So, the health news update requested by Craver is this - the glenoid labrum of the left shoulder is torn, with only a little more than half still attached to the bone. Subsequent tearing of the biceps tendon as well has led to destabilization of the shoulder joint. With each movement the arm bone wiggles about in the joint (and sometimes out of the joint too, boo!); and each time it does, it hits nerves - ouch!
The surgery is scheduled for the 24th of March, about 10 days before Olivia and Drew marry. They wanted to do surgery today but I have a week-long business meeting a thousand miles away starting Friday. Apparently flying and surgery do not go well together. So, March 24th it is. Don't you think I'll look cute as the mother of the bride going down the aisle in a sling? Olivia is threatening to "bedazzle" it for me to match the wedding party; but, um, I declined.
Now it's time for ice again and I don't want to do it. I hate ice and would much rather curl up with a heating pad. Lovely, warm heat just seems so much more appropriate for pain. Ice is so harsh, so uncomfortable, so COLD! But, as it turns out, heat actually makes it worse, more swelling, more pain, more damage. And it leads me to wonder why my inclinations are almost always backwards to what is right or wise.
I guess it's no wonder that this, as it represents repetition on a theme over the course of my life, brings to mind a Bible verse. Both Proverbs 14:12 and 16:25 say, "There is a way that seems right to a man but its end is the way of death". Some things seem so good, so right, so necessary - just like the warmth of the heating pad - but they lead to death. Sometimes the death is spiritual and sometimes physical as well. In this case, it is literal death of muscle tissue! How scary is that??
I wonder how often I choose other things that seem right rather than look first at God's perspective from Scriptures? And when I do know what God has revealed in Scripture as right or wrong, how often do I actually heed these truths, incorporating them in a practical way into the fabric of my life?
Certainly questions worth pondering.
163 comments:
I guess there must be some relief that the problem has been diagnosed and action is possible. I hope that the pain doesn't become unbearable in the meantime and I wish you all the best for March 24th.
Thank Maalie. It is actually quite a relief to have a diagnosis. It sounds rather perverse to say, but when the silly thing subluxated in the physical therapist's hands, no matter how painful it was, it was a good thing because she could tell me what had just happened! It is a relief to know it's not "in my head". Chronic pain issues, particulary in women are always lumped into somatic complaints unless there is hard proof that it is otherwise - and this frustrates me to no end!
The pain is reasonably under control wth the use of a sling when needed. I'm toying with the pain medications to titrate them for maximal effect with minimal side effect. I don't quite have that one down yet but am working through it. So, the meeting, which is very long and tiring as it is scientifically dense as well as socially challenging for an introvert, will be a good test!
Are you back from holiday?
>Are you back from holiday?
Holiday? What's that? In my religion every day is a holiday! Actually I am getting a bit twitchy, I have only three plane bookings in my folder (I feel comfortable when I have 5+). Don't get me wrong, I'm not THAT extravagant, however with these "no-frills" European airlines, the average cost of a flight into Europe is less than to fill my car with petrol (I guess you call that gas, but in England our motor fuel is liquid).
I hope your trip goes well. The juxtaposition of the moon and planets are looking good for you.
May I ask if your daughter and prospective son-in-law are drawing up a legal pre-nuptial contract? In my humble opinion I think that s a good idea.
Poor Susan. I hope the operation is successful and you look a beautiful 'mother-of-the-bride' at the wedding!
"...call that gas; fuel is liquid." That's so funny!! Who on earth decided that we Americans should call motor fuel by such a name?!
I'm not a big fan of prenups, but I can understand why they would be more useful these days. I have no prenup. I'm glad I don't, but I try to be careful about reckless criticism in this area.
Susan, my small-group host (Greg) will be wearing a sling around the same time. That means he won't be playing bass for a while.
Sorry about the pain in your shoulder. Your analogy about the heat vs cold - what seems right vs what is actually good for us is brilliant.
BTW, someone asked you a followup question to your insightful comment on my blog. If you have the time or inclination, would love your response
>I wonder how often I choose other things that seem right rather than look first at God's perspective from Scriptures?
Probably because what is written in the scripture is mythology and is so ambiguous you would be confused as to know what is actually right.
Also, what was considered "right" two thousand years ago may not be appropriate today. For example, they thought it was "right" to classify a bat as a bird. And they thought it was "right" that humanity, in all its spectacular diversity, has stemmed from a handful of people on Noah's boat during the Bronze Age.
Personally, I think you are right to accept the advice of your doctors.
Bon courage with the wedding preparations. Will it be a "big do"? Have they chosen the music?
Maalie,
So often you have commented about how unreasonable it is for Christians to believe that all humans originated from just two people. Yet, doesn't the evolution theory maintain that all life, not just all humans, originated from one first living organism eons ago (I would even agree with that, though that first living One that all life came from I know as God). Anyhow, what are your thoughts exactly on the origins of life? Just curious. Do you think all life species came from one first living organism or from many?
I’m not trying to start an evolution debate. Just wondering what you think.
We'll be praying for your operation on March 24th, Susan. ...maybe you should let Oliva jazz up your sling a bit.
May the Lord Jesus' grace be abundantly upon you Susan throughout this time, and especially on March 24th. Amen.
"Probably because what is written in the scripture is mythology and is so ambiguous you would be confused as to know what is actually right."
How about "Love your neighbor as yourself". Or, "Esteem others higher than yourself." Or, speak evil of no man." Or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
And "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive those who are debtors to us.'
And Jesus said, as He was being tortured and crucified, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
Here's a Man who back up His teachings.
This isn't mythology Maalie. This is real as real can be. Jesus was real.
Good to hear from you again.
Donsands:
>How about "Love your neighbor as yourself". Or, "Esteem others higher than yourself." Or, speak evil of no man." Or, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
Many cultures express such sentiments. I don't require the bible to tell me THAT!!
Litl Luther: The big difference is time. Noah could not have had the technology to build such an advanced ship (big enough to put a gazillion animals) before the bronze age when decent tools became available.
It is genetically impossible for human diversity as we know it today to have arisen in such a short time from Noah and his family who are alleged to have survived the mythological flood.
As for the origins of life, may I suggest you start your reading here - it is far too complex a topic for me to deal with in a couple of lines in a blog comment.
If you have other ideas, I am sure that the Royal Society would be genuinely pleased to hear about your alternative evidential suggestions.
>This isn't mythology Maalie. This is real as real can be. Jesus was real.
The Garden of Eden, talking snakes and Noah's ship are mythology. I have never questioned the existence of a man called Jesus. Quite a cult hero in his day, I should imagine.
"Many cultures express such sentiments. I don't require the bible to tell me THAT!!"
Where did these other cultures come up with "Love your neighbor as yourself."
And Jesus even tells us, "Love your enemies. Do good to those who harm you."
And of course Jesus backed up His words when He died on the Cross, and those who spat on Him, scourged Him, mocked Him, and drove spikes through His feet and wrists, who were His enemies, He declared to his Father while in excruciating pain, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."
And then, of course, I believe this same Jesus died, and was buried, and He rose three days later from the tomb, and so His testimony is verified.
>He rose three days later from the tomb, and so His testimony is verified.
I can't accept that testimony, it is simply too unlikely. We have only the evidence of what some man wrote down. We have no way of independently checking that what he wrote is true.
I am not asserting that all that is written in the bible is no longer relevant today. It was written with the best knowledge and understanding available at the time, but that has advanced beyond measure in the ensuing time. Taxonomists no longer classify bats as birds. Just imagine how the bible might have been written if the human genome had been elucidated in those days! That would have thrown Adam and Eve right out of the window!
"We have no way of independently checking that what he wrote is true."
There is very good evidence from the Bible, however, you are correct Maalie, and it comes down to faith, or trusting what the Scriptures tell us.
You have been a jolly good sport, if I can use one of your wonderful British colloquials. I hope that's an edifying phrase, it's meant to be for sure.
Donsands: Yes, I agree. However, the problem I have with "Christian faith" is that it can be very selective of scientific evidence. For example the science of genetics is happily embraced for cuiring disease, paternity suits, crime solving by DNA fingerprinting and so on. Yet the very same science is rejected when it demonstrates phylogeny, or why it is impossible for today's human diversity to have arisen from just two people, later filtered doiwn to Noah's family. How can fundamentalists happily accept some applications of science, which are convenient for them, but reject others which aren't?
Actually Maalie, Christianity is not selective with scientific evidence at all. We just don't look at the data and come to the same conclusions you do. Data are always subject to interpretation.
We all would acknowledge that some of the language in the Bible is descriptive, even poetic, rather than scientific (bats as birds being a great example of descriptive language). The two things are not mutually exclusive - descriptive language and scientific processes that is. I can tell you that you "flew like a bird" down the mountain side (remember your picture when you were hiking with your friend?) and you would understand exactly what I meant - and it wouldn't have been literal flying. I could also describe your emotions as soaring and you would understand perfectly, for indeed they did. Just because that is not a scientific description does not mean that it is not true. Rater, the things compliment each other and we therefore have a richer understanding of the moment.
There is always a reason when "scientific data" are in conflict with scripture, we just don't know what it is and are willing to be ope-minded about it. My bet is that science doesn't yet have a complete picture of what is going on. I'm comfortable leaving it at that and waiting.
One day we will have the whole picture, but not yet. Now we walk by faith - not blind faith - but faith that is backed by the reality of walking with a real person called Jesus Christ on a daily basis.
Maalie,
One of my biggest objections to your arguments is that you don’t accept the testimony of the myriad of people whose lives have been radically changed by Jesus Christ.
I would bet if 1000 scientists performed the same experiment and came back with the same results, you would accept that their finds are true. So many people providing the same results would be overwhelming evidence to you.
...But we have countless more people than that who have turned their lives over to Jesus Christ and have found Him to be a real and true, living Saviour who changes lives. How come you take no stock in our testimonies (our identical findings)? We have each preformed the same experiment if you will (i.e. turning our lives over to Jesus). And we have each come back from that experiment with the same results (e.g. He completely transformed our lives).
...and these experiments ARE repeatable and they ARE verifiable.
>We just don't look at the data and come to the same conclusions you do. Data are always subject to interpretation.
Of course, I agree with that. But I do wish you would offer your alternative conclusions to the Royal Society to see how they stand up under peer review. I'm sure the scientific community would welcome them most heartily.
>the testimony of the myriad of people whose lives have been radically changed by Jesus Christ.
I wonder if it anything like the myriad of people who have, as I have, seen the light, have been born again by recognising the powerful influence of superstition and have cast off the shroud of delusion.
I would bet if 1000 scientists performed the same experiment and came back with the same results, you would accept that their finds are true.
"True" is not a word that is used in science. The key word is evidence. Science attempts to offer the best explanation with the evidence available. As more evidence becomes available the explanation may be modified or revised. That is progress. If four scientists independently achieved the same outcome from an experiment one would have to accept that as strong evidence. But as Halfmom has pointed out, the conclusions might differ. This is where the peer-reviewed scientific community works - all data are available for open scrutiny.
The problem that I (and most others) have with the bible is that it is a tautology. If I ask a student to define a metre, there is a good chance I would get the reply "100 centimetres". Ok, what is a centimetre? "A hundredth of a metre". It's a circular argument.
In the same way, fundamentalists assert that "It's true because it's in the bible"; and: "It's in the bible, so it must be true" - a circular argument.
I know from my personal experience that Christianity has lost countless recruits because of stubborn inflexibility by fundamentalists over such impossibilities as the Garden of Eden and Noah's Ark. If you accept the science of modern medicine and technology, then you must accept the science that exposes these biblical impossibilities.
In fact I read an article not so long ago that claimed that fundamentalists actually find Noah's Ark an embarrassment because they know deep down in their blood pumps that it is a geological impossibility, but have to "go along with it" nevertheless. Do you agree?
Oh, how would you define a metre? LOL!
Oh Halfmom, forgive me, but I must return to this point. The bible doesn't say that a bat is like a bird; it explicitly classifies bats as birds. That is what was believed at the time, with the knowledge and understanding that was available, fair enough. In the meantime, our knowledge and understanding of phylogeny has developed and we now classify bats with Mammalia rather than with Aves.
Similarly, we now understand the reasons why it is impossible for human diversity, as it exists today, to have arisen from the members of Noah's family in the ridiculously short time since the Bronze Age. It seems such a simple point to make.
>We just don't look at the data and come to the same conclusions you do.
When you refer to "me" I am sure you appreciate that you are referring to the whole of the orthodox scientific community, which of course includes your own brilliant American scientists.
Maalie, no one every claimed that the Bible was a science text book; it just isn't. It doesn't bother me that bats were classified as birds. Nor do I find the Garden of Eden or Noah's Ark a problem either.
He's a big God and He can, and does, whatever He deems best - by His definition. We are too finite to be able to understand much of it and that's why it seems so impossible. But that is a problem with us, not Him. My goodness, you seem to forget that I think He spoke the whole of creation into being. Why would I think the other things were impossible? They seem small beans compared with that!
As to other scientists, yes I mean the I stand against the whole of mainstream science when it comes to God and His Son, Jesus Christ. I'm a peon as a scientist, but there are some that you would consider reputable, such as the head of the Human Genome project, Sir Francis Collins.
Halfmom, I accept you have made a good point by referring to Sir Francis Collins. But allow me to quote him (in an interview to CNN):
Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
He is evidently not a fundamentalist but he seems to regard God in a similar manner to Einstein, (words to the effect, not a quote) that anything that is currently not explainable by science may called "God".
Clearly Collins does accept creditable scientific evidence, so far as we have it, as a valid explanation of the origin and development of life on earth.
I cannot at the moment trace a citation (but I do have a lot of books to sift through!) but I would bet my bottom dollar that he doesn't believe there was flood that drowned the whole wide world as recently as the Bronze Age.
I'd actually be much more interested Maalie in what Sir Francis thinks about Jesus Christ.
Maalie,
You always seem to assume that all Christians believe it was a worldwide flood, but I've mentioned before that "world" in the Bible does not always mean the whole planet, and that I think it was more likely a flood localized to that part of the earth — that humans had not been scattered throughout the earth yet (that happens in Genesis 11) so it did not need to be worldwide to destroy the human race. Moreover, all the animals on board were probably just those found in that local part of the earth (making the event quite possible indeed, and no kangaroos needed on the ark!).
BTW: Here's a recent discovery: “83 ancient (13,000-year-old) tools of the Clovis people — ice age hunter-gatherers who remain a puzzle to anthropologists....The tools reveal an unexpected level of sophistication.” Isn’t this amazing?! Ancient tools more sophisticated than anthropologists would have ever expected? ...I wonder if Noah might also have had some “unexpected, sophisticated tools” of his own? After all, God told him exactly how to build the ark. Perhaps God also told him the exact tools he would need to build it!
You keep assuming Noah was from the Bronze Age, but actually he was before people scattered throughout the earth (which is surely before the Bronze Age). No one knew how to build a ship before God showed Noah. Perhaps God told him how to make the tools he needed as well. Why is that so unreasonable to you??
Ancient tools link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090226/ap_on_re_us/ancient_tools
Amen, Susan. Excellent post. I most fully and wholeheartedly agree!!!
Ouch and so sorry to hear the grisly details, though good to find out so we can better pray for you. For God's grace and peace in Jesus. For our growth in him through the hard times. And for God's help and protection over you.
Deb and I will most definitely be praying!
Just imagine what a genius Leonardo da Vinci was, to create and discover all the things he did. What an inventor! I would imagine that if da Vinci had been born in the time of Noah, he would have still created fantastic things. Genius like his cannot be contained or held back.
...now imagine if God had dictated to da Vinci the blueprints needed for building the world’s first ship. Do you really think da Vinci couldn't have built it? He would have built a masterpiece!
God gave Noah the blueprints and the know-how to build the ark.
Interesting thread.
Of course Maalie, Francis Collins is a firm believer in macro-evolution, but he's also a firm believer in Jesus- yes even an evangelical.
You ought to read his book, because in it he's speaking both to his fellow evangelicals as well as to scientists like you. After all, he was once an atheist himself as I recall, and an agnostic for a long time as well. I do think highly of the book, myself, and need to get my own copy.
> that "world" in the Bible does not always mean the whole planet, and that I think it was more likely a flood localized to that part of the earth
Oh Lord, here we go again! All down to personal interpretation - the bible can mean anything you want it to!
The problem we skeptics have is that you only have to cast doubt on the meaning of one verse in the bible and the whole lot comes tumbling down like a house of cards!
Halfmom: I think Ted has answered your point. I will need to check out what he thinks about the virgin birth and resurrection. I don;t think anybody doesn't believe that Jesus existed as a cult hero.
>God gave Noah the blueprints and the know-how to build the ark
If you say so Litl Luther. But Noah would have needed tools to cut the wood, trim it, construct the vessel. The archaeology of ship-building is well-understood (you don't reject the science of archaeology as well, do you?). It could not have happened before the Bronze Age, which is very very recent in the history of man's existence on earth. I'm sorry if I sound repetitive but even Sir Francis Collins (revered so myth by Halfmom) would not accept that human diversity as we see it today could have evolved from such a small a group as Noah's family in such a puny period of time. Genetically ridiculous. Oh, and no rainbows before the Bronze Age, eh?
Frankly, I think that most fundamentalists don't really believe this stuff, they just have to make out they do in order not to lose face with their peers. It sort of gives them an identity.
>revered so myth by Halfmom
Oooops! Sorry, revered so much by Halfmom. I must have myths on my mind! LOL!
Maalie, you keep telling us how the Bible can mean whatever you want it to, but if you would only use some of your God-given intelligence, instead of closing your mind like a blabbering fool and burying your head in the sand, you would see that God's Word is beyond you too! …And before I hear a number of complaints or about “ad hominem” arguments, fool IS the correct word for you, at least according to God any way.
I'm done wasting my time.
>closing your mind like a blabbering fool and burying your head in the sand
OK, that's it from me, this is getting too personal and offensive now. They sound like the desperate words of a man who has lost his cool trying to defend the indefensible.
And you describe it, Litl Luther, an archetypal ad hominem response; unable to rationally discuss the evidence, you attack the man. Classic, I have copied and saved this as an example - thank you!
Of course the bible can mean anything you want it to, everyone has their own opinion as to what it means (or, rather, what they want it to mean).
I'm gone. Best wishes to you all.
Lt'l Luther,
Actually "fool" in the context given in the Scripture is for those who live as though there is no God, though they believe differently. They are behaving as if God does not exist.
Look at Psalm 14. It is an indictment against all the human race initially. Then it turns to judgment against the wicked oppressors of the poor. Psalm 10:4 is closely related, I believe. Again, it needs to be read in the context of the entire psalm. I think it ends up saying largely the same thing. And both end up saying that God will judge and right all wrongs.
There was no enlightenment atheism at that time, so Scripture does not address that, at least not in the way you are saying here. "Fool" is used quite advisedly, or carefully in Scripture. Foolish is used more loosely, and I must say I can be foolish rather easily, at least in my thoughts at times (hopefully repented of before they lead to words or actions).
I actually think the modern day atheist might be closer to God than they realize. They often remind me more of those in Scripture who argue with God and ask God why the world is in such a mess if God is God. While many religious people, even calling themselves Christians live as though God does not exist, really. Or at least that God is largely irrelevant. Those are closer to who the psalm is talking about, but especially evildoers, such as those in Darfur and elsewhere. This last part is my own take from just the suggestion raised in my reading.
...actually I may have picked up more of that last part in my reading than I remember. But I certainly agree with it!
Ted,
The most relevant texts on this subject being Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1 and Romans 1:22-25 indicate that God's very definition of a fool is one who denies God's existence. ...but you are free to disagree with me.
Lt'l Luther,
Psalm 53 does precisely the same thing the earlier passages I refer to do.
Romans 1:22-25 in context is about God's wrath/judgment of sinful humanity. Yes, that refers to idolatry and takes many forms, something (idolatry) even we Christians can struggle with, though that's not the point of the text. It indicts everyone as sinners in need of the Savior.
Back in a previous comment I should have capitalized "enlightenment" because the Enlightenement was a part of the Modern era of Western philosophy which elevated reason above revelation and for the most part entertained a Deistic God at the most, or lapsed into agnosticism or atheism.
Probably most of you here know this, or have some wind of it. But I just wanted to clarify that.
"Best wishes to you all." -Maalie
Thanks, and best wishes to you as well.
torn shoulder muscles? Ouch & Woah!
I just got my hand out of a cast having broken it 8 weeks ago... they found other breaks in the arm that have never healed possibly from a motor cycle accident or when I used to break in horses (and get kicked or thrown)
When I broke my arm I was very annoyed and kept working, I iced it- (yuk) and then thought it would get better overnight...it did not. I am suposed to do the same with my knees and hips...
the next day I sat in hospital for 8 hours and the doctors could not belive I did not want pain killers... I said I cannot tell what pain is worse...
The trick with pain is to make it your friend... :0)
oh! I just read Litl Luthers line calling Mallie a fool...
how disapointing Luther... I was just about to go to church.... ;o)
Maalie,
I want to apologies to you. I was way too harsh with you. You are right that I lost my cool (which has happened much more often than it should, and not just with you but with loads of people) defending the incomprehensible and unassailable.
Any how, you are a man created in God's image, and not only for this reason, you are worthy of great respect for a number of reasons. I'm sorry for disrespecting you.
....the one good thing that came out of this is that my thoughtless comments kept Simon from attending a church. Just kidding Simo! …I’m glad to see you back here!
No, there will be no prenuptial agreement. We actually trust each other and endeavor to follow Jesus Christ in love for one another, which means we'll never divorce. No divorce = no prenup. It's as simple as that. Prenup agreements are an advance warning that you don't trust the other person and/or you don't plan on being faithful to them. But that's not us.
Amen Andrew! Now if only the other fifty-plus-percent Christians who divorce would follow your leading and view marriage as “for life”, rather than till you're unhappy, there would stop being such a high percentage of divorce in America, even among professing Christians.
...No offense to you American ladies, but THE major reason why I married a Nepalese woman is because I didn't want our marriage to end in divorce (so I guess I don't trust the lot of you!) Almost every American girlfriend I ever had cheated on me. When I realized that Nepalese women actually do view marriage as "for life" (the 1% divorce rate here testifies to that fact), I decided I would marry a Nepalese woman for that very reason.
I hope your marriage does last for life Andrew. That's my prayer for you and Olivia.
I think the divorce rate is higher in western countries because women have a "choice" they do not have to depend on a man for their very own survival, and if they are not happy (and visa versa) then why not end it?
Frankly I do not have a high view of marrage at all, seems nonsense to me.
Sure, a public declaration of affection for each other but in this day and age of equal rights, better health and education for women.. well, I think "marrage" is antiquated.
So, in the 3rd world where the poor women are treated as 2nd rate, have no work oppertunities and in some cases are barted like cattle, then i can understand why they would put up with a relationship that might be fundamentally floored.
A western woman would not and I say "hooray"....
I say to Andrew- don't worry if it does not last for life- friendships come and go....
;o)
flawed! (stupid boy that I am)
BTW I have been married for 25 years....ahahahah....
"Frankly I do not have a high view of marrage at all, seems nonsense to me."
The Christian who follows the Word of God sees marriage as from God.
"Husbands love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, and we are to cherish our wives as the Lord the Church. ...a man ... shall be joined unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church." Eph. 25-32
Marriage is all about Christ first and foremost for me, I want to honor Him in my marriage and be the husband he wants me to be. And my wife has been a precious gift from the Lord, and she has put up with me way beyond what I could ever deserve. She showed me tons of grace, and by God's grace I have been able to love her as Christ commands; at least in the manner of sacrificial love, if not to the degree that I need to. But I am still growing in His grace and knowledge.
Simon, you've been married 25 years? I guess you take good care of your wife. It's sad to hear of the gross mistreatment of women that has gone on all over the world for so long. I hope the women in my life (family, friends, co-workers) can testify that I have been more helpful than harmful.
its actually 4.. but 6 has a nice ring to it...
Hi Don... yes, yes, yes, I know all that... but its antiquated stuff (especially the "obey" clause)
I would no more expect my wife to "obey" me than fly to the moon...
Was proabably relevent and "nice" a few thousand years ago...
Craver! thats what I like to here for real! yes 25 years and I have 4 kids ( or is that 6?? I can never remember) too...
and I have told them NEVER to visit me, once they have kids...or at least give me time to get out of the house before they arrive....
Yes. Women bartered like cattle. Sounds like the dalry system in India. But why should this surprise anyone that people are sinners? Such evil practices originate in evil false religions. It is Christ that has taught us to love our wives. So many peoples of the world would still be headhunter savages, rather than loving husbands, if it were not for Jesus Christ.
…very relevant topic for me as today is my and Jaya’s 9th anniversary!
Happy Anniversary Triston & Jaya!!
"Was proabably relevent and "nice" a few thousand years ago..." Simon
It shall always be true and right for me. That's how I see God's Word and kingdom.
I am cool with that Don. Thats up to you.
Luther- I do not "buy" the idea that we were all savages.
I am quite sure that my relos (Vikings n all) loved their wives. I do not agree that "before christ" there was just sin....
I do belive there was choice as there is today...
congrates on 9 years mate!
The secrest to a sucessful marrage...?
don't get caught.
ahahahahahaha! ;o)
secrest??? blah! secret!
Finally back from a scientific meeting and have regular internet access again.
Happy anniversary Triston and Jaya!
Simon, wherever did I get the notion that you had been through a bad divorce and raising children on your own? My goodness I shall have to be more careful with my flirting from now on! I'm glad your arm and hand are on the mend!!
Craver, welcome home. I will look forward to seeing some small baby pictures in person soon rather than just via internet!
Maalie, did you and Triston make up yet. I do see an apology here from him - that is what you were doing Triston, wasn't it?
Andrew - I love you son and trust my daughter into your care. While I know she is perfectly capable of taking care of herself, I know her life will be richer and fuller because you are in it.
Don - we would all do well to have as high a view of marriage as God does. Not only would it keep a lot more together, it would better serve to reflect the image of Christ and the Church.
Yes. Susan. I was apologizing to Maalie—not groveling at his feet—yet doing my needful obligation to him—though I don't deserve that he will accept it—nevertheless, I believe Maalie to be of high enough character and thick enough skin that he will—as you were\are.
Man! I could have written the Pauline epistles with sentences this long!
Halfmom: I trust that your conference was successful. I haven't been sulking, I have simply been too busy to look in, with intensive fieldwork before going away for a well-deserved holiday on Sunday.
Litl Luther: It was not particularly the "fool" allegation that I found offensive (I have been called worse, including enthusiastic), but your hypocrisy on two counts. First your allegation of "closed-mindedness". Science, by its nature, is the ultimate in open-mindedness (I mean science not individual scientists among whom you can find corruption as in even the clergy). Science does not purport to know the answer to anything, rather it merely offers the best explanation for a state of affairs using the evidence available. As more evidence becomes available the explanation may be modified or even replaced. This includes biblical evidence which has been considered but rejected in the light of more parsimonious explanations.
On the other hand, fundamentalists have already decided what the answer to everything is, based on a 2000 year old book of myths. All else is rejected. Dogma and dogmatic have the same root. The ultimate in closed mindedness.
On the second count I consider you to be hypocritical for your selective use of the science of which you do embrace. Thus, for example, you appear to embrace DNA science in medicine and crime-solving, but reject it in phylogeny. It's the same science. The science which you accept in medicine is the same science that rejects the notion that human diversity as we now see it could have arisen from so small a group as Noah's family so very recently in the history of mankind on this planet. It is genetically absurd.
Andrew:
>No, there will be no prenuptial agreement. We actually trust each other
I wish you both every happiness in your marriage. Your trust in each other is touching. To be a little cynical, I might point out that is exactly what allcouples assert during engagement. May I suggest a line which goes something like: "Darling, I love you so much now that I want to secure your future welfare against any possible contingency that might arise in the future, however unlikely it might seem now. Therefore I suggest that we draw up a witnessed agreement that will secure a fair and equitable future for us both.
Just a thought.
>Maalie, no one ever claimed that the Bible was a science text book; it just isn't.
No, maybe not, but many have asserted that it is a history book.
My latest puzzle is rainbows. The first rainbow apparently happened after the flood (the Bronze Age or thereabouts), when it had stopped raining. Is it contended that during the six-day creation period God "put on hold" the physics of refraction and internal reflection in order to forestall the prismatic effect of raindrops (hence rainbows) until after the flood?
Or could it be that the men who wrote the bible didn't understand the physics of refraction and internal reflection at the time and so attributed rainbows as the work of God?
Simon:
> I have told them NEVER to visit me, once they have kids
LOL! You may think differently when the grandchildren come along!
I'm off on holiday to Wales on Sunday to see mine!
Absolutely in agreement about the "obey" clause mate. I certainly never got any obedience!
Yes Maalie, I think the conference (American Society for Neurochemistry) was a great success. I presented some preliminary data on my blueberry work in a mouse multiple sclerosis model and it was received enthusiastically. Now if we could just obtain needed grant funding... My society involvement is significant, so I'm afraid I'm a bit pooped today!!
I am glad that you and Lutl-Luther are playing nicely again, thank you! I do not mind if you are diametrically opposed to one another, that is your right. I do mind if it appears that either of you is not being respectful of the others right to disagree.
Now for the funny part, at first I misread your statement and thought that you said "skulking", not "sulking" - that gave me a bit of a laugh at the thought of you skulking about. However, I suppose that could be quite a useful ability when one is trying to observe without being observed in the field! :)
Yes, I do believe that the Bible is a history book, and a book about the future as well. How it all fits together is quite a mystery to me, though I trust that it does. If I understand the language of Genesis correctly (Gen 2:5-10), although there was a river that flowed out of Eden, it had never rained before the flood. All plant and animal life was sustained by a mist, or perhaps it means a spring, that rose up from the land. Do I have my physics correct - no rain=no rainbow? So, no physics on hold, just no rain until that which came with the flood.
PS Maalie - have a lovely visit with your son and grand daughter - that is who is in Wales, correct?
"Science, by its nature, is the ultimate in open-mindedness (I mean science not individual scientists among whom you can find corruption as in even the clergy). Science does not purport to know the answer to anything, rather it merely offers the best explanation for a state of affairs using the evidence available. As more evidence becomes available the explanation may be modified or even replaced." (Maalie)
Maalie, I hate to say it, but science can never be completely open-minded. Its epistemological presuppositions preclude that. Scientific explanation these days--which is really an artefact from Enlightenment modernism in its assumptions--operates on an entirely materialistic and naturalistic basis. If an explanation is not plausible based on its own presuppositions, it excludes them as faulty, impossible explanations. Any explanation that involves factors outside pure materialism or naturalism is considered "supernatural nonsense." Now, tell me please, how is that for open-mindedness? It's really just one person's presuppositions pitted against another's. I have decided that God has in fact revealed himself and his truth to humankind in the person of Jesus Christ and in the writings which bear witness to him; Dawkins, Hitchens, et al. have decided that the only way to any kind of knowledge is through the systematic study of the natural world. Both may, at their worst, be equally "closed-minded."
Oh, additionally, how can you claim that science never purports to know the answer to anything, when Dawkins and others say that the basis for evaluating a person's intelligence is whether or not he believes in neo-Darwinistic Evolution? If they are entirely objective, how can many scientists insist on scientific theories with the dogmatic fury that exists today?
Maalie,
Susan is correct. The Bible deals with your question about rainbows in that it says there was no rain until the time of Noah. "For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth....but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." (Gen. 2:5-6) No rain = no rainbows until Noah. This is also why he was such a laughingstock, building a ship on land when no one had ever seen a drop of rain.
I really do like you Maalie, despite your close-mindedness to the supernatural and implicit faith in the evolution hypothesis. I respect your strong convictions though they are diametrically opposed to mine, and I respect you.
Maalie,
By the way, I did want to say two more things:
1) Thank you for what you said about prenuptial agreements. I actually hadn't considered such an agreement as an expression of one's love and protection for his spouse.
2) About the rainbow set in the sky after the Noahic flood: Who ever said that rainbows didn't exist already? The text in Genesis 9:12-17 certainly never says that this was the first time a rainbow existed. All of the signs God uses to ratify covenants in the Bible (animal sacrifices, baptisms/ritual washings, meals, circumcision, bread and wine) were already pre-existing things that have been co-opted and invested with a new meaning. Circumcision was likely already a common practice in the Near East, and so were some of the animal-cutting rites (cf. Genesis 15).
Much the same can be said of the rainbow. Literally the Hebrew says "bow", as in a weapon. And notice that the bow is pointed upward, as if its arrow is aimed heavenward toward God! God is effectively swearing to destroy himself if he ever broke his promise to never destroy the world with a flood again. Of course, it's ludicrous to think God would kill himself, but that's the whole point: it's just as impossible that he would ever go back on his word.
So the whole rainbow argument holds zero ground whatsoever in trying to write off the Bible as scientifically unsound. The Bible was never meant to be a science textbook or make scientific claims, as such, anyway. It's the revelation of God and his dealings with humanity as lived out in the real, historical nitty-gritty of the people of Israel.
Gosh, I'm sorry that I haven't waited to post until I get more ideas together . . . I'm sure that myriad comments just annoy people.
Maalie,
Where on Earth did you figure out that the biblical flood occurred during the Bronze Age? Who says that? There is certainly no definitive biblical chronology prior to the time of Abraham (c. 1900 BCE). Everything prior to that, even on biblical accounts, is a "prologue" that sets up the story to follow.
Additionally, Susan and Triston, I don't think that just because the Bible doesn't explicitly say something something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. Its words and scope are, of course, finite. There is no way to account for all that has happened in all of world history. So just because it says that at some point in prehistory that there were springs of water and mists in Eden (Genesis 2:5), this doesn't mean that there was no rain. That, I think, is faulty reasoning. Just because the Bible doesn't write about the existence of King Merari of the Hittites doesn't mean he never existed; we just had to consult other historical records to discover that. I really think there's no reason to think rain didn't exist at the time of Noah or earlier, even though scripture never explicitly mentions rainfall in the early chapters of Genesis. In fact, the flood account nearly demands that rain existed, and here's why: God tells Noah he is going to send rain for forty days and nights (Genesis 7:4). In my understanding this would make no sense to Noah unless he already had experienced rain and its deluging powers; what God warned him about would have been difficult to understand, if not meaningless.
> "I really think there's no reason to think rain didn't exist at the time of Noah or earlier, even though scripture never explicitly mentions rainfall in the early chapters of Genesis."
Triple negative. I like it...but I'm not sure I agree with your theory. At least, I would think rain had not come down in Noah's area, but places like Australia and the Americas may well have been drenched previous to Noah’s time.
Maalie got the "Noah/Bronze-Age" theory completely from his own reasoning. No one else believes Noah could have existed in such recent history of Man. Noah had to be way before that period of history. Genesis 11 establishes that fact clear enough.
Key word today is: tattle
Susan! really! flirting?? Gosh I had NO idea. But thank you for the compliment.
I NEVER mention my girls and family on my blogs much, not ever... and in fact I am reluctant to even place photos of my sons on the blog too.
( I had a friend who had a very bad experience)
so I write as If I am on my own but I am not- I have a house full of girls, boyfriends, sons, fishing rods, drama and nonsense..
Anyway- Luther there are some who believe before the great flood the world was in fact surrounded by a bubble of atmosphere that was like a green house and in fact giants (men) and dinosaurs lived side by side... this "prefect atmosphere allowed man to live for a very long time, and for giants to exist.
When the bubble imploded it caused the great flood and the lands were divided.
Me? I think its ALL nonsense
Some believe that dragons are the residual of that age as fought by the knights....
Halfmom: Yes, that's right, but I am also meeting up with elder son and some friends for a mountain-biking event in the Welsh mountains. I shall blog it in due course.
No, Litl Luther, not simply my own reasoning, but from the evidence of geology, archaeology and genetics. The archaeology of ship building is well understood, and mankind could not have had the wherewithal to construct a ship of any type before the neolithic revolution (bronze age, roughly). The first to systematically build boats were the Egyptians, some 3000 years BC, i.e. about 5000 years ago. This is a puny time in Human history and the diversity and distribution of mankind that we see today was already in existence. It is genetically absurd to suggest that human evolution had to start over again from a group of individuals as small as Noah's family somewhere in the Middle East so recently. Homo sapiens emerged out of Africa some three million years ago.
Geologists can pinpoint geological events like meteorite strikes, volcanic eruptions, rising and falling sea levels that occurred millions of years ago. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest a world-wide flood as recently as the bronze age. As a matter of fact, Darwin and his Captain, Fitzroy, set off on the eponymous Beagle voyage looking for, and expecting to find, geological evidence of the great flood. Fitzroy (a passionate creationist) became so depressed at the contrary evidence that he committed suicide.
You can go on refuting the scientific evidence until Kingdom Come, but it won't go away. Once the genie is out of the bottle, it won't go back. There was no Adam and Eve, no talking snake, no Noah's Flood, no Ark. It's all mythology; at best, allegory. Of course there were rainbows earlier than the neolithic revolution; the prism effect (and evaporation of water to cause rainfall) has been here since before the existence of life.
Lit'l Luther's suggestion of a localised flood is simply his attempt to re-write the bible in order to give verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative, unsupported by any verifiable evidence.
Hey, next you'll be telling me about a man who survived in the guts of a fish for three days and was then regurgitated! LOL!
Andrew, thank you for your response, however I fear there can be none so closed-minded as fundamentalists who dogmatically and inflexibly adhere to the literal preachings of an ancient book. Science, at least, is prepared to modify explanations in the light of new evidence. All the evidence points to the evolution of life from a common ancestor. This evidence cannot be undone.
Even Halfmom appears to espouse the rationale of Sir Francis Collins (whom she has referred to here) who accepts the evidence of evolution.
I am away now for two weeks, please don't regard my absence as lack of interest in the discussion.
Good words from Andrew here on equal bias.
I believe in an old earth and probably in macro-evolution (and just one who influenced me that direction is the evangelical Francis Collins, who I'm sure by the way, does believe in the Virgin Birth, as well as the incarnation of Jesus, that Jesus was/is fully human and fully God).
My problem is when they leave the pure science and get into meddling over faith. Denying the supernatural.
I think schools should not teach their materialistic, naturalistic bias, just as I think schools should not teach "creation science". They should stick to the science.
Let the science be science with all its built in limitations. Any scientist does know it is an ongoing project.
Though nature points to a Creator, life to a Life-Giver, you aren't going to prove or disprove such at the end of a microscope, or telescope. Such a witness comes by faith. The message of Jesus Christ in his person, and work is the power of God for salvation to all who believe.
These are my incomplete (I want to keep learning in regard to faith and science- and our church is going to have a series on it soon- our Pastor Jack reading this book from two Calvin College professors- married) and rather hurried thoughts this morning.
> Though nature points to a Creator
That simply isn't true, Ted. Nature points to evolution by natural selection. It is personal incredulity that suggests a creator. Personal incredulity is usually a consequence of personal ignorance, or at least personal lack of understanding.
>I believe in an old earth and probably in macro-evolution
By the way, orthodox biologists do not distinguish between "micro" and "macro" evolution. It is simply evolution.
Maalie, Granted, on the two terms. Just that many would grant micro-evolution who do not grant macro-evolution, probably referring especially to those who because of their faith, deny the possibility of evolution.
That is our argument. But it's not as those it's a blind leap of faith, though I might agree that a leap of faith to even consider this may be needed. But it does come with both internal and external evidence.
The accounts in the gospels of Jesus' death and resurrection, and what surrounded that as well as what occurred afterwards when, for example Peter who in fear had denied Jesus three times, not long afterwards preached the resurrection of Jesus boldly on the day of Pentecost.
And just as important to us: we believe God reveals God's Self to us through and in Jesus Christ. This does become personal to us, though not intended to be so in an individualistic sense, but in a communal, holistic, global sense.
It becomes real to us in an experiential sense.
And we see the goal of God in Christ in the kingdom and new creation already present through Christ in this world.
The argument from ignorance by the way, works both ways on this. I can't prove it to you, therefore you insist it's false. Same problem in that argument.
>I can't prove it to you, therefore you insist it's false. Same problem in that argument.
Ted, it's not a matter of proof, it's a matter of evidence. Science accumulates evidence and offers the best explanation that fits it. As new, or contradictory, evidence is presented, explanations are revised or discarded. History is littered with scientists whose explanations macwere discarded in the light of more complete evidence (poor Lamarck is my favourite example.
Unlike fundamentalists who dogmatically adhere to the literal writings of an ancient book and who reject, or ignore, any contrary evidence. I might say, you do seem to be an exception but perhaps you are not a fundamentalist.
Now I must return to the packing...
Thanks, Maalie. Interesting.
A good number of Christian readings of the early chapters of Genesis, have not seen it as a straight literal historic account. Augustine had at least three possible interpretations of it. But in light of ANE documents that have been discovered, it's much easier to see that it was written as a refutation of those to some extent.
Evidence, yes. That's what we Christians appeal to as well. I'm all for going where evidence leads us in science. And the same for faith. I do believe there's different kinds of knowing. I know someone is different than I know all about someone- a good example of what I'm trying to get at.
I don't know what I am, except a Christian. Labels can be misleading, but I'd guess the majority of the world would see me as a conservative Christian. Same goes for Calvin College and professors there who hold to evolution, but likewise hold to Scripture as God's word. And I believe if John Calvin were alive today he'd be on the same page. This book argues just that.
Maalie,
You are a wonderful human being, and in your face I see something of the face of God because we believe all humans are made in God's image.
We enjoy your fellowship here, and hope that never ceases. But we also hope you become one with us in our life in God through Christ by the Spirit. You are part of us in the human family. But it will be even more wonderful to have you (and Simon, and others) with us as part of those whom Jesus calls family!
Thanks Ted.
I'm off now, best wishes to all.
I should add that this isn't just a nice add on to make our fellowship better.
In Scripture it is a matter of life and death. Death if we continue on in our brokenness outside of the one perfect Eikon, Jesus. And life if by faith in Jesus we begin to be renewed into what the goal of such an eikonic status is that we have as human beings.
you know what is SO good? this WONDERFUL debate.
It really makes you think.
Don't you all agree?? :o)
> Science accumulates evidence and offers the best explanation that fits it.
Science does not provide evidence on our topic. Scientists have provided shallow theories which undermine belief in God (theories no less ridiculous than the earth being flat — such as the “scientific” theory of life originating on the back of crystals or the theory of space aliens seeding our planet).
What “evidence” does science have for all the matter in the universe? How did this matter come into being? What evidence do you have for our orb, the earth, situated in the perfect distance and rotation from the sun to make life possible? What evidence do you have for the creation of the suns, the countless billions and billions of fireballs that just keep on burning? What evidence do you have for DNA, something more complex and beautiful than the most ingenious manmade invention? What evidence do you have for what sparked life on our planet in the first place? You have nothing but empty, unfounded theories! This is not evidence. It is blind faith in a purely naturalistic world. It takes less faith to believe in God then it does in a universe as complex and orderly as ours that came into being without God. Atheistic faith is surely stronger than ours, to believe in something so utterly impossible! The chance of life just happening — everything we know just happening by chance — is mathematically ludicrous.
...this is why atheists need so much "time" to give the faintest credibility to their theories. One is forced to step back several billion years from the origin of the universe and of life itself for the impossibility of the theories not to sound like sheer madness. And even then they can't account for all the original matter in the universe, and thus a blind leap of faith on their part is required. Blind guides leading the blind into doubting their Creator.
Lt'l Luther,
I think a lot of the science is pretty solid, although science by nature is always going to be undergoing hypothesis and testing, etc. I do agree with you that some of the conclusions of science are not sound when certain ones insist on a materialistic, naturalistic doctrine that denies any possibility of God. That is an overreach. Darwin's insistence on a gradualism is one weakness, when in the fossil record there are numerous changes occuring that don't seem all that gradual. One example of letting their science be impacted, arguably, due to their bias. And there's many more.
My problem is not really with the science but with some of the false conclusions drawn out of it by some, not all. And the attempts to refute it both in Creation Science as well as Intelligent Design, I don't believe from what I've read, involve good science. So I would agree with Maalie on that, while disagreeing with him on conclusions drawn, and a bias which actually impacts Darwinian science in some areas, to some extent.
I'm speaking over my head, but have been reading on it when I can. That scientific jargon and speak is really a challenge for me, but one I enjoy trying to understand.
I should say to better word it, not good science overall, in CS and ID. Though this does not mean we can't talk about intelligent design (not capitalized, the concept itself) as we step away after considering the scientific end of things.
I put two screens on of your blog, Susan. I'm aware of your site meter, and it will have Michigan all over on it! But the thread is so long that I need another screen to see what in the world I'm trying to respond to.
But I'll be practically out of commission completely from now on at work, as they are clamping down on us getting on the computer at all when in between what we're doing. And it's hard for me to get on one during break. I'd rather sit down and eat something, quite often. And computers are not even always available during breaks.
>Scientists have provided shallow theories which undermine belief in God
Rubbish, Little Luther, and you know it! Try telling that to your doctor next time you are counting on him for an effective medicine!
I'm in an internet cafe in London, just come out of the Darwin exhibition in the Natural History Museum. Heartwarming to see the queues (lines?) waiting to get in (I was privileged, had a special pass) - all the kids drawing pictures and taking notes.
Evolution by Natural Selection is alive and well; the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back. The evidence is incontrovertible, there is no going back. Creationism is on its deathbed.
I implore you to take your children and young ones to your own national natural history museums so they can see the evidence for themselves and throw off the cloak of indoctrination!
Good Christians here disagree with me, and of course just because I believe it doesn't mean that settles it!
I speak here solely from my own perspective from which I would attempt to share my faith.
Ted, Christian fundamentalists must seek a way forward that embraces Natural Selection otherwise they will be made to look ridiculous in the light of modern science. There is no escaping it, of that I am totally, absolutely, 100% convinced. The genie is out of the bottle. That's why I became a Unitarian.
I must go now, my money is running out.
Best wishes to all.
Maalie,
If I may step in just a moment, before I must leave...
Maybe Creation Science won't survive, but Creationism- or the belief in a Creator most certainly will. There is no way that's on its death bed. The Soviet Union couldn't end such faith.
This is a part of who we are in Christ. Part of our identity.
The analogy of the Soviet Union was simply a way of stating that an official position that was backed by "science", atheism, the law of the land, could not suppress the desire for God that people had, manifested in many and oftentimes costly ways.
There's a spiritual vaccuum in us all- that I believe only God can fill.
"I implore you to take your children and young ones to your own national natural history museums.." Maalie
I have visited the Smithsonian in Washinton DC many times, and enjoy it very much. There's much error in some of the theories in my thinking, but it's a marvelous Museum just the same.
Hi Maalie,
I was just listening to "Evolution" by Korn. I like heavy metal and that's my favorite Korn song. I also enjoy the Smithsonian Natural History Museum and will certainly take my kids there, and I'll also point out the errors in the unfounded theories.
I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions, and that's because, for the most part, you can't. You have to trust the theories on the origin of the universe and of life's origin based on faith....sort of like the Christian but with much less evidence for your faith.
Get well soon...
Happy St. Paddy's Day!
I am an atheist. Former church goer (leader in fact). There is not one shred of evidence of "god" or "a god" or "gods" in any faith, or book, or planet/earth/sun/moon/stars or animal, whatsoever.....
BTW
Heavy metal music is the devils music by some churches definition Luther..... and in fact, some argue that the minor chord in music composition represents the fallen angel (devil), Major chord represents the trinity, also representing the points of the cross..
Classical music is cerebral.. heavy metal is primal... and awakens the devil in you ( so some say)
So i would not be feeding your anger with Korn...
(just a thought)
Hi Simon,
You are fooling yourself to say there is no evidence for God.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth”.
(Psalm 19:1-4)
The universe itself gives evidence to God and of His glory, and the universe itself will bear witness against you for denying the Creator.
I am not one for buying into any hocus pocus, mumbo jumbo, like some Christians who fear the devil in everything, such as in the beating of drums and electric guitars. So I'll continue to sip my single malt scotch and listen to heavy metal to the glory of God.
"Whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 Corinthians 10:31)
>The universe itself gives evidence to God and of His glory
Rubbish! The genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back!
You can't un-invent discovery!
I get to do comment #100- at least at this point!
I believe the heavens do declare the glory of God. Atheistic scientists are in awe of nature. And there are a good number of mainstream scientists who are theists of one sort or another, and a number of Christians. Why is it that the awe has to logically stop with nature? By faith we believe in a god behind it. And by faith we've entered into relationship with that god through Jesus Christ. This is our confession, and this is our life, no less.
But from that we enjoy and revel in God's gifts. And nature (and science) are among them.
(I won't have access to computers much here at work, except maybe on breaks, so you won't hear back from me much)
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!” (Isaiah 6:3)
It honestly grieves me that you, Maalie and Simon, are unable to recognize God's glory, which is all around you. You are both intelligent men, but this is not an issue of intelligence. It takes a work of God's Spirit to open our eyes. Every one of us at one time was in the place you are in. And now it is like trying to describe the beauty of a sunset to a person who was born blind. As hard as we try we fail to do justice to God or to you. ...but the day still may come when you turn to Jesus in faith and He has mercy on you and opens your eyes and lets you finally see His glory that has been around you all along. I pray that He will -- that He will show mercy to each person that reads these posts.
with respect Luther, again you are quoting from a book that has no meaning to me at all.
just because some poet wrote about the sky and stars in some emotional way does not mean it is true.
"gods spirit"?? Man, I could lay people in the aisles with just a word or a touch of a hand..
frankly it had nothing to do with god, or me, it was all in the mind of the person who fell- they wanted to believe someone could heal them..
they would run around and claim they were healed and a few weeks later be back at the start..
It demonstrates just how easy it was to manipulate the minds of those who were deperate enough to think that there was the evidence..
But there is none, not in anything..
Thats why I left the church- its utter falsehood..I needed to return to the truth. and that truth is we are as random as the dinosaurs in the evolutionary process, and a dramatic event could wipe us all out- so what? I dont think I am important enough for it to matter much
Why would I need jesus mercy? is he going to do bad things to me?
Nah... when I die I want to push up a golden elm tree, return to the dirt from which i came.
Now Luther stop watching your pirated (stolen) DVDs and Korn.. ;o)
Ted- you are the 100 comments
".. and that truth is we are as random as the dinosaurs in the evolutionary process,"
Random. But even if random, we are "beings". How can a "being" come about from nothing? Unless there was "being" first, there can be "being" now, don't you think?
There had to be an eternal something. Mine is God.
What is your's Simon?
its a big question.
We come from nothing and return to nothing..IMO
I am not too interested in the "eternal" question but I am sure that scientists are.
I do not agree that "we" are created in gods own image either. Because that slaps evolution. And there is more evidence for evolution than for god.
The only evidence of god (so claimed) is in one book. and that was put together by men, added to, and subtracted from, interpreted, not just by language/translation, but by your own personal understanding of the verses, and usually twisted to suit the personal circumstances... you can read a King James, or a New England or Good News or even the new King James, (perhaps the most accurate IMO)or the American Standard Version and get 2 or 3 or 4 completley different interpretations of a verse..
So then you have to go back to the Hebrew or greek..and again confusion and such a wide potential for interpretation...the hebrews wrote poetically.. greeks scientifically.
A greek wants to know how, A hebrew wants to know why....
Plus a lot was written years after the event...
and then you got all the other "loonie ones" eg Mormons who add stuff to it etc
Lets use this example:-
Quote John 1.1 "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God" ( new King James version)
Morman version " In the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was a god"
they acknowledge multiple gods not just one....
See my point? So when we add the human element it just gets more unpredictable, and therefore less evidence of a creator.
SO.. thats it!!!...I just stumbled on an answer to your question....
I will tell you, based on your own book, how it all started-
Sound waves or vibrations ...(thats what was there in the beginning and nothing else...)
there you go Don!
Anyway, I mean no disrespect, rather believe a good debate is good!
You are welcome to believe what you want..
Simon wrote: “Sound waves or vibrations ...(that’s what was there in the beginning and nothing else…”
You may be right Simon. The reason I can agree with you is because God is not matter. He is spirit, so there was no matter in the very beginning. Perhaps the very first things were sound waves, for God spoke and then everything came into being.
But your idea is to leave God out of the picture, and that is just foolish: Sound waves, no god, only sound waves? And then all the trillions upon trillions upon trillions of tons of matter appear out of nothing??? Without a god??? Sounds like a fairytale to tell little children.
What is the biggest number for measuring anything? I believe it is septillion? Any how, what I would absolutely LOVE to hear is the scientific estimates of how many tons of matter are in our universe. If you were to combine all the matter together, how much would there be? Once we have that ridiculously huge number, then you want me to believe all that matter just suddenly appeared (without a Maker), from perhaps sound waves? It is laughable.
If not that explanation then what? Did all that matter just exist eternally? Really? You want people to believe it was always there? That all those tons of matter never had a beginning? Ridiculous fantasy!
So, again I say, the most reasonable answer to this question is that the many septillions of tons of matter had a Creator. Every other explanation is absurd and belongs in fairytale books (which unfortunately some scientists are writing, not to entertain the fantasies of little children but to persuade adults to believe the foolishness of a universe without God. This is an impossible fantasy, a blind leap of faith.
BTW: Is there a scientific estimate of how much matter is in the Universe?
The question Don poses is a powerful one, and one from which we can't escape. Sound waves or vibrations, but where did that come from, Simon?
We are not just sound waves and vibrations. What ends up are beings of intelligence, love, purpose, etc.
I believe the best answer for why this is lies in the story of Jesus as given in Scripture. I don't believe evolutionism really can explain well what Jesus brought: the teaching, ethic and life Jesus brought into this world.
yes Luther- out of nothing... exactly.
Ted:- its a good thought provoking debate don't you think so?
Have a great day. BTW I got my WW2 jeep running with new brakes! Yippie!! now I can chug around
Simon,
Sounds good. Be careful! (:
Yes. I don't mind and even like the dialogue.
I believe there's a reality which keeps me (and other believers) going strong, oftentimes in spite of myself- even more than good, or right answers.
Every gram & kilo of matter in the universe gives evidence to its Creator and also bears witness against your rejection of God.
Ted is absolutely right in his insistence that it all comes back to Jesus. For Christ is not only the agent THROUGH WHOM all things were created, but also the heir FOR WHOM all things were created (Col. 1:16) The entire range of human needs finds its answer in the comprehensive provision of God in Jesus Christ. And the entire range of divine glory and grace is displayed in Jesus Christ. It is no wonder the Apostle Paul and so many faithful ministers since, preach nothing but Christ!
Admittedly, salvation in Christ is foolishness to the intellectual mind deluded by sin (results of the Fall). Nevertheless, ALL the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are found in Christ. (Col. 2:2-3) It is all about Him, and not only we Christians but you, Maalie and Simon, will also stand before Him someday, the Maker and Sustainer of your lives and the One to whom we all must give an account. This is the destiny of every human being.
"We come from nothing and return to nothing..IMO"
So something can come from nothing?
Nothing is what Augustine said "rocks dream of."
If something is, then it had to come from something.
"Nothing has no is-ness."-RC Sproul
But, hey, if you believe "being" can come from nothing, more power to you.
Belief in the tooth fairy is more reasonable than the belief that all we see in world and universe and we ourselves came from nothing without a Creator. That’s a fairytale far too preposterous to entertain for a millisecond, even by Dr. Seuss.
...green eggs and ham? I'll have mine sunny side up please.
Interesting in a way, that being actually did come from nothing: the physical from the metaphysical.
So scientists won't be able to unravel or figure out that one, those who might like to.
The Atheist Rhyme:
I would not, could not, in the rain.
Not in the dark. Not on a train,
Not in a car, Not in a tree.
I do not like Him, Sam, you see.
Not in a house. Not in a box.
Not with a mouse. Not with a fox.
I will not like Him here or there.
I do not like Him anywhere!
You do not like the great I AM?
I do not like Him, Sam-I-am.
again you assume there is an "I am".
frankly I am nothing...just carbon
and you imply that by being atheist we regard ourselves as gods which is not the case Little luther
Ted- science will explain it all given time. We are almost there IMO.
Having said all that- do whatever makes you feel a better person. If believing in somthing makes you happy go for it :o)
Simon,
Let's assume that science explains it all. Which of course I find a bit difficult to believe, since science by nature is open and investigative to better ways of explaining things which down the road can make the old ways rather obsolete. Like Einstein's theory of relativity on Newton't theory of gravity, from what I've read.
For me it wouldn't matter if science could explain it. (of course atheists were chagrined to have to accept the Big Bang, but now all do) I'm not into the god of the gaps. I'm not looking for supernatural explanations anywhere as far as the science itself goes. Because an important part of Christian belief is that all of nature is dependent on God at every moment, for its existence. If it's true that science could explain it all, this does not mean science could prove that there is no god behind it.
Christian theology rooted in Scripture teaches that God is both immanent (close) and transcendent (above and beyond). To insist that a thorough scrutiny of creation itself, if there is a Creator, will uncover the Creator is a bit off, I think. It may be thorough in explaining the creation itself. But it does not necessarily mean it would be probing the Creator, if God really does exist.
As to the feeling good, or being happy part, I'm not sure that faith has much to do with that, or coming to faith.
Feelings can be quite misleading in humans. One can feel good about something that is not good. Or feel bad about something that really is good and better than the bad track one is on.
So I'm not much for measuring anything based on my feelings.
But a challenge. One must turn to Jesus Christ. Only in that can one find faith. Not in trying to prove or disprove anything, really. When one starts studying Jesus, one begins to get at the center of existence. Everything comes together or is resolved in that, I believe.
But I'm sure any number here can explain it better and more succinctly. Susan has taught me to keep it shorter and more to the point. I'm afraid I've transgressed this time around.
But again I would challenge all to look at the life of Jesus. Begin with the gospels, Mark is a good one to start on. Jesus is why I live, ultimately. And all that comes out of that, really for the entire world and all who live in it.
Simon:
....Not in the dark! Not in a tree!
Not in a car! You let me be!
Sam:
....You do not like Him.
So you say.
Try Him! Try Him!
And you may.
Try Him and you may I say.
Ted- I have looked at Jesus life.. and what a great life it was.
It was a life that prooved it is possible to live a perfect life on earth
Yes, Simon. Jesus' life as recorded in the gospels does have the ring of authenticity and truth to it, don't you think? But while it's a life lived where we live, it's beyond us. This is because Jesus is to be our savior. Through him we are to find what life is all about, our real life. Why he claimed to be the way, the truth and the life.
God, Grant your healing power on Susan your servant. Give her a special measure of your grace. Enable the physician's hands, and bring strength and peace to her, through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.
thank you Ted - I'm actually looking forward to getting this fixed.
>Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!
There is little point in spouting this ancient book at us. Eevrybody has their own interpretation of it. It can mean anything you want it to - axiomatically!
We do not at present understand the origin of the time/energy/matter continuum (as we understand the origin and development of life) but that does not mean we won't eventually (probably a treat for the next generation). There was a time that we did not understand the physics of refraction and rainbows were attributed to God.
Blessings from an internet cafe in Europe.
Good luck on 26th Halfmom, I wish you all tjhe best.
I find it interesting how the human mind deals with random events.
If random events militate to fall in one's favour, objective people say they have been lucky; the superstitious might say it's because they threw some money down the wishing-well (or maybe because a black cat crossed their path from the right); the religious say "Halleujah - God is good, he has answered my prayers".
On the other hand, if random events conspire to act against you, objective people regard themselves as unlucky. The superstitious anguish because they didn't throw *enough* money down the wishing well (or maybe because a white cat crossed their path from the left). And the religious assert that it's God's will; that God has a plan for them but they don't know what it is. They carry on wondering what the plan is until they die (they might imagine before they die that they are about to go to a "better place" but that is simply a comforting delusion that gives a measure of intellectual justice to the perceived iniquities of life on earth - the "Your reward is in heaven" syndrome).
I am unable to distinguish between superstition and the religion. Religion was obviously devised by humans as a way of coping with random misfortune; it is merely institutionalised superstition. Those bible-authors were very clever indeed, they would make fantastic spin-doctors today. Litl Luther reveals his superstition by spouting incantations from that out-dated book as if it were some magic spell that will "protect" him from evil spirits or heathens like me and Simon. Pure superstition, nothing more, nothing less.
One verse in the bible I do happen to agree with: "Live every day as if it were your last". Life is too short to mess about waiting for some "divine" plan that will never reveal itself. Could someone please tell me which testament it is in, I will prescribe it to be etched on my gravestone.
It's probably in Proverbs Maalie. There are a lot of good ones there. 'A fool returns to his foolishness like a dog returns to his vomit' is perhaps my favourite. It could be from Ecclesiastes though. There's a merry book for you. In fact one of my favourite books in the Bible.
'Meaningless, meaningless, utterly meaningless. Everything is meaningless'. Isn't that wonderful?
How are you Susan? Just back from Japan and find there is a huge amount of comments on your blog with you not taking part?
I am not sure what you are referencing Maalie, perhaps one of the others may be able to help. What does come to mind is Psalm 90:2, “teach us to number our days, that we may present You a heart of wisdom.”
Or perhaps Luke 12:19,20. Jesus is telling a parable wherein verse 19 are the words of a foolish man who does not recognize God’s presence and in verse 20, God’s response to him. The summary of the principle is in verse 21. 19; 'And I will say to my soul, "Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink and be merry."' 20: "But God said to him, 'You fool ! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared ?' 21; "So is the man who stores up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God."
Thank you for your well wishes for surgery. Perhaps I will write more later but it is still less than 24 hour post and I am wrapped in ice and typing with one hand. I think I have worn myself quite out.
Hello Llama, I am glad to see you back home safely. I am recovering from yesterday's surgery and spent the days before in frantic activity with wedding preparations so I have read the comments as they hit my email box but that is all. Hopefully I'll be more functional as the week goes on. I will look forward to hearing how you trip was and how you found the children.
"It could be from Ecclesiastes though." -Llama
"..everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God's gift to man." Ecc. 3:13
I think Ecclesiastes is saying that surely we can enjoy the blessings of God, but it's all in vain, because we all will die, and be buried.
"A living dog is better than a dead lion."
Seems King Solomon, who was the richest man who ever lived, and a mighty king in his own time, saw how all things are vain. Yet, his final statement was to obey the Lord: "For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil."
Another verse from the Apostle Paul came to mind as well: "If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied." 1 Corinthians 15:19
Something for us who have Christ as our hope to be raised from the dead as He was to ponder I think.
Susan, my Mrs. wants to know what she can do for you, since we're not too far away. Our number is in the church directory, or O can get it from the church office.
She usually keeps the car two or three days a week. Let us know... we're eager to be of service.
Maalie, perhaps the verse you are thinking of is this: "If the dead do not rise, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die!'" (1 Corinthians 15:32, Paul is quoting Isaiah 22:13)
Paul is saying that if there is no resurrection from the dead, then we might as well live everyday as though it is our last. However, his point is that those who have put their hope in Christ WILL rise from the dead! Yes. He's giving the comfort of Heaven.
Susan- I hope you are not in too much pain and that the operation will heal you.
Luther- live everyday as if its your last..as you should.
Maalie- I agree mate.
Lorenzo- hello!
Hope all goes well Susan. I will be thinking of you.
Luther: surely from Shakespear?!
Hello Simon!
Hi Lorenzo! and everyone else.
Maalie,
A kind of teaching you find in both testaments, that life is uncertain, and one does not know what a day may bring. As Jesus and his half brother James pointed out, those who make plans better think in terms of both being rich toward God, and with reference to God's will. And for the Christian, it's the hope we have that all things will be made new in Jesus through the new creation that has come and is to be completed, in him.
So I'm not sure that one can find an explicitly direct statement from Scripture which actually says, "Live each day as if it were your last!" But certainly that's a thought which in certain contexts is clearly taught in Scripture.
I like what the reformer Martin Luther said best:
Live as though Christ died yesterday, rose today and is coming back tomorrow.
Hi Lorenzo!
> Live as though Christ died yesterday, rose today and is coming back tomorrow.
But how can you live a delusion?
Nice profile pic, Maalie! I liked the bird too, but this one is better.
How can we live a delusion? Just because you think it's a delusion does not make it so. In matters of my own experience, faith and the conviction of the Holy Spirit trumps your incredulity.
"live a delusion?"
But we are all in this boat, since we all believe in an eternal something. Mine is God. We all have to believe there was an eternal somethinf: Gas, a huge bolder that exploded all that we see into life. Or perhaps life was eternal, and died, and then this life was the Big Bang.
I'm just thinking out loud here.
Oh, that's right, Simon says something came from nothing, so he's, well, he's living a delusion as well.
And of course, in the next generation they will know how something came from.....whatever it came from. And perhaps they will see that it was God.
Have a blessed weekend.
delusion? na, I used to live it but not now. I now live a full and positive life, and I try not to waste a moment.
I work hard, enjoy providing for family and my friends if they need it. I believe in being a giver, not a taker. I believe in action not words. I enjoy the environment.
I do not have a high opinion of my fellow man- I consider most over consuming time wasters. I believe all animals and things have just as much "right" to be here as we do. I do not believe that we have been given "dominion over the earth" by god- thsts just an excuse to be glutons.
and the "god given right.." idea is what got us into this potential mess of global warming and species being lost in the first place.
So I am far from deluded.
Enjoy the weekend everyone
Maalie,
I don't consider it a delusion. Consider this: I have never met you, nor heard your voice and yet I believe you exist because there is evidence for you at this blog and evidence from others, such as Susan, who also believes in your existence.
And I am more convinced of Jesus' existence than I am of yours because it is the Jesus who died two thousand years ago and rose from the dead who invaded my life on April 11th, 1990 and radically transformed my life.
I've only known you for about a year through this blog. But Jesus has been investing Himself into my life every day for the past 19 years. And that is just the evidence I have in my life. There is the evidence of every other born again Christian too. I can go to any remote part of the earth, and meet people from cultures utterly dissimilar than mine. And yet they share the very same experiences of the reality of the living Christ that I share. And then of course there is the evidence of Scripture itself (no mere book) and the fact of God’s glory in the Heavens and in creation, etc., etc.
Any how, it is not a delusion. It is the fact of a living God who has invaded the lives of all genuine Christians that gives evidence to the fact that Christ is true. It is not a delusion anymore than your existence is a delusion to the readers of this blog. In fact, it is lesser still. There are possibly ways that your existence could have been fabricated to pull the wool over all our eyes. Jesus is more real than you to me. …but I believe in you Maalie!
How do you KNOW Maalie exists Luther? How do you know it's not me pretending to be him.
Actually I'm Maalie and he is the llama. You only have our photos to go on!
Maalie is a many facetted gem.
I think everyone needs to stop and ponder the reality that we all live by faith of one sort or another.
Some scientists and scientists-would-be-whatever-else you might call it, like Dawkins, want to project their faith on eveyone else. And they want to insist that faith is bad, bad, bad. But they live by faith as well, faith in science to explain everything, to give meaning maybe to life, or just to "prove" no meaning at all.
And even the world shakes their head at such optimsism in the needed critique of the Enlightenment and Modernism, by Post-Modernism.
Maalie, you and Simon are living by faith as well. And Dawkins and company are in large part putting up the straw man before dismantling it.
I am quite busy today so won't be able to get to blogging soon. And really much of this weekend. And probably beyond it some as well. So I don't mean to leave a comment and then disappear, but I will try to glance here and there. As always, an interesing conversation here.
>Some scientists and scientists-would-be-whatever-else you might call it, like Dawkins, want to project their faith on eveyone else
I disagree Ted. Science is not based on faith, it is based on evidence. Science modifies its explanations in the light of new evidence that results from observation, discovery or observation.
Religious "faith" is based in indoctrination of an ancient book with no scope for compromise.
"I now live a full and positive life, and I try not to waste a moment." -Simon
How do you know it's a positive life? Maybe what you call positive is really negative.
If all that we know that exists came from chance, which is impossible BTW, then nothing really can be positive. For me to kill someone I don't like could be positive. To do anything has no meaning really. I can make up meaning for it, but who is to say that what I say is right.
Just thinking out loud.
Maalie,
What I meant is the dream Dawkins has that through scientific knowledge humankind can get a handle on life's meaning, even if that ends up being the declaration (indeed "gospel") that all life really is, is the fulfilling of natural selection and random mutation. So that anything like the Golden Rule is just something we humans have come up with on our own, which really has no meaning in itself- but only in terms again of natural selection and random mutation- and whatever other Darwinism might be added to that (I'm not questioning the science, but I'm questioning what is added to it, and some of that even in the name of science.)
To think based on scientific evidence that humankind could possibly rule out with proof the existence of God is itself a faith venture, another example of faith bringing understanding, and understanding bringing faith, etc., and this is also an example of a strict, narrowed Naturalism.
Dawkins denies that his position is a faith position, but I think it clearly is.
Religious "faith" is based in indoctrination of an ancient book with no scope for compromise.
Maalie,
Yes, there is a traditon passed down which does include indoctrination, and of course that's true of science as well.
We have good reasons to believe what we do. To be a Christian does not mean to be unthinking and stupid, contrary to what Dawkins seems to think. Tradition can be fine tuned without being thrown out. What atheists like Dawkins seem to be insisting on is that faith should be relegated to the private sphere at the most, and he seems to be saying it should not be tolerated at all.
But Madision was right in saying "free expression" trumps mere (and condescending) toleration (Locke). Read this, from a good Irishman (resident of U.S. for some time now, and his family started the beer company). He has chapters against both the Religious Right and the secularists, both really fundamentalists in a sense that I believe is not good, but see his argument there!
As long as "the new atheists" allow for dialogue and debate, than I say it's okay. In the world and in America and elsewhere, there should be freedom of speech and religious freedom, the separation of church and state (to differentiate between them, but not to drive religion from the public sphere, something Thomas Jefferson himself was clearly and I think even clearly vehemently opposed to).
on tradition being fine tuned, I mean simply the understanding of it, not changingh the received tradition itself. but that's a subject with too much nuance, and in a way, that's the frustration of blogging, because to blog well, as Susan points out, is not to go on and on and from here to there.
but I'd add to the point on tradition that just because something is NEWER or more recent, does not make it better. This seems to be an inherent belief of the Enlightenment and Modernism, called to task by Post-Modernism, again the world's response to the world's own thinking.
I think the problem is (or might be) that we are conditioned from birth to ascribe a "purpose" to anything. Certainly, anything that we do or make (even if it is only recreational).
It therefore becomes natural to attempt to find a "purpose for life". Since there is no purpose to life (life just "is") we feel the need to contrive one, hence religion, God and the notion that we are everlasting.
At first sight this seems a harmless enough delusion until you get opposing armies praying to the same God that each will slaughter more than the other side in God's name; or that the leader of a powerful nation will go to war because he/she imagines God has spoken to him/her.
This is a dangerous situation, no wonder that atheists sometimes appear evangelical.
Ted, I will follow your links when I get home; I am in Europe right now.
Halfmom: I hope everything went well?
"..or that the leader of a powerful nation will go to war because he/she imagines God has spoken to him/her."
This is true. But what about Lenin & Stalin; Kim Il-sung; Ho Chi Minh; Mao Tse-Tun; Pol Pot; and many others throughout history. These leaders murdered millions upon millions without any god.
Donsands, those people did it in their own name, not in some hypothetical god's name.
I have to say I'm just a simple Christian. Not an authority on anything, though I do like to learn. But I want to love more, and grow in loving God and my "neighbor" (and enemies).
Maalie,
Thanks.
I know "evolutionism" insists that evolution means there is no purpose. But that is arguable. How can science prove that from how life evolves? How can science explain anything beyond what it can observe in nature?
As to people killing in the name of God, it is a tragedy. Jesus brought a completely different way. There is no excuse justified for what has been done in the name of Jesus over the centuries. God did not let David of old build the temple because he had shed so much blood.
Jesus as the son of David brought a new way of being Israel, a new way of being human through the kingdom of God, and the new creation, having come to earth and to be completed here and to all things, in him.
"..those people did it in their own name, not in some hypothetical god's name."
That was my point, which I failed to make I suppose.
These are all evil godless men, who murdeered millions of people, and have destroyed many more people then Christianity.
Islam is a different story. And there were the Crusades of course. The inquisition was evil, and even certain Christians were into killing heretics.
But this pales to the numbers of torturous murdering someone like Stalin was guilty of.
My point is that atheiist can be quite wicked as well, and even more wicked.
Not to say there are not wonderful humans that are atheisits, as you are Maalie. And I really enjoy listening to Christopher Hitchens as well.
Not to mention, I have a roffer friend who actually tries to convert me to Carl Sagan. He is a good fellow.
Not necessarily to come to Maalie's aid (as if he needed it anyway!), but I'm kind of surprised Maalie doesn't retort to you guys that God ordered quite a bit of killing to be done: Kill all the Canaanities, kill those who break Mosaic Law, kill children who disobey their parents, kill thieves, etc.
You guys probably wonder why in the world I would point out this stuff (that seems so disadvantageous when trying to "win" atheists to Christ). But I see no reason to be afraid to share everything that is in God's Word, and not shrink back from it. God, as Creator, has every right to kill, as much right as a potter has over his clay.
"And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him!"
-JESUS
Lt'l Luther,
I don't try to understand that, and on this very thread some dozens of comments back I talk about these killings.
God in Jesus moves humankind toward an ethic meant to impact the world even now through the church, and someday to be the habit of heart and life in the world:
They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
Isaiah 2:4.
Lorenzo,
With you being back in the loop, I want to go off topic and address something with you I’ve wanted to share for some time. You have accused us (or me) a few times in the past of being inconsistent (accepting one part of Old Testament law and rejecting another). This is not (as is so often accused of us) of making the Bible say whatever we want it to say. It is well accepted that Moses gave three types of law: moral law; ceremonial laws, and judicial laws.
Moral law (the ten commandments as well as the two greatest commandments) are regularly brought forth by New Testament writers as still binding upon Christian believers (I can provide all the texts if you want, but I’m trying to keep this brief). Therefore, we believe moral law is still applicable today.
Ceremonial law however is often shown by the New Testament writers as having been fulfilled by Christ and his once-for-all sacrifice. Jesus is shown to be the reality behind the Passover lamb and the reality behind all the meat and drink offerings, feasts, New Moon celebrations,, etc. With the coming of Christ, these shadows find fullest meaning and have accomplished their prophetic mission, relinquishing their claim on the people of God. Therefore, according to the Apostles they are not applicable today. They have been fulfilled in Christ.
Judicial laws, while applicable, have been explained to us by Jesus and the apostles. They gave guidelines for church discipline (for example: Lev. 20:11 says that a man who has sex with his father’s wife must be put to death. Paul addresses the very same situation in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, but instructs ecclesiastical excommunication, not physical execution.)
My point is we do not just make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. We read the Bible and see how Jesus and the Apostles explained these things and, with integrity, we try and follow the patterns they have set down for us. It is quite offensive really to say we make the Bible say whatever we want it to say. That simply is not true of me or any genuine Christians that I know of.
>This is not (as is so often accused of us) of making the Bible say whatever we want it to say.
You are twisting the words, Litl Luther. It says what it says; it is was it means that has a million and one interpretations that makes us say "It can mean anything you want it to". That is indisputable.
When someone like Donsands says "Jesus didn't mean 'this', he meant 'that'" it is clearly re-writing scripture to meet one's own requirement.
Hey, please tell me more about this guy who lived for three days in the intestines of a fish (or was it a whale, the bible is ambiguous on this point). As a biologist, I am intensely curious to know how that worked out.
>Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore.
It's not working out like that, is it Ted? It seems strange if God planned it all through his omniscient wisdom. What a great world he has predetermined! You would think he would have made rather a better job of it. Do you think he was just practicing on planet Earth, and his real world is in another part of the galaxy?
Hey Maalie,
The reason stories like "Jonah in the great fish" for three days is so improbable to you is because it goes against the laws of nature and is not possible without divine intervention, and since you do not believe that God intervenes in the world, or does miracles, the story is a fantasy to you. But, for us who believe God simply spoke the world into being and created all the stars and everything we see out of nothing, it really does not even seem that amazing. God can do anything. He surely could have caused Jonah to miraculously survive three days in the belly of a huge sea creature. And the reason God did this (as Jesus explains it to us) was to give us a sign that Jesus would spend three days in earth and rise from the dead (Matthew 12:40). That is why God did this miracle with Jonah (which is a relatively small miraculous event indeed compared to other greater miracles God has preformed).
With God all things are possible.
>the story is a fantasy to you
Errrm, excuse me, it is frantasy to almost everyone. I read that theologians put the Jonah incident at about 700 BC. That is recent (post brnze-age). By then, biodiversity would have been much as we know it today (there would be some things around that we have since caused to become extinct.
So come on Litl Luther, be bold! What speicies of fish was it? Did Jonah use some sort of breathing apparatus do you suppose?
>With God all things are possible.
Only bebause we ascribe it as possible!
Moreover, all things are possible with the Fairy Godmother, I was told!
Maalie: You don't believe a man could fit inside a blue whale?
Wikipedia says some measure "32.9 metres (108 feet)" and that they must breathe air. 108 feet sounds like a spacious apartment in Tokyo. :) Perhaps God made the whale come up for air every so often to keep Jonah alive. I don't know how it happened. But I believe God could do it and did it. Just like he made Moses survive 40 days of fasting (even fasting water the whole time), made an axe head float. Made the sun stand still. And made Jesus rise from the dead. I have no problem with the miracles in the Bible because God is the one who created "the laws of nature". He is above and beyond them and can do what is impossible for us.
Don- my life is positive by my rules and no one elses...
Litl-Luther, I think you answered the Jonah question well. I personally do not think it was a whale necessarily, but some unusually large fish. Perhaps something extinct. But in that age, a whale was classified as a fish, so I do not exclude that as a possibility, either. The point is, that God did something out of the ordinary, and he did it for His own purpose with Jonah's ministry, as well as Jesus' prophecy.
Thanks Craver! You're too kind.
Post a Comment