Tuesday, October 28, 2008

King Solomon's Mines

Somedays I just love peer-reviewed science. Sometimes it's because it's beyond belief and leaves the reader to wonder just who paid whom - or who knows whom, or is .....

Sometimes I love it because it's just awe inspiring. The most amazing little details are documented - the way just a few diferent bases in a small fragment of DNA can turn a switch this way or that and form all the different kinds of cells needed for the brain to function correctly - just a few base pairs!

And then today, it's just plain fun. Go figure that the wonderful, peer-reviewed, high on my list of scientific favorites, PNAS no less, would find and document King Solomon's Mines - the same ones that the Bible wrote about a few thousand years ago!

Here's a great quote from the facinating article, "But Thomas Levy et al. now report that radiocarbon dating of artifacts from Khirbat en-Nahas places the copper works back in the biblical narrative. Sticks of tamarisk, date seeds, and other woody materials used for charcoal in the smelting process were dated with subcentury precision from the 10th to 9th centuries BCE. In addition, an Egyptian amulet and a scarab found at the site tie Khirbat en-Nahas to a well-known military incursion by Pharaoh Sheshonq I."

Go figure that science would validate the biblical narrative......


Ted M. Gossard said...

That's wonderful, Susan, and exciting. Not that I'm holding my breath at all, wondering if archaeology will verify the Biblical account or not. But it has and is doing so more and more, and in the process has been overturning the work of some scholars who have cast doubt on it.

Yes, Solomon. Part of why Scripture, God's word is so valuable to us because it points to real people who could know God's grace so profoundly, and yet fall just as profoundly.

Thanks, and great to see your love for science (and accompanying scepticism of some of it), here.

lorenzothellama said...

Hello Susan! Back from Japan and hoping to be home for a while now!
Enjoyed the article.

It's funny though that when science agrees with the Bible everyone applauds, but when science proves evolution etc. science is vilified.

Anyway, don't want to be contraversial! Archaeology is so interesting.
Love Lorenzo.

Litl-Luther said...

Hey Lorenzo,

Great to have you back! You've been missed.

...you should read back articles from Susan’s two previous posts and you will see that science can prove nothing. Science is false and must always be false. It is not capable of giving us any truth. It can only hypothesize with the chance of accuracy being one over infinity—meaning it will always be wrong with no chance of being right.

It makes me LOL when one says science has proved something, such as evolution. The chance that they have gotten that hypothesis right is also zero! As Karl Popper has well said: “It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.”

What is truly hilarious is that science can prove nothing based on its own philosophy!

Craver Vii said...

Yikes 'Renzo, who ever said science proved evolution?

simon said...

and the point is? It would be a bit like saying science prooved that flying machines existed.
There is not doubt that there are 1/2 truth in most writings.

It is also true that the old testament prooves Jesus geneology, and therefore by that "prooves" he is the messiah which is what he claimed..

But so what? 1/2 truths in all things.

There is no doubt that the bible has historical evidence...again, so what?
Plenty of other books do as well.

For me the bible is in no way absolute, truthful, etc...

How Jesus lived is truthful IMO and thats all.

Give me science any day

lorenzothellama said...

Hello Luther. Glad you missed me!

I really don't know what to say to your comment. I find it incredible, so I'll say nothing.

Litl-Luther said...

I like your new pick Lorenzo! Nice pose. You are very photogenic.

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

Hi Lorenzo - so glad you are safely home from all that global galavanting!

Luther, to say that science proves nothing is just silly. Certainly it does prove some things - when they can be tested and reproduced time and time again by different people in different labs. Then, at least under a certain set of conditions, the tested hypothesis has been "proven" to be true.

The problem is that some people accept things as proven that have not been. They do so because of the way the notions have been presented in the literature. However, one cannot say something has been proven until the hypothesis/theory has been tested and reproduced. The best you can say at that point is that the data seem to point to a certain conclusion that is, as Maalie would say, the least parsimonious one. And just because it is the least parsimonious to him, does not mean that it is to me. It just means that, based on his world view, it is the conclusion that seems to fit the best.

What science cannot provide is Truth (note the capital T)no matter how many principles are shown to be reproducible. Science may reveal basic prinicples about how the earth and universe work now but that does not reveal Truth - it only reveals how things look at present. In addition, there are many examples of where, under common grace, that other branches of science (psychology for example) have described what is really True. But they have done nothing more than describe a Truth that was previously described in the Bible.

Does that mean the Bible speaks to particle physics - no, it does not. The Bible speaks to all those things we must know, not to all the things that are not required for us to know in order to live a godly life.

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...


I have tolerated a lot of lengthy discussion over the past year or so about creation versus evolution for I thought it might be an interesting discussion. However, I have come to believe that there is no real discussion going on anymore - with the exception of Lorenzo and Craver's current comments - only use of my blog as a platform for peoples arguments, opinions and depricating comments. So it needs to stop.

Sincere questions about life and faith and the interaction of the two will always be welcome - but the long diatribes that have categorized the positions of persons on BOTH sides of the evolution/creation debate are now OFFICIALLY ENDED.

Maalie said...

Well said Su. As you might have noticed, I have opted out of this futile discussion for some time.

Any news of your dog?

Litl-Luther said...

Hi Susan,

The philosophy employed by science is that all knowledge is gained through sensory data; yet this does not account for the many assumptions used by science to get its "knowledge" such as laws of logic, continuity of nature, sensory to perception, language, etc.

Can you explain how science gives someone knowledge? Or perhaps a better way to ask this question is: can you explain it in such a way that cannot easily be picked apart and destroyed?

Most Christian/Atheist debates seem to have Christians on the defensive trying to "prove" God using the Atheist's flawed standard. It's great to turn the tables and say "How can you "disprove" God or even "prove" anything based on your philosophy?If Maalie were participating in this discussion this is the question I would ask him.

The Bahnsen/Stein debate is excellent on this subject.

Litl-Luther said...

As strange as it might sound that science never gives us truth, it is precisely that belief that has been held by leading scientists and philosophers. Albert Einstein, for example, speaking of our knowledge of the universe, said: “We know nothing about it at all .... The real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.” The British philosopher Karl Popper wrote: “We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses .... In science there is no knowledge, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth.” And Philosopher Paul Feyerabend, in his book Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, writes:
”On closer analysis we even find that science knows no ‘bare facts’ at all but that the ‘facts’ that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it contains, and these ideas in turn will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as are the minds of those that invented them.”

Fontzter said...

Hi Susan,

I too appreciate when scientific discoveries reach conclusions that we already know to be true. When science is done properly (built upon Christian presuppositions), we would typically expect outcomes that coincide with revealed Truth.

However when you state "that science would validate the biblical narrative", I get a little nervous. Science must always be subservient to God's Word. Science doesn't validate God's Word -- quite the contrary -- science makes no sense without God's Word.

If science can "validate the biblical narrative" then what do we do with floating axe heads? (2 Kings 6:4-6) You can muster all the accumulated science about gravity, water tension, weight, mass, etc. You can repeat experiments a long as you want. You can get countless peers to review the tests. But I doubt that all of this science will conclude that axe heads float. So does that invalidate this biblical narrative? What about seas parting, men walking on water, jackasses talking, flying chariots, etc, etc.

My point is this: science is helpful and has great pragmatic value, but it must never be misconstrued as furnishing truth. This is a mistake that so many make. Because science provides us with so many practical benefits, we are easily tempted to make it a test for what is true. Susan, your validation comment hints of this. But science is only useful because it is a tool for us to subdue the earth as commanded by God. It only "works" (when it does) because it is entirely dependent on God, as the Christian worldview maintains.

Lil Lut has provided several reasons why science cannot give us knowledge. And there are so many more. There are so many assumptions that underlay the scientific method, along with it's peer review. Science has no reason/right to assume all of this and then tell me that it is furnishing me with truth. Science is paralyzed until it assumes things like motion, cause/effect, continuity of nature, laws of logic, mathematics, perception, and so on. I can presuppose all of these because I know via revealed Truth that God has ordained, ordered and maintains all of this. An atheist or strictly naturalistic scientist can do no such thing.

Let's use science as it was intended and continue to benefit from it. But, we who are Christians should not elevate it to a place that supposes it to give us real knowledge.

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

Yes Maalie, I had noticed and I appreciate it. You have chosen what you think and stick by it with fortitude. I wish that it were different, but you do have the right to choose.

There is no news on the dog. He has been missing for 12 days now and no word. I have distributed 200 color fliers within a mile radius of the house to no avail. the police this he was simply seen and stolen.

And so, this too, becomes an area to trust the God I believe in. But, I must admit, I'm having a hard time with this one!

Litl-Luther said...

I'll admit Maalie has fortitude, but what place does fortitude have in an atheistic worldview? The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes.

Without uniformity, science would be impossible. So on what basis in an atheist's universe is science possible, since in an atheist's universe there is no basis for assuming that there is going to be uniformity?

Simon asked for evidence for Scripture as truth. There is plenty of empirical evidence for God and His Word. There is the evidence of the created order itself testifying to the wisdom. power, plan, and glory of God. One should not miss the testimony of the solar system, the persuasion of the sea, the amazing intricacies of the human body. There's the evidence of history: God's deliverance of His people, the miracles on Passover night and at the Red Sea, the visions in Isaiah, the Shekinah Glory that filled the Temple, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, His mighty miracles, His resurrection from the dead. There's the evidence of Special Revelation, the wonder of the Bible as God's Word, unsurpassed in its coherence over time, in its historical accuracy and its life-renewing power. In short, there is no shortage of empirical indicators or evidences of God's existence - from the countless stars of the heavens to the 500 witnesses of Christ's resurrection.

Even so, Maalie and Simon are committed to disallowing any theistic interpretation of nature, history or experience. What they seem to overlook is that this is just as much begging the question on their own part as it is on the part of the theist. who appeal to such evidence. They have not at all proven by empirical observation and logic their pre commitment to Naturalism. They assume it in advance, accepting and rejecting all further factual claims in terms of that controlling and unproven assumption.

lorenzothellama said...

Luther: glad you like my picture. I must say that Maalie has a lot more than mere 'fortitude'.

Glad you said what you did Susan. I can't see that it matters much anyway!

Sorry about poor Basil. I do hope he turns up soon.

ooo, today's word is hograhs which is amazingly like hogwash!

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

Triston, your arrogance towards both believers and nonbelievers on this blog is exceeded only by your volumous use of words. Neither are appreciated.

I don't need a lecture on world views or science from you. Nor do I need a scolding and condescending commentary from your friends when you are corrected. I think I have a reasonably good grasp on the world of science, at least that's what they pay me for. I also am well aware of the underlying world views that color Maalie and Simon's interpretation of life and data. How I choose to speak to or even challenge those world views is my business, not yours.

Something I can say for Maalie's "fortitude" is 1)he understands when people are not listening and quits talking 2)he respects it when I say "back off".

Do let me remind you, neither you nor I know anyone else's heart. And since neither of us is responsible for its conversion, I suggest that you do as you have been asked to and back off. Try spending your time studying the word winsome or going through the various Greek words translated as "arrogant" in the NT and let the Holy Spirit do His own work in those whom He has chosen to work in.

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

Hi Llama dear,

"I can't see that it matters much anyway!"

To what do you refer, my dear Llama?

Maalie said...

Well, what d'you expect, Litl Luther? She is a scientist.

I am not devoid of spirituality (I am actually a Unitarian). I can be transformed for an hour into "believing" that 24 girls in white tutus on a stage really are swans; I can give thanks, in my way, for the uplifting I get from moments of pure artistry like that. But I thank (maybe posthumously) the composers, the choreographers, the librettists for their devotion and sacrifices made for their art.

I can feel warm and cosy when lighting candles around the Winter Solstice (Yuletide), and share joy and give gifts and give thanks, in my way, with others that soon the days will lengthen and the warmth of spring is on the way.

I can feel the indescribable joy of sharing a bottle of champagne with someone very special watching the sunrise at over the sea at the summer solstice, or feel a hand reach out for mine in the small hours of darkness, and I can give thanks, in my way, for all that too.

And I can give posthumous thanks, in my own way, to my parents who through their own sacrifices ensured that I had a superb education that has enabled me to understand statistics and how life on earth unfolded over an immense time-scale on this planet.

Science as yet cannot explain in detail the complex physiological, neurlogical and endocrinological interactions that operate to produce "emotions"; but no doubt it will be able to one day. In the meantime I am happy to give thanks for it, in my way, and am more than ready to use the word "spirituality" (for the want of anything better) to describe them.

What I do not need to do is to invoke the supernatural in any of this.

Litl-Luther said...

I never knew science was such a touchy subject with you, Susan. Wow. Back off? I will. ...you are better off any way keeping comments focused on more relevant topics, such as your posts on high-healed shoes and puppies.

Maalie said...

The first sentence in my comment above referred to a disparaging remark made about Halfmom by Litl Luther. She ought to be able to read it in her mailbox. In my opinion, it was uncalled for.

lorenzothellama said...

Luther: that last comment from you was totally uncalled for.

Susan, I will email you about what I mean when I say it doesn't matter, but I will do it tomorrow, not this evening. I've hit the gin (!). Still feeling very sad at leaving Jack, Miki and Allan and a little while ago my youngest son Joe came on Skype for a call and seeing him chatting on my computer has made me feel a tad sentimental. He is is Vietnam at the moment and I haven't seen him since January. Hence the stiff gin.

I do so love it when Maalie waxes lyrical.

Until tomorrow then ..


Maalie said...

Lorenzo: you on the gin? I've hit the vintage cider - it is Halloween (Samhain) after all! Had a great time with the local kids trick-n-treating. I think I am going soft!

I hope Su gets her dog back. It must be awful, the waiting.

Craver Vii said...

Happy Reformation Day! Whose turn to buy beer? ;-)

Maalie said...

Craver Seven: I'll chip in a half case of McEwan's Export?

Craver Vii said...

Music to my ears, Maalie!

Things are exceptionally tense at the moment, aren't they? Usually somebody steps into this type of situation and says that none of this really matters and we should all just get along. I hope we don't do that here. Let's respect each other enough to acknowledge that the issues that we feel strongly about... they're not trivial minutia that we should all just forget about.

donsands said...

Thinking about Solomon's mines made we think of a good friend of mine who visited Hezekiah's tunnel (http://www.bibleplaces.com/heztunnel.htm)

An absolutely astounding achievement, and true story.
And what about the Pyramids? Man today could never build such a masterpiece.
And I have heard that Alexander the Great's sword can not be equaled in our day, even with all our technology.
Amazing ain't it?

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

You ARE getting soft Maalie - but so is Drew. He's been handing out the candy here! And, he cooked dinner so that it was waiting when Olivia and I got in from the city - how great is that!

And, if that were not good enough, there was beer for dinner and we're watching "Luther" in honor of Reformation Day! And he says we're going to sing "A Mighty Fortress" when the movie is done. In fact, he's already read an excerpt to us from some of Luther's writings!

Also - he volunteers to buy part of that case of beer!

I think Olivia has her hands full.

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

Craver, my dear, I'm sorry that we finished all the beer with dinner.

As to tension, not so much really, more frustration with the lack of grace exhibited in the recent past - it does not speak well for those of us who have been shown much grace and mercy

You know me pretty well Craver, and realize that my comment about science validating the Bible was totally tongue in check - my soul lives and breathes the veracity of scripture - but apparently that possibility did not seem to have even occurred to others, nor did they, in grace, even think to ask

Maalie said...

Yeh, nothing like grandchildren to turn a man "soft".

Ted M. Gossard said...

Amen to that, Maalie. Our little Morgan, Tiffany's baby is simply adorable, with such a ready, complete and big smile so often.

Every Square Inch said...

It's neat - thanks for sharing this information with us.

lorenzothellama said...

Oi Craver!! What is wrong with everyone getting on with each other, and letting each believe what they want to believe? Hey?

Craver Vii said...

I think that's a fairly easy question. Suppose a neighbor said that my grass was purple. It's not, but there aren't any significant consequences, so I would not let such an argument get too far. But suppose that neighbor's child never swam before, but because someone told them they could... that the child prepared to jump in deep and choppy waters. The misinformation has lethal ramifications, and I would do anything I can to save the child's life.

Some things matter more than others. Unfortunately, there will be varying opinions over which topics are the most serious, and many people make choices that have devastating results. Some people just like to be right, or argue a lot... but some people really, really care.

I am choosing to give Triston the benefit of the doubt here, and trust that his passion is rooted in a concern for lost souls and for the God who saves.

donsands said...

Craver, that was an excellent comment.

One thing which causes me problems is my pride, my foolish pride. It really is hard to admit when i am wrong at times, and then to say I'm sorry can be even more difficult.
I have been so wrong at times with my wife, and when I finally start to see my sin, i go to her and apologize, and ask for forgiveness, but i may just throw a "but you" in there to help me not take the whole brunt.
The Lord has helped me with this over the years, as I have studied His truth, and sought His grace and mercy by faith.

Anonymous said...

yes Craver, that was an excellent response.
From someone else who cares, only chooses to remain anonymous

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

Anon - while I do appreciate your sentiment, I do not allow anonymous comments on my blog - they need to be signed. I only allow the anonymous application for those who do not have a blog of their own so do not have normal posting name. Please do continue to follow and add to the conversation, but from now on, please add your name to your comment so I don't have to delete it.

lorenzothellama said...

Donsands: I don't find any problems admitting I'm wrong (says she smugly and gushingly!). I usually am and have been used to being told all my life I am wrong! Afterall, I have a Maalie for a brother!

Craver: you are just taking it to extremes now and being silly! Of course no-one would let a non-swimmer jump into deep, rough water! Who cares what colour your neightbour thinks your lawn is. Afterall, they may be colour blind. Actually my lawn is a delicate shade of pink.

My saying that, whoops, I have forgotten what I did say now. Just have a look: ...

Ah yes ... 'I can't see it matters very much' is that I believe that each person has their own path to tread and that path is individual to them. Theology is interesting, but there are more important things at stake.

Incidentally you lot, none of you have come over to my blog to see the start of my Japanese photos!


lorenzothellama said...

p.s. Happy election day! Hope Obama wins.

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

Oh beloved Llama, you are so very right, there are important things at stake, so very important. And Craver is right, if one really loves, one does the best one can to express that love through action as well as words. Sometimes there are riptides and currents that one is simply not aware of that others are. How wrong it would be for us to let one we love plunge into that water without trying to tell them, even to the point of holding them, to protect them.

Craver Vii said...

Craver being silly? Moi?? Well, I never! ;-)

Technically though, this time I was not being silly, even though I was using silly. The method is called Reductio Ad Abserdum. My point was to push the concept of "letting people believe what they want to believe" until its flaw became obvious.

Consider this. I believe this body lasts 80 years (or so), but the soul is eternal. Which loss is the greater tragedy? I appreciate that some do not agree with me, but can you understand why I might get all worked up about it?

Furthermore, it is not even about you or me. Much as I care about you (and lots of other folks), my greater concern is with the question of "what does God deserve?" "What do we owe to Him?" "What's the right thing to do?"

Not: "What's in it for me?"

(I think I just exceeded my usual word limit. This being is a blog comment, not a dissertation... I digress.)

Maalie said...

The largest religious entity on the USA is of course Christianity (by a large margin).

The next most numerous is atheism, and they represent more than all the remaining entities put together.

I trust that the next President, whoever he may be (sadly, in my opinion, it will be a "he" this time), will formulate policies that are representative of all all sections of the population and will take advice based on sound judgement and advice, rather than act on what he thinks some fictitious supernatural entity has told him.

Of the two, I think Obama is more likely to do that.

lorenzothellama said...

Yes Susan. You have said it very well. I agree with you.

donsands said...

"p.s. Happy election day! Hope Obama wins."

I don't.

That's nice Llama that you don't mind.
It depends on the person as well, who is telling you are wrong, or challenging us, doesn't it.

Some have no tact, and come off as self-righteous, which they may indeed be, and yet may be humble, and it's just there manner.

Other's may have a more gentle way, and so we are able to hear, and listen.

But for the disciple of Christ we need to be able to listen to all who confront us, whether in kindness and genuine love, or in self-righteousness.
We are to love our enemies, so command Christ our King.

There's so much to think and discuss about this, isn't there. It's not a shallow subject, but extremely deep.
And perhaps I will consider posting on this very subject.

Have a blessed day.

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

My goodness gracious, you all have been quite busy with comments while I am diligently writing away here at my computer trying to keep my job! My meeting with my chairwoman is at 9:30 CST on Wednesday - egahds!! Perhaps I'll know after that if I even still have a position in science - at least at this university!

Craver - silly - oh my goodness - who told????? No Craver, I promise I did not! Well, maybe just a wee bit! But yes, this time you are quite serious, as am I, about what is His just due. And thank you for recognition of my requested "word limits". It just seems right to me that the blog administrator should be the only one to leave comments longer than the post!

To you all - I have left the comments with political overtones but request that there be no more, AT ALL. I do not even allow Andrew to discuss politics at the dinner table, so we surely will not all this to continue here, however well-intended.

Maalie, dear one, how would you feel if someone were to totally dismiss a dear friend of yours with a wave of their hand as though they did not exist, or to speak foul of one that you love? Even worse, what if they derided you for even having such a love? I think that would be very offensive to you! So, please be aware that when you speak in such a fashion against God and Jesus the Christ, that it strikes me in the same fashion and wounds me deeply. I ask you to please cease and desist in such comments. We are all already aware of what your opinions are in this area - at least it seems to me that you have made yourself clear.

Don - I'm not quite sure what you're saying to the Llama - but as to the rest of it, I think you may be referring to something a pastor we had many years ago called, "looking for a kernel of truth in a cornfield of criticism". And you would certainly be right. It is always the right thing to do; it's just that sometimes it takes a bit of searching through muck to find the kernal.

donsands said...

That was a confusing comment, wasn't it.

I guess what I was trying to say, is when say something wrong, and do something wrong, it's great that I have people who love me enough to confront me.

But, it's difficult to hear, "You're wrong", for me. Llama said she was alright with it, but she may have been tongue in cheek.

And the other element is the person who confronts us.

Is this person gentle. Is this person self-righteous. Does this person care about me.

Does this person understand grace and understanding.

I'm not the type to confront others. Though I have had to in the past. It's difficult for me, because I'm basically a people pleaser. My wife is just the opposite. We actually help each other.
She helps me confront, and I help her back off.

There's a gracious balance in taking a splinter out of ones eye. And we had better work on getting the whole log out of our own eye first and foremost.

I don't know if that makes any more sense. I hope it does.

Have a blessed election evening. The Lord is sovereign. Psalm 24

Halfmom, AKA, Susan said...

Yes, thank you Don. That makes much better sense!

Yes, He IS sovereign - and it's a good thing that we can trust that no matter how the evening turns out!

simon said...

wow wow wow!!!

I disappear for a few days and return to read all this and my hotmail in box is FULL of chat. :o)

Its hot in this furnace.....

I think one of the the things I learned about Jesus was that there was no pride, nor arrogance, he was softly spoken and slow to anger. He forgave. even right at the end. He did not give to temptation.

It was the lving proof that as a man he could ( we could/can) live as he did- A perfect life..

By his actions and words was the proof of who he claimed to be.( and by historical evidence of the old testament and passover feast)

I think he came here to be the "blue print" on how a christian should behave, speak and act/react.

Not just outwardly but inwardly, knowing the true self.

By living the life he converted many. not by arguement or debate.

The arguements put forward here are no different to the old testament arguements of the pharasies- and this is exactly the people Jesus was against...

So, for me, the proof of no god exists is by your actions and words (eg little luther). and exactly the reason why I stopped being a leader in the AOG and Anglican churches.

Do you, can you live as jesus did?

the answer is no..

(sorry Susan if any of my comment on your blog came across as offensive etc)

I believe it is a good thing to have a sensible, logical debate on the issues of science and religion.

To respect a view and allow it to make you think...

L.L. Barkat said...

So, so cool. I love archaeological finds. :)

donsands said...

"..was softly spoken and slow to anger."

Jesus for sure was as you say. he is the most lovely Man that ever lived.

And he surely did back up His words. He told us to forgive those who offend us.
He then was hated, and tortured, and then nails were hammered through His wrists, and His feet, and lifted up on a cross, and He said, "Father forgive them, for they no not what they do."
He truly backed up His words as no else ever has.

but also Simon, Jesus went to the Temple, and found people hanging out and selling things for sacrifices, and He went and made a whip, and went back and whipped this people out of the Temple. he turned over the tables, and I'm sure His words were full of righteous anger. that would have been a scary moment, to say the least.

Though moments later He was ministering to the sick and hurting people of Israel.

What a magnificent Man he was.

simon said...

don- every man has a right to defend his own home...

lorenzothellama said...


Quite agree Susan. I have just put my thoughts about the election on Ted's blog if you are interested at all. I don't want to break your rules!

I liked Simon's comments very much. No-one can ever come up to Jesus's standards. We are merely mortal.

But there is no shame in saying sorry or admitting you are wrong. When I was a little nipper I was rude to the lady next door. I was very indignant at her and went and told my mother what had happened. I wasn't totally in the wrong as I was provoked! My mother made me immediately go next door to apologise. I didn't want to do it and cried and stamped my foot! I did go because my mother insisted and duly apologised, probably just muttering the apology, but ever since then I have had no problems with saying sorry, so much so, that I often apologise when I'm totally in the right, so as to ease a difficult or embarrasing situation.

I know this may sound pious, but it's not piety, it's cowardness. I hate bad atmospheres and although I can be a bit firey and intollerent myself, I quickly calm down, but if other people get angry or cross I can't handle it, so to ease my own discomfort I will step in to keep the peace.

Not very honourable perhaps, but it helps in dodgy situations!

Today's verification word is 'sestic'. It sounds like some horrible supperating wound!

donsands said...

"..every man has a right to defend his own home..."

Yeah, and you wouldn't mind expounding a bit on that Simon would thee.
I'm a bit amiss.