Migration back to this blog (the original in blogger) is almost done - have transferred all of the HalfmomAKASusan back here.
Please come here from now on. I'll leave the other site up for a while until I'm sure this works and then will delete it altogether. Too hard to keep up with the email accounts for both!
Want to make sure not to loose any of your lovely comments though!
The correct link will be here http://halfmom.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
112 comments:
looks like i'm on board.
YAHOO - thanks Nancy! Glad to know at least this part is working!
You have a lovely new home Susan.
No one seems to want to debate in your new home, Susan.
Well, Litl Luther, you may have noticed this post is about migration of a website. There isn't really very much that is controversial about that to debate, is there?
If you had done that to a dog in this country you would now be in prison. Exactly how much did you enjoy taking revenge on that hapless animal? Eye for an eye, was it? I'm glad I don;t live in a place where the police can be bribed for a few cents.
because we look different, we are their sworn enemy. Oh,
I don't believe that. Animals aren't racist.
Welcome back into the fold Ted. Errrm,
Litl Luther, do you realise just how arrogant and patronising that sounds? I think it is at least as likely that you yourself are outside the fold.
You think the flood was local; others think the bible is inerrant; Ted sort of accepts evolution, you don't; Donsands ascribes his own meaning to the quoted word of Jesus; Lorenzo doesn't believe a man could survive in the guts of a fish for three days; on Bluecollar they are certain that I will swim for eternity in that cursed lake of fire, Halmom is more encouraging. So much controversy, so much hatred, so much bloodshed over the interpretation of a 2000 year old book.
It is Litl closed attitudes like yours that have turned me, and countless others, away from Christianity. A fine evangelical job you are doing, Litl Luther!
Maalie, there was nothing 'hapless' about that mange beast, and if I was in your country I could have simply called the pound, and it would not have been necessary to bring the police several times to their doorsteps nor necessary for me to kill it myself.
I suppose you would of had me continue to risk my wife's life for the sake of a vicious animal?? If so you’re a bigger fool than I ever imagined.
Moreover, Ted knows right well that the comment I made to him was a joke. It was supposed to be funny, that's all. He knows I was kidding.
Don't try and pass the blame. It is your own wicked heart that is keeping you from Christ -- not me. You have yourself to blame, which you will certainly find out on Judgment Day if you continue your opposition to faith in Christ.
There is a lot of humor going on on this blog, maybe subliminal?
One time we watched a movie as I recall entitled "The Stupids." I laughed very hard the first ten minutes or so. But after that the humor was either too sophisticated for me or something unfamiliar to me, or else it was just plain bad. I don't really know.
So sometimes I'm at a loss to know what is to be taken seriously and what is not, in comments on this blog. I saw "the fold" statement by Triston as just a friendly quip for the occasion (#1, not #2 or #4 of those definitions!).
Maalie,
I don't know what you mean by I sort of accept evolution, but that's okay. Because I am largely ignorant when it comes to science, but am fascinated, and trying to learn.
Here's to a winged migration. :)
Litl Luther, what are you on? My heart is an organ in my body, it has an exclusive function of pumping blood around my body, nothing else.
It's always the same with you, Litl Luther, meaningless metaphor, simile, analogy, rhetoric, contradiction, but no substance. I suggest you grow up and emerge from your delusion.
That dog, in your own words, did not bite your wife. From your graphic and flaunting account, it is evident that you enjoyed reeking revenge on that litl animal.
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. One wonders where the wickednessreally lies, Litl Luther. It must be so easy for you to feel righteous. However, righteousness is the prerogative of the right.
In the most unlikely event of there actually being a god (there are dozens to choose from) he/she has already pre-ordained my fate. Nothing I can do about that. Some heavenly father! LOL!
Perhaps you’re the one with the litl mind, Maalie, if you think anything I said suggests I enjoyed killing the dog. Protecting my wife was my ONLY concern. If you can’t see that, perhaps that’s a clue as to why you’re no longer married.
"he/she has already pre-ordained my fate."
I don't know what god you speak of Maalie, but it's not at all the God I worship, through Jesus.
Litl Luther: Henceforth I shall regard your remarks with the contempt they deserve.
I have needed to "mercy-kill" hundreds of animals (as large as sheep) in my life, and with a reputation of a biologist, I sometimes get asked to do it. I try to do it sensitively and discretely, certainly not flaunting it in the public domain.
That animal of yours was evidently under control or you wouldn't have got a noose round its neck. A swift blow between the eyes from the eponymous heavy blunt instrument would have done the job in a split second.
However that would not of course have given you the same satisfaction and sense of power as dragging the poor creature through the streets on the back of your litl motor bike. That is simply barbaric.
“Henceforth I shall regard your remarks with the contempt they deserve.”
Have you ever not done so? Maalie, you are like a leech, or a cancer, grabbing on to every word you can in an attempt to demoralize others. Is your own self-worth that low? No matter what is said or which Christian is saying it, you only seek to insult. It oozes from you like a viper’s poison, from the very devil you worship unknowingly. But I suppose it is fitting that an atheist would only breath contempt when he speaks. You spew contempt like breathing air, for every Christian you encounter. But it doesn’t end there. We’ve heard from your own sister how you terrorized her as a child and even today call her “stupid girl”. Contempt is all you give. What’s changed?
> it's not at all the God I worship, through JesusTed, you make my point for me extremely eloquently. Everybody seems to have their own personal approach. Over at Bluecollar they would say that my fate is pre-ordained. Halfmom considers that at some appointed time in some appointed place in the future, god knows that some innocent golfer who lifts his stick too high trying to swipe a litl white ball from the rough-ground to the fair-ground will be zapped by lightning (I know that is a parody). I refer to golf because I personally know a person (he was a Christian vicar, a lot of good that did him!) who was zapped in exactly that way.
I'm sorry about using the word "believe" in respect to evolution. I should have said something more considered like: "From what I have discerned from reading his comments on this blog, Ted does not appear to rule out the possibility of evolution providing an explanation for life on earth as we see it today".
Litl Luther: Smile :-)
Litl Luther, rather than dumping that dog, why didn't you eat it? Isn't that what they do over there?
"Rather than dumping that dog, why didn't you eat it? Isn't that what they do over there?" -Lorenzo
Good question. No, actually, Nepalese are sickened by the thought of eating dog meat. However, to the east of Nepal, in Nagaland, India, they do eat dog meat (and in Korea as well, I'm told).
I don’t have your wealth of experience in “mercy” killings, Dr. Kevorkian, of hundreds of hapless animals by bashing their sculls in with blunt objects. Perhaps you would like to elaborate on your work?
I’m smiling, Maalie, as requested. :-)
As a Christian Luther, and in certain hope of salvation, wouldn't it have been kinder to let your wife be killed by the dog so she could reach heaven quicker without all the strain and stress of an earthly life.
No. I selfishly and unashamedly want my wife in my life for many more years to come.
"Donsands ascribes his own meaning to the quoted word of Jesus" -Maalie
No not at all. I simply accept the evidence.
You never did respond to my earlier comment. Would you want to respond now?
Dr. Luke, a historian, wrote in the first century, and it is recorded for us today: "In the first book, O Theophilus, I have dealt with all that Jesus began to do and teach, until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commands through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen. He presented himself ALIVE to them after his suffering by many proofs, APPEARING to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God." (The Book of Acts 1:1-4)
Here's a little something about Luke the man,[the historian], (you should check him out Maalie):"Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record...it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth.
*"Biblical hermeneutics - refers to the study of the interpretation of written texts, especially texts in the areas of literature, religion and law. Contemporary or modern hermeneutics encompasses not just issues involving the written text, but everything in the interpretative process. This includes verbal and nonverbal forms of communication as well as prior aspects that impact communication, such as presuppositions, preunderstandings, the meaning and philosophy of language, and semiotics."
I love Luke, Don Sands! It is fun to think of there being another scientist way back then being a professional observer observing the Christ! It makes it seem ever-so-much more personal I think, to read the words of another scientist!
Donsands: I'm sorry you seem to have misunderstood me, I myself had always assumed that Jesus existed as a real person, and become some sort of cult hero, even role model. Why not - that is perfectly plausible.
Crucified? Maybe, they did those horrible things in those and that would no doubt enhance his legendary status. But coming back to life again? No way! That didn't happen, that is mythology.
However, I simply reported that a bunch of academics, independent of all faiths and with no preconceived ideas, had reached the conclusion that Jesus himself was a myth, a desperate invention by a cult whose influence was waning. I also said (I haven't gone back to check my exact words) that since I didn't do the research myself, I was unable to comment further.
We live in free countries, we can believe what we like. Personally, I prefer to base my life on evidence and experience, not the writings of a 2000 year old book that attempted to explain the universe with the knowledge and understanding that was available at the time. We have moved on a litl since then...
Donsands: May I invite you to take a look at this ? It is about what we have been discussing.
Talk about feeding people with misinformation! I watched the video, and that is exactly what it is, misinformation and flat-out lies. They say "The Bible wasn't written by eye-witnesses". And yet,
- Matthew was one of the 12 disciples of Jesus and he wrote the book of Matthew.
- John, Jesus' favorite disciple of the 12, wrote the books of John, 1John, 2John, 3John and Revelation.
- Peter, another close disciple of the 12, wrote 1 & 2 Peter.
- James, was the biological brother of Jesus and wrote the book of James.
- Jude was also a biological brother of Jesus and wrote the book of Jude.
Moreover, these atheists claim that there is no non-biblical corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus. And yet Josephus, a well known historian and non-Christian Jew at the time of Jesus, mentions about Jesus’ ministry in his writings.
The comments of these atheists are absurd to the extreme, and only those who want to believe the lie could possibly fall for their deception.
PS: I know you wrote this to Don. I hope he and you don’t mind my commenting. And I hope Don will still comment to you.
>The comments of these atheists are absurd to the extreme, and only those who want to believe the lie could possibly fall for their deception. Oh,
Litl Luther, in my opinion you are totally WRONG! They make the point that I have been trying t do do all along - the bible is based on hearsay and mythology.
You believe it because you WANT to believe, not because there is any independent evidence there. The bible was attempt to portray the world with the very limited knowledge and understanding that was available at the time; all that is now discredited in the light of modern science. And that is science of you yourself avail every time you go to your doctor or switch on your computer.
Man invented the gods, so man can attribute to them any powers they want. It doesn't make it true, though.
Maalie,
I've been fighting a cold, and my days don't always let me do much blogging.
Thanks for your reply.
No. There is only one God, and we humans do not have that god down well. In Jesus is where we find God's ultimate revelation of himself.
So just because we people don't see eye to eye on everything, doesn't mean what we're looking at is not real. We do agree on what is most essential, and we do so only through the eyes of faith. But faith's eyes are not just a leap into the dark, though that's one aspect of faith. It does have basis and evidence.
Don's references to Dr. Luke. I agree. I love Luke and his work in Luke and Acts. Puts the onus on so-called scholarship which dismisses the early church and Christianity as fiction or built on a myth. With all due respect to them I find that absurd. Our faith is more than just mystical.
I do accept evolution, by the way. I don't think it distracts at all from the marvellous working of God, nor does it contradict the narrative in Scripture. Unless one insists that the Genesis account has to do with a scientific explanation of things.
But it's back to Jesus himself. In him we find the truth, that it is essentially relational, and about relationships, and that life in the end does have meaning, and that, forever.
Ted, I am so relieved to hear that you accept evolution. It really is the correct answer. The creationists really are hanging on by the thinnest of threads, which will eventually (quite soon) snap into nothing.
Now, I urge to start thinking again about that wretched fish that is alleged to have played host to a man for three days in its guts...
Susan - sometime when you get a chance, fill me in on why you moved back to this blog.
I also note that it still has the lively, exciting, edgy discussion threads that are the hallmark of your blogs. Excellent! ;-)
"I do accept evolution, by the way." -Ted
WOW! What a statement! Could you PLEASE be so kind as to elaborate, Ted? I know you believe God is the Creator of all things, so what do you believe exactly, that He got things started and evolution took over? Please clarify. Moreover, do you believe Adam and Eve existed (i.e. real people; our first parents)? If you do believe they existed as our first ancestors, how do you rectify that with your belief in evolution? If you don't believe they really existed, how do you rectify it with Paul's words in Romans 5 about Adam (or even with Jesus who alluded to Adam, saying 'In the beginning God made them male and female...') without making Paul or Jesus liars? Do you believe in the other OT miracles in the Bible: The Flood? Parting the Red Sea? God stopping the Sun from going down?, etc.? Do you believe the Bible is inerrant?
I'm not picking a fight, really. I've just never met a real live solid Christian before like yourself who actually believes in evolution. This fascinates me; that's why I want to pick your brain. I hope you will be so kind as to explain exactly what you believe.
I'm especially curious about how you explain evolution and Adam & Eve. Thanks.
Moreover, Ted, do you believe man is Created in God's image (the only image bearer)? If so, how did this happen that all people came to bear God's image, if we all (animals & people evolved into existence)?? The image of God in people (along with their worth\dignity) is wrapped up in their being "Created in God's image". You truly need to explain things like this, if you are going to "come out of the closet" and admit to belief in evolution. I hope you will be so kind as to explain.
How is it possible that people are in God's image and animals are not?? Did we all evolve from the same sludge? Did God choose to favor some sludge over other sludge and decide it resembled Himself? Did we evolve from monkeys? If so, are monkeys also God's image bearers? Honestly, Ted, do you have answers to these questions??? These are the same things I would ask Collins or any other Christian who claims to believe what you just claimed.
>I've just never met a real live solid Christian before like yourself who actually believes in evolution. Oh,
Lit Luther It is not a matter of "believing" evolution. It is a matter of accepting it as the best (only) account that explains the available factual evidence.
You appear to choose not to accept the evidence because your litl mind has been brainwashed into rejecting anything other than what is written in a 2000 year old outdated and discredited volume written by men for men.
>How is it possible that people are in God's image and animals are not?? Oh,
Litl Luther, you will find your answer here . It all very simple if ony you would only open your mind.
God's image? How can we possibly know what god's image is? Has anyone seen it? LOL!
Maalie, do you honestly think Ted will be laughing along with you? I would be shocked if he doesn't believe human beings (and only human beings) were created in God's image.
But I guess that's my point. People can't truly believe in evolution and in the Bible too. But Ted says he believes in both, so that's why explanation from Ted is in order.
I'm sitting on the edge of my seat, amazed that Ted would set off a huge bomb like that and not also be ready to respond to the sure inquiry that would be made.
Litl Luther, how many times do I have to repeat myself? Ted did NOT (I repeat NOT) say he "believes" in evolution. Please use your litl mind to read what he actually said. He said he accepts it. Despite what you might protest, evolution (and science in general) is NOT a dogma. It is an explanation that fits the factual evidence as we know it, and which you choose to make yourself blind to. If more evidence comes to light the explanation may be modified. That is the strength of science and the weakness of your 2000 year old outdated and discredited book.
Again, I repeat, what IS the image of this god of yours? Who had seen it?
It's not a huge bomb Litl Luther. It is a matter of fact that is accepted the world over by those who have an open mind to see the evidence. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that the world's biodiversity was simple "put here" by some invisible deity.
Exactly Maalie. Ted ACCEPTS evolution and he ACCEPTS the Bible. But the two are mutually exclusive. Ted could say he accepts that when pigs chew gum it gives them the ability to fly. But I want to see how exactly that works before I'll accept it.
Show me how you can accept the teachings in the Bible (such as man being created in God's image, etc.) and man\animals all evolving from primordial soup.
I've asked Susan before about Collins. And all I get is "I don't know. He believes it." But that is no answer at all. But now, finally, we have TED who ACCEPTS evolution and ACCEPTS the Scriptures. Now we can finally get to the bottom of this, how these two incompatible things can be made compatible. At last!
If Ted can't do that, then Ted is just talking nonsense when he says he ACCEPTS both.
Show me how you can accept the teachings in the Bible (such as man being created in God's image, Oh,
It's not up to me to tell you that, litl Luther. You have to answer that for yourself. You are the one suffering a delusion and and believes the mythology of a 2000 year old discredited book.
I have the assurance of the world-wide peer-reviewed scientific community. All I can do is point you towards the evidence so that you can have the scales removed from your eyes and be born again, as I was.
I bet you my shirt that you didn't follow and study the link I put above, and that would be because your closed litl mind wants to avoid the risk of being tempted out if its cosy litl delusion.
I congratulate Ted on his courage to say what he thinks in this place.
Welcome to the fold Ted :-)
Why are you having a go at Ted, Luther? You seem to have a funny idea of what Christians are. If they don't conform to your way of thinking you dismiss them.
I know loads of learned Christians, with degrees in theology, who accept evolution. They don't accept the creation story as fact and they don't accept Adam and Eve were the first humans. They accept we are made in God's image, that is our SOUL(yes, Soul, Maalie) is made in God's image.
Genesis is a story. It is a parable. It shows how we messed up when we had everything going for us. And we still do. Even people who kill animals by long, tortuous deaths. It is no more true than Jesus' parables were true. It is an illustration.
No, Litl Luther, you are WRONG (again).
He ACCEPTS evolution (in his own words) abut appears to BELIEVE in the bible (well, some aspects of it, at least).
You can only "believe" in something that has no independently verifiable evidence to support it. Like the tooth fairy or Santa Claus.
Well said Lorenzo.
But soul? Oh dear, is that a sort of blood pump? When I was quite a litl boy I looked up in an encyclopaedia to find out about the soul and apparently no surgeon has ever found one. Strange, after all this time, don't you think? Maybe it's too litl to be seen.
Of course even you have a soul Maalie! I don't think a sturgeon would find it though.
It is the essence of life, the spark that makes you live and goes when you die.
I also believe animals have souls too, and one day I will see my beloved Splat again.
Yes, even murdered dogs in Nepal have souls.
>It is the essence of life, the spark that makes you live and goes when you die.... ..
Oh yes, I ACCEPT that! That is why I am a fee-paying card-carrying Unitarian , with particular association with the "Earth Movement" group. I anticipate the day when my nutrients will be recycled and incorporated into something beautiful.
And your soul heavenward? ...
Only in fantasy land. I have already left instructions for my ashes to be cast into waters around Shetland (you are expected at the party in the Mid-Yell Boating Club afterwards). I want my nutirnts to be absorbed by phytoplankton, that will be eaten by zooplankton and then fish. Finally I will end up incorporated into a beautiful sea bird (a maalie, of course) until it too has its nutrients recycled. Now that is immortality!
You might find you are incorporated into the stomach of a big fish, only to be thrown up three days later.
Yeh, I had thought of that too. Then I'd be eaten by some scavenger like a skua (called a Jaeger in USA). I could "live" with that, though. But I bet it will be a maalie, it has to be. I BELIEVE it. I have FAITH, you see.
I'm not having a go at Ted, Lorenzo. I am seriously facinated to find out how he reconciles what I believe to be irreconcilable (i.e. both accepting evolution to be true and the Bible to be without error -- two things which Ted believes).
Who told you dogs have souls, Lorenzo, the tooth fairy? You won't find that in the Bible. BTW: I believe the noose around the dogs neck, followed by the jerk of my bike racing all, along with the running of the dog, caused it to die from asphyxiation, because it dropped dead as it ran, without the slightest movement afterwards. Really doesn't matter to me, though. Thought I'd just give you the facts since you're carrying on about it.
What are you bleating on about, itl Luther? has has already told you. He said: I don't think it distracts at all from the marvellous working of God, nor does it contradict the narrative in Scripture. But then I don;t think you actually read what people sway here. You are too concerned with your own prejudices.
So, please tell me what you think of the link I put up above and how you think it might be wrong!
I'm not interested in reading your misinformation, Maalie (yes I went to your link right after you posted it; no I didn’t read it), but that is because the opinions of atheists carry little weight with me.
Ted, owes some serious explanation about how he reconciles the two. The bombshell he threw out is two big to ignore. And so you can be sure I'll hound him until he explains his position in detail, responding to some of the critical questions I raised.
TOO big to ignore.
Far too big to ignore
Impossible to let this one drop...
...waiting for **TED** to explain his position in detail.
Litl Luther, it is NOT the opinion of atheists, it is the evidence presented by science - you know, the same science upon which your medicine and computers are based. My bet is that you didn't read it because you didn't want to threaten your comfy litl delusion or, more likely, you don't understand it. Which means your whole case is based upon ignorance and incredulity, and is therefore no case at all.
Incidentally, you yourself do not accept the inerrancy of the bible. You think the flood was not a world-wide flood, but only a litl flood that covered only a litl area. You said so yourself. You see, the bible is so vague it can mean anything you want it to, can't it litl Luther?
Maalie - "a beautiful sea bird (a maalie, of course)" - may I remind you that the Maalie bird itself is not beautiful at all and that it vomits on you - ewhh!
Do have a lovely evening with the Llama!! and then little Jimmy. I will certainly expect pictures!
Litl-Luther - I have put up the link to Biologos, started by Francis Collins. It should be able to give you the answers as to how professing, Evangelical Christians can accept the fossil data of evolution and still accept the Bible as true and Christ as Lord. As to demanding an answer from Ted, he is probably working, which is what I should be doing also.
Llama dearest - I have sent special instructions to your big brother that he is to be NICE to you tonight and to deliver a personal hug and kiss from me!
Ted - I hope that you feel better soon. I'm sure you have little energy for anything in addition to trying to work. Do feel free to answer when you can and as you feel led.
Maalie and Litl-Luther - If you don't stop badgering each other and behave civilly, I'm going to put comment moderation on again - not a threat, a promise. I do not expect this taunting and badgering to continue, especially not from adult men.
Maalie - you go too far when you call the Bible a bunch of unverifiable myths. The events of the New Testament are independently verified by other non-church historians of the time, the most preeminent one being Josephus. You may think me crazy or brainwashed or simply foolish to believe what it says so much that I stake my life here on earth now and my life after that on what it says, but you can not disprove the historicity of it. As to cult status/standing - a cult has to have some positive benefit and Christianity, in most all cases, is know for having its members persecuted and killed, not for having people bow to them or provide them with great wealth. If you doubt even current day treatment of Christians, look up a magazine called "Voice of the Martyrs" and see the sacrifice these men and women make because they even profess to believe in Jesus as Christ. There is no material or personal gain, no improved status, nothing but torture and yet they do not deny Him. You cannot explain that away by mass hysteria or profit.
OK! Truce :-)
Maalie - Thank you kindly. Have a safe and lovely trip. I am quite serious about you being a good big brother and delivering a loving hug and kiss to my dear Llama!
Truce sounds good to me!
...still waiting for Ted to respond though...
Luther, are you on some illegal substances? If so, I would like to know so I can get some too!
This business about Jonah in the 'whales' stomach. Don't you think it was just a typical Old Testament prophecy? Three days, rising from the dead .... ?
Lorenzo, I do believe it was prophetic of Christ (the chief purpose behind the event), and I also believe it actually happened to Jonah.
Nothing is too difficult for God. Jonah was real.
I am not one of the Christians who says, "Yes God can, but no He didn't." That's just confusing.
Hey Maalie, I watched the video. Not very impressive for me.
But I will discuss their views with my pastor and friends, and get back with you.
Perhaps LitlLuther, you didn't see my comment earlier saying that Ted was quite sick but trying to work anyway. Deb, his wife, says that he is beginning to feel better though, so perhaps he'll be able to address your questions at another time.
Rapid evolutionary chances in the body are bound to cause illness. I hope Ted feels better soon.
I read much at the Biologos (thanks for including the link, Susan). I appreciate their efforts, though the question which addressed the image of God in man was unpersuasive, to say the least.
Let me say emphatically that I DO believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. And so if it can be shown from Scripture that the only legitimate biblical interpretation of the flood account is that it was worldwide and took place just a few thousand years ago, then I will most certainly recant of my present position and believe the Scriptures, for they are my final authority on all matters.
BTW: Susan, why did you delete my last comments to Ted??? There was nothing offensive in them.
>Let me say emphatically that I DO believe in the inerrancy of Scripture... ...
Well I respectfully point out you are believeing that something that isn't true, and that is called delusion.
I need go further than the appalling taxonomic error of a bat being described as a bird. You will say it is a small thing (as everyone does) but nevertheless if god made them, he should know what they are and get it right.
If I told my students that bats are birds "because the bible tells us so" I would have got the sack.
Who was it said: The things that you're li'ble to read in the bible, they ain't necessarily so"? Fine words...
Litl Luther, may I ask you with all due respect and sincerity: If someone close to you was diagnosed with a genetic disorder (there are plenty, we don't need to be specific), would you hope and expect to seek the most advanced advice and treatment available in the world? Treatment based on the most up-to-date information; decisions based on the most recent research in genetics? Maybe information that has been acquired from the Human Genome Project (there are plenty of precendents, this is not imagination)?
Even if the same research demonstrated conclusively that the whole of human diversity as we know it today could not possibly have arisen genetically from the small group of people who were saved by Noah's boat as recently as the Bronze Age? (Again, with respect, archaeologists have a very good understanding of the history of ship-building and know that it was not a pre-Neolithic Revolution activity, plenty of information about this on the internet).
ok Luther, you win. I believe.
Ted, I am so relieved to hear that you accept evolution. It really is the correct answer. The creationists really are hanging on by the thinnest of threads, which will eventually (quite soon) snap into nothing.Now, I urge to start thinking again about that wretched fish that is alleged to have played host to a man for three days in its guts...Maalie, I agree that Creation Science days are numbered, as well as Intelligent Design- from what I read. But that in no way dismisses a Creator. Everytime you look at your face in the mirror you see evidence of a Creator. You are an Eikon of God, made in God's image. This works out in your desire to love and be loved. In your desire to know and be known. A part of you that is not merely about hard data and facts. It goes beyond that.
This is like people being lost in all kinds of details and missing the point of those details. We have to accept the sense that there is something more that we just can't grasp ourselves. Humankind with all their knowledge can't come up with all the answers and find the meaning of life. Of course in your view evolution means there is no meaning of life at all. But isn't that placing meaning on life? Wouldn't be better for you to say you just don't know in regard to the meaning of life? Instead you seem to insist it has no meaning, but in doing so aren't you putting meaning on it. You're at least insisting that you know that it has no meaning. Just to be more consistent one might say it seems to have no meaning.
But the meaining is found in Jesus, who one might say is the end of the evolutionary process. As it says in Scripture:
1 See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify themselves, just as he is pure.
1 John 3As to Jonah, I take it as a true story and having an explanation unknown to us at the present time- I mean the large fish part. There are species in the ocean that are unknown. Much of it is not known to us, and they are finding new ones all the time.
There are evangelicals who believe Jonah is a story that was told. While there was a true prophet named Jonah, they'd conjecture that he may have told this story or maybe something like that, though like too many things, I'm not as well read as I wish. And Jesus referring to such "Just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the large fish...." would then simply be referring to the story.
I couldn't improve on Susan's comment to you! -when addressing a number of us. That covers my own thinking quite well.
Triston,
I'm in the midst of my morning routine but will be getting to you, soon. Not ignoring you, brother.
LOL! That was my runcible sister who put that last comment, she noticed I was logged in on her computer!
Ted: I am seriously impressed by your thinking here. I believe (yes, there are some things I do believe in) the world would be a better place if more people were like you.
I am off for a well-earned holiday in contiental Europe for a couple of weeks, I will look in from time to time from Internet cafes when I check my email. Please don't regard lack of response as lack of interest. Off now to spend the weekend with my beloved namesake grandson before flying out. Have a good weekend evryone.
>There are species in the ocean that are unknown. Much of it is not known to us, and they are finding new ones all the time.... .
Oh Ted, I agree with that absolutely, and wonderful it is for biologists too. Remember the Coelocanth? An ancient fish that turned out to be an interesting item of evidence in support of evolution. However I would say that we know anough about ichthyology (fish science) to be able to say that a fish capable of plying host to a man in its guts for three days is so unlikely as to be out of the frame for consideration. I think your reasoning that it is a "story" - maybe a story from which we are supposed to learn something - is a much more likely explanation.
Regards to all.
Halfmom, good luck with your applications etc.
"I'm especially curious about how you explain evolution and Adam & Eve."
First of all, Triston, I'm surprised that you see this as a bombshell I just dropped. You must have missed it earlier on this blog. And on my blog I've written a couple of posts you can find if you click "origins" toward the bottom of my blog page.
Yes, I wrestling, or have wrestled some through this. I'm not willing to concede the virgin birth as LeRon Shults does (whether he believes it himself or not, but he may well believe it, but for the sake of argument let it go- I don't know) when thinking through the incarnation of God in Christ in his book, Christology and Science (my guess is that Maalie would appreciate that book, at least aspects of it, a lot in it- Shults is at a university in Norway). Francis Collins does state belief in the virgin birth and speaks both to people like you, Triston, and to people like Maalie in his book, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.
As to Adam and Eve, I believe the story is true and should not be relegated to myth. And a Christian teacher or pastor should teach it as is. But I would classify it as perhaps mytho-historical, for lack of a better term. In other words it speaks of history, what really happened, that humankind had a sense of God, in his presence, much potential, the tree of life available to them- not born immortal, by the way, if you factor in that their's was potential for immortal life in view of the tree of life which in the story they had not yet eaten from.
So Paul speaks of Adam (and Eve), but in my view (and I know Susan's Andrew- whose reading and theological understanding I respect and admire, disagrees with me on this) that does not mean Adam and Eve had to be a literal man and woman. But I think Tim Keller the Presbyterian pastor in New York City who accepts evolution and is on the BioLogos site, holds to a literal Adam and Eve as in two persons, and there are Christians who accept evolution who work it out that way.
But all Paul says is true (not that I needed to say that). The analogy is apt between Jesus and Adam. Paul did not have to know everything to be writing truth; Scripture is God-breathed so in a sense even beyond the writers themselves. They had to have the Holy Spirit to help them understand the meaning and reality of their own writings, of course. But what Paul is trying to get across in the Romans 5 passage and elsewhere with reference to Adam is pretty straightforward and clear.
More in another comment.
Moreover, Ted, do you believe man is Created in God's image (the only image bearer)? If so, how did this happen that all people came to bear God's image, if we all (animals & people evolved into existence)??Of course I believe humankind is unique and made in God's image. Remember at the same time, just like all else on earth, the Bible says we came from the dust of the earth.
No, in the evolutionary chain monkeys and humans have the same ancestor, and it all starts back with one entity, I believe. But that in no way makes God's handiwork and creation less marvellous. God could have created everything in an instant, that's not an issue. But just as God chooses in Jesus to let us grow painfully slow: look at Jesus doing miracles, but patiently helping the disciples along slowly and painfully in their growth- he doesn't intervene to make Peter a "saint" overnigh- so it seems quite evident that God did the same in creation. But we should weep over the magnificience of creation, and just like C.S. Lewis said, the most sacred thing (not sure what word he used and can't find nor do I have time to dig up the quote) we'll meet on earth is any human being.
God is intricately involved in everything all the time. He is not a clock-maker, making the clock then letting it do its thing- as some would say, and many have said (a majority of the American founding fathers held to a view like that, I think). Not at all. God is involved. God's ways are beyond us, but God's ways are still made known to us in different ways, and preeminently in Jesus, of course!
By the way, thanks Susan for your gracious comment to me. And I am feeling better, even so yesterday, though symptoms persist, yet I think they're abating/diminshing some- I hope so as my hankee at work was pretty doggone wet yesterday! In my line of work I can carry on, and in that loud factory area my sneezes here and there didn't stand out. Deb is a good doctor for me!
Hope your shoulder is better soon, or truly on the mend. And Deb and I continue to pray for you.
I was just browsing and happened onto your blog. It is interesting that I happened to show up right as you are reorganizing things.
Running two blogs can get difficult. I just recently started a second blog and will have to end the other one because, as you mentioned, it takes too much to keep up with both.
"in the evolutionary chain monkeys and humans have the same ancestor, and it all starts back with one entity" -Ted
Okay. If you believe that, how does the image of God come in? How do we become unique over monkeys? If monkeys and humans have the same ancestor, wouldn't either both be in God's image or not in His image and both deserving of the same dignity and worth? I honestly don't know how you work this all out. Seems like juggling a few too many balls at a time.
It did seem like a bomb shell to me. Maalie too got awful happy when he found out you accept evolution, which shows that both of us (and probably most everyone else visiting the blog) found that news a surprise.
I'm glad you're feeling better bro.
Maalie,
In answer to your question: Yes. I would seek the best medical treatment for a loved one with a genetic disorder, that is “if” I could afford it. In actual fact, I have not had any health insurance for the last 13 years, which is why we delivered our baby in a third world hospital in Kathmandu, rather than in the States. So more likely, I would take that person to whatever medical care I could afford and entrust that loved one in prayer to the Great Physician, Jesus Christ. I say this with all sincerity.
No, Triston. Humans alone are made in God's image (maybe angels, though Scripture does not say so, though it does call angels, "the sons of God").
I can't think of the right terms I want to use with reference to this, but for lack of time and thought here, I'd say there's both continuity and discontinuity between us and the rest in the scheme of things.
Thanks, brother. I am feeling better today, though getting over a cold, and especially symptoms usually seems gradual and maybe slow.
I should reread my comments as sometimes they may not be as off gramatically, as I think.
Let me see if I got this straight:
- Monkeys and humans share the same ancestor.
- Humans are unique. Monkeys are not.
- Humans are in God's image. Monkeys are not.
- Humans and monkeys are from the same family.
- All living creatures originate from the same one entity and yet only humans are in God's image.
Now I get it. Complete and irreconcilable contradiction! If you are content to believe in these contradictions, go for it.
....any how, overwhelming evidence indicates that God created everything that exists, that Jesus alone is Lord and Savior and all people should submit their lives to Him.
Triston,
I agree with your last comment.
To all,
I'm afraid I may come across in an authoritative, "know-it-all" kind of way. I don't mean to do that at all.
I speak from reading other authorities on science or other matters then form my opinion, something we all do.
Of course in faith it's different in that we're dealing with a Reality that is bigger than all the above, that takes it all in. Colossians makes that clear that Christ is central in everything. So that in spite of myself I keep bumping into this Reality, really for my own, and our own good.
I just wanted to make that clear.
Here is a good video clip on Richard Dawkins.
Litl Luther, it seems to me that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please read the authentic literature, not confine yourself to the quasi-scientific misinformation put about by the fundamentalist press. Of course every species, from man to worm is unique. Every organiasm that is alive today has been evolving for as long as man (other wise they wouldn't be here). You are making a case from personal incredulity and lack of understanding of the subject. I suggest you read thoroughly the information in the link I put some way above here.
"know-it-all" kind of way." -Ted
You don't come off like that at. You have a lot to share Ted. You believe in Christ and love Him. Bottom line. And you display grace and compassion for others, which is what Christ commands us to do. Even our enemies we must love.
I remember after the 9/11 terror we all assembled at the church and we prayed in the sanctuary. I prayed that the Lord would have mercy on Osama Bin Laden, though it was difficult to pray this for a man who did what he did, killing innocent people. To be honest my heart (blood-pump), wasn't truly feeling like having mercy on such a despicable man, but nevertheless, Christ commands that we love our enemies. I also prayed that the Lord would sovereignly bring this man to justice, in out time.
So that he would pay for his crime.
I'm actually no better than he is. "But for the grace of God, there go I. Or worse."
Keep on sharing your honest opinions Ted. We may disagree, but God doesn't mind that, as long as we don't cause discord.
"There are six things that the Lord hates,
seven that are an abomination to him:
haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
and hands that shed innocent blood,
a heart that devises wicked plans,
feet that make haste to run to evil,
a false witness who breathes out lies,
and one who sows discord among brothers."
There have been some excellent discusions on Susan's blog, and I am honored to be invited to discuss these things.
Lord bless all, and have a wonderful Lord's day.
Thanks, Don for your most gracious, encouraging words.
You are a blessing yourself. I have been so blessed by a number of your comments, and am always blessed by your manner and forthrightness, along with the grace of God evident in your contributions here.
And a most hearty "Amen!" to your thoughts about loving our enemies." And prayers for God's just working are certainly in order.
Yes, I agree it's a privilege to be a part of this blog. I have been influenced on it for good, and am a better person for having found it in the first place, I sincerely from all my blood pump/heart, believe, without a doubt.
The Lord is good!
This may sound bad, but the endless jabs at one another--whether from Christians or agnostics or atheists or whomever--sounds less like mature adults and more like my 10th grade students when someone tells them they don't own the world. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly many of you can turn a blog post about having a new URL into a cess pool of bickering. It's not really the content, so much as the tone and demeanor that bothers me. (Don, Ted, and Craver -- Thanks for your general civility.)
Triston: You are not God, and as far as you're concerned, you've done more than enough Law-swinging to leave a nonbeliever without excuse before Christ. God has given Maalie and everyone else free will, so please stop abusing that. (And yes, you know I embrace the Reformed tradition and deny any notion of libertarian freedom.)
Maalie: No Christians actually have such vague and contradictory beliefs about the core content of their faith as you would like to believe. Even Bart Ehrman would agree. All Christians have summed up their faith in the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Formula. No Christian worldwide will dispute any of these creeds. There are some side matters ("adiaphora") such as ecclesiastical practice, the relation between science and doctrine, etc., which do vary. I think, honestly, it's these side matters disputed here which keep you from realizing the broad unity held by the worldwide Christian Church.
As for the resurrection of Christ, here's what you say: "Crucified? Maybe, they did those horrible things in those and that would no doubt enhance his legendary status. But coming back to life again? No way! That didn't happen, that is mythology." Maalie, if you want to know on a logical basis--your very own logic which you've demonstrated here--why this conclusion is false, I can e-mail you. BUT you are free to believe what you will; so it goes. I guess we'll all find out some day who was right.
"Personally, I prefer to base my life on evidence and experience, not the writings of a 2000 year old book that attempted to explain the universe with the knowledge and understanding that was available at the time. We have moved on a litl since then...You believe it because you WANT to believe, not because there is any independent evidence there. The bible was attempt to portray the world with the very limited knowledge and understanding that was available at the time; all that is now discredited in the light of modern science. And that is science of you yourself avail every time you go to your doctor or switch on your computer." I'm sorry, Maalie, but this is so ignorant it's unbelievable. And I say that as a professional science teacher (biology and chemistry) who believes Neodarwinian Evolution has some very strong areas and explanatory power.
If you really believe to solely base your life on evidence and experience, then you cannot trust anything simply reported by someone else, right? That would include scientific journals and textbooks about the results of experiments you yourself did not conduct. You're accepting their communication as reliable for various reasons. How is this any different from what Triston or Don or other Christians do in believing that the historical accounts of the New Testament are reliable? They use just as much experience and evidence as do you. And, really, dare I ask what on this spherical Earth in its heliocentric orbit it is about modern science that has shown the Bible to be discredited? I would really find that interesting. I have found nothing in any scientific claim verified at present that would discredit the literary intent of the Bible nor any of its claims. I hope you will not think me jesting or rude. I actually just want to know what it is you think is so preposterous that Scripture is just chucked out the window.
I actually just want to know what it is you think is so preposterous that Scripture is just chucked out the window.... ...
Because it is mythology, not truth.
Maalie, that doesn't answer my question. I asked WHAT it is in the Bible that has been so thoroughly discredited by present scientific claims, especially the core doctrines of the Christian faith. Just saying "it's mythology" doesn't answer that question.
More importantly though, I wanto to apologize for saying that what you wrote is "ignorant." True or not, that did not treat you respectfully, and I could've found much better ways to say it. I'm sorry.
"Triston: You are not God." -Andrew
Since when did I claim to be God? What a ridiculous and rude thing to say.
Ted,
Would you agree with this wikipedia definition of biblical inerrancy (below). Moreover, do you believe this definition qualifies you as one who embraces biblical inerrancy (in light of your acceptance of evolution)? If so, how can this be so?
"Biblical inerrancy is the doctrinal position that, in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; ‘referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts.’” The link
Ted, it seems to me (please tell me if I'm wrong and how exactly I'm wrong) that if this definition of biblical inerrancy is correct, then you are disqualified as one who embraces biblical inerrancy.
...and then, Ted, there is the further question of whether you can legitimately claim to be evangelical, since the common definition of an evangelical is one who believes “in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible” Link
These are just questions (legitimate questions I believe). I'm not attacking you brother nor questioning your obvious trust in Christ.
Triston,
I agree with this, from Scot McKnight:
...the four features of an evangelical -- and to one degree or another, all evangelicals are characterized by these four features:First, all evangelicals are committed to the primacy of Scripture for shaping faith and practice. All Tradition, however respected, will have to answer to scriptural warrant. All Praxis will have to answer to scriptural warrant. This approach to faith and practice characterizes evangelicals.Second, all evangelicals are committed to the saving power of the cross. The cross, tied as it is both to the incarnation and to the resurrection, is the act of God that not only unmasks injustice but restores -- via substitution -- humans to God by dying our death.Third, all evangelicals are committed to new birth as a personal experience. Indeed, the necessity of new birth, of the need for life in the face of death. Evangelicals believe the Christian life begins with new birth, and it is here that most evangelicals tie the power of the Holy Spirit to the saving power of the cross (and resurrection). Evangelicals have always worried about the liturgical and liberal approaches to conversion through sacramental or nurturance processes.Fourth, all evangelicals are committed to an active Christian life that involves personal pieties like prayer and Bible reading, corporate fellowship like church attendance and participation, and social activism like justice efforts of all sorts, both locally and globally.These four are what it takes to be an evangelical and all it takes to be an evangelical. Nothing less, nothing more. Evangelicalism is orthodox and it is Protestant.Scot McKnight, from his blog, "Jesus Creed"
We've talked about Biblical inerrancy before. It's a relatively late development within evangelicalism, I believe, coming in the 1970's.
Actually I care little what I'm labeled, though I believe I identify best in the evangelical camp. I'm at home with them.
I side with the idea that "inerrancy" and how it's applied is a product of Enlightenment Modernism. How people in Biblical times viewed it is different than we do today. But I don't care to get into that here since I see what is crucial is to believe that the Bible is the word of God. It's as human as it is of God, but like Jesus, who is the Word of God, so that the humanity of Scripture does not diminish that it's from the mouth of God, and of God, at all.
We in Jesus should want to be known for that, not for whether we're a Protestant, Catholic, evangelical, or whatever- like a Methodist, Baptist, Calvinist, Pentecostal, Anabaptist, etc. The list Scot puts down is helpful in understanding how evangelicals think and live. But Christian is a bigger term than that, I believe.
Let me add that Deb and I feel at home in a church part of a denomination called The Evangelical Covenant Church.
Here are our affirmations:
"For Covenant people, our essential beliefs are summed up in what we call Covenant affirmations:
We affirm the centrality of the word of God.
We affirm the necessity of the new birth.
We affirm a commitment to the whole mission of the Church.
We affirm the Church as a fellowship of believers.
We affirm a conscious dependence on the Holy Spirit.
We affirm the reality of freedom in Christ."
I believe a Creation Science reading of Genesis is a misreading of it, failing to take into account the historical, cultural context into which it was written, and failing in other ways.
But I'm not prepared to get into a big discussion on inerrancy, and find the subject not profitable anyhow. What is essential is that we accept the Bible's witness for what it is, the word of God, and to lead us to Christ.
I'm getting a bit weary of trying to use tags, since text keeps running together on comments such as on my first one in the quote from Scot McKnight.
Oh well... Blogger still is alright. All have their problems, I'm sure.
Okay. So you don't accept biblical inerrancy, but how would you define your belief in Scripture? I suppose you would not use the term infallible either, so what term would you use?
Isn't this a reasonable question to ask, Ted?
Triston,
I think I do accept Biblical inerrancy, but I question its value, because evangelicals don't seem to agree precisely what it means.
And frankly I'm not read up on it well at all.
God does seem to accomodate human limitations or understanding in his word when it's beside the point. True in Genesis 1 where Ancient Near East views of the cosmos are included. And true elsewhere. John Calvin wrote of God's accomodation to humankind within Scripture.
Bats classified as birds would be another example of that, as we know they are mammals. Though as I just read
"...the biblical writers generally classified organisms according to habitat. Thus, in the Bible, bats are listed with birds as creatures of the air (Lv 11:19; Dt 14:18)." Tyndale Bible Dictionary (near the beginning of the entry for birds)
God's word is every bit as powerful today as when it was first written- of course- but it's powerful because it's God's word, not because it fits under some label or fits certain criteria we give it.
I am more comfortable with infallible, but I think in good conscience I could sign my name under "I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Before I would do that, I would talk to members of the group I was joining with that signature to make sure I understood what it precisely means. But from what I've read in the past and gather, I believe I could and would.
I would say that for all practical purposes the Bible has no errors (one reason why I don't accept the Apocrypha as part of Scripture, though it does have much value). What might sound like an error because of the way we think in this Modern age, is not in the view of Ancients.
I do think Christians need to be wary and slow in finding value in Biblical Criticism, which over time has been undermined by further discoveries and studies.
Let me add that what seems to be an error in our view does not include what I spoke of in God's accomodation due to the limitations of humanity, and really much more due to the point that what is addressed is the issue.
I know one thing: I would not claim that I'm infallible or inerrant on this issue, myself!
Thanks Ted. I appreciate your comments.
Also, I too believe Christians should be aware of the damage Biblical Criticism has done.
And good point that things should not be so quickly labeled "error" because we might communicate differently today. Honestly, if some people were as critical of how things are communicated today, as they attempt to be when reading the Bible, they would be up-in-arms when people talk about the beautiful “sunset” or “sunrise”. They would point out the silly error since of course the sun is not really setting or rising. But the Bible is often scrutinized more harshly than our own ways of communicating today.
Are you completely well now? I hope you’re feeling 100%
I still have the symptoms, pretty strong. Took our daughter to her work and thought to stop in a bookstore to read for awhile, with Deb at work- but then thought better of it. I'm not over this yet, at least not as far as getting rid of the symptoms in my head- cough, runny nose.
But we need to keep praying for Craver, that his bp would come down.
Thanks, brother.
Maalie, I shared the video with a prof from Regent College in Vancouver, and he had this to say:
"As a professional historian myself, however, I’m convinced that what we have in the New Testament are indeed documents that reflect eyewitness testimony. Moreover, these documents were affirmed (among many other Christian writings circulating in the earliest communities, including other writings by the same authors, such as other Corinthian letters by Paul) as so reliable they were venerated as new scripture–and Jews (as the earliest Christians mostly were) take the category of “scripture” pretty seriously!"
Post a Comment