The ID Debate

Interesting article. I stopped comprehending the chemistry of that about the second sentence. Chemistry was never my strong suit. NaCL ... what?

I once read the book, "The Case for a Creator," which was a recitation of the various arguments for the ID proposition. Some were more compelling than others. For instance, I think any discussion about "the soul" -- and using "the soul" as the basis for evidence of our intelligent design -- is automatically one of pure speculation. It weakens the overall argument to introduce that.

Similarly, I think the discussions about the "finely tuned universe" are intriguing, but there's so much speculation in the whole realm of the astro-physics that I'm not sure I can base my strong suggestion of an intelligent designer on that either.

But the topic of the origin of life from basic molecular elements, and how from that might come the extraordinarily elegant structure of a single cell ... well, now we're talking. To me, this is by far the most intriguing area. This is pure science at that level -- the chemistry is well know, the biology is well known. That's not to say the origins of it all are understood, but the mechanics are understood, and subject to rigorous controlled scientific experimentation.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody has adequately proven that elemental molecules could, on their own, form up simple amino acids, let alone more complex proteins, let alone RNA, let alone DNA, let alone a cell, let alone a bacteria, let alone an amoeba ... you get the point. Nobody has absolutely refuted it, either. I'm not sure that argument is even subject to proof or refutation.

Note: from what I understand -- and I don't understand the chemistry behind it -- the famous experiment from the 50's or 60's showing amino acids being formed from a controlled environment of organic gases and lightning was considerably flawed. It is cited as one of those things that despite its flaws, the "conclusion" found its way into "accepted fact," and that's where it's been ever since.

Now, there's a little bit of the same false logic being employed by both sides here, it seems.:

• Advocates of ID point to the lack of scientic proof for the naturalistic creation of life-forming proteins and say, "Ha! Therefore ID is possible, therefore it's true!"
• Advocates of naturalism point to the lack of scientific refutation of the theory (i.e., lack of "falsification") and say, "Ha! Therefore naturalism is possible, therefore it's true!"

For me ... I just got done scritching the chin of my sleepy cat. What's that prove?

Absolutely nothing! :-)

An Intelligent Creator

Gibson, LJ --- Did Life Begin in an RNA World? The origin of genetic information. Scientific American 244(4):88-118. Ferris JP and G. Ertem. 1992. Oligomerization of ribonucleotides on montmorillonite: ... http://www.grisda.org/origins/20045.htm

Conclusion:

Considering the conditions necessary for the establishment of life, it appears that the most plausible explanation for the origin of life is an intelligent creator."

I kid you not.

:-)

Pursuits

I wouldn't think that the pursuits of pleasures are in and of themselves bad. The Lord made many things to be beautiful and pleasurable. Sex is beautiful and pleasurable, but it can be a terrible intoxicant if one's pursuit becomes unleashed.

Similarly, striving towards not pursuing pleasures can itself become an idol. It's a form of asceticism, isn't it?

Note: dictionary.com: 1: "The principles and practices of an ascetic; extreme self-denial and austerity." 2: "The doctrine that the ascetic life releases the soul from bondage to the body and permits union with the divine."

The Christian faith has a tradition of asceticism in some of the monastic orders. I'm not sure sure that's supported by scripture, but it's also not prohibited. It may be a personal thing -- for some, pursuing the ascetic life might be the only way in which they can free themselves to then pursue God. And pursuing God is something we are definitely called to do.

What I'm stumbling over is your use of the term "peace." By that do you mean a kind of suspension of an internal struggle, perhaps caused by pleasures or the pursuit of them? Or are you thinking of something else. I have a hard time with that world, just like I do the word "love." There's too much historical baggage associated with it.

I think it's safe to say that there is too much obsessive pursuit of pleasure in today's society. I'm a little unclear on what you meant by "The Church enticing children with the pleasures of alcohol" -- are you referring to using real wine for communion?

Peace and pleasure

You asked:

What's that area like -- the area around Stonehenge and to the north? Is it barren and windswept? Or has it been developed? Are there trees, or only scrub and brush?

I've been to Stonehenge twice, once as a kid and once in 2001 to show a colleague around who was visiting from Germany. Maybe I'll get to go there again soon - the week of 27th Feb - as I am hosting four people from Croatia at work.

My recollection is that although the henge is near a major road - it is very barren and quiet. You can do a 360 degree swivel and see just grassland, maybe the odd copse, but pretty much just grass - slightly undulating, a bit like teletubbies land, or the default background of Windows XP :-) You feel like you are high up. You're not allowed to touch the stones now, as I kid I recall that I did. There is the usual guide telephone that you carry around as you tour Stonehenge.

+++

Today is the birthday of Nicolas Copernicus. Born in 1473, Copernicus envisioned the modern solar system model which explained the retrograde motion of the outer planets. Considering this was well over 530 years ago, and in a rather unenlightened time, his revolutionary thinking is astounding.

+++

I am wondering about the pursuit of peace over the pursuit of pleasure. Is this the secret to inner contentment and happiness? It's tied up with a lot of things I've mentioned in the blog:

1. Yoda (ok Buddha) saying don't get attached to things and physical pleasures
2. The Church enticing children with the pleasures of alcohol
3. Societal focus on more, more, more
4. Executives drawing down millions of dollars in share options

Are arguments (or wars) caused by one side wanting the pleasure of being right?

If we don't pursue sensual pleasure in this life then are we being anti-life? Not pursuing sensual pleasures in this life seems wholly valid if there is indeed an afterlife. But if there is not an afterlife then why not pursue pleasures in this life?

Thinking about it, the ultimate act of life, that of creating life, is a result of following sensual pleasure. So if we don't follow sensual pleasure then that would seem to lead to the end of life, and so possibly be "anti-life".

Sidebar: Humans are thought to reproduce sexually rather than asexually as sexual reproduction leads to less reinforcement of recessive genes, thus leading to more life.

Can we identify "the true" followers of Christ by observing those who are not pursuing the sensual pleasures of this life?

What would the world be like if our natures (and Hollywood) celebrated and sought peace rather than sensual pleasure?

Bible Verses that Resonate With Me

I have long found these two verses powerfully affecting:

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
(Hebrews 12:1-2, NIV)

I sense a proper paraphrase might be:

Look, there's been a whole bunch before us who've done this. Yeah, I know it's hard but it's not impossible. So make the commitment in your mind and your heart and go as if this was a long race. Don't get discouraged early. Pace yourself, don't give up ... be patient and diligent. Need something to motivate you? Take a look at Jesus. He's the model. By comparison to what he endured, our challenges are minor. Plus, he's there to help us. Doubt that? Remember who is is and where he is right now.

Next year I'll probably see even more depth to the two verses. That's the beauty of the Bible ... the layers go down and down. There's significance and depth in nearly everything.

Grace and peace, brother.

Chalk Ridges Above Sarum

I think I mentioned before that I'm reading a book called "Sarum," which is a sweeping fictional account of England, set against the backdrop of actual historical events. It's set in the area where Salisbury is now, and the fictional town is called "Sarum."

The story starts in about 7,500 BC with a nomadic hunter in the north tunda setting out on a journey to the south. This would have been after the last ice age was coming to an end. This hunter, named "Hwll," was basing his journey south on the oral tradition of a land, far to the south, where it was warm and food was plentiful. He sets out with his mate and two children on what others in his small group of hunters think is a foolish mission. What Hwll did not know was that the ancient oral tradition was based on a time before the English Channel was formed. So he encounters the sea and his journey further south is thwarted. But the land "where the five rivers meet" (present day Salisbury) is, by comparison to the tundra from where he came, rich with food and game. So he settles there.

I am now up to about 800 AD. The Angles and the Saxons have established themselves on the island. The plague of Vikings has not yet occurred, nor has the land been conquered by the Normans. The days of Roman occupation are long over, but traces of that time remain.

It's a wonderful saga being created. Edward Rutherfurd is a good writer of this kind of fiction. (Though his later book "Forest" seemed forced and at times trite.)

But what animates my mind is not so much the people -- as good a portrait as is being painted -- but the geography of the region. This notion of the "chalk ridges" and the plateau that exists north of there and extends for miles just fascinates me. I've been to Winchester, of course, and I've seen the rolling hills of that region. But I never did venture west to see the area where Stonehenge exists.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Charles Darwin lived somewhere in this region -- to the south of England. There is another book I read called "The Origin" by Irving Stone, which was a historical novel of Darwin, from his adolescence through his travels on the HMS Beagle, to the development of his theory of natural selection and through to his death. The description of the area around his home made mention of a "chalk landscape."

For some reason -- and I can't explain it -- I'm utterly fascinated with the idea of vast open expanses of land. I've seen pictures of the sweeping tundra of northern Canada and I'm awestruck by it. Descriptions of the steppes of eastern Asia, where the land goes on forever and ever, stir my imagination. The idea of being out in the middle of such an expanse draws me and frightens me, all at the same time.

What's that area like -- the area around Stonehenge and to the north? Is it barren and windswept? Or has it been developed? Are there trees, or only scrub and brush?

My imagination is on fire.

Thank You

.. for your wonderful prayer. It is much appreciated.

Peace.

Prayer for K

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, gracious and giving, kind and just, merciful and holy, I ask you accept this prayer, humbly offered in the name of Christ Jesus.

May the light of love that is your very nature be something little K is able to understand and cling to, so that the turbulence around her does not toss her about, but rather let you be an anchor for her, a port in the storm, as best as she can understand it at her tender age.

May her father -- a good man, possessed of considerable gifts of intellect and grace -- be an instrument of your glory, so that he might be used by you to extend your love and goodness to K. Grant him all that you deem necessary to flow your love through him to K.

May her mother, in some way known only to you, come to understand the troubles that exist, and accept the healing touch of your almighty hand in her life.

Christ Jesus, lay your hand on K ... and allow the love that is yours and has always been yours flow to her, to touch her precious heart, and to comfort her. Assure her, dear Lord, that in you there is refuge, and peace, and hope, and love.

In your name, to your glory.

Amen

A Ton Forty

I was on the phone with my brother last night. That in itself is something of a newsworthy comment, given the rarity of our conversation. At any rate, he has a crotch-rocket Suzuki -- 900cc I think -- and has had it for 10 years now. I asked him, "What's the fastest you got that bike to?"

"One hundred forty miles an hour."

I thought, "That's crazy. You were a fool to do that."

He then offered, unprompted by me: "I realized that was crazy; it was too fast."

Gee ... ya think? :-)

* * *

My brother is a bit of an enigma. He's a flat-out genius, like you -- but in a different area. He's an incredibly gifted electrical engineer, and has a real aptitude for mechanical engineering as well. He lives alone in a small town in Tennessee, and has 600 acres of land on which he plans to build a remote house. He has his own observatory on top the mountain, with a retractable roof, a concrete slab six feet thick to dampen vibration, and a motorized mounting that rotates with the earth. He's not well gifted in the social graces, though neither am I but I get by.

Yet on the phone last night I detected a real warmth in his heart towards my aging parents; a warmth I did not know he possessed. It was quite touching. He also said he has been attending church for quite some time, which is something I never would have guessed.

It just goes to show -- one can't assume one knows the totality of the picture.

Cartoons

You wrote:

All this cartoon fuss is a clear indicator to me. We humans are odd creatures.

You won't get too much argument out of me on that point. It's not clear from your sentence which side of that furor you fall. For my part, I'm convinced the whole "outrage" thing is a purely manufactured thing on the part of the Muslims.

Despite all the talk about this being a war against "extreme" Islam only, I'm unconvinced. I do honestly believe we are at a crossroads in history. I believe what we are seeing is the first skirmish in a clash of civilizations. And they -- the Muslims -- are cleverly using all the devices of liberal western society against us: our civil protections; our pathetic sense of correctness; our worshipping at the altar of "diversity."

* * *

There has, of course, been many depictions of Jesus that are far, far more inflammatory than the cartoons that started all the fuss. Jesus in a jar of urine, or a painting of a naked Jesus with an erection. The novel "The DaVinci Code" is a long assault on Christ. Yet the Christian population does not rise up and burn buildings, threaten murder, or stage mass riots. Why not? I believe there are two reasons:

1. A vast majority of "Christians" are simply apathetic
2. A portion of Christians understand that the Truth of Christ is not diminished by slander; that Christ rises above any maligning; that regardless of the criticism or blasphemy, Christ remains Christ, now and forever.

Increasingly I fall into the second camp. This goes back to my "If A, then A" argument. What difference does it make, really, if someone paints an obscene picture of Jesus? Does that affect the magnificence of the actual Risen Christ? Not at all. Christ transcends all we may do. Pictures or cartoons don't change that.

That's not to say I like it or enjoy it; but I'm not compelled to riot or kill. Because ultimately it does not diminish Jesus. He can't be diminished. He simply is. I AM WHO I AM.

We'll see if I hold to this during the trials that come. I pray I do.

War

You wrote:

But I doubt in today's atmosphere that any sensible, reasonable debate can take place

Hmm, I guess I agree with this but I don't see it changing until the war starts. Each day I fear that the war is coming closer. All this cartoon fuss is a clear indicator to me. We humans are odd creatures.

The Torture Option

You wrote:

... he found himself dropping his previously high moral stance to save billions of lives.

I won't claim to understand all the angles to the debate, but this debate has been going on since long before 9/11. For example, President Lincoln did things during the American Civil War that were frowned upon as unconstitutional then, and would be well nigh impossible to pull off today. His justification was the saving of the union. To achieve that bigger objective, he sacrificed what he saw as smaller restrictions.

The counter-argument tends to be the "slippery slope" argument -- that is, once we get going down that path there's no stopping how far it will go. There's merit to the argument, but I'm not convinced all slipperly slopes are the same. In other words, I'm not sure it's valid to argue that since one might continue down a slipperly slope, one must never attempt to go down one ever.

No right minded person could rationally argue that if a million people could be saved by torturing a single terrorist to gain information, that we should not torture the terrorist. The unspoken premise of this, however, is that the torture will be effective. Clearly if we know with certainty that torturing a specific terrorist in a specific manner will unfailingly lead to clear information that will spare a million lives, then the case is clear and unambiguous.

Where things get fuzzy is if the efficacy of the action (torture) is not certain. That's where the slipperly slope lies. The real question, it seems to me, is not whether torture is ever warranted, but rather when it's warranted. Clearly it's not warranted in all cases. But where's the line?

That I do not know. But it strikes me that reasonable limits can be placed on it. But I doubt in today's atmosphere that any sensible, reasonable debate can take place. When anything short of full capitulation to the captives' demands is considered horrible torture by many on the left side of the political spectrum, any discussion about limits on what constitutes torture and what the limits are is simply pointless. It's all torture and should all be banned ... except if a Democrat is president. Then the rules change.

* * *

Thanks for the link to the Ender's Game story. IMDB.com shows that as a 2008 movie.

Ender's Game the Movie

One for you and the Mrs

http://www.frescopictures.com/movies/ender/index.html

The end of that article reminded me of the portrayal of Jonathan Archer, captain of the prequel Enterprise throughout Star Trek: Enterprise season 3.

At the end of season 2, the alien Xindi race had launched a probe that killed 7 million people in Florida, and rumour had it that this was a precursor to the next probe that would destroy the Earth completely.

So season 3 was all about finding and stopping the Xindi, and Archer found himself using hardline tactics to make a success of his mission, like robbing a friendly starship of their warp coil and torturing the enemy -- he found himself dropping his previously high moral stance to save billions of lives.

This was said to be, by the cast in the documentaries, related to america's response to 9/11.

Thoughts?

PS. Will there be a call for a ban on hunting following the Cheney incident?
PPS. I had guessed that might be your router solution :-) I'm glad you're fixed!

Router

Problem fixed ... I think. The solution? I bought a new router. The problem with the old router was that for whatever reason it would not accept the DHCP offered by the ISP. My Thinkpad, plugged directly into the cable modem, received and accepted the DHCP very quickly. The new router -- same make (Linksys) but different model -- now appears to accept the address. Further, the new firmware has a "DHCP release" and "DHCP renew" button, which the old one did not. Anyway, long story short, for now it appears to be working again.

Crossing my fingers ... :-)

Note: I'm assured by the fact that I hooked my hold router back up and could not get that darn thing to "see" the upstream link. I hooked the new one back in and **poof!** -- I had my upstream connection. For $50, I'll take it. Peace of mind, and all that.

Praying naturally

I have to say that praying comes much more easily to me in private than in the company of others.

There is something about humanity - we just can't resist grandstanding. All people pray to God equally but some are more equal than others?

Firmware

Things may fix themselves, it's amazing how often just giving something some space and then coming back to it works.

Alternatively, if the issue persists, you could try updating your Linksys firmware:

www.linksys.com/download

I _never_ update my firmware unless I have problem :-)

Prayer

I'll be the first to confess that I myself find prayer to be an often hard thing to comprehend. I agree that it is a "natural thing to do," but for some reason the naturalness of it seems to get short-circuited. Our fallen nature? The wiley temptation of our adversary? I don't know.

* * *

Pope John Paul II will, I think, hold a special place in history. It was only natural that his successor would find the shoes to be large and hard to fill. I would guess that in time Pope Benedict XVI will find his niche.

* * *

My LinkSys 2.4Ghz Wireless Broadband router has suddenly decided to stop accepting the DHCP address offered by my cable modem. The cable modem seems to be offering it just fine. I know this because when I plug my PC directly into the cable modem, I instantly get an IP address. But try as I might, the wireless router just won't seem to accept it. The router acts as a DHCP server downstream, and that function seems to work okay -- my PC gets its 192-dot address lickety-split. But since the router has no upstream address to the modem ... well, things are somewhat flat.

Here's what utterly perplexes me. This worked just last night. That router has no moving parts. One would think that if a piece of solid state circuitry worked at time t, then at time t+1 it would still work. Right?

The dark and cynical side of me believes that Comcast is doing something insidious to block the functioning of my router so they can sell me their "home networking" solution. But I can't imagine they'd be able to really tell that what's downstream from their modem is a NAT device ... could they? I thought the whole purpose of a NAT device was to utterly shield the Internet from knowing that there's anything behind the NAT address at all.

But what do I know. I'm a luddite at heart.

Praying

I guess prayer is a pretty strange thing ... a person, or group of people, speaking to an unseen diety, whom they think will help them (or someone else) in some way.

The thing about prayer though, is that it is a natural thing to do. I am sure that many people who have not actively decided to believe in God pray at some point, even those who ridicule it.

+++

I was in Italy this week and the folks there with whom I had dinner said that the previous Pope JP 2 was much loved and the new chappy is not doing so good.

Dismissing Prayer

I'm in Santa Fe right now, attending a western region team meeting and giving a 1 hour overview of WebSphere on z/OS. We're in a "working lunch" period, and I'm at a table full of FTSS folks. They started talking about a famous site here in Santa Fe, which is a cathedral with a spiral staircase. I haven't visited it, but others at the table related the story: that they had a tower in the cathedral and the ladder proved difficult to climb. So they prayed about it, and out of the blue came a carpenter who built the staircase. There is apparently no record of the carpenter buying the lumber anywhere; the carpenter simply vanished afterwards, and the engineering of the staircase is such that nobody can figure out how it supports itself. Or so goes the story.

But that's not the reason I'm posting this. The reason I'm posting this is because of the mocking tone and utter dismissal of prayer that was shared by seemingly everyone at the table. I shouldn't be so judgmental, I guess -- I suppose I might have shared the same attitude several years ago, and perhaps I still do today.

But it struck me.

Goodbye Netscape; Hello Firefox

I recently downloaded Netscape 8.1. They've burdened it with so much security checking and all that it kept locking up my machine. So I downloaded Firefox. It seems to work much better.

There. It's been said.

No. I won't go to Linux next. :-)

One Gee

Here is an interesting calculation which says that if you could travel with a constant acceleration of 1 Earth Gravity (1g) then you could get to the edge of the observable universe in 25 years of your time. Quite a few more years would have elapsed on Earth of course, but to an observer on Earth - you would never be travelling faster than the speed of light. I wonder what it is like to ride a beam of light? :-) 50 billion light years in 25 years without travelling faster than the speed of light! That's the Lorentz Contraction of distances when moving at relativistic speeds for ya.

Time elapsed on spaceship in years	Time elapsed on Earth in years	Distance travelled in lightyears	To
alpha	sinh(alpha)	cosh(alpha)- 1
0	0	0	Earth (starting point)
1	1.175	.5431
2	3.627	2.762
2.337	5.127	4.223	Proxima Cen
3.962	26.3	25.3	Vega
6.60	368	367	Pleiades
10.9	2.7×104	2.7×104	Centre of Milky Way
15.4	2.44×106	2.44×106	Andromeda galaxy
18.4	4.9×107	4.9×107	Virgo cluster
19.2	1.1×108	1.1×108	Coma cluster
25.3	5×1010	5×1010	Edge of observable Universe

Logic redux

I know you don't debate this anymore, but I got this off of slashdot this morning and it says in a much more succinct fashion what I have been saying:

Math theorems don't necessarily have to apply to the physical universe. The axioms on which the theorems are built are explicitly part of the theorems, leading to a logically self-consistent system. That is, you define the particular 'universe' you want to study by setting down axioms, then you prove things which you know are true about that universe because you've derived them in a logical fashion from those axioms you've set down.

This includes "If A, then A" of course.

The Width of a Circle

I imagine it like this, that I am attached to a piece of elastic which is anchored at the centre of the circle I am turning around. Centripetal force (which is due to my inertia - my unwillingness to change direction) is making me want to stretch the elastic and move in a straight line rather than a circle. To make the turn, the elastic must not stretch. If I lean towards the direction of the elastic, towards the middle of the circle, the wheels of the bike push back on the road counter balancing the outwards centripetal force on the elastic which keeps me in the turn (or keeps the elastic from stretching).

Flicking the handlebars in the opposite direction absolutely works because it forces you to lean into the corner to turn. If you steered into the corner then you would not lean into the corner, due to inertia your bike would want to lean the other way (by the same argument as above), in which case if you _were_ moving quickly you would fall off.

Also, for some reason turning the handle bars the other way and dropping into the turn is exciting. The potential danger comes if you drop too low and scrape the foot peg on the floor, which I have done many times!

I got to the point where I didn't even turn the handle bars the other way consciously, I just lifted out of the saddle slightly and shifted my body to the side I was turning, this made the bike fall into the corner, when you physically drop your body to one side, the handle bars turn in the counterintuitive direction automatically. You see the professional racers doing this in races all the time, I think you get to the point in riding where you imagine yourself as a counterweight whose job it is to pull a hunk of machinery in directions that modify where it naturally wants to go (which is in a straight line).

Nice pictures by the way.

Counterintuitive

A few months back, when I took the "Motorcycle Safety Foundation" course, one of the things the instructor kept talking about was "counter steering." By this he meant that when going into a curve, you push on the handlebar opposite the direction you want to go.

Huh?

I thought I had a sense of what he was talking about -- kinda -- but not really. In the weekend safety course we never got going much faster than 15 or 20 miles per hour. The "counter-steering" technique doesn't really show itself at those speeds.

Today I was tooling along and I came to a broad, sweeping curve in the road. So I thought I'd give this counter-steering thing a deliberate try. Sure enough ... if the curve was to the left, I would push on the left handlebar and the bike would lean and go left.

I'm sure there's some physics-geek explanation for this.

All I know is it works and it's a great way to hold and force a curve. That's a particularly good thing to know if in a curve I lose my confidence and think maybe I'm going too fast. Perhaps I am going to fast, but the thing to do is maintain pressure on the opposite handlebar.

Counterintuitive ... but it works.

Santa Rita Mountains, Arizona

This past Saturday I took another run down to Sonoita, Arizona. On the way back I snapped this picture of my motorcycle:

But the real picture is not of the motorcycle, or of the hill and sparse trees behind it, but the scene that unfolded behind me as I took this picture of the bike. Here's what was behind me:

A 1024 x 768 of that shot can be had here

Temptations of Satan

Wow ... a lot in that last post to digest. I'll try to summarize my views in response to your points.

• I do believe the Bible is correct; therefore, I do believe there are created spirtual beings that have chosen to rebel against God. These are known as "demons." There are created spirtual beings that have chosen to be obedient to God. These are angels. The first angel to rebel against God was Lucifer who, if I understand things correctly, is now generally referred to as "Satan."
• I'm not really clear on whether or not these fallen angels have the ability to take the form of humans. I don't think the Bible suggests that's true, but I could be wrong. I think it can be said with fair confidence that demons have the ability to tempt humans and influence their behavior.
• I believe that once someone has chosen Christ to be their saviour, then Satan can't get that person back. But Satan can still tempt that person to rebel against God. Some of the arrogance and spitefulness of people professing to be Christians might be just that. It might also be that someone professing to be a Christian isn't really one.
• I think it's important -- difficult, but important -- to understand that God is capable of possessing love and wrath at the same time. The fallen angels chose their path with the full knowledge of what they were doing. That is why it is commonly accepted that demons do not share in the salvation offered through Christ, and that they do not have the opportunity to be "born again." The wrath of God is upon them now. Does God then still love them? In some way I can't comprehend, I suppose so.
• The Bible seems to be pretty strong that "hating" in our eathly realm is an exercise not well suited to our fallen nature. When someone hates another, it's hard for me to fathom how the true spirit of Christ can be in them. I count myself in the category of those who stands accused of failing to show the true spirit of Christ.
• I think it's altogether possible that Satan is able to tempt people into formenting hate in their hearts and thus set aside Christ-likeness. I suspect that is Satan's chief aim -- to thwart God's kingdom. Ultimately he can't and won't win; but by some mystery God permits it in our time.
• I am not the right person to discuss this with ... I am weak in too many areas to do justice to this topic.

At the gut level I suspect the tension and difficulty in that topic is reason enough to avoid trying to balance between righteous hate and love and to allow "vengeance to be God's" and not ours. But as I've stated before, I have no idea how to truly "love my enemy." I suspect it's not something we are capable of doing on our own. I suspect it's another in the category of "letting go and allowing God work through us." I'm not clear on what all that really entails, though.

Being There

Thanks for your advice pal, I just need to relax and put my trust in The Lord, and keep smiling of course - for my daughter :-)

Your description of walking on eggshells sounds like a nightmare. How many other children have to suffer these situations in silence, young children like you and my daughter who don't really have the emotional equipment to deal with the situation they find themselves in. The situation when the object of their trust is so -- unpredictable? Horrible. Adults fair enough I suppose, but children. Repercussions. Respice Finem.

I was thinking about the "Christians" who are boastful, arrogant, know-it-all and downright unpleasant, and how when I am exposed to them I feel further away from God. Now I am thinking along new lines. Here is my line of thinking ...

Satan is real (look if you sign up to The Bible you have to believe Satan exists)
Demons are real (same reason - note: also Angels are real)
Demons might walk the Earth in human form doing Satan's bidding (possible?)
The soul is real
Satan wants souls
Satan is getting all non-Christian souls by default
Satan wants _more_ souls
Satan is not going to get Christian souls as they are for God
What does Satan do?
Satan tries to make Christians turn away from Christianity by placing demons on Earth that pretend to be Christians. These Christians on the face of it do all the "right" things. They know their scripture well, they go to Church, they tithe, etc etc. But they show their true colours. They are extremely unpleasant characters. They hate a lot - they let their natures come out sometimes. If they are following the new covenant then they must hate themselves (ie. love your neighbour as you love yourself). Perhaps they are demons?

Am I being totally unrealistic and just looking for something that will allow me to dislike these people and still feel that I am keeping to the New Covenant? This sounds like the paranoid rantings of a mad man does it not? Demons abroad, lol. But is it happening? I don't really believe so, but if the world is like The Bible says it is - then it is possible. Satan must be attacking Christians, trying to turn them away at any and all opportunities - and what better way to do this than with a mole?

This new line of though allows me to say to these people "Get thee behind me Satan" and dismiss them. Is it ok to do that, it must be for they are merely demonic spawn of hell.

This line of thinking is not good I would suggest :-) But it seems quite Biblical. Question: Did Jesus pity Satan and love him? Are there any references for Jesus doing that (that you know of)?

Maybe this line of thinking is dangerous because maybe these people are not demons, maybe they are just people who followed my above line of reasoning and that allows them to hate, because they believe that they are hating demons? Maybe this is how the wagers of Jihad sleep at night?

Confused. Can you tell? :-)

In Response ...

You wrote, I respond:

Do you want all things? I'd just like some peace and happiness for my daughter, and to personally not be in pain.

No, I don't think I want all things, or everything, or even a lot of things. I think I want things similiar to you: some peace for my troubled mind; some sense of assurance I'm in God's grace; and to feel safe being a gentle person.

You wrote also:

What's it like to have to walk on eggshells and be on your best behaviour around a parent at all times, to approach everything as a political negotiation depending on the mood of the parent? To always have to be very polite and to live with emotional bullying?

That might have been the most painful aspect of my childhood -- the sense that I had to tread lightly at all times for fear that some action (or inaction) might cause a horrible emotional reaction. It was like a pall on the entire family structure.

The difference between my upbringing and the situation your daughter struggles with is that I had no present father, she does. You must never underestimate the value of you "being there" -- a safe harbour in an otherwise turbulent sea. Extending that metaphor, I had no place to put in to weather the storm. So I retreated into myself. And I built protective walls. Lots of them.

You speak of me "turning out okay." I suppose that's true, to some degree. I know in my heart I have no right to have had things turn out as well as they have, save for the divine guidance offered from above. That's not false piety speaking ... I honestly do feel that "there but by the grace of God go I."

You're walking a tough line -- being the strong, responsible parent while not forcing your daugher to choose between the two of you. Just be there ... drop all notions of trying to force some desired outcome and just be there. Our Lord will use you to achieve what he knows is best.

Again, you wrote:

On the sinning stuff from Romans 7 to 8, what are the worse sins or are all sins equally as bad?

That's a tricky question. Doctrinally, all sins are sins. Lately, I've come to view the magnitude of sins as a function of how much separation it forces between me and God. I suppose some might argue that drinking vodka is a sin, though personally I don't see that. It causes no particular sense of conviction in my heart, and I don't feel a sense of shame in approaching God after had a drink. Other things, though ... awful feelings of shame and guilt and wanting to keep distant. Those are sins in my life.

But even that's a tricky answer. A "sense of conviction" in my heart comes from the Holy Spirit, and the Bible is pretty clear that habitual sin will result in our hearts being "hardened," with the Spirit withdrawing a sense of conviction. So relying only on what I "feel" is a sin is probably not a good barometer. But it's the best barometer I have right now. It's helping me focus on the big things, which allows me to walk a step or two closer to God, which then helps me to focus on the more inward problems.

If that makes any sense. I'm not sure it does to me. That's my best shot at an answer.

Getting from Romans 7 to Romans 8 in my heart is a journey; a tough one. John Bunyan in "Pilgrim's Progress" devoted a considerable portion of his book to the time period between Christian's entering through the gate (accepting Christ) and reaching the place where the burden was lifted (truly letting go and trusting Christ). I'm thankful the Lord has made me aware that there is a journey to be made, even after the "I believe."

Pilgrims Progress

And after the transition from Romans 7 to 8.

Romans 8 31-32

What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Do you want all things? I'd just like some peace and happiness for my daughter, and to personally not be in pain.

What's it like to have to walk on eggshells and be on your best behaviour around a parent at all times, to approach everything as a political negotiation depending on the mood of the parent? To always have to be very polite and to live with emotional bullying?

Was it like that for you? You turned out ok, is it so bad?

+++

A colleague of mine is taking a year out from the company, apparently salary goes down to 35%, but that might just be over here - and could also be negotiable I guess. If you did it, I am pretty sure that you would not return - but we shall see - good luck with the meeting.

+++

Did Colin Firth play a Mr Darcy? "Darcy" - I think I was being too gallic in unconsciously using it's roots of the French "D'Arcy", or "of Arcy" - somewhere to the North East of Paris. Vive !

+++

On the sinning stuff from Romans 7 to 8, what are the worse sins or are all sins equally as bad? From my experience it seems that the sins associated with sex are the worse - fornication. What's your view? And if we were paraplegic, or just a brain, what would our sexual sins be then?

With Extreme Prejudice

Random notes:

• I had no idea that "Done up a ton" meant going 100 miles per hour. But I guess that makes some sense. Traveling 100 miles in distance really isn't much of an accomplishment. Then, no ... I have not "done up a ton." I've come close, though: 90mph. The bike had more top end to it ... I could easily have cranked the throttle for another 20 mph. But 90 was fast enough, thank you very much.
• I don't know what D'Arcy following the name means. Care to fill me in?
• I can appreciate that the "Pride and Prejudice" genre doesn't appeal to you. I find that somewhere deep within me there's a romantic streak. I also like movies that operate at a slower, but not boring, tempo. I find I almost can't handle the typical action picture of today ... too much noise, too much motion, too much flashing bright light. It really hits a nerve somewhere deep within me.
• Sorry to hear about the troubles with the ex. I'm really at a loss to know what to say, other than do what you're doing ... I guess.
• Tomorrow I am having a chat with an ex-colleague of mine who I bumped into at the Las Vegas airport the other day. He's now an Enterprise Sales Manager (ESM) and somewhat of a high-flyer. But what was interesting was a comment he made, almost in passing: "I took a leave of absence from [our company]. Best thing I ever did. Really changed my perspective on things." So tomorrow I'm going to chat with him about what his thinking was before, during and after this leave of absence. I'm very much intrigued by what he did.
• Right now I'm wrestling with the transition implied when one reads from the end of Romans 7 into the beginning of Romans 8. It strikes me as probably what John Bunyan was writing about in "Pilgrim's Progress" where he created a time passage between "the wicket gate" and the hill where "the burden was relieved from his back." The concept implied in "Progress" (and Romans 7-leading to-8) runs counter to some contemporary evangelicals. I'll leave it at that.
• The route I rode last weekend may look barren in Google Earth, but it was truly beautiful to be at ground level. I love wide open grasslands with gently rolling hills.
• I'm re-reading a novel by Edward Rutherfurd called, "Sarum, the Novel of England." Sarum is the book's name for Salisbury, and the book traces that place's history from the last ice age up through the 1990's by weaving fictional characters among historical fact. I've been to Winchester, of course, but not to Stonehenge or Salisbury. The book is pretty good ... I'm now up to the 42 AD and the Romans.

Without Prejudice

"Pride & Prejudice" - I honestly think that I'm incapable of appreciating this type of work. I lack the understanding of social aires and graces. I am pretty analytical and left brain oriented, when I see that stuff I think a) it's for girls and b) I cannot understand it. But I will revisit it now that I know that you are so appreciative of the Firth D'Arcy and see if I can glean the subtle interplay between the characters.

I followed your route on the bike, Google Earth is quite amazing in that you can literally fly along said route one mile off of the ground, glancing left and right to appreciate the scenery. Although it did look pretty barren, kind of like what I imagine Mars to be ! Nice trip.

My ex-wife, the mother of my child is getting madder. She screams at me and our child jumps into my arms and cries because mummy is shouting at daddy. She's going to lose her kids one day - so sad. It's true that we make our beds and then we have to lie in them. I think her current state is partly because she is under pressure from her mother's illness. The latest is that her mother will be discharged from hospital to go and live with Alice (the ex) - in return for her mother buying them a bigger house to live in. I thought this might have been a great idea, but it turns out that neither of the children want this, as (broke) Tony (Alice's beau) is moving in also. The girls really don't like him. I watch with a mild detachment and try to keep my daughter sane. Thanks for your previous advice on this one pal :-)

Candlemass at Church today - my daughters last at that school, I was impressed by the singing from the congregation - some very good voices "belting it out". All Saints Church looked much smaller somehow.

Religion is good for your health - I read an article recently that said it had supporting evidence for this. Something in the lowering of cortisol levels through giving up worrying, and putting your trust in a deity. This has a correct ring to it.

Attractiveness and youth. I used to sit next to a guy at work - a silver haired "older" chap in his late fifties. He told me he felt like he was still 25 inside, it was just the mirror that had it wrong. The occasional works outing that ending up in an evening pub session, he was always hitting on much younger girls. I don't think he had much "luck". He was also married to a much younger lady. It's a commonly held belief that women are attracted to power and money- so during your rescue you could have used this to up your "attractive guy" quotient. Alternatively you could have rode off as soon as you realized that you were not in the running :-) Ah growing old, it's so natural. Let's hope we can do it, growing old is also a privilege. A marvellous thing you did to help said damsel anyway, bikers are such helpful folk I found that out from my years on two wheels. A very healthy community in general.

PS. I was under the belief that "ton up" was some UK expression for achieving the speed of 100 mph on a motorcyle, but I guess 100 miles in distance is just as good :-)

PPS. If you've ever been to court you may know the significance of the title of this append beyond aforementioned Darcy.