It's late; I have to get up early; I'm sitting here with ice on my shoulder and I still have a report to write. So why am I blogging? Hard to believe that there could be more spiritual truth be derived from applying ice to one's body, but here's what I'm thinking.
The ice is on my shoulder; the pain is in my arm. It just strikes me as funny that I have to force myself to put the ice on the shoulder rather than packing it around my arm where I feel the pain! The ice has to be on the heart of the problem to be effective.
I wonder how many times in life I deal with the symptoms instead of the problem - just trying to make the symptoms go away because they are painful. I wonder how many times I actually make things worse by ignoring the root cause. As my BSF leader says, "the heart of the matter is a matter of the heart".
Psalm 139:23, 24 Search me, O God and know my heart; try me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
87 comments:
yea- but you are not wicked.. thats the point....
I agree with Simon. I hope the pain will go away soon.
Interesting that the word in the Hebrew translated "wicked" in your quotation of Psalm 139 literally means "pain".
In my translation it is translated "offensive". NRSV says "wicked", with footnote of Hebrew meaning "hurtful", surely meaning both to God and to humans including ourselves.
Reminds me of book I'm reading in which the author is trying to help us see how emotions are to be embraced as our friends, albeit in different ways, but helping us get to what is causing them, for example why we are angry, etc.
The passage in Psalm 139 indicates that only God can help us understand our deepest need. Reminds me of Job which I'm listening to right now. Job is expressing his anguish in his terrible suffering, and "Christians" are giving him all the stock answers, but neither they nor he really know what Job needs. Only God can give that to him, and does later in the book.
But your thoughts do remind me of how the author of the book I'm reading points out that all emotions (including the few not neutral in themselves, but which need discarded), including the troubling ones (fear, anger, etc.) like pain should become our friends in one way or another, as they can help alert us to an underlying issue that is at the heart of our problem. (yes, a sin issue, though in Job's case he was righteous, but needed a deeper understanding, and later he did repent in dust and ashes).
And getting at the heart of God's will for us is the command and call to love God with all our being and life, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. I think that's what holiness is all about, understanding how we've violated that, then repenting and finding the way everlasting. A way that is relational at the core to God, to ourselves and to others.
But you've got me thinking. And it corresponds to what I'm reading and where I'm at in my listening of Scripture. We indeed do seem to react in ways that are coping but not really getting at the underlying problem. And the prayer quoted is what we need to do to help us understand where the problem really lies, as well as us needing God's help to be found out and led.
(too long, I'm sorry. don't have time to work on cutting it down, and saying the same things or less, in fewer words)
Happy Easter Susan. Sorry my wishes are a day late but was involved in lots of things yesterday.
Hope the ice works. It should help, but so might some pain killers!
Just surprised Maalie didn't make a quip about your blood-pump!
Yes Ted, hurtful to God and to man. That's just what I had in mind.
Thanks for your well wished all - it's 6:10am and I'm up with ice to get ready for a big day of class and meetings.
The paradox I have is that I can't imagine Halfmom wanting to hurt a fly (a cockroach, maybe ;-) ).
And if one does inadvertantly cause hurt, isn't it better to say sorry to the injured party at the time, and seek forgiveness on earth?
It seems to me that if God really is omnipotent then we should be thanking him for making us how we are, not going through life grovelling with repentence for how he made us.
"..ignoring the root cause."
This side of heaven the Holy Spirit will be dealing with roots of pride, bitterness, self-pity, and other various roots that tend to grow in ones heart, or blood-pump. He will never not be faithful to conform us into the image of Jesus Christ, because God promised, and He keeps His promise.
Christ's forgiveness is complete for all who have come to Him in faith.
Jesus said, "Come unto Me, and I will grant you rest, for My burden is light, and My yoke is easy."
His yoke is forgiveness, mercy, being gracious & gentle, and above all love.
May the Lord help your arm to heal speedily. Amen.
Amen, Don.
"the Holy Spirit will be dealing with roots of pride, bitterness, self-pity" that's for sure Don - and also why it's so very easy for me to confess that I know that I'm wicked Simon/Maalie.
This really is the point of the whole matter. No matter how "nice" we seem, all of us are proud and selfish and that is sin. Knowing and understanding ahead of time that we are sinful does not remove us from the consequences of our own actions, including confessing them AND making restitution for them here on earth!
"It seems to me that if God really is omnipotent then we should be thanking him for making us how we are, not going through life grovelling with repentence for how he made us." First, God most certainly is omnipotent and second, He didn't make me/mankind sinful. I managed that out of my own free will.
Mankind chose sin in the Garden. And each of us would have made the same choice, so it's no good just putting it off on deceived Eve or weak Adam. Each of us has taken what God originally created mankind to be and tarnished it - and that is sin - falling short of the glory and will of God.
>all of us are proud and selfish and that is sinI assume you are speaking for yourself. I know people who are not like that.
does not remove us from the consequences of our own actions, But I thought that was God is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent? In which case everything is predetermined. Therefore they are not truly ourown actions, but actions predestined for us!
Just putting it off on deceived Eve or weak Adam.I can give you an absolute assurance that all that is mythology. Human diversity did not arise on this planet from two people in a garden. We arose from well-defned hominid precursors in Africa some three million years ago. The evidence is there for all to see if they want to. I suspect that there are many who do not want to see.
Halfmom, you are a member of the scientific community and publish in, and evidently have respect for, the peer-reviewed scientific literature. May I ask you how you reconcile the postion that you accept the journals that you publish in, but appear to disregard journals like this ?
It is all the same scientific process, why accept one but not the other?
Ted: What's the name of the book you are reading?
Anonymous,
Feel: The Power of Listening to Your Heart, by Matthew Elliott.
Maalie,
I speak for myself, but I see a vast difference from evolution and what is called "evolutionism" which advances dogma that is questionable science. I've read on that some. Susan's field is not in evolutionary science, so she has not had to grapple as a scientist with that firsthand, is my guess. But at least she accepts the Christianity of scientists who have and who do accept evolution, such as Francis Collins, and she's made that clear on this blog. But just my thoughts here.
I wouldn't call Susan or myself or others wicked as she does, though the thought is that we can have wickedness in our hearts (heart in Bible and in recent studies contra Freud, etc., includes the mind, will, and emotions, tied together), such as wicked thoughts, so in that sense at times, we can indeed be wicked if we harbor such.
Wicked according to what Scripture says. For example since I'm married I can't desire to have another woman sexually, but I'm to desire my wife. Or I can't hate another in my heart. Both Jesus pointed out, are sins in God's eyes and engaging in adultery and murder respectively in one's heart.
So from that point of view I would agree with Susan, that I too can struggle with sin. And sometimes sin in both what I do and say, as well as in what I don't do that ought to be done.
Don's comment is gold, and I'm sure ministered very well to Susan, but also ministered to me (as I had one of those days yesterday inside of myself over some insipid silly issue in itself really- though having experienced this much in my past, though we did have a lot of fun with our granddaughrer Morgan, again!).
>what is called "evolutionism" which advances dogma that is questionable scienceI'm not talking about that Ted. I'm talking about the peer-reviewed literature that Halfmom herself contributes to.
It seems to me that you call it "questionaable" because you yourself say so.
Maalie,
For example "evolutionism" insists on a gradualism (from Darwin) in the evolutionary change which does not seem to fare well under the fossil findings. This is not at all positing a "God of the gaps" idea. And there's a whole list (the book is at work, but I could list them for you from it). This is from scientists who are Christians and Theists who hold to evolution themselves. It is a complaint too against a naturalism which becomes faith yet denies that it is.
As a Christian I readily acknowledge that my belief is a matter of faith, though I see it as both intrinsic and extrinsic. But I don't pretend that it's just a matter of looking at the data as in science. Science should stick to what it is, and not venture forth into faith matters. It can't do so, because again, I believe we're talking about two kinds of knowing, though there may be a little bit of overlap and some of both in science and in religion, specifically Christianity.
But back to the original thought: it's not at all because I said so.
(I don't mean to be promoting my own blog, but today I "scribbled" this post on an important matter I've touched on here. And people like Dawkins would seem to want to deny this of others, which gets at the inherent tension within what is being done over here.
But I don't mean to distract from the conversation going on, so I put this all in parenthesis!)
...and actually there's quite a bit of overlap of each form of knowing knowing in both science and religion, especially- or at least in Christianity, which is not an anti-historical, anti-natural religion or faith. Though again it's more than just "the facts".
Maalie, I see your point just now about the peer reviewed science Susan herself has contributed to. Sorry as I somehow missed that before, my attention jumping to what you said next.
Maalie Our hearts are deceptive. Even the ability to judge our own motives is flawed and we use our "reasoning" against others. It amazes me sometimes how we can twist and turn even delightful things like "boyish enthusiasm" into clubs and spears to use against another we have pledged to love forever. And yet, we do, person by person, year by year. I do not believe there is a life that, if truly examined, will reveal anything other. there was never but One who was perfect.
Ted Maalie knows quite well that in my training I have been presented with what he refers to as "evidence" and have had to grapple with it and its implications personally. I had a rather brilliant professor for molecular modeling actually, a devout evolutionist with great distain for anyone who believed a god existed, much less the One True God. He drilled the "facts" into my head quite well and at one point I was rather articulate with them as well as it suited me to be. I found it quite easy to repeat his arguments, to use them on tests to explain the answers he was seeking (the evolution of cellular iron handling ability Maalie), but none of it convinced me that he had drawn the correct conclusion.
Maalie I will come back later to address your points on the character of God, but you must excuse me for some hours. I need to drive to work - sigh. Lecture is calling my name this morning and I have a new one to give this afternoon that is not fully prepared.
Didn't Jesus (or was it Moses)say "Love thy neighbour as thyself"?
This suggests to me that it is OK to love oneself and not be to self-indulgent in the self-flagellation of one's own wickedness and nastiness.
...Christianity, which is not an anti-historical, anti-natural religion or faith. Though again it's more than just "the facts".Ted, I like the way you phrased that. Too often, I think my own comments emphasize the spiritual impetus to the apparent exclusion of physical evidence and reason. Although my arguments assign the weight of priority to spiritual "behind the scenes" stuff, I do not mean to suggest that faith is so ethereal, that it disconnects entirely from the here and now. Just because its boundaries are broader than reason, does not mean that it is contrary to reason.
Hmmm... it didn't recognize my paragraph breaks. I even tried re-doing it.
Maalie, I do not consider true repentance as self-flagellation. We admit our problems, accept the consequences and seek help for the good of all involved. God commands repentance, but He also calls us to reconciliation.
To people who have a desire to avoid stumbling into swelled pride and arrogance, it is helpful to remind ourselves of the things that should keep us humble.
Now the formatting problem seems to have gone away. That's good.
Susan, you're famous! Someone who knows me recognized you from your pictures. She saw you at BSF, but did not approach you because your name tag did not say Susan or Halfmom. She said you are beautiful in person, too. I encouraged her to introduce herself the next time she sees you.
"Human diversity did not arise on this planet from two people in a garden. We arose from well-defned hominid precursors in Africa some three million years ago."
"...the genetic differences between the different human ethnic groups are not very large. Apparently Adam and Eve were created with DNA containing the potential for the kind of visible variation that now exists.As their descendants migrated and became geographically isolated and then later intermingled with other groups, variations would have occured over time due to various factors. Take the origin of Hispanics, for example. No such ethnic group existed until Europeans joined with Native Americans." Dr. Keith Mathison
Woa, I put this on the wrong thread!
Thanks, Susan. Fascinating.
Thanks, Craver as well.
Don, interesting. But one has to hear both sides. It is evident I've drawn different conclusions from what I've read, from most on this blog, all the Christians here. But I most certainly do not do so as a scientist, so my opinion is really not worth as much as theirs, needless to say. I guess you and I depend on what we can read and understand second hand.
Though I do think the way one reads Scripture can impact one's science. And the way one understands science can impact the way Scripture is read (though I think a good reading bears out well with science, myself). Go back to Galileo, and the church had to learn that some language in the Bible is not scientifically precise, but given in accord with the understanding of that day- yet speaking powerfully to all in every culture of every day (because such things are beside the point). Something of where I'm at on this.
I don't buy into this "questionable science" fallacy. Fundamentalists don't like evolutionary biology because it contracticts their indoctrination and so they label it as "questionable science". Then the rumour spreads through the fundamentalist community like the MMR-autism hoax.
If science is questionable, it won't pass the peer-reviewed process - that is what it is for. If a hypothesis is later found inadequate due to fresh evidence, the hypothesis is modified or rejected. Unlike fundamentalism.
Ted, I urge you to follow the link I put in the post timed at 1.18 am, select for yourself an article in that journal, read the abstract and then comment here why you think it is "questionable". Please.
>the church had to learn that some language in the Bible is not scientifically precise, but given in accord with the understanding of that dayI think this is an extremely important point, Ted, and one which I have been trying to make for ever! The bible was written to "explain the unexplainable" at the time. Knowledge and understanding of processes have advanced inordinately in the last 2000 years. For example we now understand that human diversity as we see it today could not possibly have arisen from a groups as small as Noah's family in such a recent time scale.
And it's OK to love yourself, we are not all wicked. No need to self-flagellate.
"And it's OK to love yourself"
That's a given to love yourself.
But there's a wrong loving yourself: "For men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, boasters, proud, railers, unthankful, highminded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God." Paul is speaking here of those in the Church of course, because he then tells us to turn away from such as these, however Paul also admonishes us have relayionships with those outside the Church, who may or may not have this fruit in their lives.
Jesus says, "Deny yourselves." What He is saying is to be selfless, and seek to serve others. Esteem others above yourself. Loving ourselves is part of who we are.
I remeber a friend saying to me, "You know why I smoke cigarettes? Because i hate myself."
I told him, "The reason you smoke cigarettes is because you love to, and you're not hating yourself, you doing what you want to, though the nicotine is also a major factor."
>covetous, boasters, proud, railers, unthankful, highminded,Donsands, are you accusing Halfmom of being like this? I don't believe you. She gives me the inmpression of being a really nice, compassionate, hard-working, principled person. I see no reason why she should need to flagellate herself.
Of course it's okay for people to love themselves... we take care of ourselves, and that is not the same as prioritizing our own wants above others'. We get hungry, so we eat. We see that the weather is nice, so we go for a walk, etc. Self-love is naturally wired into our being. When we see someone deliberately hurting themselves, it is treated as a sickness.
One love definition that I like a lot is not self-love though. James Orr writes: "Love is that principle which leads one moral being to desire and delight in another, and reaches its highest form in that personal fellowship in which each lives in the life of the other, and finds his joy in imparting himself to the other, and in receiving back the outflow of that other's affection unto himself."
Maalie, to answer your question about Susan, I would testify that she is not marked by those negative distinctives. She is known more for her positive attributes. But she still acknowledges that she is a sinner, and would confess that her righteousness is as filthy rags. That's part of what makes a person righteous... that they do not dismiss the evil in their own lives.
"Donsands, are you accusing Halfmom of being like this?"
Now I have a chance to share what we all already know.
Susan is an exceptional Christian woman, as I have found out over the past year or so.
She is a bright shining light for her Lord and Savior. She has many rewards in heaven, and I appreciate the Lord allowing me to bump into her here on her web site. I pray that some day we might cross paths here in this age, but if not, then we will be togther in the next age with Christ our King.
Andrew, I am finding it tricky to discern the purpose of your comment. You do not really believe that any person can destroy Halfmom's faith, do you?
In Maalie's defense, he does not spend a lot of time with silly Christians. I am as silly as they come, and he rarely comments on my blog. ;-)
I did happen to see Andrew's comment before he deleted it. I was going to remark that it is of little use spouting bits of the bible at me: how can I be expected to take seriously a 2000 year old book that claims that a man survived in the guts of a fish for three days; that the world was covered with water as recently as the bronze age; and that human diversity sprang from a group with as small a gene pool as Noah's family; and that a bat is a fowl? Honestly! LOL!
As for Halfmom, I have merely been supporting Simon's original remark that she isn't wicked. She is, however, a contributor to the peer-reviewed scientific literature and I think it is a fair question to ask at what point expectation of respect for her own publications is not matched by her respect for other equally scrutinised publications?
I wonder if, by way of example, she would like to say how she would criticise any of the articles in the journal I linked to above?
Hi All - Just an FYI - we have a new participant named Andrew. I'm sorry he removed his comments and seems to have withdrawn from the conversation. I did want you to know that this is a NEW Andrew, different from my son-in-law Andrew.
Welcome Andrew - I'm glad you have decided to join our conversation - I'm just sorry that you deleted your comments. I assume that if you've been reading awhile you know that I would let you know if I thought your comments were out of line - and I didn't, so you didn't need to delete them. Please do tell us more about yourself - I followed the hyperlink back but your blog profile was not accessible.
Thank you for welcoming me Susan. I do not have a blog, only a gmail account. As for me, there is not much to tell. I am just a blood bought believer, who thinks this man (Maalie) is very blessed indeed to have all these people lovingly and patiently (for the most part) trying to point him to Christ. I should have thought most people would have thought they were casting their pearls before swine and shaken the dust from their feet by now.
As for you Maalie, I will say again LET GOD BE TRUE AND EVERY MAN A LIAR. AMEN.
God's Word is forever settled in heaven, you can deny it all you want, laugh at it, mock it, etc. But you WILL stand before the God of all creation and either be covered by the blood of Christ or condemned to eternal damnation. God's Word is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword and it will not return void. So even though you say it is useless, I say to you repent or you will perish in your sins. The fool has said in his heart there is no God.
Certainly you are welcome here Andrew - from Florida perhaps if I am interpreting my IP addresses correctly?
I'm just trying to find a way to differentiate between you (for my own sake as well as for the sake of the other readers as well) and my new son-in-law who's "signature" reads "Andrew" as well.
I also want them to know you are not our friend Triston (Litl-Luther) playing the sock-puppet as you sound rather like him.
Interesting, your thoughts on patience - I suppose that I don't think of it as patient. Mostly scientists are just stubborn (we are rather, arent' we Maalie?). We like to see a thing through to the end, argue it to the last point until we come to concensus. Mostly, I think Maalie is incredulous that I am a credible scientist who still comes to a conclusion, given the "evidence", different than the one main stream science comes to.
In any event, he is the big brother of our much loved Lorenzo, so he gets extra grace. And speaking of grace, I think it behooves those of us who are very aware of how much grace we have been shown to be quite generous with ours in return.
Grace and peace.
Oh my goodness, that second paragraph could have used some editing before I hit the publish button!
I realized that I forgot to say that Maalie is my friend as well. I have rather a soft spot in my blood pump for him.
>I think Maalie is incredulous that I am a credible scientist Halfmom, I think I would choose the word "curious" rather than incredulous. A while back you put a post asking why we came here and I never answered at the time. Apart from the obvious answer for the opportunity for discussion (as most people replied, I think), I was curious to explore at which point in the spectrum of peer-reviewed biologicsl literature you ceased to accept it and began to reject it. And if your interpretation is different, why don't you offer it for publication and have it peer reviewed? It seems such an obvious thing to do. You could become famous if you have a real alternative to Darwin.
Andrew, I don't go along with all this hell fire snd damnation stuff. I am much more sympathetic to Ted who seems to accept the fact that we have come a long way in the 2000 years since the bible was written. I am myself a Unitarian.
"thought they were casting their pearls before swine"
Oh, Andrew, just another intoleraant fundamentalist insult. I can cope. I have been called worse than a pig in time time.
I am not proud nor selfish.. but I do like pleasures:-
eg the pleasure of eating a meat pie at Tilpa Hotel with an icy beer,
Or the pleasure of seeing a Brolga for the first time- a magnificent bird..
Or the pleasure of being woken at 3am by the sound of a thunderstorm whilst camping, and seeing the lightening light up the bush.
Or the pleasure of spending easter with 100 aboriginal brothers and enjoying their singing.
Or the pleasure of a camp fire lit by my 11 year old son.
Or the pleasure of him identifying insects and birds.
Or the pleasure of jumping on a plance and spendig time with my mate Maalie in Paris, or Shetland or Spain or Australia and sharing a meal or a joke- and always learning something from him..
Or the pleasure of watching my ballerina friend dance in her dance class with her beautiful technique
So- I am not the least bit interested in "storing up riches n heaven" or denying my pleasures...
And I am not going to beat mysself up with a cat of nine tails to repent from my wickedness (of which I have none)
Andrew- "chest thumping" is not very frightening and the use of capital AMENS etc mean not a great deal.
"thought they were casting their pearls before swine"
A veiled insult.. its just weak mate.
If Maalie is swine- then allow me to live in the pig pen...
Learn something from Ted.
>"be covered by the blood of Christ"
Literally? I can't imagine anything more disgusting than being covered by someone else's blood.
Maalie,
I followed the link, and I don't see the science of evolution and Scripture mutually exclusive. I believe Susan and others on this blog clearly do. But Susan has graciously allowed me to participate and has not removed my comments contrary to her own beliefs on this- as we know.
As to Scripture, yes, I agree with John Calvin that God accomodated himself and truth all along to humans. Part of God's revelation is God's world, nature. Therefore God's not going to give a book on that, but he expects human beings to explore it for themselves. It's in the realm of things revealed, I take it.
But Scripture hits into the other kind of knowledge I've been mentioning here. Not just knowing ABOUT someone, but KNOWING THEM, getting to know them on a personal, relational level. And Scripture gets into other things that left to ourselves, we would not know (along with things that by "common grace" people do know, but with a needed twist on that, as well).
But yes, from Genesis 1 to Revelation 22, I believe Scripture is true and is the word of God. I may say the same things differently and with a different tone, though I really do believe the tone on this blog is quite loving and gracious (usually, and Susan takes care of it when it's not), but it is true.
Here's a book that would be good for you and Simon to read, and really all the Christians on this blog as well. I don't really think at all it will change most any of the core beliefs of Christians here, but it will make you think. Really we all do what he's getting at when we read Scripture. I think it's a great read, and speaks the truth, but doesn't diminish one iota my respect and love for any book of Scripture (in fact, maybe just the opposite, probably so!).
We need Genesis (important, crucial on beginnings) and we need every book in Scripture to help us see what God is getting at, and where in Jesus he takes us, at the end, in a garden and in a city. I hope we're all there together!
I thought of erasing my last comment and rewording a small part of it. I don't mean to suggest that any of the core beliefs of Christianity will be challenged by that book. Not at all! But how we look at some of them may well be. After all, the history of Christian orthodoxy is rich in perspectives on those things. But I just wanted to add this as a clarification to my previous comment, just in case any would think I am ready to leave any core beliefs of Christianity behind.
Well said Ted,
yes- its easy to be mis understood in the written word because we cannot see facial expression, nor what the author intended sometimes. Nor what surrounds him. The written law is limited. Aborigines never wrote anything down- preferring to re tell their dreamings....
can be same said of the bible? written at a time when law and customs were so different? I think so. So its not perfect nor as relevant as it was? is it limited because it was written down? I think so
I like law. the law of nature, the law of man- it is not interested in the morality of something, but rather the workings...the mechanics
I recommend the reading of Bertrand Russell who deals with the issues of moving on from morality.
Moving to the next level if you like...
PS Andrew- what are your thoughts on moving beyond morality and judgement?
Simon,
Thanks, but...
I don't see the Bible as irrelevant in the least. It speaks powerfully to generation after generation. The account in Genesis 1 is a case in point.
Your thought on workings and mechanics reminds me of the old way of acting. Hollywood actors, I understand, used to mimic certain actions and ways of saying things, and thus practice and act that way. Eventually they left that behind and simply tried to think and act "in the shoes" out of their hearts and own way- the character role they were to play. Hence, the acting improved dramatically because it was natural.
That may not be relevant, but I do think when we take the morality of life away, simply looking at the mechanics, we take the heart (and guts, so to speak) of real living away. And even those who say they think that's good don't live that way. (you and Maalie being two good examples of that!).
Maalie is in the pig pen of my house at the moment!
Maalie, those are the words of Christ, so if you are offended by them or insulted by them...
And as far as literally covered by His blood, the answer is no, but my sins are covered by His blood.
Yes, I'm writing from Lorenzo's pig pen, just before I depart from her local airport on a well-earned European holiday.
Donsands, Keith Mathison is a fundamentalist, not a peer-reviewed scientist, let alone an evolutionary biologist and I'm afraid I can't accept his testimony. He picks about at the science to put about mis-information that appears to support biblical mythology. In fact, human DNA is extremely close (95%+, I believe) to the chimpanzee. If you study authentic genetics you will learn that two people could not have had had a necessary diverse gene pool to create the multitude of ethnic groups that appear on earth today in such a short space of time as the bible suggests. In fact, what ethnic group do you think Noah belonged to?
Ted"I don't see the Bible as irrelevant in the least".
I have never described it as "irrelevant", only that it is not the word of some "God" but represents the sort of creation mythology that all cultures have. There are clearly some words of wisdom there, and some useful allegories and codes of practice for life. However I consider that any wise people could have come up with them, without a purported supernatural influence.
It is the insistence by fundamentalists of taking every word quite literally that has driven me, and many others I know, away from Christianity, and religion in general.
Simon, I am not sure what you mean by your question. Can you elaborate please?
Oh, I have looked it up, it is 96, see here I quote:
"Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough," said Frans de Waal, a primate scientist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. "We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
Andrew: "but my sins are covered by His blood".
Clearly a metaphor. Could you explain exactly what you mean by this? It sounds a bit messy to me.
Metaphor, analogy, rhetoric and so on are all very well in literature but they are subject to misinterpretation (as Simon indicates). When someone says "I know in my heart" they are more likely to mean something like: "Despite the fact that my knowldege, experience, logic and evidence I have witnessed suggests to me that a, b and c cannot be true, I still shoose to believe it". Religion is, of course, merely institutionalised superstition.
Oh Maalie It always makes me smile when you say you are off to a "well-earned holiday". Your retirement funds must not have disappeared as mine did over the past year! Besides, all of my holidays seem to get filled up with things other than holiday! One day though, I hope to come to the UK to visit Lorenzo - perhaps you will visit her "pen" at the same time!
I do get to leave on Friday for almost a week at the Experimental Biology meetings (FASEB) in New Orleans. I am excited that it will be sunny and warm! Quite a treat for me as well as the science and seeing old friends.
You said, "I was curious to explore at which point...if your interpretation is different, why don't you offer it...?" You know me well Maalie - I do not, as Ted thinks, reject the evidence, only the interpretation. Why not offer my opinion to science - why bother?
You know that the goal of my life is to honor Jesus Christ and to aid in what little part I may in the introduction of many to Him. Other than the curory knowledge that we need as good scientists in many areas of science, that area of the scientific literature is simply not a good utilization of my time. First, there simply is no extra time aside from my own areas for more than curory reading and second, it would be futile for those things I wish to accomplish.
Man is never introduced to Christ by logic. He is not something/someone who can be "apprehended" by knowledge; He is only met by faith. So, even if I did a brilliant job, it would win no one and I would have used my time poorly. Better I spend my time in science, what little I may have left, doing reading and research that may help people.
oops, clearly I cannot spell "cursory" correctly!
Thinking about the genetic pool issue, I seem to remember that Jacob founded the Jewish people and Esau founded the Arab people, both Semites.
So where does this leave the Aborigines, the Eskimos, the South American Indians, the Chinese etc. etc.
See here "DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who—about 60,000 years ago—began a remarkable journey".
If you accept the use of DNA technology in crime investigation, then one should accept it in population biology too.
Last night I watched a very interesting programme about the famous Dr Crippen (who came from Michigan by the way) and it was proved that he did not murder his wife, as the remains that were found were a) male and b) because of the DNA the bits of person left were not related to Mrs Crippen.
However, I digress. I agree with Maalie on a lot of scientific data. I expect I will be struck-off and de-frocked if I say that personally I don't believe the Old Testament is the spoken word of God, but inspired writing, giving lessons in morality, the law and a lot of history.
No. I am not Andrew playing a "sock-puppet". I'm not sure who that guy is. ...But I am Triston, enjoying the sun, sand and surf on this beautiful island!
Susan: I didn't see myself in Andrew's comments. I believe I add a bit more flavor when I punch Maalie. :-)
Hi to all!
That phrase, "covered by the blood" has its primary etymological roots in the Passover account. When the faithful marked their doors with the blood of the sacrificed lamb, the angel of death would "pass over" their house, sparing the life of the firstborn. Thus, those who were "covered by the blood" would be saved.
At the last supper, Jesus identified himself with the sacrificed lamb as they celebrated Passover. Taking the bread and wine, he said (paraphrase), "This is my body and this is my blood." Now He is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of all who believe in Him, and we say that those who are saved are "covered by the blood" of Christ.
Also, since it is Christ's blood that makes us clean, we sometimes say that we're "washed in the blood." Yes, it sounds gory, I know. But when we see the price that he paid, it is not a vulgar thing... instead a reason to rejoice and give glory to God.
I hope that sheds some light on this phrase. We sometimes call it "Christianese" when we say a thing that only Christians would usually understand.
"We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament."
How long was it from the first breath of life, which came from mud and lightning I think, to the first ape? And then from the first ape, i guess first two apes, a female and a male, how long before they turned into man?
And why is it that we still have apes? You would think they would be extinct by now. And extinction is an evolutionary good thing, right?
I'll have to get back with you on the DNA thing. Got to do some homework.
Thanks for the interaction Maalie.
Lorenzo said: "but inspired writing, giving lessons in morality, the law and a lot of history."
When you say "history", do you know if there is any independent corroboration from non-biblical sources, for example archaeology or literature? I guess some of the cities mentioned in the bible can still be traced.
However, Genesis, Noah's Flood and the fish with the living-room guts are obviously pure mythology.
Craver Vii, thank you for the clarification. I am relieved it is merely metaphorical. Anyway, I'm not among the elected so it won't apply to me.
Now I have to prepare myself for some of Lorenzo's tofu and lentil stew.
Donsands: If you regard the first breath of life (strictly, the first organisms were anaerobic and technically would not have "breathed" as we know it) at midnight on January 1st, higher animals appeared late on December 31st (something on that scale) and humanns about 11.55 on Dec 31st. You can find plenty of references to these time scales on the internet.
You are correct in saying that Man did not evolve from the existing apes; rather, man and the existing apes evolved from a common ancestor that lived some millions of years ago, now of course extinct (a point I have frequently had to explain to students). There is now a very good continuity of fossil evidence for all of this, I will find you peer-reviewed references if you like.
Of course a lot of the Old Testament is history. Israel, Palestine, Babylon, Egypt and Jordon are a hotbed for archaeologists. There seems no doubt at all about a lot of the history as stated in the Bible.
Hello Luther, I see you are safe. I had been wondering whether you were in the marauding hoards that were being gleefully beaten up by the Thai police in Bankok. I thought maybe you had been preaching fundamentalism to the Moslems!
Everyone,
Somehow I think I'm being misunderstood and/or misinterpreted on this blog, at least to some extent.
I agree with Susan that logic alone wins no one to Christ. In fact before I came to this computer, having glanced at this post briefly at the end of the first break, after praying, I was thinking of the passage Paul wrote to Timothy about the holy Scriptures: how they are able to make one wise for salvation through faith in Jesus.
That's what it's all about. At the heart of why I personally took up reading on science in regard to orgins was primarily because I wanted to help others who saw it as an obstacle to faith. Young Earth Creationists seem to think it's a big issue.
My own concern is to help those who are steeped in evolutionism or naturalism. And also to help young people not think they have to reject the faith if they hold to an old earth, and even to evolution.
But Susan's point is where it's at. Scripture is not just relevant, but given to lead us to faith in Jesus. That is the bottom line of where Scripture is to lead us.
As for me, I too am tired of debates unless I could prepare well over time, but I can't. I am dead tired much of the time, and limited in all kinds of ways, as well- I mean we all have our niche and things to do.
But that doesn't mean I won't drop in now and then. I just don't see my contribution necessarily adding to this blog anything that other brothers and sister(s) in Jesus can't say, or say better.
So for now, I take a rest. I am sorry to be misunderstood, as I really was not questioning you, Susan, in your science, or your ability. You are quite gifted, for sure, of that I have no doubt, and I'm sure in a number of ways, and you most certainly are a blessing!
Ted, isn't it possible to believe in evolution and also be a Christian?
Lorenzo: No-one "believes" in evolution, but almost everyone accepts it as currently the most parsimonious and acceptable explanation for the origin and develpment of life on earth that does not require the intervention of the supernatural.
Halfmom: Oh, it's not so bad as it sounds, I can get a return flight to Europe for less then the cost of filling my car with petrol (I guess you guys call it gas)!
>Why not offer my opinion to science - why bother?
Why bother? Well, you could become rich and famous; you might even win a Nobel Prize. I would even offer to help you draft the manuscript and help out with the statistics ;-)
Hi Triston!! I'm so glad to know that you all are safe. Like Llama, I was a bit concerned when I heard the news reports of violence! The "new" Andrew left several comments but then removed them. They were up long enough for Maalie to see and respond to before he removed them. I did not see them on the blog personally but, of course, had them in my inbox since I have the blog email comments to me as they are posted.
Oh Maalie side-by-side writing about evolution and Christianity and doing statistics - we might need to drink quite a few beers to get through those calculations! Besides, being famous holds no allure for me I'm afraid. I'll be satisfied with keeping a job and being promoted to Associate - or getting another job if not!
Llama dear - defrocking not allowed here, but you know I will continue to disagree with you on that point. As to the various "colors" and "varieties" - I shall play my divine intervention card I'm afraid, though that will satisfy you and Maalie little. Your stew sounds quite good and I am rather hungry!
Ted, Ted what shall we do with you - perhaps we should transplant some of Triston's thick skin on you and some of your more sensitive skin on Triston - eh? It makes me think of the diversity that Lorenzo is questioning with the two of you as polar opposites. No offense was intended; I wanted to restate what I thought was unclear so as to more clearly make my point. That's what we scientists do I'm afraid, and tromp on other's feelings quite inadvertantly.
PS - thank you as always Craver for your pithy comments. they are appreciated.
Simon - I hope this finds you well. It is a lovely list of things you enjoy - especially the boy and the camp fire - it makes me want to push you to write again about when you were growing up!!
Hello Don Have you spring in Maryland yet? I think there are definite hints in Chicago that it really is coming this year. I trust you had a joyous Easter celebration with your family!!
I try to be selective with my responses, so that I can do my job and not get sucked into a black hole, trading my obligation to an employer for voluntary apologetics. There is so much here that I wish I had more time to respond to.
Renzo asks an outstanding question. The short answer is, "Yes."
The details that could go on forever would ask what is the most bare-boned essential doctrine for salvation. And then we could address the indwelling and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit, and the difference between a new believer and a mature one. (For example, a mature believer cannot deny the doctrine of the Trinity.) We could ask why a person accepts evolution, and the answer could reveal more about a person's worldview and belief system, etc.
As Ted stated, some (I) think it is a big issue. I hope I am careful about how I handle it though. Believing a thing is not license to go to war about it. I will miss Ted if he spends too much time away. :-(
I believe in the Trinity Craver. Also I believe in evolution. I don't believe that Jonah lived in a fish, that the flood covered the WHOLE earth, that all humans are offspring from Adam and Eve, etc. etc.
I do believe in the immaculate conception, forgiveness of sins, the resurrection and the miracles.
Am I a young believer or an old believer?!
Lorenzo, isn't it time you started boiling those lentils? Me'n'Peter are getting hungry after our hard day, and we want to open that bottle of Chianti.
Young or old is not something I need to be judging you on unless you were mentoring my children or writing Sunday School curriculum. And no mature Christian can claim infallibility. There are lots of godly people who's theology can be questioned. It is more important that a person asks himself: Am I in or out; saved or not? We all do well to take that question seriously (work out your salvation with fear and trembling), regardless of our spiritual "age."
When I get to heaven, I may be surprised to find out where I was wrong, but I should not be surprised at all that I make errors here or there.
Donsands: You might like to take a peep at this .
As you will see at the bottom, it is comprised entirely from the peer-reviewed literature, including such illustrious journals as Nature .
Craver: I always find this question about being saved very confusing. There is a certain type of Christian who pins you against the wall and asks you whether you are saved.
Surely it is not for us to decide whether we are saved or not. Didn't Jesus say 'those who are first shall be last and those that are last shall be first'? I'm sure there is another quote somewhere that my poor brain can't bring to mind just now about the same sort of thing.
Maalie and Peter are bleating for their dinner. If my brother allowed me occasional access to the computer when he visits, he wouldn't now be waiting for his food!
There are two items I could respond to, 'Renzo. I'll take the last one first, and the first one last. ;-)
That passage is found in Mark 9:33-35. It deals not with salvation, but greatness versus humility; entitlement versus servanthood.
For now, go and eat. I'll try to come back and respond to the first part later.
Part 2:
Certainly, there is a certain type of person (not only Christian) who pins you against the wall just because they like to argue.
But if it truly is a life and death situation, how can it be compassionate to remain silent? Jesus commands us to make disciples of all nations, telling the good news even to the remotest parts of the earth (Mt. 28 & Acts 1). If we receive the Gift by hearing with faith (Gal. 3), then it stands to reason that someone must tell the story first (Rom. 10:17), right?
Just because one person likes to argue, or another person treats converts like trophies, that does not invalidate Christ or His gospel.
"I trust you had a joyous Easter celebration with your family!!"
Sure did Susan. The best was church, and hearing an edifying sermon from my pastor.
And being with my daughter and her husband and three sons was very special indeed.
Christ crucified and risen is what life is all about, and what a special time to celebrate this truth of all truths.
"Donsands: You might like to take a peep at this ."
I shall do that. And we guys do say gas, instead of petrol. And we call people, "guys" a lot as well. i wish we would avoid that, and perhaps use mate, or bloke, and lass/lassie or Miss.
Well, I don't really have the time to go over this thread just now.
But Susan, thanks. Don't really know if it's thin skin as I tend not to care what people think about me, sometimes to a fault, so that can be unedifying. Why else would I be willing to admit here that I don't see evolution and Christianity as mutually exclusive?
I guess I just thought I had somehow come across offensive myself. And I also kind of tire of going round and round the same issues on a discussion. For me that means more reading, but I am limited on the amount I can do.
I don't like to go counter to everyone, either. I guess having the sense of being alone on a blog, but I guess that's life sometimes. Thinking out loud here. Chemistry is important too, and somehow I just don't think what I say mixes that well here. Again, more thinking out loud.
I certainly do not have it altogether. I may be too think skinned or whatever. But in the end all that should matter to me and to us is what God thinks, and God's will.
I'll check back later, but need to go.
>I certainly do not have it altogether. I may be too think skinned or whatever. Ted, I think you should feel ok. It is you that have given me and Simon some hope of rationality here.
Maalie,
Thanks.
And others,
I'm tired and I shouldn't have left the last comment, at least not all of it. I did come down to get rid of at least some of it, but since Maalie's comment is here I'll leave it on.
Usually I don't mind being the odd person out, so I guess I'm a bit surprised myself at my comment.
But Deb and I are going to watch a movie, now.
Ted- I did not mean that you saw the bible as irrelevant! Quite the contrary. I thought what you wrote was well written..actually
Susan- I do have a new chapter about my first motor bike comming up!! :o)
I will look forward to reading it Simon!! I'm always sad when I reach the end of one of you stories - I always want to read MORE!!
I intend no offense at all to anyone by anything I wrote yesterday. I'm not complaining or looking down on anyone at all. I'm sure Susan already understands that.
I think one of the biggest problems we can have is simply in not understanding each other, due to lack of communication, listening, asking questions, etc. I need to learn better to ask questions instead of jumping to conclusions.
So please forgive me for any offense caused to anyone, and if need be, email me if you have a concern. My email address is available through going to my blog profile.
Thanks!
Hi Susan and Lorenzo,
We are doing fine. Yes. There was a "state of emergency" in Bangkok (maybe there still is; I don't know). It reminded me of Kathmandu, but in Kathmandu they can actually shut down the whole city--not so in Bangkok. Pay the cab driver a little extra and you can weave around the blockades.
"Ted, isn't it possible to believe in evolution and also be a Christian?"
Lorenzo, it is possible to believe all sorts of nonsense and still be a Christian.
:LOL-)
Post a Comment