Opening my email tonight I noticed several indicating "comments requiring moderation", and thought that perhaps you might like to know why this new feature has been added to some of the posts.
Usually, when a comment is left on a blog, the blog administrator gets an email to let them know. However, my system doesn't seem to like to do that. In fact, it only lets me know when Simon (of whom the system is very suspicious and gives me a warning no matter how many times I click in "allow content") and Ted leave comments.
So, unless I think to look, all the rest of you are commenting away and I don't even know to go and read your thoughtful comments, much less have a chance to acknowledge or reply to them. This has been very frustrating for me, particularly when there may be conversations happening on several different postings at the same time!
However, the comment enabling email does seem to work - go figure. I set it to automatically apply comment moderation to any blog posting that is over 7 days old, thinking that surely I would be able to post once a week! That way I could keep up with the daily comments and on the current posting and comment moderation would then allow me to know when someone left a comment on an older post. But, as you have been commenting prolifically, and I have been responding to your comments rather than putting up a new post, I clearly didn't make it under the 7 day wire. So, now we are set at a 10 day interval. Hopefully this will allow me to be aware of what is happening on my own blog as it sometimes seems to have a life of its own!
I hope this is not inconvenient or offensive for any of you. I know that it interrupts the flow of conversation somewhat, but I do check my email fairly frequently - more often than I am able to check the blog actually.
Do know that I appreciate all of you who read and comment. Your conversations, while greatly varied in content, are always interesting and frequently quite intriguing. Do also know that I take them all seriously (yes, even Craver and Martin's jokes!) and appreciate your effort and input!
Usually, when a comment is left on a blog, the blog administrator gets an email to let them know. However, my system doesn't seem to like to do that. In fact, it only lets me know when Simon (of whom the system is very suspicious and gives me a warning no matter how many times I click in "allow content") and Ted leave comments.
So, unless I think to look, all the rest of you are commenting away and I don't even know to go and read your thoughtful comments, much less have a chance to acknowledge or reply to them. This has been very frustrating for me, particularly when there may be conversations happening on several different postings at the same time!
However, the comment enabling email does seem to work - go figure. I set it to automatically apply comment moderation to any blog posting that is over 7 days old, thinking that surely I would be able to post once a week! That way I could keep up with the daily comments and on the current posting and comment moderation would then allow me to know when someone left a comment on an older post. But, as you have been commenting prolifically, and I have been responding to your comments rather than putting up a new post, I clearly didn't make it under the 7 day wire. So, now we are set at a 10 day interval. Hopefully this will allow me to be aware of what is happening on my own blog as it sometimes seems to have a life of its own!
I hope this is not inconvenient or offensive for any of you. I know that it interrupts the flow of conversation somewhat, but I do check my email fairly frequently - more often than I am able to check the blog actually.
Do know that I appreciate all of you who read and comment. Your conversations, while greatly varied in content, are always interesting and frequently quite intriguing. Do also know that I take them all seriously (yes, even Craver and Martin's jokes!) and appreciate your effort and input!
47 comments:
Huh?
Martin jokes? I thought he was genuinely insane. ;-)
I hope you do not mind that I thank you here for your comment on my blog.
The last time I visited Chicago, and Illinois for that matter (Champagne-Urbana), was four years ago, at the end of October, when temperatures were in the eighties! The whole campus was out and about in T-shirts. ;-)
I wish you a long and warm Indian Summer, keeping the arrival of winter at bay as long as possible!
Yes Craver. He's Foaming-at-the-mouth insane. I think that's why I like Martin's blog so much.
PS Hi Suzy!!!!
Who is this martin? He sounds like my kind of guy!
Craver & Litl Luther, what are you guys like? Calling me the insane one! Sorry got to go and have the tablets now!!
Susan, see my last comment on the previous post. I should've posted it here.
Another unrelated comment:
Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin." This is a radical indictment of all natural "virtue" that does not flow from a heart humbly relying on God's grace. Everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion.
The terrible condition of man's heart will never be recognized by people who assess it only in relation to other men. Romans 14:23 makes plain that depravity is our condition in relation to God primarily, and only secondarily in relation to man. Unless we start here we will never grasp the totality of our natural depravity.
> Romans 14:23 says, "Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin."
I find this totally absurd when a new-born baby can be described as "a bundle of sin".
hello all! i have missed the conversations here. i hope everyone had a wonderful summer:)
i hope you're new comment system helps you out halfmom:)
i think one could argue that a new born baby lives a life of 100% faith, innately. they do not "know" that they will be fed, cared for, sheltered, etc. they have no system of knowledge that tells them so. they automatically rely on their caretaker despite having any "reason" to do so. call it instinct, but they are wired to rely on someone while having no "evidence" that doing so will enable them to live.
"now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" [Hebrews 11:1]
Dana, I am sorry that on your re-appearance, I have to disagree with you:
> i think one could argue that a new born baby lives a life of 100% faith, innately
No, we have elucidated the whole human genome. There is no DNA sequence that "codes" for hereditable faith.
That happens by indoctrination by parents or the culture into which the helpless morsel happens to find itself born.
Most cultures have some sort of "faith", and they all believe that theirs is the one true one.
It is all delusion, of course.
The last thing I want to do is argue for the sinfulness of babies, but every person grows up and sins. It is inherent to our natures:
"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." (Psalm 51:5)
“Even from birth the wicked go astray; from the womb they are wayward and speak lies.” (Psalm 58:3)
Paul says to us Christians, “We were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.” (Ephesians 2:3)
Nevertheless, there is something to Dana’s point. Jesus said, "Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it.” (Mark 10:15)
Since the Bible is clear that we are saved by faith in Christ, the above text probably has to do with the natural ability of little children to trust implicitly.
maalie, i was sincerely hoping that you would both respond and use the word "elucidated". hope springs everlasting!
in my post i do not mean faith as a specific organized religion but the event of believing in or hoping for something in which you have no evidence that it either exists or will happen.
babies must on some biological level "believe" they will be fed and taken care of. they instinctualy attach to their mothers - despite having a shred of evidence that "mother" is there and will care for the child. that, on some level, can be considered faith.
though it is a far cry from faith in God or Jesus, lol.
i didn't intend to spark more argument over the innocence or sinfulness of infants.
> i didn't intend to spark more argument over the innocence or sinfulness of infants.
Oh, Dana, that was a reference to a previous comment by Donsands (I think) who welcomed Litl Luther's recent baby as "a little bundle of sin". I was appalled and remarked at the time that it was exactly the sort of remark that would make me atheist, if I wasn't already.
You have a great memory Maalie. That was tongue in cheek truth, mainly between me and Triston.
Would I be able to say that to just any father who just became a proud father of a son? No. No way.
Triston is a dear friend, and he knows what i mean. In fact he agrees as the father of Samuel, and who loves that baby more than any one on this earth, other than Jaya, the mother.
I'm sorry it offended you. I offend people all the time, that's for sure.
i apologize to you for my tongue in cheek rudeness.
But the truth of humans being born in sin I cannot apologize for. It's God's truth.
Donsands, thank you for that. I would not describe it so much as offence, but as incredulity.
If God is indeed omnipotent and omniscient, it is claimed that he knew what was going to happen to everyone since the dawn of his own existence (who created God? A question for another time maybe).
Therefore logically God must have ordained the fall of man, and so I can't understand why we should have to keep grovelling in repentance for some mis-demeanour for which God, not us, was ultimately responsible.
A very happy Festival of Mabon to Halfmom and all her loyal readers!
Maalie,
Let's say God did create all that we see, just for arguments sake.
This Creator created all the stars and planets. they are nothing more than something to enjoy for His pleasure.
Now there are trillions of stars. And if we think for a second that the entity who created these stars must be quite an incredible being, an awesome and magnificent creature altogether.
Then when we try to understand this creator to his core, then we must bow to an eternal and infinite intelligence, compared to our finite, and quite inept really, intellect won't you agree.
i know you don't think there is a creator, but if there was one, then this creator would be incomprehensible. Just the fact that this being always was, and had no beginning! (A subject for another time, as you suggested).
So, this is why we can not say to this creator, why did you make me like this, or who can resist your will?
Just thought I'd throw that out about a Creator who is real, and who manifested Himself in a Man, Jesus Christos.
MDana,
I wasn't saying babies have faith in God, if that is what you were referring to by the lol. I'm just trying to understand what Jesus means that we have to become like little children. Or what Jesus meant when He quoted the words "Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise". (Matt. 21:16)
Nevertheless, I do believe there is a sense in which children can actually trust in God (even though I don't understand it):
"You are He who took Me out of the womb; You made Me trust while on My mother’s breasts. I was cast upon You from birth. From My mother’s womb You have been My God." (Psalm 22:9-10)
It could also potentially be argued that John the Baptist had faith and was filled with the Holy Spirit while he was still in the womb, since He leapt\ rejoiced at the presence of Jesus.
Since faith is a gift of God, I don't find it strange that God could impart the gift of faith even to newborns or babies in the womb. In fact, knowing that all humanity are guilty in Adam and that we are saved only through faith, it seems potentially necessary for God to give babies faith to save them....But I sure hope we don't get into that. I DO believe the minuscule biblical evidence we have does show that deceased babies indeed go to heaven (children of Christians and non-Christians alike) and that these babies are all saved through the work of Christ. In reality an adult's salvation is no less miraculous than that of an infant. Paul compares it to resurrection from the dead.
> Who created God?
Maalie, doesn’t the atheist have to answer the same question, but rather it would be worded “Who created the original matter before the Big Bang?” “Did that matter always exist?” “Was it actually eternal matter, having no beginning?” The tough questions don’t disappear even when you remove God from the picture.
You are a thinking man, Maalie, and I really appreciate that about you. I do believe God ordained the Fall of Man (and of angels too), and as you pointed out, it is a logical conclusion we come to if God is truly omnipotent and omniscient. But I suppose the reason this question does not trouble me is because God’s glory is paramount above everything else. I think it is likely that God receives more glory by being our Savior than He would if Man had never fallen and needed no Savior. This is really one of those areas that is left unrevealed in Scripture. But I “think” it comes back to God’s glory, why He ordained the Fall. Many good Christians may well disagree with me here.
>The tough questions don’t disappear even when you remove God from the picture.
I agree absolutely. I think the difference between us is that you assert that it happened by magic. I assert that we do not yet have a scientific answer but that we might one day.
In my lifetime we did not understand the genetic code, computers, and a host of other phenomena that we now understand quite well. The absence of an explanation is not evidence that there is NO explanation.
Your creation mythology as no better or no worse than the countless other creation mythologies that have been held by various cultures over the centuries. Each are held by their believers as the "one true faith" just as much as you do.
Logically they can't all be right. I know that you feel sure that you are backing the right horse. Others however believe just as vehemently, and just as persuasively that their God is the one true God.
Then it sure is a good thing I'm right! :-)
I'm not backing the right horse but the one who created the horse. You'll meet Him someday Maalie. I just spent time with Him this morning after breakfast.
No, I shall not meet him. I am certain I hasve not been elected.
Of one thing I am certain: His Majestyhte Sun God will be exactly over the equator at 15.40 GMT tomorrow (Monday) at the equinox. Now THAT is what I call reliability!
Happy Mabon Litl Luther!
I have never sinned in my life...and like maalie, I will not meet him/it/she etc...
That's funny Simon.
You just sinned by saying you've never sinned!
But I love you any way dude!
Triston
Hi Maalie,
That's why I put in a previous post "God’s providence provides a basis for science: God has made and continues to sustain a universe that acts in predictable ways."
You are basically admitting the above premise when you insist the sun will be exactly over the equator at 15.40 GMT on Monday. And as incredibly reliable as the sun is, the One who created the sun, making it reliable, is far more reliable. Thanks for agreeing with me here!
but I have not!
Luther, you simply apply an old middle eastern books law onto me.
I don't acknowledge it.
So, If I do not accknowledge it, how can it apply?
And we can get back to the start of the debate all over again...
The Anglican Church apologises to Darwin:
Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practice the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends. But the struggle for your reputation is not over yet, and the problem is not just your religious opponents but those who falsely claim you in support of their own interests.
Hi Simon,
I can remember one time when you were aghast that I would watch videos that I can get here on the black-market. You seemed then to think that was sin\wrong. I imagine there are several things that you believe are wrong (murder perhaps?, adultery? stealing?, wrecking the earth? abusing kids? taking advantage of the elderly or innocent?). I'm sure you have plenty of things which your own conscience tells you are wrong. My question to you is, how do you know those things are wrong? What is your basis for right and wrong? The Bible tells us that God has written His laws upon the hearts of all people. (Rom. 2:14-15) That is what I believe is the ultimate basic for the right\wrong moral beliefs in all societies. Sure, like anything else, sin can corrupt peoples' understanding of right and wrong, but it seems undeniable to me that every society on earth has what they believe are good and bad behavior. Every people have some level of morality\ ethics. Wouldn't you agree? My question is why this is so. I believe this too is evidence for the existence of a moral God.
Triston
>My question to you is, how do you know those things are wrong? What is your basis for right and wrong? The Bible tells us that God has written His laws upon the hearts of all people
I take the liberty of replying on behalf of Simon, who is now presumably asleep under the Southern Cross. I believe his reply would be similar, he will correct me if not.
The plain and simple fact is that every hominid culture since the emergence of Homo habilis from its Australopithecine precursors some three million years ago has adopted cultural and social standards of living and cooperating with others. These behavioural traits can be perfectly well explained by Darwinian natural selection, for any hereditary gene that confers an advantage to a gene pool will be selected for.
There are many many cultures that have never been exposed to Christianity and have social "rules" by which they cooperate.
Sin is presumably some sort of offence against a mythological deity; since we do not believe in the supernatural, we cannot believe in "sin". However, we try to adhere to the rules imposed by our societies and additionally try to be kind to our fellow people. Is is in our enlightened self-interests to do so. Nothing more; nothing less.
Maalie,
I would like to hear you reflect some on Don's previous statement about the creator if he were to exist.
It is a matter of faith to believe in a creator. But it's not faith that is incredulous in itself. Isn't it credible, or isn't there some credibility to the idea that behind what is seen is a maker or originator of it?
Your faith is in science it seems, and is based on what is seen and what is known and theorized from that. And I believe there's much to learn there. But how can you explain on the basis of self-interest and survival of the fittest, the story of Jesus? He comes and instead of being the strong, he is the weak, and looked down on by both Jews and the rest in his day. Dying the cursed death of the cross. Then after that you have a bunch of followers, many of whom gave their lives. Not strong by the world's standards, many weak in any number of ways. This suggests something more, something more, Maalie, than what meets the eye.
>Your faith is in science it seems
Ted, I'm sorry, but science has absolutely nothing to doth with faith. It is cold, clinical, indifferent appriasal of the evidence and the formulation of the most persimoious explanation to account for it. As new evidence appears, a new explanation may need to be formulated. If not, our physicians would still be bleeding us with leeches.
> But how can you explain on the basis of self-interest and survival of the fittest, the story of Jesus?
I don't explain it. It seems quite likely that the guy stood in this planet, but there is clearly a huge amount of hysteria and mythology surrounding the character. It happens to pop stars and footballers today.
> Then after that you have a bunch of followers, many of whom gave their lives.
These days I believe we would call them "roadies".
>This suggests something more, something more, Maalie, than what meets the eye.
I'm afraid it doesn't suggest anything of the kind to me Ted, except some pretty well thought out mythology that now enshrines superstition.
Good science has nothing to do with faith. I agree, Maalie. My problem comes when in the name of science faith claims are denied, such as Jesus' resurrection.
This is based on the assumption that what is out of the norm can't happen, I suppose.
good science, I mean in the case of science that stays within its discipline
> My problem comes when in the name of science faith claims are denied, such as Jesus' resurrection.
The difficulty there Ted is that there is no independently verifiable evidence (as in the case the peer-reviewed scientific literature).
I guess there are (have been) as many different faiths (mythologies) as there are cultures and each one asserts to be "the one true faith".
There are people today who will blow themselves up in the name of their faith. They must be fairly certain that they are backing the right horse to do that.
for example, the great and good work you do with birds, Maalie.
true, but that doesn't deny that the validity of faith claims per se, or that a faith claim might have truth, and be true, with a (proper) basis for it.
sorry, I'm typing on the run here, and can only get to th4e computer at times, and sometimes not at all.
a faith claim by itself does not insure truth.
atheism is a faith claim too, and has fallen on hard times in countries in which it had its hold. faith in God has come back.
faith claims are a part of life and have to be dealt with and factored in.
science is another matter.
jsut my scattered thoughts.
Hope you're haveing a good time in your travels, Maalie!!!!!!
> atheism is a faith claim too
Is that really true? I think it is not so much a matter in having faith that there is no supernatural almighty creating entity; it is rather a clinical judgement that there is no verifiable evidence for such an entity; rather, there is incontrovertible evidence that things are the way they are without requiring recourse to such an entity.
> Hope you're having a good time in your travels, Maalie!!!!!!
Many thanks Ted. I leave for Mdagascar tomorrow (I have a day in Paris on the way). I am ironing shirts and packing today.
Enjoy your trip Maalie - we will look forward to your photos when you return.
Of course I would point to the nature of the evidence in the manuscripts of the New Testament, as well as the nature of the witness within those manuscripts- as in the resurrection accounts and aftermath. I don't see the Christian faith as weak or unverifiable at all. And more importantly, I receive it as a daily matter. Jesus, and being "in Jesus" is there for us all, and we're all in need of something beyond what we have in this life- I believe.
Carry on, and have a great time. Hope the weather is great for you there. it's wonderful here!
Thanks Ted and Su :-)
Maalie
I have been mulling over this comment you made today, "I think it is not so much a matter in having faith that there is no supernatural almighty creating entity; it is rather a clinical judgement that there is no verifiable evidence for such an entity; rather, there is incontrovertible evidence that things are the way they are without requiring recourse to such an entity.
However do you come to the conclusion of incontrovertible evidence? Since you can only hypothesize and yet never truly test your hypothesis, you may only surmise that it is so. And, in the same vein - since you cannot - I may look at the same "evidence" and come to an entirely different conclusion.
Neither of us can actually "prove" a thing - and therein is the matter of faith.
Do have a lovely trip - we will miss you and Lorenzo while you are away!
"more importantly"- I should have left out, because nothing is more important than the basis of our faith in Jesus: the word of God speaking creation and new creation into being in Jesus, verified with conclusive evidence in the historical witness and in our lives in this world.
I just meant by "more importantly" that it does us, or those around us, or our world precious little good if we don't lay hold of this reality by faith and seek daily to live in it, in Jesus.
> No, I shall not meet him. I am certain I have not been elected.
You shouldn’t be so sure Maalie. God’s election of people have nothing to do with their willingness to be elected, nor did it depend on what good or bad they would do (Romans 9:11, 16). Moreover, His election of people took place before He created the earth (Ephesians 1:3). So God's election of people to salvation is honestly not something you could be certain you're excluded from since it does not depend on you nor were you around when God made His choice.
Have a great trip. May God bless you with His presence and peace through Christ, the Savior of all.
Post a Comment