It's time for vacation!!
School starts for my daugher right after we return and I have some things I haven't finished - so, the laptop must travel with us.
Here is the first stop on the road home - Mountain City TN.
Then through these as we head for the the foothills of SC. Our biggest concern right now (other than actually getting packed and out the door) is whether the new car makes it through the mountains without new puppy barf in the back seat!
218 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 218 of 218Triston,
I had to check in after mowing our little lawn, and what there is to mow of it- though I wasn't going to going to check back for awhile, but this necessitated that!
And ask your forgiveness, because when I read your initial comment on preterist- I've read some on that- I thought I knew what you were saying, and sent a comment on that, and it came across rudely, I'm afraid: "Name me one such preterist". I had read it too hastily, and not carefully and on rereading it knew I had erred, though also believing I erred anyhow, as a comeback like that is out of place.
You don't have to bother naming such a preterist, because I believe every word you're saying on that! I thought I knew the full meaning of how that word is used theologically, I mean basically as I remember it, but I didn't. And of course denial that Jesus will return as it says he will in Scripture is erroneous.
Thanks, brother.
No problem Ted. Though if you want some names of actual full preterists, please read my paper. I quote quite a few, give web addresses, etc.
Wow! The comments have moved on to another page! I have never seen that before. What Mally says is almost exactly what my science professor taught. She took us on school trips to the Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris where we could actually see the fossils and have it all explained to us. I firmly accept evolution of species, and I reject totally Noah's Ark and Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. Though I like Little Luther's suggestion that it referred to flooding in the local world. I can understand that Noah could have built some sort of raft to save his family and sheep etc., and that the story got exaggerated passing by word of mouth down the generations.
Maalie "That's why you cannot have 'faith' and be a true scientist" I think some of the greatest scientists across time would beg to differ with you - to name a few: Copernicus, Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Planck, and Einstein - but I did say I'd just name a few, so I'll stop there!
I think you'll find this quote by Einstein to be of interest, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
As to your deliberately antagonistic interpretation of my "muddying the water" comment, let me state, once again, and for others who read - I intended only to draw your attention to the man Jesus Christ and Him crucified and risen again - you use your supposed wise and scientific arguements as a red herring to draw attention away from the one thing you should be examining - Chirst.
Another quote from Einstein says it quite nicely, "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details."
I find that I agree with him entirely - the kangaroos and sloths, length of creation days, how it all actually came into being - simply details. I came to faith NOT through incredulity as you always are ready to accuse, but by a carefulreasoning and acceptance of the proof presented to me - by grace through the avenue of faith in the one who paid for me a debt He didn't owe because I owed a debt I couldn't pay.
Now to the rest of you - if you come here with real questions and want real discussion and real answers, then you are most welcome to stay. However, I am growing most suspicious that some of you are coming to be deprecating, to make sure that you get you opinion across that other members of the discussion are quite a few cents shy of a nickle because they choose to believe other than you do. For those of you with this arrogant and disrespectful attitude, take fair warning - you are treading on my good graces a bit too heavily.
Open-minded, fair and civil debate will always be allowed, but arrogance and one-upmanship will not - and this clearly goes for believers and unbelievers alike.
Yes Triston, I read it. It was good I thought.
No Estelle, I do not think I am too hard on Maalie - not at all. Although, I would imagine you might think so - even that I'm unkind to him perhaps, since the two of you are so very close, blogging from the same computer and all...... Why you might suggest that I am a woman scorned one can only imagine - wishful thinking on Maalie's part, perhaps?
As to the reference you hyperlinked, perhaps you missed these interesting sentences that reference the letter your are quoting from... "The handwritten piece, in German, is not listed in the source material of the most authoritative academic text on the subject, Max Jammer's book Einstein and Religion. One of the country's leading experts on the scientist, John Brooke of Oxford University, admitted he had not heard of it. Rather calls the authenticity of your quote into question, does it not?
You might also note that I AM still in science these days, wheter you are or not - and quite actively so as the days are busy with our new grants - as such, I am quite familiar with "[the] genetic code or genetics or molecular biology or isotope dating" - and a few other areas besides. Interestingly, I still have quite rationally made the choice to believe in the God who is there - and His Son Jesus the Christ.
Your choice is your own to make, but choosing differently than I do does not make either of us irrational, just differentially accountable. And that accountability will be determined by someone other than myself - so good luck with your choices.
Estelle,
Your last comment about Einstein brought to mind another quote of his:
"The true problem lies in the hearts and thoughts of men… What terrifies us is not the explosive force of the atomic bomb, but the power of the wickedness of the human heart."
– Albert Einstein
It Sounds like Einstein was referring to all of us at this blog!
I spy a sockpuppet in this place! (Google "wiki sockpuppet").
Maalie,
I checked that link, and was even more complexed, or confused. I will continue to study these things, but only upon the foundation of God's Word in Christ.
I have another quote I'd like to see what you think of, but this thread may be too old, methinks.
Perhaps you can read and think about it.
"Charles Darwin made one fatal mistake. He did not know about genetics. It is the variety in the gene pool of a species that produces variation within the species. That is why there are 400 varieties of dogs, but they are all still dogs. That is why humans can all look so different but still be human beings. Even though there are claims to the contrary, there never has been any true evidence that new species are being formed."
Why welcom and thank you Tortoiseshell - I had never heard of a sockpuppet before! You have certainly expanded my vocabulary tonight! And I suspect so - and sometimes do not even mind, as long as said puppets are pleasant - or at least civil!
I would like to repeat my previous belief that someone has been posting to this debate as a sockpuppet - a practise which is rightly scorned by self-respecting bloggers.
Otherwise - One God, many paths. Maalie will not be "condemned", Halfmom will not be "saved".
Yes, Tortoiseshell, I agree with you now that I know what a sockpuppet is - there has been one.
However, I do not scorn the use of a sockpuppet, at least not for all reasons - I believe there is one "Father Ann" that frequently appears on Lorenzo's blog. Trust me, though I suspect a sockpuppet there, Father Ann has proved a source of never ending enjoyment for me. Actually, it would be quite fun if she were to make an appearance here!
As to Maalie, he didn't accuse me of being mean to him - Estelle did. And he, along with all the others, is always welcome as long as civility is the rule. I just don't happen to think it civil to decry the quality of my science based on my belief in creation or Christ. Certainly I'm glad the peer-review process doesn't do so with my publications or grants or I'd be in big trouble in the scientific community.
As to one God, many ways - Jesus said of Himself that He was the ONLY way to the Father. So do with that statement as you will - He made it, not I - but I tend to take Him at His word.
Thanks for the kind words on my (and Lorenzo's) blog - though I'm not sure that you have picked up on the real sock-puppet!
As a former journalist, I would have to qualify your previous statement by saying Jesus "is reprted as saying" that he is the ONLY way.
As a Unitarian/Universalist, I would find it hard to believe that a loving God would condemn anyone who was unlucky to be born and raised outside the sphere Christianity, which has been hugely influenced by human geo-politics since the days of the early Church.
You are quite correct Tortoiseshell- I do not know for sure that I have detected the right one - I just compared IP addresses and comment times - which, as a total computer idiot, is all I know to do.
As to the rest, I will comment more later, as I do have a few things to say on that topic.
The baby is adorable - and truthfully, she looks to me quite a bit like her little cousin Jimmy - at least as I can tell from the photos their proud grandpa and great aunt post! The Maalie gene must run quite strongly!!
I thank you for your kind and continued interactions - it has been a pleasure.
Tortoiseshell, if you're questioning the reliability of the New Testament, that's going to start a whole new rabbit trail, and we may end up at 300 or 400 comments on this post. (smile)
Remember the story about the blind Indians and the elephant? They each described the elephant from their own perspective and came to different conclusions. Their individual answers were only partly right.
May I propose a challenge to you? You began your statement with "As a Unitarian/Universalist," and then you stated your position. My challenge would be that you put forth such queries without a denominational filter. That way, anyone who disagrees can discuss the idea without attacking your group, and you are not tied to the responsibility of defending a whole denomination.
Your basic proposition is that you find it hard to believe that a loving God would condemn anyone who was unlucky to be born and raised outside the sphere Christianity, right?
Hi Craver,
I completely accept your point about not bounding my comments up with a denominational title. It's only recently I made a positive shift to the Unitarian faith (after several years of "lapsed" Christianity), so I probably feel more compelled than most to share my new ID.
Otherwise, I think that the concept of the Indians / elephants is very appropriate. The best anyone of us can hope for is to have a partial understanding. The challenge is to find a synthesis which can bring everyone on board. This means that people of all religious backgrounds should reject absolutist answers such as "I am the way, truth and life".
And yes, I believe that God will look after people of all faiths (Hence "Universalist"), which is probably a more important label to me than "Unitarian".
Hi Tortoiseshell,
Your comment reminds me of the Scripture: "[God] made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ. (Ephesians 1)
That inbuilt longing we have for universal peace and reconciliation is realized only through Jesus Christ.
Tortoishell as to your comment, "This means that people of all religious backgrounds should reject absolutist answers such as "I am the way, truth and life".
It is hard for me to understand how one can leave that out without leaving the man himself out. He, himself, claimed to be God along with many more bold, audacious statements of the same type.
Some have said that if you do not acknowledge him as what he said he was - the Lord God Almighty - you must declare him a lunatic or a liar. I see little benefit from such lies. After all, there are no reports to his having benfited financially or otherwise from his statements and it seems to me that con artists always lie for profit of some kind. Clearly the crucifiction, documented by external historians such as Josephus, wasn't a benefit. So, I see little substance to the claim of liar.
What I do not understand is how anyone can be a "unitarian" - if I understand that to correctly mean "the things we can all be in unity upon" - can place any value on his teachings if he was a lunatic - a total nut case as it were. I suppose nut case isn't a very scientific diagnosis - I suppose I should use the term we use for teaching the medical students neuropsychopharmacology - a paranoid schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur and a god complex.
So - do please explain to me how one can find value (especially universal value) in the words and teachings of a paranoid schizophrenic?
Post a Comment