It is constantly advancing as new evidence is presented from observation or experimentation.
OK Maalie, but it just seems to be that athiests are quite strong and dogmatic about putting their faith forward.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong in that, but it can be as irritating as the Christians who pin you against a wall and ask you if you are saved.
>atheists are quite strong and dogmatic about putting their faith forward.
Atheists don't have a faith. But I see what you mean. I think many feel that to hold mythology as true may interfere with objective judgement and decision making. Like going to war because God said so.
Science doesn't believe or disbelieve. It merely accepts for the time being the most parsimonious hypothesis that conforms to the evidence available at the time. Then moves on when new, or contradictory, evidence is presented. Cold, clinical and without emotion. Oooh, just like me!
Anyway, I'm off, have a job to do.
qvzboy! ROTFL!
the problem is in interpreting.
for example, there is lots of scientific literature regarding frozen woolly mammoths found in large groups, all standing, with undigested food in their stomachs. how did they arrive there and why do they all seem to be frozen instantly?
i say flood and instant climate change - someone else says some other random series of events. like i said, it's in the interpretation, regardless of the type or source of the evidence you want.
consider the work of scholars like Wells, Behe, or Denton - and also (as i've cited) Alister McGrath or Fransis Collins. also there is John Polkinghorne. all scholars and/or scientists who see evidence of a God - and demonstrate evidence as such and appropriate to their fields.
or go to www.veritas.org
the media (tab on the top of the page) on that website includes talks from many many academic and science scholars that you can hear for free.
but it seems that details about literal interpretation vs. symbolic interpretation of scripture, or old vs. new earth, or the debate of "what about inconsistencies in the bible" or evolution vs. creation are all details that aren't nearly as important as the one major detail that is the cornerstone of Christianity - the person of Jesus.
of which is there massive amounts of historical evidence.
i'd look into NT Wright's work first. and the book Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. NT Wright is a leading scholar and is more than helpful. Case for Christ is very basic (at least, intellectually), but is a gathering of evidence from many academic sources by a journalist, who then published the book.
because if Jesus isn't who He said He was then it does not matter if there is any evidence to prove things in the bible.
or to quote one scientist:
"When you look from the perspective of a scientist at the universe, it looks as if it knew we were coming. There are 15 constants -- the gravitational constant, various constants about the strong and weak nuclear force, etc. -- that have precise values. If any one of those constants was off by even one part in a million, or in some cases, by one part in a million million, the universe could not have actually come to the point where we see it. Matter would not have been able to coalesce, there would have been no galaxy, stars, planets or people. That's a phenomenally surprising observation. It seems almost impossible that we're here."
i think it's just as big of a leap of faith to say yes, on the odds of one part in a million million we are all here - as it is to say yes, i was created by something.
Dana, just caught this before I go out. Honestly, I'm really not talking about "books". Anyone can write a book. I want international peer-reviewed mainstream scientific journals. For example, Journal of Applied Geology for evidence of a world-wide flood that occurred less than 4000 thousand years ago. If it was true, there should be geological evidence of it EVERYWHERE!
I'm honestly not trying to be runcible here, I would be seriously interested in reading it. In my own cold clinical unemotional way.
Right, I'm off!
>i think it's just as big of a leap of faith to say yes, on the odds of one part in a million million we are all here - as it is to say yes, i was created by something.
LOL! That's personal incredulity raising it's head again! However small the chance, it WILL happen, given enough time. Time is on the side of chance. That is one of the most difficult concepts to appreciate in evolution, just how much time there has been. Can you imaging a million years? Now multiply that by a hundred!
Help, I'm late!
>or to quote one scientist:
Any quote form an alleged "scientist" is worthless without a full reference to the journal (title, year, volume and author, please).
Thanks
sorry maalie,
that was francis collins in an interview.
here is the problem with your need for evidence from scientific journal. do you really think the journals open their arms for evidence that supports scripture? no, they say those types of things are left for religious publications.
in fact, just recently Guillermo Gonzalez (a professor at Iowa State University) was denied tenure because of his religious views, which he felt were supported by science.
in light of that type of reaction, do you think scientists are jumping at the chance to publish what they feel is real evidence when it can cost them their job?
and books are excellent resources, i would not recommend them flippantly.
though, you are correct, anyone can write a book. that is more than clear, thank you Richard Dawkins.
"Time is on the side of chance."
I have listened to a wonderful teaching on this subject.
If you're interested you can purchase it at Ligonier Ministries.
Here's a short statement about this series by RC Sproul:
"In Creation or Chaos, Dr. Sproul answers these questions by showing that the idea of "chance" causing anything is absurd and scientifically impossible. He shows that chance has become the "soft pillow" of cosmology - a myth that allows scientists to irrationally dismiss the existence of a Creator as they attempt to explain the origin of the universe."
Donsands, do you mean Robert Sproul, the Calvinist? A pastor? You can hardly call him objective!
On that, all I can say is that he is just perpetrating the sort of quasi-scientific mis-information put about by creationists in an attempt to discredit the real scientific evidence. He is purely speculation, honestly, there is no truth in it whatsoever, he is talking nonsense. The dreadful thing is that some people actually believe it (I really don't want to brag, but I am a Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society of Great Britain, my research involves concepts of probability and chance).
May I respectfully suggest that you enrol on a course of basic science?
Dana, not a fair comparison. Richard Dawkins' books are based upon his research papers which are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Of course books are a great resource if they have been properly reviewed.
> do you really think the journals open their arms for evidence that supports scripture?
And Dana, here is your problem. Peer-reviewed scientific journals don't purport to support (or not support) anything! It is science! A scientific journal reports evidence based on observation and experiment, and may propose a hypothesis to explain it. That hypothesis can be modified, even rejected, often the case) if further contradictory evidence is forthcoming.
I assure you that if geologists could reveal evidence that the whole wide world was flooded only 4000 years ago, the journals would be full of it. The problem is that evidence that purports to support stuff like this simply isn't independently verifiable.
To suggest that a scientific journal will selectively discriminate is nonsense!
"He is purely speculation, honestly, there is no truth in it whatsoever, he is talking nonsense."
Have you Heard Dr. Sproul teach on this subject? Seems you must have to make such a judgment.
It's really worth a listen. He simply speaks logically, which I thought was what you liked; logic that is. I'd be glad to send you the series, if you would like. if it is still nonsense then discard it.
You want me to enrol in a basic science course. That's a possibility.
I love science.
I have a cousin that works in Namibia with the desert elephants. He is the leading scientist/ head ranger there. Elephants cry too.
Natural selection.
maalie, i understand your consternation. however, scientific journals tend to exclude hypotheses that are of a faith point of view. if "Joe Scientist" were to go and find evidence that he felt could support a flood theory and the hypothesis of his paper he submitted for peer review was "Geological Evidence of a World Wide Flood" don't you think they would reject it, calling it "pseudo scientific"?
the fact that when people from a science background do write on their evidence they have gathered people call it misinformation should tell you something.
you don't believe in God, so when you hear evidence that could support the notion of a God you call it unscientific.
it's prejudice either way.
and in regards to Dawkins, i was teasing you. i know his books are from extensive research.
but please note that so are the books i have suggested. at least in regards to Collins and Wright.
and in regards to the comment that "if geologists could reveal evidence that the whole wide world was flooded only 4000 years ago, the journals would be full of it".
for one thing, 4000 years is something of a problem, considering it depends on if you are figuring on old earth vs. new earth. not all believers are in one camp.
for another thing, as i have said there is some evidence that would suggest a flood did happen. however, when that evidence is used to say "hey look a flood could have happened" it is ignored or labeled non-science by it's mere association with a faith view.
simon, can you clarify how elephants crying = natural selection?
have the researchers found a way to ask them "why they are crying"?
Maalie, the case of Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Iowa State University, is quite true. His CV is amazing, far better than anyone else in his tenure pool, but he was still denied tenure. The reason, his colleagues refused to support him because his religious views, which he felt were supported by science, caused them to look "unscientific". I'm sure you will be able to find his work and the work of Wright and Collins in the literature I think!
"To suggest that a scientific journal will selectively discriminate is nonsense!" Malarky! Didn't you read the latest AMA report that drug studies with negative outcomes were significantly less likely to be published than studies with positive ones? Editorial boards are always biased - that's why we have "exclude" in the list of reviewers!
Halmom, I think you have been a little economical with the truth, haven't you? The Gonzalez story and his alleged rejection on the grounds his promoting "intelligent design" even reached these shores. But have you actually read the outcome of his appeal? I have it here on my desk right now (Gregory Geoffroy, President of Iowa State University):
Gonzalez "simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy -- one of our strongest academic programs. Over the past 10 years, four of the 12 candidates who came up for review in the physics and astronomy department were not granted tenure".
I think we need to take an objective, balanced view on this, not to simply take his side because he pushes the bible.
Halfmom, forgive me, I should never have gotten involved in this. We are just going round in circles, covering the same old ground, hurting each other..
My position is clear. I felt I was "reborn" when the scales were removed from my eyes by reading the works of Richard Dawkins and others who have interpreted Darwin's genius for me and countless other students of biology. For many years I have accepted that there are more parsimonious hypotheses to explain the origins and development of life on earth without invoking a supernatural entity called "God".
There is no biological phenomenon at all that cannot be explained by natural selection and those who deny it are quite simply resorting to personal incredulity.
See you here after Easter. Best wishes to you all. Have a nice break, I shall be celebrating the Vernal Equinox (the festival of Ostara) with a flagon of real ale, a turkey and a rice pudding and chocolate egg-shaped confectionery in the company of my son and his family.
Halfmom: my personal and most sincere personal seasonal greeting to you and your readers is here
Maalie, I have some things from a couple scientific journals for you in this post:
Dawkins argues that if you believe in evolution as a biological mechanism you must also believe in philosophical naturalism. However, Francis Collins, the eminent research scientist and head of the Human Genome Project believes in evolutionary science and critiques the Intelligent Design movement that denies the transmutation of species. However, Collins believes that the fine-tuning, beauty, and order of nature nonetheless point to a divine Creator.
Contrary to Dawkin’s simplistic schema, there are many different models proposed about how God relates to the development of the life-forms we see today. Ian Barbour lays out four different ways that science and religion may be related to each other: conflict, dialogue, integration, and independence. It is the conflict model, however, that gets the most publicity. Fortunately, this view is losing credibility with a growing number of scholars. In fact, a majority of scientists consider themselves deeply or moderately religious—and those numbers have increased in recent decades. (Stark, For the Glory of God, pp. 192-97)
Christian Smith argues that the conflict model of the relationship of science to religion was a deliberate exaggeration used by both scientists and educational leaders at the end of the nineteenth century to undermine the church’s control of their institutions and increase their own cultural power. Two famous studies that support this contention were done in 1916 and 1997. The American psychologist James Leuba conducted the first survey of scientists, asking them if they believed in a God who actively communicates with humanity, at least through prayer. 40 percent said they did, 40 percent said they did not, and 20 percent were not sure. In 1997, Edward Larson and Larry Witham repeated this survey asking the very same questions of scientists. They reported in the scientific journal “Nature” that they had found that the numbers had not changed significantly in eighty years.
Edward Larson and Larry Witham, “Scientists Are Still Keeping the Faith,” Nature (April 3, 1997)
So, Maalie, it would seem that you are just one in 40 percent. Non-belief in God is not majority opinion even among scientists! Moreover, the number is probably actually higher, since in that question, a scientist who actually believes in a God who created the universe but who does not communicate directly with humanity is automatically put into the category of disbeliever.
Alister McGrath, who has a doctorate from Oxford in biophysics, writes that most of the many unbelieving scientists he knows are atheists on other grounds than their science. In McGrath’s experience, most of his atheist colleagues brought their assumptions about God to their science rather than basing them on their science (McGrath, The Dawkins Delusion? P. 44)
Also, Dawkins gives readers the impression that all atheistic scientists would agree with him that no rational, scientific mind could believe in God. But that is simply not the case. Stephen Jay Gould, the late Harvard scientist and evolutionist who was himself an atheist disagreed with Dawkins. He wrote: “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism.”
Stephen Jay Gould, “Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge,” Scientific American 267, no. 1 (1992)
"simply did not show the trajectory of excellence that we expect in a candidate seeking tenure in physics and astronomy -- one of our strongest academic programs."
That's the exact point Maalie - his cv was stronger than every other candidate coming up for tenure, but that is never evident in his review. It was their estimation of his trajectory because of his viewpoint, not because of his published works.
If they were to deny me tenure, it could easily be blamed on my lack of first author publications and current grant funding - but such was not the case with this man so I am told (by people that I trust - a Mathmatics and Physics Chairman who has research the matter in depth)
They estimated his trajectory for excellence based on his viewpoint, not his science.
If Easter says anything to us today it says theis:-
"You can put truth in a grave, but it won't stay there. You can nail it to a cross, wrap it in sheets and shut it in a tomb.. but it will rise"
Happy pagan festivities to you all! :o)
Easter says to me, that when I die, and they lay me in a casket, and then lower me into the ground, that that's not the end, but just the beginning!
Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he shall die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" John 11:25-26
Have a wonderful Easter, and a good, and reflective Good Friday Susan.
Yes Simon, you are quite right. Truth did rise from a cold, dead grave to live again - forever. A most blessed and joyful Easter to you!
Thank you Don - we will be on the road to arrive in Richmond VA for Good Friday services and then to visit for the weeek.
After reading the comments, all I can say is Wow! Lots of good discussion.
Just stopping by to wish you all a joy filled Easter
Amen! Jesus is alive and shall never taste death again. The grave could not keep Him, and because He lives we who have placed our faith in Him will also live eternally. Happy Resurrection Day!
Jesus is alive? That's a new one on me, I haven't seen him lately. Maybe you mean it metaphorically. That is the problem with God-speak, you never know where you are.
Simon, I agree with what you say. The only difference I would make is to replace "truth" with "evidence". Year by year scientific evidence accumulates. More hominid and pre-hominid fossils from the Miocene, Pliocene and Plaestocene epochs are found each year giving us a picture of an uninterrupted sequence of human development over the last 3-4 million years. Physical techniques for ageing rocks and dating cosmic events are now extremely accurate. Our knowlege of geology and the formation of the earth, plate tectonics, mountain upthrusts, continental drift, all now well understood.
Biological evidence from the elucidation of RNA an DNA sequencing and genetics improves by the month. Evidence from all branches of natural science, molecular biology, anatomy, geophysics, geochemistry (you name it) all combining to give an integrated and cohesive picture of the planet we inhabit and an explanation for its development.
This evidence will not go away . It is there for all to witness, cross-check and verify, for those who open their eyes.
On the other hand the bible lost touch with reality some 2000 years ago when people still "believed" the earth was flat and at the centre of the universe. When those ancient scribes put to quill to parchment they were trying to explain the state of affairs as they saw it, with the knowledge and understanding they had at the time. We have moved on some 2000 years and relegated their work to the realms of mythology.
Sadly, "faith", now matter how passionately held, is not an indicator of truth.
"And He [Christ] was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:
And that He was seen of Ce-phas, then of the twelve:
After that, He was seen above five hundred brothers at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
After that, He was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
And last of all He was seen of me [Paul] also, as of one born out of due time.
For I am least of the apostles, that am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God." 1 Corinthians 15:4-9
"And while they looked stedfastly toward the sky as He {Jesus} went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
Which also said, You men of Galilee, why stand gazing up into the sky? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall come in like manner as you have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:9-11, from the pen of Doctor Luke.
Donsands, I appreciate the trouble you take to reply but, simply copying and pasting from that outdated and outmoded tome of mythology does nothing to overturn the massive quantity of scientific counter evidence which I have witnessed for myself. I know what it says, I have had it forced down my own throat in my time. Please oblige me with some evidence.
Belief is not an indicator of truth, I'm afraid.
Here's some evidence:
Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament
There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.
These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.
There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).
Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of EVIDENCE supporting its reliability.
There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.
Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."
The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.
In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).
The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.
The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.
Yes Maalie - Jesus is alive!
Maalie,
Do you ever answer personal questions? I asked you some on Susan's previous post, but you never responded. Just wondering.
I can post them here of you like, so you don't have to dig.
It's been a great discussion. Amazing, 94 comments on a DVD/clock post!! Who woulda' thunk it?
Dianne
Happy Easter ALL!
PS Maalie (and Simon) God loves you! REALLY!!
OOPS! not only does He love you , but He even wants you!!
Keeps ya humble, I guess. :)
The evidence is great for Jesus' resurrection. Why would more than 500 followers of Jesus go from depressed and hopeless after witnessing Jesus' death, to over night being willing to die for Him to testify that He is alive again? THE main thing that is preached in the Acts of the Apostles by the followers of Jesus is the resurrection of Christ. THE reason they suffered terrible persecutions is because they kept proclaiming the resurrection of Christ and would not stop, despite their suffering. And they went to their deaths unwilling to recant that they had witnessed the resurrection of Jesus.
And now some 2000 years later, we Christian proclaim to you that we too have personally encountered the living, resurrected Christ. And like the apostles before us, most of us would be willing to die a 1000 deaths rather than deny that He has indeed risen. The evidence is staggering for the resurrection of Jesus. One cannot read, for instance, "Evidence Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell without being overwhelmed by the evidence for Christ's resurrection. I defy you to read that book. I defy you to read it with the aim of disproving the clear evidence in that book. But be afraid, be very afraid to read it. You may very well have to submit your life over to Christ, for you will be convinced by the evidence.
He is risen!
>Why would more than 500 followers of Jesus go from depressed and hopeless after witnessing Jesus' death
I don't know Little Luther, you tell me, you are the one with the answers!
All I can say is that there are plenty of other mythologies with equally fantastic and wonderful stories to tell.
If indeed he exists, I thank Him for your brilliant scientists in America, and for ours in Europe too, for their work in advancing our understanding of the natural world. I thank Him for the genius of Einstein and Darwin for guiding them to reaching their life-changing conclusions. I thank Him for the communication skills of my intellectual mentors, Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins. I thank him for Al Gore and others who worn us of the dangers of our worldly profligacy.
But most of all I thank Him for removing the scales from my eyes and my "rebirth" into the world of science and reality. Once you have seen the light, there is no going back.
Me He bless you all with similar joys.
Litl Luther, I have thought more about your question. If such an event happened today, it would be attributed to "mass hysteria", wouldn't you say? Such a phenomenon occurred ten years ago at the death of our beautiful Diana, Princess of Wales. Our country was united in grief to an extent it was regarded as "hysterical" in the mourning the loss of such a charismatic woman. Now, if a couple of nutters at her funeral came running out into the street shouting: "She is risen! She is risen! We saw it! We saw it!" I am certain that could have started a new cult of Diana worship.
Now, Jesus was obviously an amazingly charismatic figurehead, no doubt about that. It is not surprising that his followers would suffer indescribable grief at his loss, especially at the cruel way he was crucified, apparently innocently. Exactly the sort of circumstances that would generate mass hysteria. Only there were no trained psychologists in those days to recognise it as such. It became engrained in our culture and mythology.
It's all so obvious really.
Congratulations on another 100 cmments Halfmom!
What a blog! What a thread on such a "by the way" posting. And really good discussion here.
I really need to take the time to read it all, and to get on this blog more often to keep up. Not easy, and have been tired but am refreshed today, this Good Friday.
Naturalistic evolution does not account for what is in the belief and practice of most peoples who have lived in this world for thousands of years. Religion and faith seems inherent in the human psyche. From where does that come? That is what unites much of the world, and what is common in all religions and faith, the sense that there is more to this life than just what we know in looking at this world.
Jesus, the Jesus of Nazareth who came and lived and died and allegedly was resurrected, and I believe all of this to be true, his life and claims must be reckoned with. And it is a call to believe and follow, and in Jesus to see all things beginning now, through God's kingdom come in him, made right and made new, and in the end, by judgment and grace be made finally and fully so.
Anyhow, just a great discussion and thread here. I'm truly in awe and greatly humbled. Makes me want to read on this.
"All I can say is that there are plenty of other mythologies with equally fantastic and wonderful stories to tell."
But there's not much evidence. The Bible has tremendous evidence, which I did put forth earlier.
Thousands of manuscripts. Incredible evidence we have, unlike any other historical writings.
But, it does come down to faith Maalie.
For even the Jewish leaders of Christ's day didn't believe in Him, even when Jesus said to them, "If you don't believe in Me, then believe the works I have done".
And they wouldn't, even though they saw Lazarus raised from the dead with there own eyes. And they wanted to not only kill Jesus, but also lazarus.
Amazing hatred these men had. And we all do when backed up against the wall with the truth of being sinners and unworthy of anything.
That's what makes Jesus' love and grace so great. We are unworthy, and deserve His judgement, but He forgives and shows mercy. Mercy is the key word for us today, on Good Friday.
May we all be encouraged to reflect on Jesus' death. And on John 3:16: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever trusts in Him shall not perish, but will gain eternal life."
Sorry. I don’t mean to offend you Brits…but, Diana dying drunk in the backseat of a car next to her lover and Jesus willingly sacrificing His sinless life as a ransom for sinners, is a poor comparison indeed!
Disprove the resurrection of Jesus and Christianity is defeated. Whether God exists or not is a mute point under those circumstances. I have no interest or hope of relating to God apart from the death and the resurrection of Christ. If Jesus has not risen, then we Christians are to be pitied above all men. Without the resurrection I might as well eat, drink, be merry and indulge every decadence and debauchery my wicked heart desires. For tomorrow we die. The only way you can prove Christianity a sham and make our faith futile is to disprove the resurrection. Better get busy because a lot of us know Him to be alive! I’m sorry you haven’t experienced the truth of the living Christ for yourself. Hopefully He will reveal Himself to you someday, too. I really hope He does.
The raising of Lazarus is my favorite in all of scripture Litl-Luther!
I especially love the line of Martha, ever the practical one, to Jesus when he commands that the stone be removed (especially in the King James!), "but it has been three days and he stinketh".
I figure that if he was dead in that heat three days he was pretty well into decomposition - rotting flesh is a nasty thing, let me tell you!
So - since Jesus raised him back to perfect health, so much so that the evidence of his life was drawing many to believe in Christ, my sin is nothing for Him!!!
HE IS RISEN INDEED!!!
"god really loves you" OH ANON PLEASE!!!!!!
I don't need that sort of nonsense!
And Luke Skywalker really loves you too!
Show me the evidence!
I agree with Maalie- where is the evidence? Sure there is a book written, sure there is evidence of that- OF COURSE!
just as there is PROOF that Tolkien wrote Lord of the Rings.
Does not mean there is "Some Gandalf" in the sky expressing some realtionship with me (just because the book might have said so)
really!! In Aboriginal Dreaming there is NO written word yet the stories are just as credible as your "god"
BTW the Dream time serpent is a Ying and Yang figure in the Aboriginal culture.. scary!
If god really loves people how does he allow suffering, pain, starvation?
Or does he only have a monopoly of "good"? if so how did he create "choice".. again I say
By you own book, he MUST have created both therefore must be both good and evil..?
So- keep your book and the stories from the middle east.
All I see is evolution, genetics and thats all. :o)
Simon,
Maybe you're right on the evolutionist part (as in theistic evolution, I say), but I believe the evidence of God's love is in the persson and story told of Jesus of Nazareth.
One needs to look at the historical Jesus of Nazareth, and also at what the church and tradition told about him, which we find in our gospels, in the Acts and the letters within that tradition. One has to take that serious. And then one has to take serious the lives changed of countless people who believe the greatest ethic is to love God and love their neighbor as themselves, including their enemies.
And Simon, the answer is for all of us in our brokenness, for the entire world. God does end up making all things right and all things new in his Son. This begins now, but the pull of sin in our lives and in the world at large still means it's a struggle, and death for us all is a reminder that we're neither God and we're also still subject to death because of sin, as we read in Genesis 3.
But in Jesus we can share in life after death, and the life that comes after life after death which is then resurrection life in a new dimension of this old creation, including you and I, Simon- in Jesus.
Let me add this:
A big part, yes huge part of all of this is that you and I and all nature are created by God, according to the faith, quite special. And in that creation, we have relationships that are the "heart beat" of our existence, as well as good work to do. This, in the Biblical Story, is because we're made in no less than the image of God.
But to go our own way means a losing of that image, and a defacement of what we were created to be, and become. So that "hell" may end up being just the result of people going their own way and in that way, losing God's image and their humanity entirely, except in some demented state. Something like what C.S. Lewis brings out in "The Great Divorce", in which one who justifies their grumbling and continues to live in it, becomes a Grumble themselves, and lose out in their humanity.
But Jesus came to restore us to the true humanity, found only in Jesus. And all true restoration of this in the world comes through Jesus, even if those involved in that, or participating, don't know the entire Story.
As Susan says, and this blog, we're "Not Ashamed", not ashamed of the gospel and because of God's grace in Jesus, our shame can be turned into joy at God's forgiveness and the new life in Jesus.
The thought from C.S. Lewis about one grumbling being in danger of becoming a "Grumble" (or something to that effect), he may have stated in "Mere Christianity", though that same idea is depicted interestingly and well, in "The Great Divorce."
Thank you Ted for stating my position for me! It is good to know one is understood clearly - I am not ashamed of the gospel and do declare that it is God's good news to the dying - to each and every on of us!
Post a Comment