My daughter's wedding to Andrew is now 5 days away - while there's much left to be done, it's amazing how much has already been prepared and especially wonderful to have so many friends who have come alongside to pick up the slack that short time and surgery have caused. Thank you, each and everyone! Our family - through Christ's blood rather than by birth's blood - never ceases to amaze me! ("God sets the lonely in families" Ps 68:6) Even now, the Craver family sits on ready waiting for a task to be assigned where there is none yet because we have been so well cared for - and the Deichert's preparing to drive their little family across country to be "home" with us - how cool is that!
The surgery on my shoulder was more involved than the surgeon thought it would be. My primary care physician was not surprised, for such has been the course of my medical life - complicated. And yet, as I spoke of in the previous post, God has used the difficulties to teach me so many truths by application. I understand so much more clearly the passages dealing with the church as a body that needs to work well together, each part doing it's own separate job, but coordinated with the whole. Goodness does it ever hurt when the parts get out of whack and don't behave as they're supposed to!
The surgery on my shoulder was more involved than the surgeon thought it would be. My primary care physician was not surprised, for such has been the course of my medical life - complicated. And yet, as I spoke of in the previous post, God has used the difficulties to teach me so many truths by application. I understand so much more clearly the passages dealing with the church as a body that needs to work well together, each part doing it's own separate job, but coordinated with the whole. Goodness does it ever hurt when the parts get out of whack and don't behave as they're supposed to!
I am recovering, mostly at home, for the moment. However, some meetings and a lecture this week require my presence at the office, at least part time, beginning tomorrow. So - I nap and then I work, and then I nap some more. Physical therapy begins tomorrow and I am glad. My physical therapist is great - encouraging, caring but not the least bit slack in pushing me to do what I need to do, and being clear about what it is so I know if I'm trying to do too much. Another lesson in taking each day as it comes and dealing with what is there and no more! It is always hard work each day and painful as well, but so worthwhile in the long run! I am excited to do normal things like swing a golf club, cast a lure, dig in the dirt without paying for it later. And, as the "couple" talk about their future, they remind me to be good as I may have a baby to hold some years in the future.
Blog life continues to be interesting for those of you who weren't up to wading through the comments on the last post. I'm not sure even I remember the latest topic. Actually, through my pain medication haze (I do hate this stuff, and the necessity for it!!!!) I believe there to be two diverging lines at present - cherry picking and large fish. Since my presence may be limited for the time being, I'd like to say for the record, I have no trouble at all with the God of time and space manipulating it in any way and time He sees, or saw, fit so that a rather big fish swallowed a small, rebellious man only to spew him up, quite repentant, three days later. It is rather like God, don't you think, to do something gracious and totally out of the ordinary to get the attention of a single man so that he repents? Seems to be repetition on a theme to me, but then I have no trouble at all reconciling the scientific "data" with the story of creation. I'm quite comfortable in saying that I currently "see in a mirror dimly" and one day will see clearly and am comfortable waiting until that day to have my questions answered.
Blog life continues to be interesting for those of you who weren't up to wading through the comments on the last post. I'm not sure even I remember the latest topic. Actually, through my pain medication haze (I do hate this stuff, and the necessity for it!!!!) I believe there to be two diverging lines at present - cherry picking and large fish. Since my presence may be limited for the time being, I'd like to say for the record, I have no trouble at all with the God of time and space manipulating it in any way and time He sees, or saw, fit so that a rather big fish swallowed a small, rebellious man only to spew him up, quite repentant, three days later. It is rather like God, don't you think, to do something gracious and totally out of the ordinary to get the attention of a single man so that he repents? Seems to be repetition on a theme to me, but then I have no trouble at all reconciling the scientific "data" with the story of creation. I'm quite comfortable in saying that I currently "see in a mirror dimly" and one day will see clearly and am comfortable waiting until that day to have my questions answered.
I must say a particular thank you to Lutl-Luther for the nice explanation of the anti-cherry picking aspects of our faith - nicely done and thank you for representing my position so well! We must indeed take the scriptures as a whole and take a long and thoughtful look at how the New Testament fulfills the Old and where that leaves us for the instructions for everyday life. I taught as much last week to our senior high school students when we dealt with the topic of holiness. The topic was, "what is normal". The position I take is that the Old Testament command from God, "Be holy as I am holy" is not one that we may disregard because it is repeated so many times and in so many ways in the New Testament. We then talked about what it actually means to be holy and what this looks like in comparison with cultural norms. This week we moved on to more specifics and I team taught with two "young" men (well, compared with me) that I respect very much. Interestingly enough, the topic of fish came up again! However, this time it was in reference to bait - a good fisherman knows what he's after and always uses the most attractive bait to cover the hook. I'd say fish are pretty stupid but then I'd condemn myself as well for the load of bait I've swallowed in a lifetime, but that is a story for a different day. All I will say at this point is thank goodness for a God who is not only an expert at removing hooks, but also is gracious enough to be glad to do so!
So, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. Thanks for continuing to read and discuss despite my frequent periods of quiet. I am here reading, just so you know; however, you all seem quite capable of carrying the conversation(s) without any need of my words.
236 comments:
1 – 200 of 236 Newer› Newest»Good remarks on the holiness of God, and the family of God. I enjoyed the fish 'story', and concur...God can do anything, any time, anywhere, and any how He chooses. Thanks for being my 'partner in the dance'.
Susan: Thanks for the good words and kind remarks to me. I'm grateful.
I hope you heal up real soon. Won't it be grand when finally in Heaven we have no more achy joints, back pain and the rest of it?
Please post pics of the wedding as soon as you can after. What an exciting day for them. We rejoice with you!
exciting times with weddings and healing and all!
I think if you heal well enough to cast a lure, thats all you will need! ;o)
Sharon- sadly I have not seen god do anything...
I have seen good surgeons, and medicine, and science though!
Best wishes for a speedy recovery and a happy wedding day for you daughter Halfmom.
Since the fish story has spilled over to here, may I continue? People think God can do anything because they are told that he can do anything. It is legend, mythology. As Simon says, nobody has actually seen him doing anything, it's all anecdotal.
Litl Luther: I'm sorry you don't inspire me with your knowledge of cetacean biology. Blue Whales are plankton feeders (mostly krill, or sort of shrimp). They filter it from the water by means of structures called baleen. They could not swallow a man. Their throats and stomachs are quite small, and digestive juices would get to work immediately.
Do you suppose God supplied Jonah with a bed inside the whale's (or was it a fish?). A dining table? Even a little drinks bar?
And you are wrong about the oxygen. A whale surfaces to breath through its blowhole and the air goes to the lungs, not the intestines.
Why can't you accept that it's just a story (an allegory maybe)and accept that it didn't literally happen?
Halfmom, may I be so bold as to ask you directly: do you yourself believe that a man was literally swallowed by a fish and survived in its guts for three days?
Maalie,
Which sounds more unlikely to you: A corpse laying in the earth for three days and then coming back to life or a man being swallowed by a huge whale (whatever type it may have been) and surviving the ordeal?
Our whole faith rests on the conviction that Jesus was a corpse for three days and then came back to life, and the reason I believe “the fish story” is because Jesus spoke of it as an actual event, and I believe Him to be true.
>Which sounds more unlikely to you:
LOL! They are both equally unlikely! They are stories, Litl Luther, just stories! Institutionalised superstition.
A man surviving for three days in the guts of a fish, a mere 2,700 years ago (post bronze-age), is as likely as Cinderella's pumpkin turning into a carriage!
>Jesus spoke of it as an actual event
Please would you point me to Jesus' actual words on this? Somewhere in the New Testament, I presume? Thanks.
OK, I have found it, it's in Matthew 12 (maybe other places too).
However I take the same view as other theologians, namely that because the New Testament was written after the Old (axiomatically) the various authors who wrote it (the New) did so in a way that made it appear that the prophesies of the Old were fulfilled.
It is totally ridiculous to suggest that a man actually survived in the guts of a fish for three days. Just as it is to suggest that the whole of human diversity could have evolved from the few in Noah's family so recently as the Bronze Age.
Glad you are getting better Susan and I hope the wedding will be wonderful.
I must say I'm with Maalie on this fishy subject. Just imagine how poor Jonah would have smelled when he was spewed up from the intestines. If it was an Orca whale he would have been mashed to pieces before he was swallowed and if my limited biology serves me well, isn't the inside of a tummy full of hydrochloric acid? He would have desolved!
Luther, pardon me for interupting (!) but wasn't Jesus laid in a tomb covered by his shroud and not buried in the earth.
In any case, I believe the Turin Shroud is the actual scroud that Jesus used and the imprint on it is that of Jesus.
"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." -Jesus (Matthew 12:40)
Here is another one you'll like, Maalie:
"But as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all." -Jesus (Luke 17:26-27)
Matthew and Luke's Gospels both record these "Jonah" and "Noah" accounts from Jesus—corroborating evidence that Jesus said these things. So, according to Jesus, Noah and Jonah were real people, and the ark and fish stories are historical events.
If Jesus believed in these things, that's good enough for me. The real problem is you don't believe in God or in His miraculous power.
"I'd say fish are pretty stupid but then I'd condemn myself as well for the load of bait I've swallowed in a lifetime, but that is a story for a different day."
Me to. I was under the false religion of Catholicism for most my life. Then I simply left all religion and lived a selfish life for the most part, being fed all the world's bait. They hooked me, and I liked the hooks.
Then God caught me, and yes he cared enough to remove the hook. But what a merciful hook it was. But now He has put me in His fresh water of flowing streams of great joy and it's the Holy Spirit who is the river I live in now; full of joy, peace, sometimes heavy sorrow as well, and most of all love. Love for Jesus Christ our Savior, for my wife and children, and for my neighbor, who is really everyone in the world really, and even love for my enemy, which is a different love of course.
Excellent post Susan. You are a gifted writer, and have a marvelous way with words.
Lord heal you up real quick, and help your heart to have the right amount of rest during you upcoming wedding. Amen.
>these "Jonah" and "Noah" accounts from Jesus—corroborating evidence
It's nothing of the sort! It is self-fulfilling, not independent evidence! We only have what a man wrote down, we have no way of independently verifying its veracity! Unlike science, with its independent peer-reviewed process.
I agree with Lorenzo, a living creature would not have survived five minutes in a fish's guts, and there is no creature that could swallow a man without prior mastication. End of story, really.
>Then God caught me, and yes he cared enough to remove the hook. But what a merciful hook it was.
You are talking in metaphors, Donsands. Could you put it into real language for us please?
Maybe the bible is just a catalogue of metaphors. I could cope with that. But metaphors are not reality.
Good post, and I thought Ltl Luther's comment you refer to on the last post was indeed an excellent one, which did not need my amen then or now, but just the same I heartily say, "Amen." Well said, indeed, Ltl Luther!
Blessings on you and yours and on the wedding!
As to the stories in Scripture, I'm not sure why we think we know all that is of God's creation. Why they're even uncovering new species even now, especially from the ocean. There may have been a strange large fish that could have housed Jonah. Who are we to say?
>There may have been a strange large fish that could have housed Jonah. Who are we to say?
Ted, you are right about new discoveries, biologists find them every day. Mostly bugs; discoveries of new "higher animals" are less common.
If evidence of such a fish were to be discovered, it would defy all existing biological knowledge. I think it is best regarded as a simply allegory.
Metaphors are a wonderful way to communicate, don't you think Maalie. Not that I'm Shakespeare, and not even good at it at all. But at times I like to share my thoughts this way, as Susan did.
But in reality, I was living a destructive life. I was selfish. I was prejudice. I was caught up in drinking, partying, and living basically for what ever made me happy. I would use harsh language, even foul langauge a lot, and I was a drunken bum, alcoholic.
The hook the Lord used was three DWI's, and so I ended up in a detention center wondering how to get striaght.
Through all this God brought me back to church mainly. I did go to AA, because the courts demand it, which was good, but they don't have the Gospel in AA. You can have a god of your own making.
As I went back to church, I liked it. I liked the name of Jesus Christ now, instead of using His name with cuss words, and exclaiming His righteous name with foul words as well.
In fact, when I heard the name of Jesus being used in flippant ways, it hurt now, whereas I used to be the one.
And so that was in 1984. And the Lord fished me out of a sinful lifstyle, and it was the Gospel of His death and resurrection that set me free, and has kept me on the striaght and narrow for the most part.
I surely do struggle with lust, pride, and self still, but not like I did before the Holy Spirit was given to me.
God is real. But it's by faith alone that we can live for Him, and with Him.
Donsands: Thank you for your considered response. A couple of points, if I may:
>Metaphors are a wonderful way to communicate, don't you think Maalie.
I agree, but they are not literal. They are a parody of reality that often confuse and mislead.
>I ended up in a detention center wondering how to get straight.
I really do appreciate your frankness and openness, that is a remarkable confession to make here.
However, like so many, I suggest you turned to something to act as a crutch, a support, a belief in something. I suggest it was the belief was helpful to you, even if the belief is not true.
There are, of course, countless people who have been in similar low ebbs of life as you have been, and have emerged without the need to resort to the supernatural.
It your personal stoicism and determination for reform that I respect and admire, not any suggestion that a God really had anything to do with it.
One problem that I have with modern man's demands that God prove Himself again (aside from the gross disrespect) is... what about the next generation? And what about the generation after that, and so on? Is God our puppet, that He should continue to pop out miracles for each person on this earth, just to defend his existence?
I don't believe that the big bang was the beginning of creation, but for those who do (and especially who exclude God as Creator)... what was there before that moment? Where did that supercondensed tiny spot of matter come from? How did it contain every component of all the complexity that exists today, and how could all this complexity be formed randomly?
I think it makes more sense to believe that it was God. Since we don't know of any limitations to His power, why couldn't Jonah or Noah be true, as the accounts are written and Jesus attested to? Jesus' resurrection could easily have been disproven if it was myth, but it wasn't. ...Who would hide the corpse, and why?
Wait! Susan--you fish? After I renew my license, and you heal, maybe you can do some local fishing with my son (S2) and me?
That was a longer comment than our standard here. I got carried away. Sorry.
"There are, of course, countless people who have been in similar low ebbs of life as you have been, and have emerged without the need to resort to the supernatural." -Maalie
I agree. If I happened to muster up the confidence and fortitude in me self, then I would have missed out on having a relationship with Jeus Christ, through His Spirit.
Thanks for your response Mallie. I appreciate your bloodpump-felt thoughts.
All shucks Ted. You're too kind. Thanks for the encouragment bro.
....Maalie et al, maybe the extinct creature that swallowed Jonah whole was a "cracken" (the "Pirates of the Caribbean creature). :-) Sorry, I can't help but have a laugh once in awhile (even at my own expense) since I indeed believe the story of Jonah in the great fish is an historical event.
Maalie,
I'm not sure why you're so hard on metaphors. They are a human way of expressing literal truths. We use them all the time. This is a problem with some forms of naturalism, in that it thinks everything must be explained and spoken of in scientific terms. But there are other ways of knowing. Such as knowing another human being. You may get somewhere in trying to understand that in a scientific manner, but you may miss out on the essence of it, which science can't touch at all! And that points to more that science can only observe from a distance and to a point.
Susan,
I agree with you on science and creation story, except to say that I believe the best study of the early chapters of Genesis ends up corroborating better with mainstream science views on orgin, rather than Creationist or Intelligent Design, ones. Those studies of those chapters don't deny the truth or history that's behind them at all. I find ID and Creation Science, from what I've read, simply a denial of what is evident. And for God to give general revelation to humankind, and make it appear to be old, etc., when it's not, seems to undermine God's truthfulness, I think.
Just some of my thoughts for now, always subject to change.
Oh yes, Ltl Luther. No, that was a great comment. I was embarrassed to state it at the time, as I had too many comments on this blog then.
You know what?- there are many strange stories- Jonah and the whale is one.
Aboriginals believe that a "Dream time" snake created the rivers and mountains here in Australia (google it)..But we all know thats just nonsense- yet in their way they believe it. They also believe that if you point the bone (a bone) at another it will curse them and kill them, and there has been documented evidence to support it takes place.
Such is superstition and story telling. They use it to explain what they cannot.
Aboriginals call it Dreaming or Dreamtime...
How can you say its any different in the Bible?
I am sorry- you can quote the good book to me a thousand times, and its no better than our Aboriginal Dream time or message sticks....
the Jonah story was told without any knowledge of how a Whale worked/breathed etc...
If you literally believe Jonah, then you must literally believe every word in the bible-
Therefore, the bible is not open to interpretation.
If you simply read the bible literally- well you can get away with murder.. ( ecclesiates 3.3 "a time to kill, and a time to heal" etc)
Or another example- 666 = mark of the beast..who is old enough here to remember when the bank card came out, the "b" was in 3 colours? All the loonies thought AH HA! there it is! its the proof we need for "end times" bbb= 666. and on it goes with people runnning around doing numerology/maths as proof..
The bible is full of contradictions from one cover to the other...
Simon, you have crystallised my thoughts exactly!
The bible attempts to offer explanations with the best knowledge and understanding available at the time (e.g. bats are birds; rainbows are due to God, and so on). Now that our knowledge and understanding of the world has changed we reject the primitive ideas in the bible.
Halfmom: I fear that my question to you is lost in the background: may I ask if you personally believe, in your blood pump, that a man actually and literally survived for three days in the guts of a fish?
Ted: I agree with you that metaphors and analogies are a valuable literary tool that give colour and variety to our communication. Like you, I use them all the time.
My point is that we should see them for what they are, analogies and metaphors and as such they are all too easily be misinterpreted and do not convey truth. Fairy stories like Cinderella or the bible can be a metaphor for life, but they are not life itself.
They can never be a substitute for evidence. It is contrary to all known evidence that human diversity as we know it today could have sprung from as group as small as Noah's family in as short a time as post-bronze age; or indeed that a man could survive for 3 days in the guts of a whale. Even if you could conjecture a situation where a man is swallowed whole and undamaged, the digestive juices would kill him almost instantly (as Lorenzo said).
> “may I ask if you personally believe, in your blood pump, that a man actually and literally survived for three days in the guts of a fish?"
I know this question was asked to Susan, but I still wanted to comment with a question: "Maalie, do you believe in your blood pump, that men have actually walked on the surface of the moon and survived it?"
Walking on the moon (a place so far in the distance, with intolerable extreme temperatures and no oxygen to breathe) sounds like a more fantastic feat than a man surviving in the belly of a whale. And yet man has walked on the moon.
If man is capable of doing something as amazing as traveling to and walking on the moon, why in the world would you think we would doubt that God, our Maker, could do something as amazing as causing Jonah to survive a trip to Nineveh in the belly of a gigantic fish?
Do you really expect us Christians to think man can do more amazing things than God is capable of doing?
>Maalie, do you believe in your blood pump...
Litl Luther: As I have oft tried to explain, words like "belief", "truth" and "proof" are not normally in the vocabulary of science.
The key word is evidence, and the most parsimonious explanation that fits the available evidence is, for the time being, accepted. The explanation may change (or even be refuted) as further evidence (e.g. a new hominid fossil) becomes available.
So as a direct answer to your question, no I do not "believe" that men walked on the moon, because I was not personally there to witness it. However, from the plethora of independent evidence (including analysis of moon-rock samples that have been analysed world-wide) I have no reason at the moment to reject the assertion that men have walked on the moon.
If incontrovertible evidence of a conspiracy ever emerges, then I shall reconsider.
Unlike fundamentalists who are blindly indoctrinated by an ancient out-of-date book and who close their minds to anything that appears contradictory. I have tried to answer your question in an honest way.
I am not aware of any scientific evidence that a fish was ever alive that could swallow a man whole and undamaged, in which he could survive undigested for three days (I am a biologist, I think I should have encountered the evidence if it existed).
>Do you really expect us Christians to think man can do more amazing things than God is capable of doing?
I'm afraid this question does not have meaning for me. I think you should answer it for yourself.
The false religion of Catholicism???? How very dare you Donsands! You dismiss millions of people with one single sentence. I thought Jesus taught humility?
Craver, I don't see any problem in believing in the Big Bang and believing in God. Maybe He lit the match, so to speak.
I'm sure that Noah and Jonah were historical people. Every country seems to have their flood story. And Simon, Japanese culture says there is a huge catfish that lives underneath Japan and every time he wags his tail, there is an earthquake.
Why won't anyone take up my point of the Turin Shroud?
Ted, thank you for that, interesting.
I'm not sure that I would regard it as an "attack" on the bible; more an attempt to place it into context of the times in which it was written. The bible was written when genetics, geology, microbiology (and even the refractive properties of raindrops!) were not understood and so we need to interpret its messages accordingly.
Incidentally, it is a pleasure to welcome your President to England this week. I think there is optimism in the air.
Lorenzo, hey I like the idesa of a catfish lurking underneath Japan! It is such an obvious solution to the occurrence of earthquakes. What does it say about rainbows?
The problem I have with Catholicism is the hysteria you see with it, especially in the Latin American and Hispanic countries.
Hi Lorenzo,
The "Turin Shroud", just like worshipping Mary, praying to the saints, etc., is just one more thing to take our eyes off of Jesus Christ and put it on something else. Who cares about the shroud? I care about the One who went in that tomb dead and walked out of it three days later alive.
No offense. I just see things like this as distractions from putting our faith in Jesus.
Thanks for the Arnold quotes Ted. Good stuff!
I don't know about taking your eyes off Jesus Luther. When you look at the Shroud you see nothing else but Him. Also you don't pray to it, it is just revered as a holy object.
As for Mary, I seem to remember that at the wedding at Cana, they came to Mary to ask Jesus about the lack of wine.
Maalie: what's wrong with a bit of Hispanic hysteria now and then?
>what's wrong with a bit of Hispanic hysteria now and then?
Oooh, I'm all in favour of it when the wine is flowing freely!
Litl Luther, I have to agree with you about praying to the saints. I spent half my childhood praying to the patron saint of fishing but I never caught that 10 pound pike I wanted so badly!
"The false religion of Catholicism???? How very dare you Donsands! You dismiss millions of people with one single sentence. I thought Jesus taught humility?"
The false teaching is a Gospel of works Llama instead of faith alone through grace alone. Yet, there are those, and many are those, who are genuine Christians within the Catholic Church.
The works they teach mainly come through keeping the sacraments in order to earn heaven.
1.Baptism
2.Penance
3.Confirmation
4.Holy Eucharist
5.Matrimony
6.Holy Orders
7.Extreme Unction
The Catholic Church infuses the righteousness of Christ through cooperation, and you better do what the Roman Catholic Church requires.
The Protestant Church teaches in it's simplest terms, a sinner is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and it's a once and for all blessing from a merciful God, where the Lord "imputes" His righteousness to us, and God imputed our sins to Christ on the Cross, once and for all.
And the Lord gives us the Holy Spirit, so that we can live a sanctified life for His glory.
So there are Christians in the Catholic Church, who have been born again, and under not understanding the Bible truths.
And there are non-Christians in the Protestant Church as well.
Craver - a big yes to fishing! It's been so many years I don't even own a rod and reel anymore, but I surely do miss it!
Ted - interesting quotes - thanks for leaving them.
Litl-Luther - ahh - words fitly spoken? perhaps so, I am pleased!
Lorenzo - I have quite a few close friends who also were raised Roman Catholic. They explain the dicotomy this way - in the RC church, it is like Jesus opened a gate on a road to heaven and then you are expected, through good works, to work your way through and into heaven. In what I believe Scripture says, and I'm sure Don would agree, it is Jesus who purchased heaven for us and gives it to us as a free gift - no works required. It is not that there will not be good works - but those are the result of a changed heart AFTER salvation.
As to the shroud - It seems inconsistent with God's workings to leave "evidence" as Maalie might say, of a supernatural event. He seems to function so much more on faith that is seems unlikely to me that He would do so. But, that's my finite mind, so who knows! I do know that even though it is different with you than with most people, people tend to worship the object because they think that it has power, in and of itself.
Maalie - I did not miss your question - just busy with work, wedding and physical therapy. Are you still off on holiday? Several of us are wondering if we can take early retirement and do the same galavanting as you!!! We are quite jealous! As to the big fish, yes, a literal big fish that literally swallowed a rebellious man and kept him safe for 3 days to give him some much needed time to think about who he was, who God was and what was the difference! And then, as Lorenzo says, a nasty smelly mess spewed up - but totally transformed inwardly!!
As to analogy, metaphor, and the like - while I think those are used in the Bible quite a lot as a teaching tool, I think they are clearly marked as such. For example, Jesus says, "the kingdom of heaven is like", so we know that He is using an analogy. I do not find such a disclaimer with Noah or Jonah, therefore I take them to be literal.
As to evidence - a changed life is all the evidence I need and I have that in my own. Did I make the changes by brute determination - no, I'd tried that numerous times before, all to no avail. In fact, each I ended up worse off in behavior and more guilty in attitutde than before each of my reformation attempts. And, to use an analogy, it was like night and day, the difference in Susan before Jesus and Susan after meeting Him personally and turning my life over to Him. I will say again with the blind man, who this man is I do not know, I only know that I was blind and now I see. Such was the change in me beginning on August 6, 1980 (see, I'm "older" than you are Don, giggle)
"Such was the change in me beginning on August 6, 1980 (see, I'm "older" than you are Don, giggle)"
Yep. You got me by four years.
One other thought is that those who come to faith in Christ, even though we have never seen Him, we love Him 1 Peter 1:8.
re: "hispanic hysteria"
Who's talking about me?? ;-)
>I only know that I was blind and now I see
That is strange, Halfmom, that is an excellent description of how I felt when the scales fell from my eyes as I realised what a delusion I was suffering. It was almost like being born again. As you say, it was like the difference between night and day, and I could never now go back to those old misguided deluded days.
Yes, I am back from holiday, my elder son and family are coming to stay over the spring holiday weekend.
Simon Mate, you need to understand that God does not love the Aborigines. In His majestic and magnificent omnipotence, he ordained that little aboriginal babies were born into a culture where they would not know the bible, hence they can not find Jesus and God. They are not among the elect and are damned to swim for eternity in that cursed lake of fire.
This applies to the Massai and the other tribes of Africa, the pygmies of Borneo, the forest tribes of the Amazon, the Eskimos, Native Americans and countless other ethnic groups who have their own cultures. Maybe God doesn't consider them to be in his own image.
"Maybe God doesn't consider them to be in his own image."
Surely God does consider this. And that's why He will have to jugde their sin, for willfully marring the image of God, and worshipping the creature instead of the Creator.
And yet the God of creation, became Man, and took their sin, and their marring upon Himself. And He is going about the Earth to reach these tribes with His good news of Christ.
God owes none of us mercy. Mercy takes the place of justice. God owes mankind justice.
>for willfully marring the image of God, and worshipping the creature instead of the Creator.
But Donsands, they don't willfuly do anything of the kind!
According to you (in the plural sense) God predetermined everything! Therefore He predetermined that aboriginal babies (who have no will of their own) would be born into cultures that do not haqve access to the bible! There are no two ways around this, it is God's will, not the Aborigines'!
"..it is God's will"
Yes, and it was His will to enter, or even invade, His creation that mankind marred, and have mercy on us.
It surely is difficult for us to understand. Why wouldn't it be?
This same God Creator, created every star and planet we see, and all the stars we have never yet seen. It was no more work for Him to create all these stars and planets then it is for us to breath a heavy sigh.
Can we expect to have a mind that can grasp such a majestic and magnificient Supreme Being?
We can know what truth we have, by experience, and from the holy writings. Finite can not have exhaustive knowledge of the Infinite and Eternal.
Suffice it to say that God has granted us more than enough truth, knowledge, and wisdom, so that we can know He is a loving God, and a holy God, who is perfectly just and good.
You may say that Donsands, but I still do not understand why God should, in his omniscience and omnipotence, wilfully allow little babies to be born throughout history into cultures which do not know the bible.
You seem to be making excuses for God. He simply cannot love these people if he denies them their place in heaven by shielding them from knowledge of Jesus through the bible.
Maalie - God works in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.
What I can't get over is how you all seem to know what God's will is.
>What I can't get over is how you all seem to know what God's will is.
Oh, that's easy. Since God is sovereign, omnipotent and omniscient, anything and everything that happens in the whole Universe is God's will. He knows everything that is going to happen from the start until the end of the time/energy/matter continuum.
You should know that, Lorenzo, you are an avid reader of Bluecollar!
"What I can't get over is how you all seem to know what God's will is." Llama
God does reveal His will to us through Christ Jesus, and in His Holy Writ. Not His complete will, for He is infinite. He always was, and has no end. We are finite, and have a limited nature. God;s natue hasn't any limits; none whatsoever.
:o)
well:-
its clear to me now- Jonah wore a diving suit, that he invented, to survive in the whale. Thanks Luther for using the moon walk as an example...
now "true christians" are picking on catholics.. great!
gods will? yes 100% poverty is a direct result of not abiding in gods will ( according to the Assemblies of God prosperity doctrine).. and yes they can back up this in the bible...
;o)
>God's nature hasn't any limits; none whatsoever.
Ah, but that is a tautology. Since God is a product of Man's imagination, we can thereby imagine upon him any powers that we care to define.
"He is limitless because he is God; he is God because he is limitless". Another cyclic argument.
Of course, this can only mean that God doesn't love the aborigines and other ethnic culture because in his limitless wisdom he shielded them from knowledge of the bible.
>Jonah wore a diving suit, that he invented, to survive in the whale
Simon, that possibility had occurred to me too. And a pretty heavy duty one to resist the corrosive digestive juices. And compressed air tanks with oxygen for three days; and of course food. Maybe he invented those shrink-wrapped packs that the moon-walkers used.
Hey, it's all falling into place!
The things that you're li'ble to read in the bible - they ain't necessarily so!
>now "true christians" are picking on catholics.. great!
Exactly! Reminds me of two opposing armies each praying to the same God that each will slaughter more than the other side in His name for a just and holy cause.
Farcical, isn't it?
"now "true christians" are picking on catholics.. great!" -simon
What do you mean by picking on?
You mean, like, disagreeing with what they say and teach, is picking on them?
Don has a perspective that needs to be heard and understood. And unfortunately, I'm afraid there's a lot of truth in it. I've seen enough to know that there are plenty of Catholics steeped in guilt who know little of the "good news" (gospel). And I've known too of church laws in Roman Catholicism piled up over the centuries meant to help the Church help Christians remain on the straight and narrow, but have become cumbersome legalities which in effect nullify God's grace in Christ.
So I appreciate what Don is saying, and I agree it's by grace alone in Jesus that we are saved.
I have a different perspective, as we all do, but I do well to listen well to other's perspective, and Don's is one that needs to be heard.
Deb and I are planning to go to a one day Dominican retreat in May, in which we'll mostly be silent, as I understand it. I look forward to that; it will be a good one for me! (ha)
Wow, Susan! Your “spiritual” birthday is on my “physical” birthday. I was born on August 6th in the year of our Lord, 1969, when "the most parsimonious explanation that fits the available evidence" suggests men first walked on the moon. :-)
Lorenzo,
I'm afraid I also have to agree with Don and Ted on Catholicism. And I also grew up for the first twenty years of my life in a very religious Catholic family....that was until I found Jesus.
In response to the Church Reformation some 500 years ago, the official Roman Catholic Council of Trent "officially" rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the RC church still has not recanted of this grave departure from the Christian faith.
I also agree with Don that there are many people within the Roman Catholic Church who are genuine Christians and will be in Heaven when they die. But I also agree that, for the most part, the RC Church even today teaches that “grace + works = salvation”. And this is diametrically opposed to the Bible's teaching on salvation in Christ. Those who place faith in their works will be judged on the basis of their works and because their works are of necessity flawed, they will be condemned (God demands prefection). However, those who place their faith in Christ alone for their salvation will be saved because they will not be judged on the merits of their own flawed works, but, rather, they will be judged on the worthiness of Christ Himself, His perfect works and His perfect sacrifice to take away their guilt, and because Jesus actually is worthy of Heaven, those who place their faith solely in Him will be welcomed into Heaven, their sins being completely washed away by His death on the cross and their place in Heaven merited by Christ's own perfect merits.
It doesn't matter Roman Catholic or Protestant; what matters is Who (or what) we place our faith in. Faith in our own works will surely condemn us, but those who place all their faith in Jesus ALONE (not in Mary; not in Saints; not in Shrouds, and not in Self, etc.) will surely be saved from all their sins and be welcomed into God's eternal Kingdom.
Craver- who created god?
Thats the same as asking what started the big bang.
Did god create god?
Did a big bang create the big bang?
Just as science discovered the atom, Science will discover what caused the big bang.IMO just a matter of time
Yes Don "picking on..." and how can you say that god will judge someone who has never had a personal relationship with jesus? Many third world people do not know him, if "lucky" they have only had education by the catholic church and by your own definition.. thats no good..
What happened before the Catholic church got around the world... Did the red indian know jesus persoanlly? did the eskimo? did they ever receive the bible say a 1000 years ago?
No. So that means they were all condemed to death?
Is it not the personal relationship with jesus, and his grace that gets you over the line??
Because if you do not have a personal relationship with him he could say- "get away.. I never knew you"
Luther grace + works = salvation is what the catholic church preaches.
i call that the "Jesus Plus" plan.
But the catholic church is not alone in that... What about the pentacostal movement?
they believe the cross PLUS pentacost ( receiving the holy spirit) is a "must have"
What about the Prosperity doctine? they believe you can have riches here AND in heaven, if you give more than your 10% (of your gross income people not nett income..plus a few other things beside).
I.E. the more "gooder" you are the better you will be.. but we know Job contradicts this...
Again just another "jesus plus plan"
Sadly again the church is full of it. Its all unbalanced and contradictory.
So if its grace alone and a personal relationship with Jesus.. why have the old testament? why not just the gospels? ( I actually know the answer to that but anyway...)
;o)
So, all this still leaves us requiring an explanation as to why God does not love aborigines (and other cultures) because he omnisciently predetermned that they should be born into cultures that do not have access to the bible and can therefore never know Jesus.
Is it true that every Aboriginal baby is "a bundle of sin" and will die as such because its parents were never shown the bible?
Simon,
I concur with your concerns about the church adding to salvation other requirements. But along with that reality, I'm going to suggest that some of that is a misunderstanding. For example, to me, Pentecost should be a big day in the church, in celebrating the coming of the Spirit. Not that the church has to have a special day, but the coming of the Spirit is crucial as well as Jesus's death and resurrection, (though it is through Jesus and his work that the Spirit comes) in God's work of salvation in the world, in Jesus.
As to your remark about science finding what was behind the Big Bang, the question I think that remains and begs to be asked is what would be behind what science would find. Surely all science can deal with is in the realm of what can be observed and learned from that. Seems rather open ended to me, I would think. Craver well may come up with a beter thought here, but I thought I'd say this, anyhow.
ted thank you for your thoughtfulness!
Maalie,
Determinism and voluntarism are two extremes which I believe the Christian orthodox faith avoids, insisting on the dynamic interplay between God and humans. Though there are groups in the church which tend to either of the two.
Especially to my Christian friends here (and we've been through this before), Without the grace of God, no one would ever turn to God, and I don't mean just "common grace", but a special grace which most Christians would see as something like prevenient grace. The Spirit does seem to strive with people, and at times be rejected. We could debate on this all day, but most of the church holds to a view something like that. Augustine and from there Luther and Calvin subscibed to something moving more toward a deterministic view, though I think if you read all their writings (and I highly esteem both Luther and Calvin) you will find much more balance and nuance.
But back to Maalie, Doesn't evolutionism or most naturalism fall into a determinism? All is caused and could ultimately be explained in terms of natural selection and random mutation. So that there is really no room for humans living out our lives except accordingly. And all meaning is lost, though someone like Dennett still wants to insist that he has "sacred values." And he uses the words "democracy, justice, love and truth." But he denies any real or ultimate meaning behind such terms, only some kind of utilitarian and evolutionary understanding for them, I would suppose. This is a problem with evolutionism and naturalism. If there really is no meaning in life, then really who's to say what's right and wrong?
I simply see that what humankind assumes, I mean that there is right and wrong, and moral value, is from something much deeper than simply insisting that we can explain everything simply in impersonal, rational, naturalistic terms.
I'm working on this in trying to think it through as much as I have time to, but am doing so out loud here.
As to those not hearing the gospel, we Christians believe all humans brought into a right relationship with God, experience that through Jesus. But how that works out for those who have no access, I don't know. I put that in the realm of the hidden things. Scripture only makes it clear that the normal way of salvation, and the way we must pursue in helping others, is to declare the good news of Jesus. I have no doubt myself that many will be in the new creation in Jesus, such as the aborted unborn, those who died young, at least.
And I did make a point to see our President Obama with your Prime Minister Brown in the UK yesterday. In fact before I read your comment yesterday morning on that, I was praying for our President. He's gifted wonderfully, but he needs more than that. He is an avid reader of Abraham Lincoln (that's wonderful!) and knows the theology of Reinhold Niebuhr, and has been impacted by it. He has his shortcomings as well as strengths, as I and many Christians here see it. But good to see some film of that, which I caught yesterday evening.
Sorry about the length of this comment, really kind of like at least two comments in one. You won't see me much of the day here, though I do tend to look in during a break here and there. Not much access to computers anymore at work.
Ted, thank you for your full and considered reply. However:
>But how that works out for those who have no access, I don't know. I put that in the realm of the hidden things.
Until I get a resolution to this paradox I feel that I have no option to preach atheism to myself, my family, friends, colleagues and students (yes, I still have students).
I like Simon's idea of Jonah's wet suit. Maybe there was a mistranslation and he wasn't swallowed by a fish, but by a snake. Snakes can swallow large animals whole so there wouldn't be the mastication problem. Also it takes weeks for a snake to digest a large animal, so maybe Jonah dug himself out of the snake in three days.
Thank you Simon for defending us poor Catholics. I was brought up a Catholic, then I 'lapsed' for many years, then I became a Methodist but have since reverted to my Catholic roots. The Mass is the only service that to me, is holy.
When I accused Bluecollar once, of being arrogant, I got back the 'blessed are the persecuted ...' so maybe I should use the same answer to those who persecute the Catholics!
Do you know, that in Lewis in Sussex, one day a year mobs still rush about the streets with posters saying 'No Popery'. They have stopped torching Catholics now though. Incidentally in the same Lewis, a short while ago, the council put up a series of parking metres. In the depth of one night, someone went along and blew them up!
>I got back the 'blessed are the persecuted ...
LOL! Yes, fundamentalists simply love being reviled and ridiculed, they think it brings them closer to Jesus. Isn;t it one of the "Blessed are they that..." thingies?
It was a fabulous bit of marketing by the bible-writers to keep everyone members of the Jesus-cult, don't you think?
Maalie,
Yes, I have no trouble at all believing you still have students, and I'm sure we could all learn much from you!
I would respectfully ask, do you have a resolution for everything unknown to you? For us we have evidence both in an objective and subjective sense. And we see that atheists live as though there really are ultimate values.
Many good, and thinking people (such as Francis Collins) embrace the faith. And Dawkins and company are fundamentalists themselves (I hate to use that term in a deragatory way, though I have really come to be both grieved and angered along with Os Guinness over what I've seen!) when they insist on practically outlawing religion. They're wasting their time, really. And too bad, because it's not that we can't learn from the critique of others. But in the end faith goes on, along with hope and love, in Jesus. To me that's not just some nice (can't think of the word I want) saying, but reality. By faith we understand, and our understanding leads us to more faith.
Thanks for reading my long comment and for your reply.
'Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you'.
Matthew 5. v.11.
The Beatitudes at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount. And very nice that Sermon is too.
I wouldn't claim to be one of the persecuted though. Just the Catholic church.
What do you think of my snake theory?
Yes Ted. I agree with you. There's nowt so evangelical as a born again atheist.
>I would respectfully ask, do you have a resolution for everything unknown to you?
That is a good question Ted, and the answer is of course, no.
However, I don't think this is an "unknown", it is a very well known contradiction.
(a) God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son;
(b) God evidently does not love those whom he predetermined are born into cultures who do not see the bible.
Surely, before investing in eternity, I am entitled to at least a better answer than "That is in the realm of hidden things". It is a fundamental contradiction.
I agree that Dawkins has become evangelical, no doubt because of the danger he sees in religious fundamentalism. But that is not to decry his fantastic scientific career. Fundamentalists love to hate Dawkins, as much as they are embarrassed by Noah's Ark!
Dawkins is quite a good looking and very gentle man. I believe he is quite a good scientist too.
Jonah, Noah, Adam etc. are wonderful stories. But they are just that. Stories to show us how not to foul up what we have got.
ooo today's word is sexist
"They have stopped torching Catholics now though."
Thank the Lord for that. And thank the Lord the Catholic Church has no more Inquisitions.
"Yes Don "picking on..." and how can you say that god will judge someone who has never had a personal relationship with jesus?"
That's your opinion simon as far as "picking on". I have no personal beef with Catholics, I'm simply stating what they teach, and it is the truth, and it is a Gospel of works, which I disagree with, according to Scripture.
I have many Catholic friends here in the States.
My mother is in a wonderful nursing home where the care takers are Nuns from Poland. They live here in a Convent, and they run the nursing home, and there's not a nursing home even close to how wondeful this one is. I have had many discussions with Sister Theresa, and Krystina about Catholicism, and the difference in our faith, and we have become good friends, and yet firm in our own stance.
Oh, and simon, mankind is cursed, and so all humans are rebels to the Lord. The Bible tells us this.
And yet Christ became a curse for us, and so God has shown incomprehensible kindness and mercy toward the curse sinners in this world, who have no hope without Christ, but with Christ they become children of God.
>nd so God has shown incomprehensible kindness and mercy toward the curse sinners in this world
But only towards those whom he predetermined should be born into cultures that use the bible. It seems he is a rather prejudiced, discriminating God.
"It seems he is a rather prejudiced, discriminating God."
Bottom line is that God does not owe any man, except justice. However, He is merciful to whom H purposes.
It would be as if there were 5 men in jail for the same crime, all justly condemned. The Govenor decided to release one of these men, because he wanted to show mercy to this man, but left the other four to fill out their sentence.
That doesn't sound fair. He should let all five men be released if he is going to let one off, shouldn't he?
No, he can show this mercy, and the other four are getting what they deserve.
This is a crude way to compared to God showing mercy to whom He will, nevertheless it's simliar.
>God does not owe any man, except justice. However, He is merciful to whom He purposes.
How eloquently you make my point for me. He is either omnipotent and omniscient, or he is not. If he is these things, then he has created a world in which he specifically excludes certain groups by ordaining that little babies are born into a culture where they will never know about Jesus through the bible, and therefore, by your definitions, will be denied access to the Kingdom of Heaven.
Bottom line. Period.
Simon - well said! It is surely Jesus and Jesus alone that provides salavation - not Jesus plus anything!
Maalie - I am curious, why would you think the Bible is required for salvation? Certainly it is not. Though many people have come to salvation through reading of Jesus in it, it certainly is not required or the forefathers would have been out of luck - and yet we read of them in the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews 11. They came to God just as all the rest do, through the channel of faith.
It is just Jesus and only Jesus, first, last and always.
We see through a glass darkly, just as Susan reminded us earlier (1 Corinthians 13). In the context that's talking about a relational knowing. Job's story brings that out well, also. Job was looking for an answer to his problem of suffering. But in the end the kind of answer God gave was really a relational one.
In spite of important truth in both Modernism and Postmodernism, as are all human philosophies, both are fatally flawed. Reality is essentially relational. Who we are as persons is not about our composition as much as it is about our relations. That is where we really find our identity, I believe. And God is essentially relational as Trinity. etc.
A hurried comment on a short break here.
Amen to that, Susan. The answer is in a person: the way, the truth and the life!
>I am curious, why would you think the Bible is required for salvation?
Halfmom: I will happily accept enlightenment here. If (for the sake of argument) an aborigine baby (already defined elsewhere as a "bundle of sin") is born into an aboriginal culture where the bible, and hence Jesus, is completely alien, how can it possibly grow up to know about Jesus?
The point that you seem to ignore, Maalie, that Don again and again is trying to stress, is that God owes no one salvation. You seem to think God is unfair for judging anyone and not giving them access to the Bible. But He owes them nothing but His wrath.
Besides, even those (such as in America) who have access to the Bible AND to churches AND to Christian radio, etc. are still not going to come to faith unless God drags them to Christ. Human nature is so depraved, they will not come, no matter how many Bibles they have! God has to do a miraculous work of spiritual resurrection in the unsaved person for him\her to possibly come to faith in Christ (whether they have access to the Bible or not).
But the fact is, God only owes us His judgment, not His mercy. So in the case you present of the aborigine baby who grows up, never hearing the name of Jesus or reading the Bible, is still deserving of God’s judgment. But how much more must the American (in my example, but Brits and Ozzys probably fall into this category, too), how much more deserving of God's condemnation must they be (!), since they HAVE had access to the Bible, AND to churches, etc. and yet they rejected Christ again and again their whole lives! Their eternal judgment in Hell must be far worse than that of the aborigine who never had access to the Bible. Both will be condemned if they don't have Jesus as their Savior, but the one who had access to the knowledge of Christ, and heard of His salvation and yet rejected Christ has a greater condemnation because the Gospel demands a response:
“…when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe”. (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10)
Lorenzo,
Poor Catholics?? What about us poor former-Catholics?? My Roman Catholic relatives were not worried about me in the least when I was a drunk, a drug addict, a womanizer and a thief. However, when I became a Christian and dared to leave the Roman Catholic Church, they sent a priest to my house to warn my parents. Don't you realize that the RC Church still teaches that to leave the RC Church is a mortal sin, so in their warped beliefs, I have no hope whatsoever of salvation. I'm condemned to Hell because I left “The Church”. However, I left that Church and went to Jesus for salvation. My hope is not in a Church, or a mother or a saint to save me. And Trent and the Roman Catholic Church can pronounce every anathema on me they want. It doesn't faze me because I've put my hope in Jesus alone to save me.
Poor former-Catholics.
Sorry to be coming back to the table so late, Simon. It is a absolute treat to be able to talk with each other across the globe, though. Even with the time differences.
It is not the same to say that the Creator had to have a creator. If you apply that question to His existence, then why is it not applied to His creation? I find it more reasonable to ask, "Where did all this stuff come from?"
A major stumbling block here, it seems to me, is grace. If God was obligated to show grace, then it wouldn't be grace, would it? When we finally come to the point, that no one merits God's favor, the response is not to judge Him, but marvel that he saves anyone at all.
"a absolute treat" I meant an absolute treat.
Yes, I speaks English goodly. ;-)
Word verification is "coments"
No kidding.
Well Luther, I'm sorry you must have such a strange family. Whatever my children did or believed in or didn't believe in, I would never stop loving them or disown them. Never.
>So in the case you present of the aborigine baby who grows up, never hearing the name of Jesus or reading the Bible, is still deserving of God’s judgment.
I understand, you have made yourself abundantly clear. I presume you would argue that such a baby would be judged and found wanting? Since everyone here asserts that you can only find God through Jesus, then if you don't get to know about Jesus, you can't find God, so heaven is denied. Or is it possible that God elects some aborigines but not others?
I mean, they do worship their own Gods - how are they to understand otherwise if they have never heard of the 10 commandments?
>but marvel that he saves anyone at all.
Somewhat arbitrarily, I discern?
That's good Lorenzo, how you love your children. That sounds like the image of God in you. God loves us despite what we do not because of what we do or don't do.
Word verification: Supercalafragelisticexpealidocious
:-)
If God was, as many think, just a larger version of themselves, I would agree. But if he is not, who is wise enough to discern his ways? Would we judge God? The Lord is who He is, not whoever we project Him to be. His nature and actions are not dependent on our interpretations, or popular vote.
Hi Maalie,
The book of Romans explains that they do know God (even those people who have never heard the name of Jesus or read a sentence from the Bible). They know Him through the evidence of Him in creation: the earth and heavens, and because of that "knowledge of God" they have, they are guilty and without excuse for not seeking Him. Romans also teaches that God has written His laws upon their hearts (the reason people know the difference between right and wrong...though often we have not followed what is right).
My point is they DO have the knowledge of God and they DO have God's commandments. He has provided these things to all people, in every period of history and in every part of the earth (according to the first two chapters of Romans).
>My point is they DO have the knowledge of God and they DO have God's commandments.
Rubbish, Litl Luther. They have their own gods in the rocks, the hills, the sea, the rivers and the animals. They have their own society, culture and "rules". Not a bible in sight.
I would agree that God owes no one salvation, but even though I'm taking this passage out of context from James, I still believe "mercy triumphs over judgment." How, I don't know, although people like C.S. Lewis, and Susan on this blog have surmised in regard to that I think.
Indeed it has been held by the Church that only baptized babies are free from original sin, and the others go to limbo as I recall. I consider that an error, and a sad one.
I really don't consider anyone here an unloving fundamentalist, not one!
The groups I have in mind are the ones who insist for example that there are only blacks and whites and no grays in life, and that they know it all. That seems to have some resonance to me when considering either the religious right, or the secular left. Os Guinness approaches it in a very even keeled way, but helps us see the need for people to live together well with our differences, not to have to sacrifice what is most essential to us as human beings, and for us Christians here, it is our faith, imperfect in it though we are. This was the vision of the founders of America, and this is the world God intends, not coercion by law, "sword" or ballot box.
Just adding my thoughts to the mix here, imperfect though they certainly are.
Of course I don't live on my own thoughts, but on faith based on God's word, and ultimately on God's final Word in Jesus.
the world God intends in the world the way it is... , a fallen world, we call it.
Well said Ted.
Luther, it reminds me a bit of the prodigal son. How we feel about our families is that unconditional love, the same that the father felt for the son and the same that God feels for us, however mixed up, screwed up and generally beligerent we are!
I dont agree Luther ( even though years ago I amy have).
We talk of a "loving god".. its just nonsense. Look what he is supposed to have done or allowed done to Job.. just utterly contradictory.
Unless you agree god is alpha an omega, ying yang, the creator of the devil, ill health, those who are condemned, those whom he chooses..
I do not buy it... but I do buy a lving organisim flaoting in space that provides for some and not others... that there is those who win and those who lose.
What Defines us as humasn is that we help those who are less.. not becasue there is a god but becasue we have evolved to think that way- programmed if you like
I love it when we give god our very own human traits on one hand and then use another arguement on the other.
Quoting Romans does not make it right mate..anymore that quoting Mein Kampf
Hitler said:-
"Peoples who can sneak their way into the rest of mankind like drones, to make other men work for them under all sorts of pretexts, can form states even without any definitely delimited living space of their own."
Hitler was a nutter..so what is the point of quoting it?.. I can extract a quote and make it suit the occasion...
However if using a book enables you to become a better person- great..
Certainly that book makes me a better person Simon
Maalie - you still haven't answered my question - where did you come up with the notion that the Bible was necessary for salvation? Clearly people from the Old Testament times were saved and they had no Bible for Moses hadn't been around yet to record the oral history. So, how did it work for them? And, if it worked for them, might it not also work the same way for some who have not heard the name Jesus or ever seen a Bible? Why do you insist that the presence or reading or adherence to a Bible - I'm not quite sure what you are referencing - is necessary for salvation?
Hey Susan,
I don't think I disagree with what you're trying to communicate to Maalie; however, I have trouble with the approach you’re taking, and I'll tell you why:
If people of the world are somehow "let off the hook" by not hearing the name of Jesus or reading God's Word, then people like me, devoting their lives to obeying Jesus' Great Commission to preaching the Gospel to the whole world, are not emissaries of the "good news" but rather “ministers of death”. If someone in some remote village of Nepal might go to Heaven because I never told them a word about Jesus, but then after I tell them about Jesus, they are liable and reject the Gospel and thus go to Hell, then what is my ministry all about? Sorry, but I believe whether they ever hear the name of Jesus or read the Scriptures, they are ALREADY LIABLE to God because of the evident knowledge of Him in Creation, and thus they are already condemned for not seeking Him — whether or not they ever hear the name of Jesus or read a single word from God's Word.
Maybe you or Ted would agree with me. I don’t know. I just felt the need to explain the situation from the “evangelist’s perspective”.
Lt'l Luther,
I find Susan's thoughts from Hebrews 11 on this interesting, and I'm not sure I've read or heard of them prior to reading it from her. And I find it more interesting and feasible as I further consider it.
As I think I may have mentioned on this blog in the past, it reminds me of the stories of those hearing the gospel from missionaries saying they had been prepared by their forefathers (or ascendants) with stories that somehow they had received: about people coming and giving them some important, life changing good news. Maybe angels were sent to them, but when these missionaries spoke the gospel, the eyes of the listeners lit up, as it dawned on them that this was the fulfillment they had been awaiting.
But back to the ascendants who had been given the stories to prepare their ascendants to receive the good news. What about them? At least grace was given them to share such stories. And couldn't faith have been involved in them receiving such? I would think not only so, but more than likely. And if they had true faith in the living, Creator God, and were receiving from God a message, then why couldn't we surmise that in the end they are among the redeemed through Jesus Christ, even though they haven't heard the message of the good news of Christ?
As to your concerns as a missionary, I certainly can understand. Of course the Bible puts hearing the message, faith, and salvation together. So that in God's working, this is at least the norm for people being saved. So that people indeed need to hear the message. Even if the above surmisings are true, probably the majority of those who haven't heard need to hear the message to be saved. Though I think God prepares people in a number of ways, even those who may not want to be so prepared.
But a big part of my thoughts on this is that the gospel is bigger than just individuals coming to salvation. This posting on Jesus Creed gets at what I'm referring to. The heart of the gospel is certainly Jesus and his death and resurrection, while also with reference to his ascension and return. And it is a gospel which while intensely personal is not indiviualistic- though for each individual, but brings us into a community, a body in which we are one, and it enables us to follow Jesus by the Spirit, together in mission in the world- and to come back to God's will for humankind in creation in this new creation in Jesus. So that when you share this good news with those in Nepal, they can begin through reading Scripture and being led by God, together to see their place in God's kingdom and work in Jesus, and begin to fulfill that.
Sorry, Susan about deleting the one comment, though I guess on this blog with all the comments that hardly makes a difference.
Blessings on you and especially on Olivia and Andrew as final preparations and events come before the big day tomorrow!
Ted: Who knows? They say the same sort of thing in many Indian churches today: that Christ is in Hinduism, and even though the Hindus don't know about Him or acknowledge Him at their Lord and Savior, they are being saved through Him. They are “anonymous Christians”. But the reason a number of Indian Christians believe this (as they themselves have told me) is because they don't want to think that the last 2000 years of their Hindu ancestors are all in Hell! It is just a way to appease their emotions (as so many false doctrines are). It's not based on Scripture; it's based on what their emotions tell them they want to be true. It has little to no biblical merit whatsoever to support it. And I don't buy it (especially related to Hinduism). The devil is obviously in Hinduism, but not Christ.
I don't see basis for what you and Susan are saying in Hebrews 11, either. The people of many millennia gone by all came to faith in their hope of the coming Redeemer (Christ). They were putting their hope in Christ. That's why Hebrews can say that Moses gave up the treasures and pleasures of Egypt (for the sake of Christ). Just like Job said long ago: "I know my Redeemer lives." These people of Old were putting their faith and hope in the One who was to come (Christ), and we now are also putting our faith and hope in the One who has already come (Christ). It is the only way of salvation, both before and after, the first coming of Christ.
Wow! We sure hit 100+ comments quickly in this Post!
....this is not to say that God "couldn't" have done things in cultures to prepare them to receive the gospel. Paul seems to show this in "the unknown God" of the Athenians in Acts 17. The story of, "The Peace Child" of Papua New Guinea also seems to be one evidence of this. But that doesn't take away the fact that people cannot come to God except through Christ. They must put their faith in Him to be saved. Even if "the unknown God" and "the peace child" are evidences of God leaving a bridge to Christ in cultures, those people were still damned until they crossed the bridge! They did not come to God or find salvation until they put their faith in Christ. And this is just as true of the people of ancient times (before the coming of Christ) as it is today. They had to put their hope in the Promised One who was to come. And even before the promises were made through the Prophets; even before the Law was given by Moses; they still were dying for their sins according to Romans 5.
Besides, the Promise of a Redeemer has been around since even before Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:15)! I believe that from the very beginning of man, men, with what knowledge God had given them, had to put their faith in the promised Redeemer to come. Every generation of mankind has come to God through Christ.
Triston - sorry, but I only have a moment. I have to lecture today and the lecture is not ready yet! I want to make sure that you understand that I am not suggesting that people can "get to heaven" any way other than belief in Jesus Christ - I think He quite clearly stated Himself that He is the only way. However, I think Romans 1 makes a case for people being able to know the hope of a Redeemer, just as you say in your last paragraph of the previous comment, from the beginning of time. Actually, I love that last paragraph! What I am speaking against is the notion that you can set "rules" for how people come to Christ and therefore condemn God as unmerciful and unfair if you think that the rules you have set have been violated (i.e. it is not fair for God to keep the Bible out of generations of peoples' hands and still send them to hell).
First, I believe that God has the right to set His own rules because He is the ruler. This does not mean, however, that the rules He sets are arbitrary because He also is a God of love, mercy and grace. That we must never forget. Scripture is clear that He does not turn away those that turn to Him - how that happens we do not know and must be careful not to try to set rules for. All we can say is that they must come to Him through faith in Jesus Christ - believe with their hearts and confess with their mouths that Jesus Christ is Lord. How that happens in cultures without access to the Word written in their language is really God's business.
Hope this makes sense. I'll be back around in a couple of days if you'd like to converse further about it - I do want to make sure you understand clearly what I am saying for surely I cannot communicate clearly to a nonbeliever if I am not clearly communicating to you.
Thanks Susan. Good comment.
Hope the Wedding day is wonderful!
>I am not suggesting that people can "get to heaven" any way other than belief in Jesus Christ - I think He quite clearly stated Himself that He is the only way
Halfmom, I think you have really answered your question for me.
How can aborigine babies (bundles of sin as they are) ever get to believe in Jesus Christ if they are born into a culture where he is not known about?
My reference to the bible is simply that is mainly how people come to know about Jesus, isn't it? Or maybe by word of mouth like from missionaries.
Of course there are vast tracts of humanity, besides Aborigines, who are born into cultures that do not (because they can not) "believe in Jesus". They believe in whatever myths their own cultures uphold. So they are doomed to spend eternity swimming round and round in the lake of fire - they said so on Bluecollar.
Good luck with the lecture and all the best for the wedding. Are you making a speech yourself?
How that happens in cultures without access to the Word written in their language is really God's business.
What an absolutely splendid cop-out! I shall remember that one!
"So they are doomed.."
Mankind is doomed to an eternity that thier conscience desires. We don't desire Christ, or God, do we?
So God will give us what we desire.
If, and that's an impossible if really, a man would desire Christ, or God, then that human would be given His desire.
And so, God came to Earth to seek out all who would desire Him; to worship Him in Spirit and truth.
But no one seeks after God, no conscience can do so because the human conscience is depraved, and loves self, and loves pride, whether passive pride, or lively pride.
Only God can change a conscience from self-focused, to God-focused. And the way God does this is through the Gospel, or good news of God's grace in Christ.
Can God do all this by Himself, without working through the Church? I don't believe the Bible teaches that. I believe the Bible teaches everything God does in this world is by, and through His Church.
Just my thoughts on such a deep subject.
Real quick thought. I saw on a "Jacques Cousteau Special", where he came upon a primitive tribe in Africa who worshipped crocadiles.
These men would through excruciatingly painful cuts with a razor, cut young boys with hundreds of cuts upon their back, and even legs, so that after the scars developed, they would look like a crocadile, with hundreds of bumps. The Cousteau team seemed to think it was alright. At least that's the way it seemed to me.
I would have tried to share the truth of God in Christ to these tribe, and perhaps through much compassion and earnest prayer, the Lord may help these wonderful people turn from this horrible way of living, and turn to Christ.
Those who trusted before the Son was revealed, were saved by grace, through the cross... the same way--the only way anyone is saved. They trusted in God without having the specifics laid out for them.
At first blush, it sounds reasonable to say that "those who have never heard" may not be guilty of rejecting Christ, but we cannot go so far as to say that they are then completely guiltless. Actively, all have sinned. Passively, everyone born to a human father has inherited original sin.
When God saves some who do not deserve it, do we criticize him for not saving others? We should accept His decisions humbly, and if He offers his grace to us, we should receive it through faith with awe and gratitude. Then, we tell others about the grace of God, hoping that they too, will respond with faith.
Hope all goes well at the wedding Susan.
Love Lorenzo.
The most compassionate thing we can do for the Aborigines is to tell them about Jesus. Standing on the outside, as we are, criticizing anybody's religion doesn't help at all.
But if we cannot go ourselves, we can lift up prayers, so that God raises up a servant for the task. As such, we are doing something more than just talking about it. That's what I intend to do today, as a matter of fact.
>Those who trusted before the Son was revealed, were saved by grace, through the cross...
How can you say that Craver vii? The cross became a symbol of Christianity only after Jesus was crucified. How can they be saved by the cross before it became significant?
As with many other things, Christians hi-jacked pagan symbols and festivals. Ostara became Easter; Yule became Christmas. And the cross, which had represented the four points of the compass (the four corners of the earth) became hijacked as some sort of superstitious charm for everlasting life.
I think fundamentalists make things up as they go along. resented with an irreconcilable paradox, they bluff their way out of it.
> I don't believe the Bible teaches that. I believe the Bible teaches everything God does in this world is by, and through His Church. (Donsands).
See what I mean? Everyone has their own belief as to what the bible is supposed to teach The bible can mean anything you want it to.
>The most compassionate thing we can do for the Aborigines is to tell them about Jesus.
Of course. When we tried to do that we killed practically all of them off (in Tasmania anyway) by infecting them with European diseases they were not immune to.
re: saved through the cross
The cross is good when it is a reminder, but I think that using it as a charm trivializes what it is all about. After the event, the cross (as a symbol) was supposedly used by the Romans to taunt Christians. Jesus' followers embraced the shame because of the significance of the event. That event was part of God's plan all along; it was not plan B. There are prophecies regarding the shedding of blood, and that the Messiah would suffer, etc., that precede the adoption of the symbol.
re: diseases that we did not intentionally spread,
I doubt that anyone bringing disease didn't care. It is sad whenever one person causes the death of another, even if it is unintentional. The body lasts an average of 70 years, but the soul lives forever. I think the math is quite simple here.
Oh Maalie, one more thing that is very important: You said when "we" did that, "we" did such and so forth. Friend, I'm afraid you cannot say that until you are a believer. At least, if you are accusing the Christians of spreading disease, anyway. Western civilization is not the same as the Children of God. There are no borders or geographic headquarters to Christianity. "This world is not our home."
"I doubt that anyone bringing disease didn't care. It is sad whenever one person causes the death of another, even if it is unintentional."
The Church has millions of doctors and nurses and built hospitals, and sent medicine, and helped the sick in countless ways of the last 2000 years.
drat- I wanted o be the 100th comment!
Well, it seems that- pre christ you could only get to heaven by law and works, and by the very fact that a "saviour" had to be sent means that plan A was not working...So just how many did go to heaven, and if some went to heaven why send plan "B"?
Therefore, perhaps there is alternate ways to get to heaven, becasue by the very arguement- those who do not know the bible or christ must know of him somehow- therefore they too can get to heaven, but how? If christ himself said he was the way the truth and the life....
so but that arguement christs words are in fact incorrect...... and therfore you do not need a personal relationship with him in order to get to heven- just a concept of him.
Mmmmnnnn-May be god sees us the way my son see ants- he watches them work and then squashes some for his own pleaseure.
An then there is ALL the variations of what a "true" born again christian really is.
One thing is for certain- if an army was this dissagreeable, and disorganised it would fail in battle.
Are guys winning the good fight?
or come and join me and my band of brothers at teh masonic lodge- we do some pretty good stuff, especially with charities and or sorts exciting things ( especialy when you get to leel 320
;o0
"so but that arguement.." should red 'So BY tat arguement"
sorry again for typos
pps- dreadful typing- I am infact typing this on a small palm held- I am really sorry!
another question:- does that mean the words of christ are not absolute? or is their one set of rules for those who know of christ and another for those who do not?
Simon wrote: “if some went to heaven why send plan ‘B’?”
There is no plan B, Simon!!!!! Right here you and Maalie demonstrate your ignorance of God's Word. Much like the well crafted words of a great novel (though infinitely more so), at the end of the novel, the reader has an “ahah” experience. Where all "the clues" that made little sense while reading the book come together in the end and you can see how the whole story fits together. The same is true with the Bible. Now that we can read the end of the book (i.e. the New Testament) we have the same “ahah” experience: “So that is what God was doing all along!” Everything comes together in this Masterpiece. But it is far superior to the work of a master writer of novels because this book was written over more than a 1500 year period in various places, in three languages and not by one author but by dozens of authors. There are 66 books in all, and yet each one comes together to support the same theme that runs through the entire Bible from beginning to end: Salvation in Christ. It is a masterpiece like no masterpiece since, and that is because, though it consists of 66 books and dozens of authors, there is really just one Author (with a capital 'A') who inspired it all, who has written this book: God Himself. I’m sorry you (Simon and Maalie) can’t see it, but it is there—clearly there. And that is why we can say that everything points to the cross.
Craver wrote: "The most compassionate thing we can do for the Aborigines is to tell them about Jesus."
AMEN Craver!! I agree 100%
There is no higher privilege we have, nor a greater way to love our neighbors, than when we share the message of the Gospel and introduce them to the only Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen!!
>now that we can read the end of the book (i.e. the New Testament) we have the same “ahah” experience: “So that is what God was doing all along!
But of course! The men (it could hardly be women in that style!) who wrote the New already knew about the Old, and could therefore write the New as if to fulfil the prophesies of the Old. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy, a tautology!
If the only way to heaven is through Christ, and God predetermines that you are born into a culture which knows not of Christ (and that is most of Humanity), then you are doomed to swim for eternity in the dreaded lake of fire. They say so on Bluecollar. God is arbitrary and indifferent, choosing his elect at random, by culture they are born into.
I am evidently not elected. God is a creation of man's imagination; as such, Man can ascribe to him any powers they want to.
"(it could hardly be women in that style!)"
This is true. Women were regarded differently in that day and culture. But Christ didn't treat women as secondary, but simply made in the image of God, but with a higher role in many aspects.
Jesus was with the religious leaders at their home, and they were having a meal togther and discussing the kingdom of God. A prostitute comes in and falls at Jesus' feet, and is full of tears, and weeps upon the Lord's feet and then dries His feet with her hair. Jesus loves this woman, whereas the religious leaders were astonished that Jesus would love her. Luke 7:36-50 Doctor Luke gives us wonderful detail here of a marvelous look at the Messsiah's compassion. I'd encourage all to take time to read this portion of the Bible and be blessed.
I didn't mean to take this discussion down a rabbit path, and so continue the other debate as well.
Maalie, hell is a horrible place, this is true. But like you always point out, there are many views on hell. But, boil the pot to the bottom, and we all agree it is seperation from eternal life and God Himself, and it will be an excruciatingly painful place to be.
>it will be an excruciatingly painful place to be
So they say, Donsands, so they say. All the more reason that I am incredulous that an almighty all-merciful all-loving Heavenly father should ordain a world in which He, in His omniscience, would prescribe that the vast proportion of humanity will be born as baby bundles of sin into cultures that don't have knowledge of Jesus. Several contributors here have confirmed that the only way to heaven is through Jesus.
Mary Magdalen wrote a very nice Gospel but that wretched Council of Nicea kicked it out. But good Catholics can still get a copy if you go to certain illicit book shops! Also copies of The Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Peter and a few others I can't remember. Also of course, the Aprocopha which has all sorts of jolly tales in it that Maalie would just love!
Some of these banned Gospels tell of Jesus's life as a little child, and according to them, he was anything but 'meek and mild'.
"..the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene," again, another second-century gnostic gospel, far removed from the actual events of Christ's life, known only fragmentarily (in contrast to the true canonical gospels). The work clearly has nothing to do with Mary Magdalene the historical person noted in the gospels, but is instead the fanciful religious fantasy of a gnostic community from, at best, the second century." -Dr. James White
Honestly Lorenzo, why are you so interested in so many peripheral things: the Turin Shroud; the Gospel of Mary Magdalene; Buddhism, etc. rather than the heart of our faith: Jesus Christ?
I haven't posted anything at my site since November! I finally posted today. It's about the plight of Nepalese girls abducted and forced into prostitution in India, if that is a subject of interest to any of you.
Triston
>why are you so interested in so many peripheral things
Please leave her in peace, Litl Luther - one delusion is as good as any other.
I see God's judgment as God letting people have their own way, and letting that play out completely (and in our imaginations, to its logical end). And I see God's wrath as an expression of his love, love that has been spurned, while at the same time we must remember that God's word tells us that God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but only in that they would turn to him in repentance and live.
The Reformers saw the imagery on hell in metaphorical terms. Both John R. W. Stott and N. T. Wright have interesting takes on hell. I'm not sure myself, except to say that hell is letting everyone live out to the full what they've embraced, as well as apart from what they've rejected. I really like C.S. Lewis's, The Great Divorce which is just as interesting (one might say entertaining) to read as it is insightful, really speaking of life here and now, as well as life in heaven and hell. An excellent read!
I wonder too how people spurn judgment, I mean a final judgment, when we know evildoers do get off the hook time and time again. That there would be a hell, a place of punishment and confinement stands to reason.
At the same time, I am wishful that in the end all might be saved. That would be my heart's desire. Of course that would necessarily involve repentance and faith through the gospel of Christ. I just don't see that hope beyond the grave in Scripture, but with many others (like that good Scotsman, George MacDonald), I would like to see all by grace through faith come in and be saved.
Thank you Maalie!
Luther: I have a great curiosity about all things from spirituality, the natural world, music, art, literature, theatre, ballet, opera etc. etc. That is why I bother with 'peripheral' objects.
I am deeply interested and involved with Christ, but I was given a brain to use, and I enjoy using it. I also like sudoko and am trying to learn Japanese.
Theology itself is an extremely interesting subject, and I love Mary Magdalen, as Christ did.
As for her gospel being writen a couple of hundred years after Christ's death, well all of them were, except Mark's, which was only 90 odd years after his death.
I wish you all a happy and peaceful Palm Sunday. I have just come in from a three hour run over very hilly countryside with a good friend and my dog.
Looking forward to hearing about the wedding Susan!
>but only in that they would turn to him in repentance and live.
But repentance for what, Ted? Most of us are good, honest-living people. If we inadvertently offend someone, we apologise and entreat forgiveness in this lifetime from those we have offended.
I do not understand why we should have to spend our lives repenting from a mythological "sin" committed by a mythological person, for who God predetermined the event anyway.
I expect to end up in the lake of fore for this (Bluecollar has told me so) but I can't think of any other honest way round it.
Human diversity simply did not, and could not have, sprung from only two people. It is genetically impossible. Even Francis Collins (whom Halfmom has exemplified) agrees with this.
Lorenzo,
I can appreciate your love for the natural world, literature, theatre, etc.—and especially your deep interest in Christ. Wonderful!
BTW: I don't believe any of the New Testament writings were written after 70AD (with the possible exception of the book of Revelation). The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans was so horrific and world changing (And historians agree that it took place in 70AD) would certainly be evident in the epistles if it had already happened. So, the whole New Testament was written within 40 years of the death and resurrection of Christ. This is another reason some of their claims are so compelling, since, the writing of the NT took place in that one generation; many eye-witnesses (believers and opponents) would still be alive at the time and could have contended with what the writers of the NT were saying about Christ.
I think you might find you are wrong there Luther. Most theologans agree that all the Gospels except Mark's were written at least 150 years after his death.
Not sure when Revelation was written. I know it was written on the island of Patmos which is famous for the hullicinatory mushrooms! Now that's a book to get Maalie on!
And incidentally Maalie, the Lake of Fire is not Biblical so stop banging on about it!
>And incidentally Maalie, the Lake of Fire is not Biblical so stop banging on about it!
It's not me but Bluecollar that keeps threatening me with it. They seem to know about the bible. But of course, it can mean anything you want it to.
Llama,
The book of Acts, written by Luke in A.D. 62, so Mark would even be earlier.
Matthew's Gospel was written, using the Gospel of mark, who Peter helped with no doubt. And the dates would be from 64-70 A.D.
Ignatius of Antioch(c. A.D. 100) quoted from the book of Matthew.
There are many critics of the New Testament books. And if we get into it on this thread of commenting it could be a lot to consider and cover, suffice it to say.
I agree with Don that from all the sources I have, the vast majority believe that most of the New Testament was written within a generation after Jesus's death, so that eyewitnesses and apostles are included. The Revelation may be a slight stretch, but still written in the first century.
And we have numerous manuscripts as well as citations from early church fathers, which assures us of this. It is evident that Paul lived during Peter's time, Luke learned from Paul, Mark learned from Peter, Matthew is likely of the Twelve- John as well, James and Jude probably half brothers of the Lord.
Let me add to this that oral passing down of events assures us of accuracy of these texts, even if some of them were written in the second century (which from my reading, I doubt). The manuscripts we have in proximity to the events are much closer in time than other documents to events or persons they attest to. Not to mention the sheer number of them, which far exceeds other documents.
And the gospel of Mary Magdalene is gnostic nonsense, which could never pass any muster in Jewish and Christian contexts, so the Council of Nicea was certainly wise in soundly rejecting all such. The DaVinci Code is pure fabrication. I do say this respectfully, but very tired and rather befuddled that people actually buy into such. Gnosticism is anti-Christian and anti-Jewish, really.
Hope I'm not coming across as strident and hard, but these points are not really controversies among Christian scholars. The Jesus seminar scholars have their axe to grind, and they show ignorance of Judaism and Jesus's time in their conjectures, not to be taken seriously at all.
Maalie,
Jesus's call is a call to repentance from our own way of life, our own philosophy, etc, and a call of repentance to (and involvement in) the kingdom of God come in Jesus.
This, I believe is essentially what Jesus was getting at in his call in the words: "Repent! For the kingdom of God has come near. Believe the good news!"
Certainly sins are in the mix, but I believe the heart of it is simply following a new way, the way of the Lord, the way of Jesus. Away from all the dead ends of this world. Of God's kingdom come, not from this world, but to this world to change it in Jesus, bringing in the new creation. Someday to make all things new.
And what we celebrate as Christians this Holy Week is at the heart of how this takes place. It is nothing less than a making new out of death. Jesus's death, and faith in his death bringing us into the new, resurrection life.
Jesus's way is radical, and just being a good person isn't what Christianity is about. It's to be about life out of death, as we share by faith and baptism in Christ's death, we're risen to newness of life, resurrection life beginning now, and to be consummated at the resurrection of all things.
Faith in Jesus essentially. But this includes faith in his work for us on the cross as "the Lamb of God," as well as in his resurrection.
Just a clarification on next to last paragraph in my previous comment.
Luther I am well aware that the old testament is the sign post to jesus christ, and that it "prooves" his 'line" via david etc etc etc.
in fact, I may surprise you with just how much of the bible i have studied and know.
But you did not answer the question. What happend pre christ?
You can argue just how well crafted the book is- (so is lord of the rings...)But a book crafted in retrospect would surely have a good plot....
what about the chapters that were ommited? as lorenzo mentioned. Have you read them? I have.
Don ... there is no such thing as hell. It was put in place to frighten the uneducated into following the marketing strategies of the churches for their own financial gain.
Hell as described in the bible is not a perpetiual place where rthe undead are tortured for ever.. but rather, the hebrew word is translated to mean like a Rubbish Dump.
You see in those times rubbish dumps were lit to burn the rubbish until it was consummed...so its not too bad infact...
There is no doubt in my mind that the bible treats women as 2nd rate too.
and I do not need to repent. What for?? I have not sinned...
(sigh) Like Maalie, when the shackles of the church and suposed "relationship " with christ fell away from me and I woke up...
my life has never been better
>There is no doubt in my mind that the Bible treats women as 2nd rate too.
How can you say that, Simon? Women are referred to as equal, co-heirs with men of God’s glory. They are referred to as God’s daughters; They are referred to as co-workers with the apostles. In fact, the only way they could be lesser than men is if Christ is lesser than God (which He is not!) because the comparison is made with men to God the Father and women to God the Son.
>But you did not answer the question. What happened pre Christ?
I thought I did answer your question, Simon: God promised that a redeemer would someday come; the people of God put their hope in that coming redeemer. They looked ahead to the coming of Christ, and this is how they came to faith in God. Same as us today. And in those days before the first coming of Christ, those who did not put their hope in His coming had no hope. As Scripture puts it: “having no hope and without God in the world.” (Ephesians 2:12)
>And incidentally Maalie, the Lake of Fire is not Biblical so stop banging on about it!
“But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (Revelation 21:8)
Hell is a real place and has the idea of eternal separation from God, total darkness and eternal suffering. It is ‘eternal dying’.
(Matt. 25:30, 41-46; 2Pet 2:17; Rev. 20:13-15; 21:8)
Oh Please!! Don't get into the DaVinci Code. What a load of badly written rubbish. Very exciting of course, I almost finished it in one sitting once on the flight back from Japan. But the grammer makes your feet curl!
I am talking of the Gospel of Mary Magdalen, who is one of my favourite saints by the way. There was no doubt that Jesus loved her, and she was the first person he saw on Easter morning. If that isn't favouritism, tell me what is!
Revelation is a wonderful book but I thought the only people who took it literally were the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Yes, Lorenzo. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is another example of gnostic writings, which put down material to be secondary to spiritual. When both are equally blessed by God. And much so when one considers the Incarnation: God becoming flesh. It along with the Gospel of Thomas and others, is rightly rejected by the church.
As to Mary Magdalene, your words remind me of "Jesus Christ Superstar" (they still perform that as a musical here in Grand Rapids from time to time). I remember liking some of the music from it as a teenager, and probably still do. But even though I don't care whether Jesus married or not, Mary Magdalene was close to Jesus as a disciple I take it (I don't think it actually says she was one, but there is a woman, Tabitha, as I recall, who was called a disciple, Junia an apostle), but there is every indication that Jesus never married. Jesus did love individuals, and I'm sure he had a special love for them all, including Mary Magdalene. Christian tradition as I recall makes her to be the woman he rescued from being stoned for adultery in John 8, though that is conjecture.
But yes, Jesus first appeared to Mary and to another woman after his resurrection, and that is special. I'm glad he appeared to women first. You women often "get it" far before we men do. I know that from experience with my wife Deb.
Well, the women were the ones who stayed with Him during the cruxifiction which the men skived away and hid.
I'm not suggesting for one minute that Jesus was married to Mary. It also talks about John as 'the disciple Jesus loved' but that doesn't make Jesus gay.
I thought the tradition was that Mary Magdalen was the prostitute that anointed Christ with pure nard much to the disgruntlement of the other disciples, who hypocritically talked about giving the money to the poor.
Anyway, whoever she was, she was probably a dodgy sort of woman who turned to good!
As for the gnostic gospels, well they are good reading. I have an amazing book called The Aprocryphal Jesus edited by J.K. Elliott, who happens to be one of the theologians who taught my daughter theology at Leeds University. She has a very good degree in theology. This book will make your hair curl and give you stomach ulcers.
Ted, I don't think Lorenzo ever suggested that Jesus married Mary Magdalen, only that He loved her. I don't disagree with that at all, as long as we understand love in its purest sense. Magdalen being a possible favorite of Jesus doesn't seem odd because He also had three favorite disciples out of his twelve (James, Peter and John) and then out of those three, John was his most favorite disciple, the one he loved. (John 20:2; 21:7, 20)
Not that I think Lorenzo can prove her theory from Scripture, but it was, nonetheless, quite an honor for Mary Magdalen that Jesus allowed her to be His first witness to the resurrection. That's an honor indeed — as was the great honor he gave to Mary, his mother (Mary being a sinner in need of a Savior like the rest of us, was no doubt blessed among all women since she was given the undeserved privilege of giving birth (as well as her looks and DNA no doubt) to Jesus.
Renzo, we must have been typing at the same time. I didn't see your latest comment until I posted mine.
The gnostic gospels? To use a phrase you taught me: What a load of codswallop!
Lorenzo,
Has your daughter committed her heart and life to Jesus? Just curious why she studied theology.
No Luther she hasn't. In fact she became an agnostic because of her theology studies and degree. She loves history and research and she had much pleasure in learning Greek and being able to study some original scrolls.
What do you mean, Mary was a sinner? She was the only person born without original sin. Even Jesus was baptized!
On the subject of Mary, I am in the middle of a discussion over at bluecollar but they skirt round the particular question of Jesus's ancestory.
They claim that Jesus was descended from Adam. I pointed out that Joseph was a descendant of David who in turn was a descendant of Adam, if we are to believe those interminable begatting sequences from the Bible. As Joseph was not the father of Jesus, then Jesus cannot be descended from David. Am I right coming to this conclusion?
Codswallop or not, they are good to read!
1. Who says that Jesus' baptism was for the removal of original sin?
2. Where does the notion that Mary was sinless come from?
3. Jesus was legally, but not biologically from Joseph, but he was biologically related to Mary, who (according to Luke's gospel) was a descendant of David and ultimately, Adam.
4. I have a couple of pictures from the wedding up at my blog!!!!
Thanks for sharing those wedding pics, Craver! I'm sure it was a wonderful time.
Lorenzo,
What do you base your beliefs on?: What some idiot in Rome taught or on what the Bible teaches? You won't find this nonsense about Mary being born without sin anywhere in the Bible! But what it does teach is that Jesus is the only one who was born without sin. And the reason Jesus was baptized was for us!!! He did everything for us: His circumcision was even for us! His perfect life of obedience to God's laws was for us. His baptism was for us. And of course both His death and resurrection were for us. You still don’t realize this?
And Mary would be swimming in that infamous lake of fire if Jesus had not died to take away her sins too!! I thought nowadays only Mary worshippers believed that nonsense of Mary being born without sin. Such ignorance is in 100% contradiction to everything in the Bible. But if your faith is based on Mary-worshipping-popes, (rather than the Bible) then you might be able to come to that ridiculous conclusion.
PS: 15+ years ago I wrote my own “rosary”, based on the RC Rosary. It’s not about the real Mary but the idol they worship.
Praying the "Wrath for Thee" to the Idol Mary:
Hail & Brimstone, full of fury, the Lord's wrath is with thee.
Blessed are those who do not pray to a woman, but only pray to God through His Son Jesus.
Hell's Mary, worshiped as God, Praying to you only adds to our sins. Now and at the hour of our death — condemned.
I am ashamed of my years in the church. All the time wasting, the stupidity of being something I was not.
If I had put all my time into productive things I would have been far better off.
Luther you can quote the bible all you like to me.. I have read it, cover to cover, studied the greek and the hebrew, looked at the archiological evidence, I can quote it a thousand times.
I have witnessed the "holy spirit" desend, the "speaking of toungues" , healing, blessings, churches break up and be recreated in homes, underground, I know of churches in china.. hidden, where people are persecuted for their faith.. I know of the persecution of chrisitans in Indonesia by muslims- tortured and killed
I grew up in a chrisitian home, where the pricicple of christ na dhis teachings were a part of everyday. Where grandparents and uncles were leaders and pillars of the church.
I have met people like yourself- misguided and lost who throw quotes and opinions around like a base ball bat, lacking the humility and love... to be aware of those who may not be "where you are at"
I have never met a real christian,not in 30 years of involvement.. only liers beggars and thieves who profess to be.
I have never met one who can drink deadly poison or anything really... AS I said
In 1999 when the scales fell off my eyes a celebrated a new life, free of guilt and time wasting...
I waste no time, for i have no time to waste. The doctors told me I will be lucky to reach 50 years of age.. only a few years away.. And I do not fear it. I shout back at it.
I take notice of the transisent beauty of the world and its people.
Simon,
If Christians are sinners saved by grace as we all confess here, then how do you know you haven't met a real Christian yet?? What, you haven't met screw ups? People who fall short? Who fail in every way? The church is full of genuine Christians like that! I'm one of them.
Moreover, one of the most disputed texts in the Bible is the one you refer to from the end of Mark's Gospel (about drinking poison, etc.). There are genuine concerns that it wasn't part of the original manuscript.
And honestly Simon, you are the pot calling the kettle black. How many times have you told us you have never met a real Christian in your life? You've probably said it to us a dozen times! A dozen times you have insinuated that every single person here (Susan, me, Don, Ted, Craver, etc.) that we are all liars—that not one of us is a real Christian. You swing a mighty big bat yourself my friend.
>What some idiot in Rome taught
Litl Luther, in desperation to render some sort of verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative, you again resort to personal insults; the classic ad hominem attack is the last resort of those who have no argument.
one of the most disputed texts in the Bible
Oh yes, here we go again! Dispute; interpretation; the bible is cherry-picked according to taste and can mean anything you want it to!
Of course the bible is mythology. It was written with the knowledge and understanding available at the time. There was no talking snake; a man cannot live in the guts of a fish for three days; it is genetically impossible for human diversity to have arisen from a group as small as Noah's family in such a short period of time; and despite extensive searching by scientists (including Darwin) there is absolutely no geological evidence of a world-wide flood. And a bird is not a bat - you would expect God to know this if he made them, wouldn't you?
The idea of "hell" was invented by the controlling classes to keep the masses in line. God is an invention of Man, we can ascribe to this God any powers that we want.
Maalie,
There is no desperation here Maalie because I have never once pretended to base my beliefs on Rome, but only upon what the Word of God teaches. And on this issue of the born-a-sinner-Mary, the Bible is not 99% but 100% on my side. Where’s the desperation in that?
Unless you invented the snakes and fish that biologists study; and created the human diversity that geneticists study and created the rocks that geologists study, you have no basis for telling us what is possible or impossible of their Maker. What is truly impossible is that all we see came about by chance—a notion fit only for fairytales—an invention of sinful men in their attempt to suppress the truth of, and their accountability towards, their Creator.
>an invention of sinful men in their attempt to suppress the truth of, and their accountability towards, their Creator.
There is no evidence to support your desperate contention Litl Luther. Science has evidence on its side. 100 years ago we had absolutly no concept of DNA, chromosomes and genetics, let alone the human genome. Science is making huge advances in cosmology and the fact that we don't completely understand the nature of the time/energy/matter continuum right now does not mean that we won't in due course. Steven Hawking considers that "the answer to everything" will be the prize of the next generation.
I think you should undertaske some serious reading in order that you may meaningfully interpret the scientific evidence rather than resorting to the tired old notion that "God is all powerful therefore anything he wants is possible". It isn't possible Lit'l Luther, it simply isn't. Bottom line.
>What is truly impossible is that all we see came about by chance
Aha, now you swing from ad hominem to personal incredulity. LOL!
Luther, are you actually saying that some parts of the Bible may not be true? Poison, Mark? Well, well, well.
A personal attack on the Pope is unwarrented. It wasn't this Pope that decreed that Mary was blessed by being sinless, but the Council of Nicea. It suits you to applaud the council when they chuck out the gnostic gospels but condemn them when they say something you don't like.
What blasphemy you spout about the mother of Christ. Why are you so scared of her?
My perspective on the Roman Catholic Church. Lt'l Luther, is different from you, Craver's and Don's. But your point of view and experience is important as well.
I am a Protestant evangelical Christian by conviction, but I don't think for a moment that either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church is heretical and out of the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. All of us are one in Christ, and we do well to be open to what God would teach us through each other.
I believe Luther had important insights at the Reformation, and the Catholics had their own reformation soon after, which was in the wind even if Luther would not have existed. Yes, I'm well aware of the issues of Scripture and tradition, and we've discussed them before on this blog I believe.
We have our downfalls in our traditions (the church being just a nice help, rather than a part of who we are when we become members of Christ, etc.), just as the Catholics do in theirs (some worshiping Mary, etc.).
I'm sure we'd agree on much, but I just wanted to add my perspective to this conversation. I've liked John Michael Talbot and his music for some time, he being a Franciscan, and really a married pastor in an order in Arkansas.
I am thankful to be a part of the worldwide church, being an evangelical in a denomination, The Evangelical Covenant Church which makes neither "left" nor "right", conservative nor liberal happy because of our convictions. The word "covenant" in our name is from the agreement early on that in all disputes we had covenanted to always go back to "What does the Bible say?" And we allow a lot of latitude in beliefs, believing that some lines that are drawn by Christians, are not drawn in Scripture.
That being said, Maalie does have a point that we Christians do disagree on many issues. That's because we may be saying more than Scripture says, or sometimes not saying enough. And we do interpret some things differently. Also some true Chrisians think Scripture is right on the matters of faith, but can be wrong on other issues. (This is becoming too long and extended, so I must try to shorten it)
But Maalie fails to take into consideration the unity we do have in Christ. In spite of our differences. A unity both in the Spirit and in truth.
Just a part of my perspective here.
Thank you Ted. Very well put indeed.
I find Luther's comments on Mary highly offensive. I wonder what he thinks Jesus would think about him making such remarks about His mother.
Simon,
So very sorry to read of your bad experiences with the Toronto Movement. Some of that I see as genuine, and some of it a sham. My wife and I were members of a Vineyard church for awhile.
So sorry you were burned. Very sad and devastating. But counterfeits are only so because there is the real.
Sorry to hear of your physical woes as well.
Lorenzo,
I'm not afraid of the mother of Jesus. On the contrary! I look forward to meeting her someday. She too is a disciple of Jesus (Acts 1:14) and saved through Him. However, what I am scared of is the evil exaltation of Mary to a place of worship in the Roman Catholic Church. I view praying to her as no less despicable and demonic as the worship of Satan or Buddha. I'm sure Mary would be quite disgusted and horrified by all the sinful prayers offered to her (rather than to God!) every day by Catholics around the world. It is quite disheartening the way people will exalt almost anything or anyone except God. It is amazing He doesn't wipeout the people of the world, as He did through the flood long ago, with all the demonic worship of false gods in the world. God sure is merciful.
Maalie:
Just like Steven Hawking says about the next generation, Christians can also say that we will have the answer to all the unanswered questions at the Second Coming of Christ. While you accept Hawking’s theory on blind faith, you reject Christianity’s claims with blind rhetoric.
That's odd Lorenzo. I was thinking the same thing about your comment that sparked all these posts; it was very offensive! You said:
"What do you mean, Mary was a sinner? She was the only person born without original sin. Even Jesus was baptized!"
Implicit in your remark is that Jesus was born a sinner. This is certainly one of the most offensive and blasphemous things you have written at Susan’s blog.
>What do you mean, Mary was a sinner? She was the only person born without original sin. Even Jesus was baptized!
If Lorenzo can support that assertion with some evidence then it is a valid strand of discussion/argument, and whether or not you take offence is irrelevant. At the moment it seems to me that you are taking offence because your delusion is being challenged. You do not argue rationally. Ad hominem, personal incredulity and mock indignation are all tactics of the schoolboy debating society.
As my Professor used to say: "Righteous indignation is the prerogative of the right".
I think you are mistaken about the Council of Nicene, Lorenzo. Mary's supposed sinless conception (known as the immaculate conception in Catholicism) did not become dogma until December 8th, 1854 by Pope Pius IX.
Yes Maalie. Only you should write offensively. My mistake.
>Just like Steven Hawking says about the next generation, Christians can also say that we will have the answer to all the unanswered questions
Ah, but Ted, Hawking's assertion is based on knowledge and peer-reviewed evidence, experimentation and discovery. On the other hand, Christians' is based on the writings in ancient book that has not been updated for 2000 years.
>Yes Maalie. Only you should write offensively. My mistake.
Codswallap. Science has the dignity and humility to alter a point of view as improved evidence comes to light. Fundamentalists are stuck in the rut of indoctrination and are therefore arrogant.
Wouldn't the words "inconsistency" and "unreliability" sum up science being certain about nothing, better than the words dignity and humility?
I think you should enrol on a science course somewhere Litl Luther. You appear to suffer the hypocrisy of cherry-picking the science that suits you. You seem happy to espouse the science of medicine, computing, crime investigation (I refer to DNA fingerprinting) etc. It is all the same stuff Litl. Luther, all the same science. If you accept molecular biology of medicine and the treatment of genetic disorders, you should accept it in population biology too.
There was no great flood; a man can't live in the guts of a fish for three days; snakes can't talk; and human diversity did not arises from a group as small as Noah's family. Oh, and a bat is not a bird. And there are no inter-continental swimming kangaroos.
This is all very elementary science, Litl Luther, very elementary indeed. Try reading about a bit. The origin of species might be a good start, it is not too difficult for even you.
>it is not too difficult for even you.
Maalie, aren't you the one who always points out when someone uses an ad hominem argument? I'm surprised you would resort to one, with how readily you recognize them. Seems rather hypocritical really. …you might be surprised how well I score on IQ tests or how often I’ve been the best student in my class: best student of Nepalese 97-98 at the language university here; best systematic theology student. And not just that subject. I was the best overall student of the entire seminary for two consecutive years. Really, anything I set my mind to I usually have come out on top. Perhaps, if you knew me better you wouldn’t be so quick to assume I’m inept.
Come on Luther stop being so antagonistic and agree that Maalie is making a valid point on what you choose to believe or not.
I hope you will ponder long and deep on the Blessed Virgin Mary and your blasphemy.
I removed my last so that I could paste it here as a response to yours.
The problem I have with having any sort of dialogue with you, Litl Luther, is that the only refutation you have for scientific evidence is that "God is great, he can do anything" or "it can't be right because it contradicts the bible". To me, that is tautology: God can do anything because it is ascribed to him!
You seem to assiduously avoid responding to my point about your hypocrisy of cherry-picking the science that suits you, but instead use a rather pathetic straw man to add ad hominem, personal incredulity and mock indignation to your portfolio of invalid arguments.
Get reading some science mate (as Simon would say!).
I see that modesty is not your strong point litl Luther! I wonder what Jesus would say about that - "Blessed are the arrogant", maybe?
"ponder long and deep on the Blessed Virgin Mary and your blasphemy."
Lorenzo, you make me LOL! I will do no such thing! I reserve the word "blasphemy" for God alone. No one else is worthy of the term’s use, including Mary (I don't call her "the virgin" since she certainly didn’t stay a virgin long after Jesus' birth — not once Joseph got his rightful hands on her.)
I will admit that most of Maalie's points were codswallap. Satisfied?
>Ooooh, another ad hominem! How unexpected! I see very little attempt by you to find alternative explanations for the available evidence, Litl Luther, and I put it to you that you can't because you can only argue from tautology, ad hominem, personal incredulity, mock indignation and straw men! LOL!
Still cherry-picking the science (and the scripture) that suits you, lit Luther? Or are you going to just hurl another insult?
No not really Luther.
I always feel that it is right to respect other peoples' beliefs and not cause offence. I would never deliberately rubbish what a Buddhist, Jew, Hindu or anyone else believed by deliberately being offensive and blaspheming about things they hold dear. I don't consider that sort of thing is in the spirit of Christianity.
As for saying all the things that Maalie says about science is codswallop speaks for itself. There is absolutely no need for comment.
Ted: I had some wonderful experiences with the Toronto Movement, but then things started to get out of hand and that's when I stopped participating.
"I always feel that it is right to respect other peoples' beliefs and not cause offence."
I agree, sort of. I respect others, because God made them in His image.
And I may not respect the belief so much. It depnds on what it is.
I try not to go out of my way to mock other religions. I do try to confess the truth of the Gospel. Not just a gospel, but the gospel of Scripture.
And by simply stating the true gospel, I have had people call me intolerant, and all sorts of things.
If Jesus, who was compassioante and loving, was mocked for telling the truth in love, how much more will His disciples be mocked at times.
Jesus said the world will hate you to His disciples. He said, "If the world hates Me, then it will hate you." This was the religious elite of His day who Jesus refered to as the world. Though the pagans hated Him as well, and scourged Him, and spit in His face, and shoved a crown of thorns on His head, as they laughed and mocked.
And there will be those who don't hate us, and those who didn't hate Jesus. There are unbelievers and believers who are friends in this life. And that's a blessing to me. In fact I have more pleasant dialog with you Llama, and Mallie, then I have had with some in the Church.
I appreciate how Susan allows us to discuss these things here.
Maalie,
I actually said nothing on Hawking, whom I know nothing about.
No. I'm not holding my breath at all. The nature of science is always further investigation. They can't say they have the final answer with all confidence through that kind of knowledge.
The knowledge I would say is different is relational and personal. Something science can only observe and maybe give all kinds of natural explanations on it. But it is different.
When you connect well with someone, that's an example.
Knowledge spoken of in Scripture involves love, and it says that if we don't love than we don't know really, in that realm of knowledge.
(what a morning! quick break here, so hope this was coherent.)
Thank you Donsands for your courtesy!
Lorenzo, I believe I said "most", not "all", of Maalie's points were codswallop.
Maalie, you're right about one thing: modesty is not one of my virtues, but I admire it when I see it in others.
BTW: One way you can surely convince me of something, is when you can back it up solidly with Scripture. The Bible is my final authority for everything. Perhaps that’s why I don’t usually find your arguments persuasive.
>Perhaps that’s why I don’t usually find your arguments persuasive.
Oh, let me take the opportunity of displaying my modesty, Litl Luther. They are not my arguments at all (though I have made a modest contribution to ecologiy during my career). They are the arguments of the whole of the orthodox peer-reviewed scientific community. You know, the scientific community upon which your medical treatment (should you need it), your computer and your society depends. Now, tell me exactly which bit of scientific evidence you dispute and I can enter into a dialogue with you. Halfmom appears to accept some evidence, but claims to have a different interpretation (but won't tell us what this is.
On what basis do you decide which bits of the science to cherry-pick Litl Luther?
I think the term "Inconvenient Truth" has been used elsewhere. Sorry for the inconvenience Litl Luther.
>I actually said nothing on Hawking, whom I know nothing about.
Fair point Ted.
Stephen Hawking. Quite impressive credentials, wouldn't you say?
Hey Don: I'm not sure it is very easy to preach the gospel and not offend other religions. If Jesus is THE way to God and THE truth and THE life, then every other supposed way to God and every other truth people proclaim is a lie, including Maalie's form of truth, Hinduism's, Buddhism's, etc. Everything that doesn't line up with the truth of Christ is lie and more than that, the truth they proclaim can only lead to death because Jesus alone is life. That's not offensive? I think it is offensive, but THE TRUTH still needs to be told, in love of course, but putting a silencer on a gun doesn't make the bullet less painful. It just makes it less noisy.
>other supposed truth people proclaim are all lies, including Maalie's form of truth
Oh Lord, not another straw man !. "Truth", "believe" and "proof" are not normally the words of science ('proof' is used in mathematics). We talk about the most parsimonious explanation that fits the evidence available. And that, I am afraid, contradicts any notion that a man could survive in the guts of a fish for three days; that human diversity could stem from a group as small as Noah's family; that there was ever a great flood; and on and on and on...
We do not need to invoke the supernatural to explain the origin and development of life on earth.
If Stephen Hawking would only put his faith in Jesus he would one day be able to "walk" into the Kingdom of God. ...though he doesn't seem very antagonistic toward Christianity. When asked whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity."
Oh, Litl Luther, you still avoid answering my question about how you cherry-pick the aspects of science that suit you and dismiss others that don't.
The reason is that you can't. You seem to be bogged down in a morass of indoctrination.
Simon: Mate, you have a bit of catching up to do. Over 40 comments since you put up yours, and still going :-)
> If Stephen Hawking would only put his faith in Jesus
I refer to him only as the eminent scientist who predicts that the next generation will "have the answer to everything". Why should such a brilliant man want to put his faith in a delusion? It is contrary to all the evidence.
You are rather fond of these "straw men" aren't you Lit'l Luther? Why not try disputing his assertion head on? You could become quite famous!
We do not need to invoke the supernatural to explain the origin and development of life on earth.
An argument can be made, I suppose, that we do not need to "petition or call forth," but if by invoke, we mean to cite as authority, why not? A refusal to cite as authority would only make sense if He is not the author of creation, but what if He is? After all, I use an owner's manual from the manufacturer as authoritative for instructions on other things, and it seems quite sensible to do so.
>but if by invoke, we mean to cite as authority, why not?
Because there is no need to. There is a perfectly acceptable scientific explanation for the origin and development of life on earth without invoking the supernatural. To require the supernatural introduces another assumption which, by definition, renders it less parsimonious.
As Richard Dawkins has pointed out so eloquently (I know, I know, you lot hate him for his eloquence), you don't need to prove that life evolved in any particular way, you only need to demonstrate that it could have. And then you don't need God.
God was invented by mankind to explain the inexplicable at the time. Fortunately, we have improved our knowledge and understanding of the way the world operates since that ancient book was written. For example, we now understand the refractive properties of raindrops and why rainbows exist; that bats are not birds; and that a man can't survive in the guts of a fish for three days.
Maalie: I'm glad you mentioned mathematics. As a scientist and evolutionist, could you tell us what is the mathematical possibility of life forming by chance, and then what is the mathematical possibility of random mutation? Below is a good quote on the subject. Can you prove these calculations wrong?
Consider a very simple putative organism composed of only 200 integrated and functioning parts….The developing organism, at each successive stage, must itself be integrated and functioning in its environment in order to survive until the next stage. Each successive stage, of course, becomes statistically less likely than the preceding one….the successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires, at least, 200 successive, successful such "mutations," each of which is highly unlikely. Even evolutionists recognize that true mutations are very rare, and beneficial mutations are extremely rare—not more than one out of a thousand mutations are beneficial, at the very most. But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)200, or one chance out of 1060. The number 1060, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."
I could agree that we don't need God to explain these things if God didn't make them and if He was indeed invented by man. But what if it's the other way around, that mankind was invented by God, and He is the creator? If He actually did it, then it is a mistake (that's an understatement) to deny it.
I don't hate Dawkins. As long as I don't receive his ad hominem personally, I find him to be clever and humorous. The poison that he preaches is only harmful to those who swallow it. Obviously, I am opposed to some content, but I say again: not the man himself. A man is more than a few speeches and books.
>As a scientist and evolutionist, could you tell us what is the mathematical possibility of life forming by chance
It sounds like you think you have your own answer already Litl Luther, and are not really interested in mine! LOL! But i will persevere!
Leaving aside the fact that we talk in terms of probability not possibility, the answer to your question is easy, frnm a number of perspectives.
Firstly, however low the probability, it will happen in time (time is on the side of chance, explains Richard Dawkins).
Secondly I can say decisively that that the probability is 1 - that is, certainty. It has happened, so the probability is unity.
It is the difference between viewing something a priori and a posteriori. Thus the chances of you winning the national lottery are minuscule a priori; however, somebody usually does win, Lit Luther, and from the lucky winner's a posteriori perspective it is a certainty.
Litl Luther, my charming friend, if you genuinely dispute the evolution of species by natural selection, may I invite you to offer your musings to your esteemed national learned societies? As I say, you could become quite famous if you can find an alternative explanation that fits the evidence!
>But what if it's the other way around, that mankind was invented by God, and He is the creator? If He actually did it, then it is a mistake (that's an understatement) to deny it.
I respect your view Craver Vii, but there are too many "ifs and buts" in there. I can simply retort "What if he didn't?". Science can never prove the non-involvement of God, but it can assert that its probability that it is so low as to be out of the frame for consideration. It boils down to parsimoniousness (is that a word, my spell-check doesn't like it - maybe it is parsimoniosity!). In science you do not introduce assumptions that are unnecessary. We do not need to involve the supernatural, so why should be? Any more than we need to invoke the supernatural to explain rainbows. We would need to invoke the supernatural to explain how a man could survive in the guts of a fish for three days, but like it or not, most people (indeed, most Christians) don't buy into that.
I accept your point about Dawkins, thank you.
Another quote:
"Life cannot have had a random beginning. The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (10 to the 20th) to the 2,000th = 10 to the 40,000th, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space
10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!
How can one gain some conception of the size of such a huge number? According to most Evolutionists, the universe is less than 30 billion years old, and there are fewer than 10 to the 18th (1018) seconds in 30 billion years. So, even if nature could somehow have produced trillions of genetic code combinations every second for 30 billion years, the probabilities against producing the simplest one-celled animal by trial and error would still be inconceivably immense!
Again, can you prove these calculations wrong? If not, then the belief evolutionists would like us to espouse, in the words of Hoyle is "nonsense of a high order".
>We do not need to invoke the supernatural to explain the origin and development of life on earth.
But what you do need to explain the origins of life in your hypothesis is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it — which are the odds against it being true! I wonder how many consecutive times a person would need to win the lottery to equal these odds.
As far as I am aware, Fred Hoyle is a science fiction writer and has rather unorthodox views. I have read some of his stuff - most entertaining. I can't find much support in the peer-reviewed scientific literature
Again, can you prove these calculations wrong? If not, then the belief evolutionists would like us to espouse, in the words of Hoyle is "nonsense of a high order".
I suggest you take this up with your learned societies, Litl Luther. See what they say. Since it has happened, it happened, however low the odds. You and I are here to demonstrate the fact! Sorry of that spoils your day.
I was in the Darwin Exhibition in the Natural History Museum of London a week or two ago. Superb display, the man was a genius.
So still no reply to my question about how you cherry-pick the science that you do accept!
(Science) can assert that its probability that it is so low as to be out of the frame for consideration... In science you do not introduce assumptions that are unnecessary. We do not need to involve the supernatural, so why should be?
First, how is that different from your frequent rebuttals against incredulity?
Second, inasmuch as "the supernatural" is involved, we should acknowledge the same. The opinions of a sliver of humanity do not make it real, but whatever is real is what I want to believe.
Unfortunately, one element of belief is beyond our arguments. God has chosen to pour out his grace on some. As long as you still have breath in you, I would not deny that you could be among the elect, and we just don't see it yet from where we are. Like Saul of Tarsus, you fight Him tooth and nail. But the day may come when He "knocks you off your horse" and draws you to Himself, and you will find that you have learned a level of certainty that you did not know before.
>But what you do need to explain the origins of life in your hypothesis is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it — which are the odds against it being true!
Those figures are disputed Litl Luther, and you well know it. You are cherry-picking your information now, not surprising!
I accept that the one big element of chance was the initial replication mechanism and that took billions of years to arise, but time is on the side of chance. One natural selection takes over, the rest is relatively fast. I suggest you do some proper reading, not cherry-pick at the quasi-scentific mis-information put about by the fundamentalist fraternity.
I'm afraid must leave this now - not out of peevishness, but I am going away for a well-earned holiday tomorrow and I need to prepare. I will continue from an internet cafe in deepest darkest Europe (in fact not far from where the Neanderthal fossils were found!) if I get an opportunity.
Regards to all and the Newlyweds!
>Since it has happened, it happened, however low the odds. You and I are here to demonstrate the fact!
Your response is so humorous! I can just as easily point to you and I as proof that God exists: In your words, "You and I are here to demonstrate the fact!"
Thanks for the laugh.
Post a Comment