For those of you, like me, who could use a little encouragement that walking by faith and not by sight is not only "doable" but fruitful, please read the following article and rejoice with me.
http://belovedbeforetime.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
64 comments:
Hooray for Olivia's job...and hooray for spiritual growth. What great observations and strength of conviction. I'm glad to know them both! And thanks for the encouragement to do what I know I'm supposed to be doing every day!
Whilst I am of course happy to share the joy of anybody's success, to suggest that "a god" had anything to with this is utter nonsense. If by "praying" you mean carefully analysing and rationalising and prioritising the options, that is one thing; but to imagine that there is any sort of "divine intervention" is mere delusion. Olivia was successful presumably because of her judgement, experience, knowledge, understanding and her interview skills (and possible an element of chance if there were no other suitable candidates).
It is always the same: if your prayers are answered, Hallelujah! God had answered the prayers; if not, well it's because the particular god that is being prayed to has "different plans". Either way you win. No wonder religious hysteria is so contagious.
Close, but not quite correct, Maalie. God always answers a believer's prayers. You are correct though, in that it is always theologically a "win-win" situation. Sometimes He says "no way", sometimes "yes" and sometimes, "not now" but He always says something. He speaks even in what sounds like silence with "trust me".
One of the reasons that it is difficult and I need encouragement to "walk by faith" is that I often don't understand the "no ways" or the "not nows". "Win-win" though I know it to be in my head, that notion has a hard time reaching my heart. I prefer to have reasons for what God is doing in my life. Rarely does that happen for me though, so it is encouraging to see direct answers that evidence the reward of trusting and walking by faith.
Otherwise I might think that having an abrupt, rude answer by a favorite Brit was cause for annoyance.
You ask about British history Susan. Once there was a revolution, and Oliver Cromwell won and had Charles I head removed.
Later the people wanted their monachy back and called his son who became Charles II back over from France. Charles II was a peaceful man who enjoyed the company of women and was very polular all round.
Since then we have been reasonably settled with the monachy although there is quite a vocal group you want a republic.
Do you want me to chastise Maalie for you? I have a friend who has a whip, but I somehow feel Maalie would quite enjoy that!
Good. And so true. God is about the business of changing us more and more into the image of Jesus. That's God's goal and we need to look at all of life in that light.
>God always answers a believer's prayers
Oh yes, of course. Silly me. In the same way that millions of people worldwide must spend every waking breath praying for a handful of boiled rice to sustain them until the next day. (Maybe they are praying to to the wrong god?). Or the way that American soldiers and German soldiers in WW2 prayed to the same god that their own bombs would cause more bloodshed than those of the other side?
What you say is self-fulfilling. Your "god" casts fortune (or misfortune) arbitrarily among those of different faiths, or of no faith at all. All to easy to call it "god's will".
Life is essentially a sequence of random events, which may be partially influenced by one's knowledge, experience and skill. But not always, especially in relationships and bereavement. The so-called "mid-life crisis" during which we eventually we realise we are not actually in control of our destinies. Just the right time to turn to the supernatural for an illusion of "control", eh? Hand it all over to Jesus, and abrogate one's own responsibility.
A comforting phenomenon is delusion, I agree. I was deluded once until I was born again into the real world.
Lorenzo: Did you see that fantastic Natural History programme on BBC last night, part of the Darwin Centenary celebrations? I think it should be shown in every school in the world. And Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion should be in every school's library, don't you think?
Come off it Maalie. Of course life is a series of random events, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is no God.
I think we are deluded if we imagine that God is only there to obey our every whim and want.
I don't understand either why little children are starving, are ill and don't have fresh water to drink. I don't understand about war, and what makes Christians think it is righteous.
All I know is that we in the west are over-fed, pampered and think God is at our beck and call. A lot of the suffering and starvation in the world is entirely due to our greed and self-satisfaction.
You are right Maalie. It is us who are deluded, not God.
I cannot say to which god they prayed, Maalie. I only know that God is God and you and I are not. His ways and thoughts are higher that ours, so much so that we cannot understand them with our finite minds. Sometimes He chooses to reveal a bit about Himself and for that I am glad. However, there is nothing arbitrary about Him. He knows what He is doing and why - and I trust Him with that.
Midlife crisis - no, but turning to Christ rather than other things people turn to when they realize they've wasted the "best" part of their lives wouldn't be a bad thing.
Delusion - one day we'll know for sure, won't we, when it's all over.
Now, play nicely or I'll have to send Lorenzo over with a whip and some tofu. I don't come to your blog and bang about about what an idiot you are, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do so on mine.
"All I know is that we in the west are over-fed, pampered and think God is at our beck and call. A lot of the suffering and starvation in the world is entirely due to our greed and self-satisfaction."
Agreed, Llama! How like us all to blame God for the bad and take credit for the good ourselves.
>I don't come to your blog and bang about about what an idiot you are, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do so on mine.
Oh dear. That sounds desperate. If I wasn't such an amiable and magnanimous fellow (eh, Lorenzo?) I might be tempted to protest.
I have looked back through the comments and I can find no use of the word "idiot". However, if that is how you happen to feel, that is a different matter.
Your blog is overtly a religious one, and this current post is about the effectiveness of prayer. You invite comments and I have tried to make comments relating to my opinion on that matter. They seem to be very much "on topic".
My own log deals mostly with my travels and wildlife and the occasional family matter. If you were to contradict my judgement on anything I post, I would indeed welcome the challenge of the discussion.
Lorenzo: I don't understand either why little children are starving
Of course you don't understand. Nor does anybody. An almighty everlasting heavenly father who truly loves us all would not have pre-ordained a world that has turned out that way.
All I know is that we in the west are over-fed, pampered and think God is at our beck and call
Exactly. Self-fulfilling.
Hey, word verification: mallyce!
But none intended here! LOL!
Let's see, my dear one:
utter nonsense
mere delusion
religious hysteria
abrogate one's own responsibility
have rather a negative connotation, don't you think?
Your opinions are certainly welcomed. Methinks your choice of words could use rather a bit of gracious rephrasing so they don't sound quite so condemning and self-righteous.
"An almighty everlasting heavenly father who truly loves us all would not have pre-ordained a world that has turned out that way." Do I understand you correctly that you are defining what the love of God looks like?
Back to work - grant deadline tomorrow and reporter assays to run. You would like them - NFkB, iNOS, IkBa, PPRE, HSE all in astrocytes (well, C6 cells). The results are quite fascinating - lets hope the reviewers think so.
No Maalie I didn't see the programme last night. There was a double episode of Coronation Street, University Challenge and something else I have forgotten now!
Some great thoughts Susan in your comments.
Jesus prayed to His Father, "Not My will, but Your will be done." This was just before He would be scourged and beaten, and spit upon, and hated with unrighteous cruelty. And just before He would be crucified, and die.
Jesus was charged to die this horrible death by His beloved Father. Their love was a perfect love. Never tainted. No strife nor argument in their love.
It's our greatest example of love, and of prayer.
And that's why we should pray, because Jesus loves us, and cares for us.
Peter, one of Jesus' closest and dearest friends, who saw Christ after He rose from the dead said, "Cast all your cares upon Him [Jesus], for He cares for you."
Thanks for the link Susan. Very nice read indeed.
Walking by faith and not by sight has to do with the hope we have in the new creation in Jesus that these bodies will be resurrected and that indeed this life is not the end. (see 2 Corinthians 5, I believe, where it's from)
So all arguments against God have to take into consideration that motif/ recurrent theme in Scripture.
I take with that that God's hope in Jesus is for us in this life. Though as the Apostle Paul says, if Christ is not risen we are of all people most miserable. But because he is, we are not miserable ultimately, and not even so in this life because our witness is true, verified in our lives and in the lives of others by faith.
abrogate one's own responsibility?!
I thought at first Maalie, that you were being predictably skeptical, but I see now that you must be joking. Name one group that has done more for the rest of humanity than the followers of Jesus.
(crickets chirping)
Right. there are no other groups that have exercised more personal responsibility for the causes of the poor, education, health, the list goes on and on. Skeptics can only point to renegades who disobeyed and blame them for bad things, but of course you know that, because CLEARLY you must have been joking.
No, Craver vii, I fear that you malign me. There are innumerable secular organisations (at least in the Europe) that undertake charitable works without invoking the supernatural.
So long as there are people who are intellectually abusing children by instructing them that the earth is only a few thousand years old, I shall continue to vociferously protest.
Keeping on topic, I do not understand the "point" of prayer if you say that your particular god has ordained the outcome of everything since the Big Bang (several billion years ago). Like a football referee who has awarded a penalty kick, no amount of pleading will change the outcome. One should employ one's skills, knowledge and understanding to progress through life. To devolve this to some deity is to abrogate one's responsibility.
It is not that I doubt that other organizations are doing good deeds, Maalie. Still, if you draw a line straight down a chalkboard, write out the good things that have been done by the followers of Jesus, and on the other side, charitable works by any other one group, you will see my point.
The point of prayer is simple. God has told us to pray. He knows what He is going to do, but He wants us to ask Him anyway. How can I object? Shall I cross my arms, stomp my feet and say, "Who does he think he is anyway... God?"
I have to admit Maalie is right about charitable organisations. There are many that are secular and do amazing amount of good works. But, you will find that a good percentage of their members are Christians. There are Christian charities like Christian Aid, Cafod, Tearfund etc. and likewise you will find that a number of athiests also support them. I believe there is goodness in all people, and Christians do not have the monopoly of it.
As for prayer. Prayer does not necessarily have to be about asking. It can also be about telling. In other words, you can have a 'chat' with God about your feelings, about what you think, like, loath etc. It is quite possible to talk to God and tell Him about friends who are ill, in difficulty, pain etc. etc. without expecting anything to be done about it. A bit like talking to your mother or a best friend. You share the burden of your worries.
Today's word is one of the best!
rumbrew
Good point about prayer, 'Renzo; it is not always about asking. The Psalms are a good example of this.
>God has told us to pray
In the way that some sixty years ago he told the chaplains of American soldiers and the chaplains of German soldiers to pray to the same god that their respective bombs (i.e. the "blessing of the bombs" ceremonies) would destroy more of their opponents cities than vice versa?
Oh yes, I think I see....
It seems to me that Lorenzo's "prayers" are a form of contemplation; talking to an imaginary being as a child might talk to an imaginary friend. Nothing wrong with that, it can help to straighten things out in one's mind - I have done it myself.
But to suggest there is something up there in the sky blue yonder listening to it (let alone reacting to it!!) is patently absurd.
No Maalie. The thing that is absurd is having eyes, but being unable to see, having ears and being unable to hear. Perhaps today, you misinterpret all kinds of evidence, but one day you will give credit where credit is due. I pray that it is sooner rather than later... not for your sake only, but for the glory of God and to the praise of his glorious grace.
>he thing that is absurd is having eyes, but being unable to see, having ears and being unable to hear.
I went through that stage once. Then I started to see and hear and was released from my delusion. In this day and age, to claim that the world is only a few years old simply reveals ignorance and / or bigotry.
But I fear we are getting nowhere. You speak from slavish indoctrination, I from observation and evidence, of my own and from others around me.
Sorry, a few thousand years old.
No Maalie - actually God "telling" us what to do is in a totally different category than us asking Him what to do, or to bless what we are doing, or even in us thinking that we hear what He is saying.
Somethings are clearly written - "pray in this fashion" indicates that we are both to pray and to do so in a certain fashion (pattern).
Somethings are speculative - i.e. whether we get what we pray for when we pray - James tells us that sometimes we do not because we do not ask - at all - and other times we ask amiss, wrong things, wrong motives. Those prayers get a resounding NO, no matter what we "think" we hear from God.
Bombings - I think sometimes perhaps - notice I couch the language for even I am not sure how I feel about this - they are warranted. If I have the means to protect you and you are being actively threatened so that you may loose at least the freedom to exist as a man if not your very life, am I wrong to withold those means to protect you? It seems to me that I am not - whether that is physical protection, food or clothing.
How that all plays out in real life I do not know for sure, nor am I even truly comfortable yet with my own feelings about issues of war.
One thing I do know is, there is a God who is there. He is real, He listens and speaks and wants His children to know Him. If you do not, it is because you will not - you do not wish to be "ruled" by someone you cannot understand or see but can only trust to walk by faith.
My grant was just emailed in - talk about prayers - I definitely pray that it uploads quickly and accurately. I should have turned it in days ago - likely my office of research services at the university is not very happy with me!
"I from observation and evidence"
What is your observation of this Maalie:
"A giraffe's heart must be quite large (it is over 24 lbs) to pump blood to the giraffe's head. A series of special one-way valves in the neck regulates blood flow, and there is a special net of elastic blood vessels at the base of the brain. Without these valves and elastic blood vessels, the blood pressure in the giraffe's head would be immense when it bends over, enough to cause brain damage. All of these features -- large heart, valves in the jugular vein, and wondernet of vessels -- must be in place simultaneously or the giraffe would die. They could not have evolved gradually."
And lets say the food was scarce when the giraffe's neck was short. How would he know how to grow a long neck? And wouldn't the giraffe have to die out without food, if it takes a million years or so to grow a long neck?
Seems to me God made this stunning animal altogether from the begining the way he is.
>They could not have evolved gradually
Nonsense Dondands. I saw a documentary about this subject just the other day. The evolutionary development is perfectly well understood. I suggest you start reading some proper science rather than the quasi-scientific mis-information bandied about by the fundamentalist publishers who make a fortune selling this sort of rubbish.
Congratulations on your grant Halfmom; your experience and competence is clearly paying you dividends.
It's just a submission, Maalie - and it isn't even that until the government site receives the correctly uploaded documents! That's the stage I'm at right now - hoping that the uploading is occurring and going well.
We can't upload them ourselves; it has to go through our Office of Research Services at the university - I should have had it to them several days ago to check over and submit - but I was still busy getting new data.
This is actually really good data but I just haven't been able to get a granting agency to get excited enough to fund it. So, if not this grant or another that is resubmitted in December don't get funded I'll have to drop the idea and pursue something more fundable.
What documentary did you watch? I haven't had a chance to read the copy of Science yet that has the new hominid (?) discovery in it yet. Have you? The pictures (I saw only the cover in my boss's hands) looked interesting!
"Proper science?" If by that, you mean scientists who deny God, then I'd rather hear from people who speak the truth, even if they are called names like bigots and fundamentalists. And are you suggesting that these are published in order to line a person's pockets? Ad hominem is the lowest form of debate, and besides... how can you judge the unspoken intentions of the hearts of said publishers?
Craver, you can still recognise science and believe in God. The giraffe is a good example of evolution as is man. The fossil finds of early hominid are fascinating and is a revelation.
I agree with Maalie when he says my sort of prayer is contemplation. I have always felt much more at home with the Contemplatives and the Meditatives. I am very attracted to the mystics and contemplatives of history. They are the people I try to base my life on.
I hate the idea of bombs of any description and warfare. I think it is an abonination to 'bless' a bomb. It can only be done by some kind of perverted mind. I feel that the Buddhists have got it right in their discipline of ahisma.
Sure, I believe that a person can recognize science and still believe in God; they are not mutually exclusive. It is the idea that "proper science" must deny the Creator, nature's source and sustainer... that's the one I have a problem with.
If it is really true, then I consider it folly to insist upon denying it.
I don't see anything inherently wrong with contemplation, per se. Prayer is more than that. The most basic definition of prayer, is "talking to God." If the thoughts or words are not brought before God, it's not the same.
Donsands, you may like to look at this about the giraffe.
Halfmom, I am wondering if you may have missed my point. My point is the irony of a so-called "heavenly father" who ordained a world in which opposing armies on a battlefield are both praying to him that they will kill more of the opposition. I suggest the reason that you (or indeed anyone) doesn't understand it, is that it it is indeed incomprehensible, so incomprehensible as to be unbelievable.
The notion that there is some white-bearded guy somewhere up there on cloud-nine, watching us all (Muslims and Chinese and all?) and actually listening (let alone reacting!) to us is simply crazy.
Praying to a a god of choice may offer short-term comfort, but it is not a long term solution. One has to get a grip and take control over one's own life using the best knowledge, understanding and experience available. It may sometime be helpful to seek objective advice or counselling.
Ouch Llama dear - do you really think that I have a perverted mind if I drop a bomb on a herd of mercinaries who are trying to come to rape and kill women and children? Even I might do that if I had the bomb and was sure of the threat.
Craver - I agree - but I wonder about the prayers that say, "God, if you are really there would you please reveal yourself to me so that I can know you?" So many of those have been uttered in history - and answered - that it seems to me that God hears even the effort to try to direct a thought to Him. What do you think?
As to "proper science" - I think that Maalie would certainly agree that I do "proper science", even while he is incredulous that I believe as I do. I think (well, I certainly hope) that he is simply referencing those who write under the guise of science when they are really speaking out of personal incredulity.
Not that I have anything against personal incredulity - it always strikes me that way when Maalie speaks so surely of a God who is not there when I know Him personally - or when I see the wonderful - and even the horrible - in creation and am in awe of the God who is there.
"The evolutionary development is perfectly well understood."
I'll check out the Darwin side, and let you know.
Seems impossible for a giraffe to evolve in my way of thinking.
But then again, we all evolved from an eternal rock, or gas, or something void of life, correct?
Halmom, ooops, sorry! I forgot to answer your other point. I heard about the fossil hominid when I was in Rome and resolved to look it up, but then was straight off to Spain and I've hardly got my breath back! I will do so imminently!
>Seems impossible for a giraffe to evolve in my way of thinking.
But Donsands, don't you recognise that you are arguing from personal incredulity rather than from any real knowledge of anatomy and physiology? Once you have studies this in depth, it will become all too clear.
Work will keep me from reading any time soon, Maalie. The Society for Neuroscience meets in Chicago starting tomorrow. So, I will be busy with that for quite a few days.
I would differ with you in your notion though - I do not think that the Heavenly Father ordained a world where there was any disorder, random or otherwise, or any sin. We managed to introduce that quite nicely ourselves. He simply allowed it to happen and knowing it would, provided a sacrifice sufficient to mend the brokenness between us and Him and then freely offered it to all men. Some choose to respond and some do not.
When I speak of prayer, I speak specifically of coversation with Jesus Christ. There are many other gods to pray to, and I do not recognize them as having any real power at all, only what is allowed by the one True God and only for a moment's time.
He - He is the only true God, the triune God in three person.
I can see why you might think that this is an "overtly religious" blog, although it is not intended to be so. It actually was intended as a record of my musings recording how God has and is working in my life to make me "not ashamed".
But we all respond and argue that way Maalie - and we have been over this ground all to often in the past. You can present all the evidence in the world of your hyposthese and conclusions - but you cannot test it, so you cannot prove it. Therefore you argue from personal incredulity - you cannot imagine that it happened a different way other than the way the data seem to speak to you.
I think that I have a reasonable grasp on anatomy and physiology and a few other disciplines as well and I am not convinced one bit, as faciniating as the "data" are that they have been followed to the correct and logical conclusion.
Of course I don't think you have a perverted mind Susan!! I am talking about the obscenity of fire-bombing Dresden, the bombing of London and Coventry, the bombing of Hiroshima, the napalming of Vietnam, the bombing of Palenstinian schools and hospitals etc. etc. I just do not see how anyone can justify it.
OK your type of praying is better than my type of praying.
>in the world of your hyposthese and conclusions - but you cannot test it, so you cannot prove it
Firstly, may I suggest that when you refer to "me" (Maalie), you are actually referring to me as a representative of the orthodox peer-reviewed scientific community, worldwide.
It isn't any longer merely a hypothesis, but a scientific explanation that accounts for all the incontrovertible evidence, to the exclusion of all other explanations based on the laws of physics and chemistry. Moreover, it does not invoke the supernatural.
It would be fascinating to see how you use your knowledge of anatomy, physiology and the other disciplines to refute the evidence. One claims a "different interpretation" but never says what this is and certainly doesn't publish it.
Worst of all, I think (and, as you say, we have been over this before) is the hypocrisy of fundamentalism when the science of genetics, geology, and so on is accepted when it is useful but rejected when it appears to contradict what is written in a 2000 year old pre-science book. Some people (maybe not you, Halfmom, I don't know, but some) would happily condemn a murderer to the electric chair from DNA evidence but will reject the same science when applied to evolutionary genetics.
Or accept the science of geology when it comes to locating and extracting oil and minerals but rejects the same science when it comes to ageing rocks.
Yes, of course evolution can be tested. You can see it going on all around us. The development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a graphic example (and please don't mention "micro-evolution", that term doesn't exist in biology, it is a conjure of fundamentalism).
The age of the earth, and the origin of species, is now irrefutable and it is madness to try to stem the tide of scientific knowledge and understanding by means of biblical mythology. I think you know that really in your blood pump Halfmom, but would risk losing the acclaim of your peer group if you were to admit it openly.
Anyway, I am bowing out now, I have a busy weekend ahead. Please don't regard lack of further response as lack of interest, I may look again in next week. ("Phew", I hear you all say, "good riddance"!!).
Off on another "well-earned holiday"? I do envy (yes, I know it is a sin) your ability to get about Europe like you do!!
So, do we call it within species evolution? I've not done straight micro or even general biology in so long I can't remember if they are genus, species, order, etc. How do you refer to things changing within their "own kind" versus changing from kind to kind - serious question because I cannot remember.
And, of course, not all reject "your" (yes, I was using it in the "royal" sense) interpretation of the data - there's always good old Francis Collins. What will you do with him, my dear Maalie? That ends you back up with the question not of evolution versus creation but with God versus no god.
I do not think people accept or reject based on "usefulness" and the Bible was never intended to be a science text - it was intended only to tell the story of a Savior, nothing more.
As to "the evidence" - how I personally "reject" some and "accept" other - I pretty much reject it all and just keep asking questions :) Remember me - the perverse scientist. I have an article to send you, so check you email this weekend - you will find it interesting, no doubt.
I'm still waiting for the grant upload - so enjoy your weekend. I would like to be busy with things other than science or housekeeping this weekend for sure.
BTW - I don't know Lorenzo, I don't know. Someone I suppose has to do the weighing and measuring of what is more important. While I think they sometimes make some really bad choices, I fear that they have sometimes made some really good ones that we would also be horrified by - we just don't know about them because they averted tragedy.
I look forward to the day of the new heaven and the new earth when all this evil is done away with! No more tears, no more sorrow, no more pain sounds pretty good to me! I bet I won't even have to write grants!!
"Once you have studies this in depth, it will become all too clear."
I have looked at Dawkins video. Excellent filming. Enjoyed it immensely. Evene the disecting of the giraffe was very interesting, though hard to watch: Cutting open that incredibly long neck.
Funny, Dawkins claims that the giraffe is great evidence for Darwin's natural selection, and the scientists who teach there's a Design, and Designer, use the giraffe to debunk Darwin.
A lot to study really.
Llama, and don't forget those nasty bombers who blown themselves up in Isralie buses, and also the Muslem terrorist who blow up innocent people as well.
"No more tears, no more sorrow, no more pain sounds pretty good to me! I bet I won't even have to write grants!!"
Sounds good Susan. I too look forward to that Day.
"And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul."
http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/t/i/itiswell.htm
May I sincerely invite all readers to look here and click on the video link, and watch it all. You may be intrigued by other material on that site too.
Now I am off for that well-earned holiday :-)
Yes, Maalie, it is interesting. In fact, your video fits a scripture I have been studying this week quite well.
John 3:16-21, especially verses 19 and 20.
oops - had to repost, forgot to say have a nice holiday. I'm back to the lab and grant writing.
Here are couple of reviews of his new book. A lot of this is over my head, to be honest. But check the reviews for yourself if you like.
Dawkins surely does have a superb camera crew. He must be making the big bucks.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1L273LHM3MKUN/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
http://www.amazon.com/review/R10GFS7VU14A09/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
I think I messed up on the links. Try these:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1L273LHM3MKUN/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
http://www.amazon.com/review/R10GFS7VU14A09/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Maalie,
Here's a book highly recommended by a Christian scientist in my state that I have the audacity to want to read. And from a fellow in your part of the world. Why don't we both give it a read? It is short, around one hundred pages.
God working through process is seen everywhere including in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, so that what Dawkins is saying in regard to that makes plenty of sense to me and plenty of other Christians.
Here's the UK version of it.
Therefore the question or issue, Maalie is not really about evolution at all, but about Jesus.
I used to despair, but now I smile at you people as you pick and choose the bits of science that you wish to accept, or to turn a 'blind eye' to! And I see dear old Francis Collins gets wheeled out of retirement from time to time as an example of a "Christian who is a scientist", apparently overlooking that fact that he has absolutely denounced Genesis and absolutely espouses Darwin.
He didn't look very "retired" to me when he spoke last week at the Society for Neuroscience's meeting!
And while I disagree with him about Genesis what I really care about is what he thinks of Jesus Christ.
But you already know that, don't you?
Maalie,
Does John Polkinghorne pick and choose? I think not. Not him, either. (I'm just now reading a 2007 book of his I picked up at our public library).
Oh, Polkinghorne is a bit of an eccentric! He doesn't believe that the world is only a few thousand years either! He was educated at Perse School, we used to play rugby against them, invariably beat them.
I wish Halfmom and all her fans a joyous Festival of Samhain!
Thanks Maalie, and a happy 'All Saints Day' to you.
And since we're dropping names, how about Antony Flew, who was converted from atheism to deism?
Maalie,
But Polkinhorne's science is impeccable, I would think you would agree. And I like what he is doing in the book I'm reading, helping me understand something more of the discipline of science in quantum physics and how the search for truth both differs yet in significant ways correlates in that and in Christian theology. Even though hard (and impossible in some respects even for scientists) to understand, fascinating. "Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship."
Nice you beat them! And, thanks.
Don, You remind me that I need to get a good prayer book. I have the first English prayer book written by Thomas Cranmer himself, the first Archbishop of Canterbury, who himself was burned at the stake. I love good written prayers and liturgy set up for special days.
Ted, I agree, he was a devotee of the peer-reviewed scientific process. But unlike fundamentalists (who pick and choose which bits of science they accept), scientists who claim to be christians pick and choose which bits of the bible to believe.
Neither Collins nor Polkinhorne belive the creation myths of the Old Testament. Yet their names are trotted out regularly by the fundamentalists as some sort of arbitrary "evidence" that you can still be a Christian and a scioentist.
I don't dispute good science; I measure the things I don't know by the things that are known. All scientists must discern what "evidence" is acceptable, and how to interpret it, right? Maalie, we have a different set of presuppositions; lots of people do, but I do not throw out everything that a Darwinian evolutionist says, simply because I am a creationist.
>All scientists must discern what "evidence" is acceptable, and how to interpret it, right?
That is the purpose of the peer-review porcess. False evidence does not survive under such scrutiny. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the earth is only a few thousand years old, or that a pair of kangaroos swam from Australia to the Middle East and back.
This peer review process should be a good thing, but it depends on man, who is fallible, and sometimes makes decisions based on sinful inclinations. God's Word will outlast false evidence, despite unpopularity with some, who disregard the evidence.
Oh, about the kangaroos... I don't claim to have all the answers, however my guess is that they did not swim, but hopped across Pangaea.
Maalie,
Polkinghorne most certainly does believe Genesis 1-3. He believes in creation, fall, redemption and new creation. That is told in large part in Genesis 1-3; those chapters are indispensable to all Christians.
Read Augustine and others to see how Christians have understood Genesis 1-3 over the centuries. And C.S. Lewis on it. Of course it is not meant to be a scientific account, but simply to tell the story of God's creation, humankind's potential, disobedience, and God's call to Abraham as his elect to be a blessing to the nations which is fulfilled in Jesus. The end that we Christians look forward to being told in Revelation.
Short, simple, yet I think potent article on atheists, and specifically atheists in Britain having their atheism shaken, or becoming theists or Christians, and why.
Post a Comment