A Hint at Cornerstore #6

As I mentioned in my e-mails, I'm presently reading a book by Dr. Dallas Willard called, "The Divine Conspiracy." A few weeks back I finished a more recent work of his called, "Renovation of the Heart."

One of the things Dr. Willard points to as a great trouble with contemporary Christianity is the tendency among some to claim salvation through faith in Christ, yet display little if any real change in their lives to show for it. He argues that the "Kingdom of God" is not to be entered and enjoyed after our death, but rather right now. His argument is that we are called to be Christ's disciples, to strive earnestly to conform ourselves to the image of Christ, to "put on the character of Christ" in our present-day selves.

I've been pondering all this quite a bit for the last several weeks. There's a real tension here -- between "faith" and "works":

• Faith without works is "dead" according to James ... in other words, someone who claims faith in Christ but shows no external manifestation of that faith probably isn't truly trusting in Jesus.
• Works without faith is simply trying to work out my salvation on my own.

One of the things that's been tossing around in my mind for some time is this: the solution can't be a compromise between the two extremes. That would be a lukewarm faith mixed with a half-hearted display of works. Neither is effective; combined it amounts to little.

The ideal is a full measure of both -- a person deeply committed to Christ and showing that through their everyday actions and deeds.

The problem is this: how many people do you know like that? I know none.

But that's what Willard is getting at in "Renovation of the Heart" -- that our objective while alive in this life is to commit ourselves to be real disciples of Christ, to truly "follow" him (and his example), and to grow each day in that role as disciple.

That's more or less the message of my Cornerstone #6 -- "Man's Response." When I first started the cornerstone series, I envisioned #6 as what should be the response of someone who has truly contemplated the sorry state of their sinfulness and compared it against the gift of salvation through Christ. And I could think of no other response than deep, humble gratitude.

So why is it so hard? Is it because we're all not really Christians? I'd hesitate to venture that conclusion. Willard argues in "Renovation of the Heart" that we are unable to simply "will" ourselves to faithful obedience because there's more to our makeup than our will. Our will is one piece, but not the total mechanism. And if the other pieces aren't aligned to God as well, then simply exerting our will is likely to result in failure.

I can attest to the validity of that statement.

So I don't really have much argument with the basic thrust of Willard's argument. One thing troubles me, though ... his focus is so far removed from inherent sinfulness of man and salvation through Christ and Christ alone that I wonder ...

• Does he not believe that Christ is the only way?
• Or does he simply presuppose true saving faith in the work of Christ, and then get on to the issues of growing in Christ after that?

I'd like to believe the latter. I'm still pondering it and reading his writings with a keen eye.'

In any event, that's what is animating my heart right now ... I know that there are elements of my mind, my thoughts, my feelings, closely held images of myself and others ... that simply can't remain forever. They are too limiting and destructive. I honestly don't believe I can change them on my own, but I honestly believe that God can. Somewhere in the middle of all that is a cooperative and increasing surrender of myself to Christ, with the expectation (hope?) of his healing Spirit making the necessary changes to things beyond my reach.

That's my post for this evening.

"Frictionless Toilet?"

Oh, do tell ... what part of a toilet do you feel has a problem with friction? At the (very great) risk of getting too crude, two things come to mind:

1. Friction where human flesh meets toilet
2. Friction where water and "other things" attempt to make their way south

Would I be correct in guessing you mean #2?

Woah

http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?newsID=1312

This will inevitably lead to a whole bunch of applications. We may even see the perfectly frictionless toilet in our lifetimes! Who knows??

Welcome back buddy.

"Out of Pocket"

As the American lingo goes ... I'll be far, far away from computers for a bit. On "vacation" in our parlance, "holiday" in yours. On a cruise from Vancouver, British Columbia to Anchorage, Alaska. Lots of trees, water, mountains and glaciers. Quite a departure from the desert of southern Arizona.

Ironically enough, it's been raining "cats and dogs" (another American phrase) here for the last few days. We had 1.5" of rain in a short period of time the other day. So much so, in fact, that rain got into the "boot" of my car, filling the spare tire well with about 2" of standing water!

Take care, deep.thought!

Technology in 1966

The original Star Trek needs to be given a bit of latitude, given it was produced in 1966. I give them credit for not having silly human-like robots and spaceships that emit a flame that looks a lot like a cigarette lighter. They did some things quite well -- small plastic cards that served as memory cards (envisioning flash memory) and hot women in mini-skirts. Oh, wait ... that last example really doesn't have much to do with technology, does it?

I didn't realize one of the spin-off series was set in a time before TOS. Shows how much I know.

Somewhere, long ago, I had read something written by Gene Roddenberry, the producer of the Star Trek franchise, and he alluded to gravity "being maintained" on the ship, but offered no explanation. The use of super-dense "plates" to create gravitational pull makes some sense. But here's a question for you, Mr. Science Man ...

When gravity is being maintained, and the plates somehow have enormous mass that creates the artificial gravitational pull, it would presumably mean the entire ship's mass would be greatly increased. What effect would that have on the ships propulsion systems? Would it then take proportionally more thrust to move the ship?

There's a writer for one of my right-wing-rant sites (www.nationalreview.com) that insists that the Holodeck was a device invented for the show because the writers were running out of ideas. This writer -- Jonah Goldberg -- insists that any episode that used the Holodeck as its main plot device was an episode where the writers were just lazy. His thesis was that in the Holodeck the writer could be unconstrained by reality, and therefore just do crazy things.

Even in TOS they had the ability to transport at least from the bridge of the ship. And I think they had the capability of transporting from and to places without the transporter being involved, but perhaps it would be akin to me FTP-ing a file up to the mainframe and you FTP-ing it down to your server.

I can't believe we're seriously discussing Star Trek transporter mechanics! :-)

Another mystery from TOS:

After the Federation "acquired" (read: "stole") the cloaking device from the Romulans, you'd think they'd reverse engineer the thing and provide cloaking technology for the entire fleet ... yet we never saw that. Why?

That's enough for now ... :-)

Space, the final frontier

I get confused with Star Trek technology as there have been so many different series, each in different centuries that it's hard to remember what is and isn't available to a particular crew.

In a recent episode of "Enterprise" that I saw, Captain Jonathan Archer was floating in the shower and an ensign reported that the "gravity plating on E deck" had failed. Maybe this is some technology they got from the Vulcans whereby when passing a current through a material it behaves like a massive sheet of material and you gravitate towards it?

The personal tracking beacon is also confusing. From space in Enterprise (100 years prior to The Original Series (TOS)) they can detect life signs of their crewmen and beam them up. Did they lose this technology in TOS?

Plus in The Next Generation (TNG - 100 years after TOS) they all had badges that doubled as communicators and anyone wearing these badges could be identified and beamed up, almost achieving technological par with Enterprise 200 years earlier.

One thing that puzzled me is in TNG they are always beaming people "directly from the bridge" to somewhere or another. Why bother going to the transporter room when you can beam someone from A to B where neither A or B is the transporter room?

I liked the "transporter badge" that was introduced in the last movie (Movie 10 - Nemesis), where you don't need a transporter room at all, the badge is the transporter.

All in all Star Trek was wonderful. TOS looks a bit dated now, with Spock looking down some tube with a blue light coming out of it ...

Star Trek: Technical Difficulties Unexplained

I just finished watching a DVD of one of my favorite Star Trek original series episodes ... "A Piece of the Action." A planetary society builds its entire framework after the Chicago mobs of the 1920's, all because of a book on that subject is left behind by an earlier Federation ship.

http://www.treknation.com/episodes/tos/season2/a_piece_of_the_action.shtml

The story is pure camp, but I love the dialog and the acting of Anthony Caruso as Bela Oxmyx and Vic Tayback as Jojo Krako.

Now, here's the topic thread ... Star Trek never tried to fully explain away all things in the show. For instance, how exactly did they maintain gravity in a ship where no rotational structure was present? (As opposed to, for instance, the ship "Discovery" in 2001: A Space Odyssey.)

So here's a new topic thread ... what are some other "technical difficulties unexplained" in the original Star Trek episodes? I'll start ...

Personnel Location Devices

The Enterprise was a very sophisticated ship. The Federation had very sophisticated technology. Why is it, then, they did not have each member of the crew embedded with a location device so that when they got into a jam they could just be transported away? Episode after episode a crew member somehow worked their way into jeopardy where a simple transport back to the ship would have solved the problem ... but they couldn't locate the person to beam 'em back. Their Tricorders and Communicators were small devices, so clearly they had the ability to construct small things. Why not, then, an implated beacon device?

Intercessory Prayers

Interesting you should raise the issue of intercessory prayers. That was the topic of today's after-service study session. We were reading a summary of a work by Douglas Steere. It was a challenging read mostly because Steere was operating at a level beyond what I can understand. It appeared that he was suggesting that intercessory prayer is as much for the person doing the praying as the one for whom the prayer is meant.

The whole notion of intercessory prayer is challenging logically. On the one hand, we have to believe that there's some value in doing so, otherwise why bother. Yet on the other hand, we can't really entertain the notion of "changing God's mind" on some matter through our prayers. Therefore, how does it work? Why are we called to pray on behalf of others? Does God "need" those prayers to operate? (Answer: "No")

I don't know ... challenging stuff. But one thing that the editor of the compilation book -- Richard J. Foster -- wrote that I think ties back to our discussions: "Here, then, is a penetrating test of our devotion: if we do not pray for people -- truly pray for them -- how can we say that we love them?"

Do you remember our earlier discussions about "loving our neighbor" and, more difficult, "loving my enemy?"

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Thanks for your views on those questions. I don't know the answers but my opinion would be:

Once the initial conditions, forces and matter in the Universe were settled upon, was what we see today always going to happen?

No. Because there appears to be uncertainty built into the Universe. Some call it probability, some call it statistics. Building in uncertainty is a really neat trick. It comes from small things, the realm of quantum physics, it spreads itself around into large events, like tossing a coin, or shaping a cloud, or being conscious. In fact I would go as far as to postulate that probability is probably a necessity for free will to exist. Given it's time again, the Universe may have turned out similar to this one, but not exactly the same.

If so, then The Creator doesn't need to tinker with the machine at all. (emphasis added)

Another reason why I answered "no" to 1.

Does He?

I really don't know. As a Christian of course I believe He does, otherwise I would not bother praying, but that is a Faith thing. I've been asking for my leg to be healed for the last three years, and for a good Christian friend to be released from her paraplegic condition for the last two years but these things have yet to come to pass. Faith keeps me asking.

The Blind Watchmaker

First, you should know that my use of term ex nihilo was like that of a parrot ... I heard it used in the context of God creating the universe "out of nothing" and the term stuck in my head. Latin? I don't know how to spell the word.

* * *
You asked several questions, all good ones:

1. Once the initial conditions, forces and matter in the Universe were settled upon, was what we see today always going to happen?
2. If so, then The Creator doesn't need to tinker with the machine at all. (emphasis added)
3. Does He?

The first question gets to whether God allowed for variation to work its way into his creation. Let's leave the question of life out of the equation for the moment ... what about natural formations? For example, if the whole of the universe could be reset back to the initial conditions, would the moon's craters be exactly as we see them today? What a great question! I honestly don't know. The Bible seems to speak of God being knowing even the tiniest of details ... even the number of hairs on your head (Luke 12:7).

The second question has a slightly different flavor to my eye ... is it that God set his universe in motion and then, as the trajectory of it became more evident, God was required to intervene and correct the path? To this I would say no ... things that limit God or suggest that God is somehow imperfect send up warning flags in my mind.

The third question is different again still ... assume that God provided for diversity and outcome, and assume that the path and direction of things are known to God. Does he still intervene in the workings of his mechanical model? And the answer to that is "yes" -- these are "miracles," properly defined. (As opposed to "miracle" meaning something that can't presently be explained.) The grand miracle of all time was the incarnation -- the intersection of our reality and the spiritual reality of God himself.

* * *

Of course, I answered all those questions with a bias ... I am inclined to believe in the theological framework of God that I've come to understand. I didn't make it up ... it's the framework developed long ago and simply passed down and refined.

* * *

What about you? What are your thoughts on those three questions?

* * *

It's raining again in Tucson. :-)

Like clockwork?

You wrote:

The ex nihilo argument is addressing the former -- the "where did the universe come from?" question. But once created, where did life come from, and is it likely it developed as we see it today out of purely random forces?

Good question. And I'm pleased to see you using the correct Latin terms, you without a classical education and all :-) I guess this is along the lines of the blind watchmaker theme?

Note: I did not benefit from such an education either!

The thing that struck me here is that the four known forces that we've discovered in the Universe are not purely random in their nature. So is the question really:

"Once the initial conditions, forces and matter in the Universe were settled upon, was what we see today always going to happen?"

If so, then The Creator doesn't need to tinker with the machine at all. Does He?

Obedience

The word "obedience" is fraught with potential peril, that's for sure. What I have interpreted that statement as meaning is this: God reveals himself more and more to those who earnestly seek him. The merely curious get but a small taste and little more. Seeking God implies being obedient not only to the will of God -- difficult to discern -- but also to aligning one's life to him through sincere practice of things like prayer, kindness, gentleness, etc.

The common analogy is that of a sports coach and child. On any school team, there are children who are only curious about a given sport, and pay only scant attention to the coach. They run some of the drills, but only half-heartedly. They hear the words the coach is saying, but do not really take them to heart. But then there are some children who earnestly wish to do well at the sport, and they listen very carefully to what the coach is saying. They strive very hard to put into practice the things the coach is teaching. They trust that the coach knows what he's talking about, and knows that only through steadfast practice will the things being taught become second-hand reflexes rather than awkward attempts at the grace of the sport.

This presupposes that the coach is to be trusted. And of course there are probably many children who never realized their full potential because the coach they had did not know how to extract the full potential. But in the case of the Christian faith, the coach is Christ himself. And if I can't trust Christ, then I need to go back to the fundamentals and explore my ideas about Jesus.

Look ... I know the challenges of really believing this stuff is difficult. There are many days I look at this and find it all just a bunch of hooey. But then I focus in on it and some of the clarity comes through the mist. Some might call that brainwashing ... I don't agree with that assessment, but I know that I probably can't persuade someone out of that viewpoint. Unless I behave in a way that is truly different ... strikingly different ... where the outside observer sees the way I conduct myself and the way I treat others and asks themselves, "What is it about him?" And then, given the chance to answer, the answer is "Jesus Christ."

* * *
As for the "what came first" question ... I see your point. If the universe truly was created ex nihilo, then it necessarily begs the question whether God himself was created ex nihilo as well. And if one throws down the trump card of "No, God is eternal," then the counter argument is, "Well, then why can't the universe also be eternal?" Reply: "Just because."

You're missing the essential point of my argument: I'm saying it ... therefore it must be true! :-)

I'm just kidding, of course.

Honestly, I see your point.

It occurs to me that perhaps there's another level of misunderstanding that takes place when people consider the "Intelligent Design" thesis, and it is this: there is a difference between the initial creation of reality, and the development of our present reality. The ex nihilo argument is addressing the former -- the "where did the universe come from?" question. But once created, where did life come from, and is it likely it developed as we see it today out of purely random forces?

The initial creation of the universe debate necessarily requires (to my eye) that something be eternal. If indeed "in the beginning" there was truly nothing, then nothing there would still be. We face two coices: God is eternal, or the universe itself is eternal.

Note: Why not both eternal? Logically that's possible. But from a theological point of view that begs the question whether God has sovereignty over something he did not create. That's a discussion for another time, over a game of chess down at the pub.

It's the second issue -- the development of our present reality -- where the ID debate really is, I think. (Particularly if you read some of the stuff coming out of www.discovery.org -- the scientific proponents of the ID debate.) Their argument is not so much the initial creation through divine means, but rather the mechanics of developments over time since that point. So we see discussions on the uniqueness of the positioning of our planet within the universe, the "irreducible complexity" discussions, and the philosophical debates over where something like our self-awareness came from if indeed we are the product of pure chance.

I'm not smart enough to follow all the points or effectively argue them. Honestly, I'm not. I think the arguments are interesting, and I'm happy to see the debate. But as we've discussed many times, even these discussions will not logically lead one to conclude "... therefore, Jesus Christ." The Christian faith is not based entirely on scientific evidence. But nor is it devoid of any rational supporting evidence.

* * *
The act of joining the church involved going to a half-day class where they reviewed the criteria for joining the church (faith in Jesus Christ) and the government of the Presbyterian Church (a form of representative democracy). There will be a ceremony next Sunday where we're welcomed into the church family.

Being a member of a church is not, of course, a strict requirement of the faith. But there is a notion in my mind that if I wish to be serious about this faith, and my commitment to the "body of Christ" (the church ... lower-case "c" meaning the corporate collection of believers) then I need to make a gesture of commitment. It's a personal thing.

God is above all religions

The weather sounds quite cosy out there pal.

You wrote;

"God does not reveal himself to the curious, but to the obedient."

A good thing to aim for but as we have discussed - this is unachievable - it is not possible to be absolutely true to the New Covenant. Relatively true yes. I suspect that it is far more common for God to have "revealed" himself to people that have brainwashed themselves into that belief - rather than those whom God has actaully revealed Himself to.

Such a modus operandi is also fraught with danger, Islam has a similar tenet, and yet those that follow it find that they have lost eternal salvation. My point is that one has to ask one's own questions when following any leader. In an earlier foray I believe that we agreed that one can never be 100% sure of anything. Danger Will Robinson!

On the intelligent design debate you wrote:

Are you suggesting that God is himself a created being?

My point is that many Christians use the argument "this must have all come from somewhere" as an argument that a creator exists. But when asked who created the creator they forget about their initial argument, falling back upon, "God is eternal it says so in The Bible". I don't know how they can think both of those things (a bit like you not understanding how a Christian could possibly sign up for non-intelligent design). If one subscribes to the non-intelligent-design theory then this conundrum is avoided. I prefer the intelligent design theory and I cannot satisfactorily answer my own question as to "who created The Creator" so I must have Faith that it happened somehow. Was God the chicken or the egg or both I just do not know, I really hope that my consciousness finds that out one day.

I cannot answer your question above either, by definition you could mandate that The Creator was eternal, then everything is ok. Looking at the words in The Bible, Yahweh seems very powerful indeed, He has the power of life and death and can transmute energy into matter etc. He does seem rather less than I might expect from a The Creator though, for a start he is interested in some tiny planet, and some little people that live on it. And he has a name "Yahweh" - this doesn't bode well for The Creator. He suffers from human weaknesses like anger and seems trapped in the timeline along with the rest of us. He's interested in us, which doesn't tie up with all the bad things that are allowed to happen. There are many religions that have been allowed to proliferate.

To me all logic points to Yahweh being an incredibly powerful technologist with an agenda for power. BUT I refuse to believe what my logic is telling me, I prefer to follow my emotions and say that Yahweh is The Creator and try to follow and love him nonetheless. This is what Faith is all about - in my opinion. When I follow my Faith, rather than my logic, I feel much better. This is why I am very anti those Christians who argue for Christ on a logical basis, I have looked deeply into that argument and I do not like it.

My logical mind draws me inexorably to the following startling conclusion:

God is above all religions.

PS: What does "officially" joining a Church entail? Do you have to sign something? Is there an exchange of money/goods etc. Congratulations !

Rain in the Desert

Right now it's raining in Tucson. It's the "monsoon season" here, and pretty much every day it rains. But the storms are very localized, and often very intense. It's quite a sight -- the sun, still very much present, cuts through the dark rain clouds, and rainbows pop up everywhere.

* * *
So much to respond to in your last post! Let me take a crack at some of them:

If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brothers and sisters, and besides, even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:26, LITV)

This is a very challenging passage. As I've come to understand this, this is Jesus using a bit of hyperbole, which was (as I understand it) a common form of rhetorical speech in ancient times, particularly by the Jews. What Jesus is doing is emphasizing the critical importance of putting him first, to the exclusion of everything else. He is saying that if someone comes to him claiming to be his disciple, that someone has to get his allegiances properly sorted out. Jesus does not want disciples who view him (Jesus) as second or third in the priority list. He comes first ... and only then come the others listed above. The use of the word "hate" in that passage is jarring, but if one takes it as a rhetorical tool and not a literal command to hate one's own family, then the overall passage starts to make some sense. At least that's how I've come to understand that passage.

* * *

Each to his ability and each to his needs? Or, are all Christians equal but some are more equal than others?

There are differences in the degree and manner in which different Christians manifest their faith. Heck, all I need do is look around me and see that. But I think that's the whole process of life -- allowing the Spirit to take more and more control of our lives so that we become increasingly conformed to the image of Christ himself. That's the message of the book Pilgrim's Progress, and that's the theme of many of Paul's epistles.

I'm reminded of this from the mouth of Jesus:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which indeed appear beautiful outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. (Matthew 23:27, MKJV)

This, I think, is what the Risen Christ (in Revelation) was getting at regarding those who are neither cold nor hot -- God knows what is in our hearts, and those who are simply half-hearted in their submission to Christ as Lord are like the Pharisees -- perhaps outwardly "righteous," but inside only lukewarm. They are like "whitewashed tombs" -- touched up and looking nice on the outside, but still a place of death on the inside.

Note: the comparison is faulty because the Pharisees were actually quite outwardly religious. The indictment here is what was going on inside. A lot of "lukewarm Christians" of today are neither -- outwardly no different from the unsaved, inwardly only half convinced of the truth of Christ.

I'm reminded of something I read in a Bible Study workbook, something that really stuck with me:

"God does not reveal himself to the curious, but to the obedient."

The question for me is: am I merely curious, or am I willing to put Christ first and be truly obedient? God knows what's in my heart. I pray he convicts me of whatever lukewarm-ness.

* * *

You wrote:

The general lack of belief in Jesus is more to do with the lack of evidence of Him I believe. Yes maybe science has helped close our eyes to Him.

Certainly the lack of convincing, first-hand proof of Christ's claims does hinder us. That was Thomas' problem:

Then He said to Thomas, Reach your finger here and behold My hands; and reach your hand here and thrust it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing. And Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God! Jesus said to him, Thomas, because you have seen Me you have believed. Blessed are they who have not seen and have believed. (John 20:27-29)

Note: darn it ... what is the rule for possessive when a person's name ends in "s" -- should that be Thomas' or Thomas's?

But even with first-hand proof some will not believe. Judas was of the inner circle, and he did not believe. (Yes, I know that he had committed suicide prior to the resurrection, but Peter confessed Jesus as "the Christ" before the crucifixion -- Matthew 16:15-16).

I think science has definitely "raised the bar" for us, making us less likely to accept things that evidence suggests quite likely is true, but for which positive proof is lacking.

* * *

As for the issue of Intelligent Design and my claim of the refutation of that being incompatible with Christianity ... what I was getting at is that by refuting the notion of there being a creator one must (I think) necessarily be subscribing to a universe that simply is. In other words, if there is no designer, then there is no God. If there is no God, there is no Christianity. Ergo, for a Christian to refute the general concept of creation being the work of God, then by my thinking that necessarily means a refutation of God himself.

Note: my guess is that what's really going on is this -- Christians who refute the concept of "Intelligent Design" are really refuting the literal account in Genesis of the six days and the creation of man in one fell swoop. They're holding to the concept of evolution, but not seeing that "in the beginning" all this stuff had to come from somewhere. Or perhaps seeing, but not tying that to their understanding of "Intelligent Design."

What I'm not clear on is your statement: "which intelligence created God?" One of the central tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith structure is the notion of God being eternal, not created, self-existent outside all other powers. An almost impossible concept to truly grasp, I'll grant you. But if the door is opened to wonder if God himself is created, then necessarily something is greater than God. And the theological house of cards comes tumbling down if that's the case.

Are you suggesting that God is himself a created being?

* * *

You wrote:

But then I got to thinking that I do actually like most people and wish to get to know them. And don't we all have a right to choose our friends? But no, a Christian must love everyone ... that's hard to do - as "miserable old b'stard" syndrome sets in, I am beginning to appreciate that more and more.

Ah ... you're in good company on this score, my brother. I must confess I simply do not fully understand how to do this. I've heard some preachers explain it like this: "You may find other Christians to be quite irritating, but you must still love them." Okay, what does that mean? How can I be irritated with someone and still love them? Honestly, I just don't get it.

* * *

Today I officially joined St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona. This is the first time in my whole life that I am officially a member of a church. Why Presbyterian? No reason, especially -- I don't find the denominational differences to be worth arguing over. But when I first visited that church a year ago, I heard the name of Jesus Christ preached without hesitation, and I found that particularly refreshing. A lot of churches try to soften the message by referring to "God" but not "Jesus Christ." I don't like that ... the name "God" is too vaporous in this modern age. So when I heard the preacher unapologetically use the name of our Lord with conviction, I felt there was something here. I pray I've found a church home.

Recent contributions

Thanks for your appends this week!

+++ On "Discpleship" +++

On the "great calling" mentioned in Matthew 2:19, it's interesting that Jesus told his disciples to make discples of others - but we assume that those second generation discples must they themselves convert others. Not an unreasonable assumption, but still an assumption nontheless.

Reading your preferred Luke 14, I noticed in 26:

"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple

What is that all about? How can hate be a necessary prereq to becoming a discple of Jesus when the message is all about Love (see: New Covenant commandment #2).

That Revelation scripture you pointed at is indeed sobering, reading on to 3:17 - this one resonates a great deal to me and we often do realize this as our lives draw to a close, but I believe that to live in the conscious knowledge of it is not healthy. Certainly not healthy without a saviour anyway:

You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.

You also wrote in that same append:

As I mentioned, I am not this type of Christian.

Isn't it odd that there are different "types" of us Christians? And of course there are. There are pastors and congregation for instance and Church Elders and sheep. Each to his ability and each to his needs? Or, are all Christians equal but some are more equal than others?

+++ On "Comment?" +++

Spot on, thanks for that reference. Yes the "club" atmosphere of Christian Fellowship groups and Sunday outings to the Church is something I have commented on before. English middle class comfortable tea parties. A long way away from Beirut on a Saturday night, or children starving in Africa. I think original article goes a bit far, if children were jeering at a funeral this is down to their lack of education from their parents, not the Church. The general lack of belief in Jesus is more to do with the lack of evidence of Him I believe. Yes maybe science has helped close our eyes to Him.

+++ "Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design" +++

Here you asked:

Honestly ... I'm not trying to assert one position or another ... I'm just trying to understand how someone can be both at the same time. Logically, they seem incompatible.

If one is a Christian and one refutes ID then one is saying that Yahweh has no intelligence. Or, that when He designed the Universe, he did so without using any intelligence. Maybe Yahweh indeed did use zero intelligence when designing the Universe, after all who can know the mind of God?

For us normal Christian mortals though, we would expect that He did indeed use intelligence to create the Universe. BUT, if one does buy into ID, the one thing Christians cannot answer, to my satisfaction anyway is, "which intelligence created God"? If one does not buy into ID then one does not have to answer this question, which I think is why a lot of people do not subscribe to ID, to avoid this question.

+++ On "Miscellaneous stuff " +++

The article, and your post contained ..

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs ...

I think this is too wide ranging. I often take the side of science when it predicts things successfully, and I always remember that science expouses theories. I am not happy with the multiverse theory for instance, because there is little evidence for it. I am happy with Bernoulli's equations, and so is everyone (little do they know it) who at this moment is flying in an aircraft! If the author is a Christian then I could easily say back to him ..

We take the side of Jesus and The Bible despite the patent absurdity that there is a watching and caring Father when babies die of cancer and 300,000 people die in a Tsunami.

Earlier we agreed that these things are part of the mystery. I think it's best not to argue in such a fashion against something that you do not happen to agree with, due to a lack of understanding of it (which I believe the author is doing).

And yes it is nice to have structure in the working day, but maybe the office environment for one day a week is enough, I really do get much more done at home, but maybe this is just how I like to work so assume everyone else does too?

In a previous post you mentioned a CS Lewis (I think) story where in the afterlife everyone moved further and further away from eachother - didn't want any contact etc. I was shopping in Tesco's today and thought that maybe I was becoming like that. I am starting to put people into boxes and thinking "I don't want to be friends with that person" (this particular individual was talking in a very loud voice to another person with regards to directions to a particular place. They both seemed agressive, had lots of tatoos, and were disrupting my harmonious shopping experience).

But then I got to thinking that I do actually like most people and wish to get to know them. And don't we all have a right to choose our friends? But no, a Christian must love everyone ... that's hard to do - as "miserable old b'stard" syndrome sets in, I am beginning to appreciate that more and more.

Miscellaneous Stuff

Two things:

From a column titled, "The intelligent design bogeyman" --

Don't take my word for it. Consider the words of Darwinist Richard Lewontin of Harvard. "Our willingness," confessed Lewontin, "to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to understanding the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for the unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. … materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/dl20050805.shtml

I always kinda-sort suspected as much.

* * *
From the column you pointed me to today, where the author was suggesting that the free-wheeling world of unstructured startups was the preferred model. One thing that struck me was that there are many people who simply can't operate in an unstructured environment. To some degree I am like that ... working from home has exposed this to me. So while it may be true that the office model he deplores has its downsides, for many it's a necessity -- a needed physical separation of work and home and a place where they can find comfort in the structure and routine.

Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design

Here's an interesting article.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/klinghoffer200508030811.asp

We've had the discussion of "Intelligent Design" vs. "Evolution" before. The thing that I simply can't understand is this: I've read articles by people who claim to be Christians, but who heatedly refute Intelligent Design. For the life of me, I can't see how that's possible. At best that suggests the "blind watchmaker" view of deity, which is utterly incompatible with the Christian worldview.

Honestly ... I'm not trying to assert one position or another ... I'm just trying to understand how someone can be both at the same time. Logically, they seem incompatible.

Comment?

From National Review Online:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_07_31_corner-archive.asp#071552

* * *
... the Church of England itself that is to blame for Britain losing its historic faith. By abdicating its role as moral shepherd in favor of a "modern" political role from the 70s on (in order to fill those pews, it thought, that were never particularly full in the first place), the Church left a vacuum. Other churches were not able to fill this because the Church was so interwoven with English life that they could not replicate the role it played, which was as much social as religious. So the 70% of British people who say they believe in God (a consistent figure through polls and the census) are left without adequate instruction in what that should mean in day-to-day life. There is a vast market there that the Church could tap, if it was willing. Sadly, it is not. Peter Hitchens, Christopher's conservative brother, is especially good on this in his masterpiece The Abolition of Britain, where he also points out what the "abolition of hell" means:

Almost all Anglican churches now seem to be for enthusiasts only. Few but the most determined dare enter, and many of these churches take the form of a club, unintentionally exclusive, utterly unconnected with the world outside, by tradition, language or anything else. Many young children entirely deprived of a tradition passed on without thinking by twenty previous generations have no idea at all of what goes on in churches...Children at a primary school in the Isle of Wight were spoken to sharply by their teachers in 1996, after they had mocked and jeered at a passing funeral. Nobody had told them that death demanded respect. And in a world where blinds are not drawn down, and there are no hats to doff as the hearse goes by, how were they supposed to learn and what does it matter anyway?

He summarizes:

Our religion, such as it is, has abandoned the only territory where it could not be challenged - the saving of souls, and given up troubling our individual consciences. Instead, it has joined in the nationalization of the human conscience, so that a man's moral worth is now measured by the level of taxation he is willing to support, rather than by his faith or even his good works. Other tests - opposition to apartheid or General Pinochet - are valued more highly than personal adherence to the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount. An adulterer, with the correct view on Nelson Mandela, is preferable to a Mother Teresa who fails to criticize the currently unfashionable regimes of the world.

As the King James Bible put it, Jesus wept.

* * *
From your vantage point, would you say that's a fair assessment?

Discipleship

Oh, goodness ... there are so many things in Scripture that point to Jesus calling us to be disciples of his -- specific passages and broad themes. There is, of course, the "Great Commission" found at the end of Matthew: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." (Matthew 28:19-20a)

I prefer the powerful message in Luke 14:25-35. The message of these passages is that the commitment to Christ must be total -- not some comfortable compromise. So many people who claim to be Christians are really half-hearted ... and I would include myself in that accounting.

Note: There's a frightening passage in Revelation where Christ is dictating a letter to the church of Laodicea: "I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I would that you were cold, or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to vomit you out of My mouth." (Revelation 3:15-16)

This theme of total commitment to Christ is echoed through Paul's epistles. (Paul was a living example of this ... all the way to death.) Many other Christian writers have touched on this message of complete surrender to Christ and living completely submitted to the will of the Spirit.

As I mentioned, I am not this type of Christian. My commitment is weak. Part of the problem is because I have no role model to look at and say, "There ... there's a picture of a true Christian." But I can't rest on that. Most of my problem is one of lack of trust, lack of true belief, and perhaps most important -- I've really not developed a prayer life capable of allowing myself to hear God speak to me. How can I know what God wants of my life if I never take the time to listen?

The Spirit has been convicting me a great deal of late ... He is telling me to seek God's direction, and to do so humbly and patiently. What that will mean for me I really can't say. But I know I want to follow (though I am afraid).

I probably didn't answer your question. I don't really have an answer, other than "I don't know, but I yearn to find out."

Discipline

Sir, you wrote that Jesus wants us to:

Turn from your sins and follow me in discipleship

Ok on the first part, on the turning away from breaking God's law, but what does "following Jesus in discipleship" mean? For the majority of us it seems to mean carrying on with our daily jobs, whatever that may be. Maybe go to Church at the weekend, we (you and I) certainly don't do what the disciples did. I guess if we did what the disciples did we would have to leave all we have (including our wives, one of which I don't have :-) and I am not suggesting for one minute that you should leave the lovely Mrs. Bagwell) and "go on the road".

Remember what Dilberts Daddy said?

"Four billion people SAY they believe in God, but few genuinely believe. If people believed in God, they would live every minute of their lives in support of that belief. Rich people would give their wealth to the needy. Everyone would be frantic to determine which religion was the true one. No one could be comfortable in the thought that they might have picked the wrong religion and blundered into eternal damnation, or bad reincarnation, or some other unthinkable consequence. People would dedicate their lives to converting others to their religions."

I don't do this. From your reading of scripture, and that eidetic memory of yours, where does it say we are called to discipleship?

Is it a direct commandment (not one of the 10) from Jesus, or Man's assumption that this is how we should act (like the disciples)?

Primary Beliefs, Peripheral Beliefs

I did a little research on "Seventh Day Adventists" the other day. It came about because a young lady (18 or so years old) came to the door selling cookbooks for an organization called "Youth Education Scholarship" -- YES for short, apparently dedicated to raising money for helping low income kids to attend college. I fell for the pitch mostly because I'm a sucker when it comes to teenagers like that selling ... it takes guts to go door to door. I'm even more of a sucker if the kid is obviously nervous but willing to try hard.

Anyway, the sales pitch included an offer for another book called "The Great Controversy," which she had a copy of. I thumbed through it really quickly and saw references to Martin Luther, the Catholic Church and tons and tons on the book of Revelation. So right away I knew something was up ... it wasn't just a straight cookbook sale. Long story short, I bought the cookbook (a vegetarian cookbook, it turns out, but I didn't realize it at the time) and the "Great Controversy" book.

I looked more closely at the "Great Controversy" book and came across some references to Saturday worship and "Seventh Day Adventists" came to mind. I found the Seventh Day Adventist website, and their "what we believe" section had nothing that was clearly heretical. More searching yielded a description of them as borderline -- some feel them a "cult," others feel they're just a sect within Christianity. The most significant departure from orthodoxy is that they hold the founder of Seventh Day Adventistism (a woman named E.G. White) was divinely inspired and inerrant in her writings. That's a form of "additional revelation" over and above Scripture. Whether it contradicts Scripture or not I can't say ... but I doubt it. If her writings were clearly contradictory (as Mormon writings are), there'd be a strong condemnation of them as a cult.

Anyway, back to my title ... the idea of battle over Saturday or Sunday as the day for Worship is one of those "peripheral matters" I find so tiresome. I think I have a pretty good understanding of the main theme and thrust of Scripture, and I can't seem to sense there's much of a focus on small issues like this. Jesus was pretty clear in what the issue was:

• You're all sinners
• I'm the Messiah
• Trust in me and my atoning work and be saved
• Turn from your sins and follow me in discipleship

I realize that's a bit superficial and somewhat irreverent, but you get the point. Excessive focus on detailed matters like "Saturday vs. Sunday" strikes me as a form of legalism. Plus, thinking one day is exceptionally more important than the others leads some to think that's the only day to be dedicated to God, when we're called to live our every breathing moment in communion with the Holy Creator of the universe, not just one day out of seven.

But I digress. Yes, I am capable of that! :-)

Seventh day adventist?

Doing a word search on biblegateway for the word "Sunday" returns zero hits so I doubt it's from The Bible.

The first day of the week was sunday and it did seem to be a significant day for the disciples:

Eg. Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

But also in the Acts they were meeting daily so I am not sure how significant this is.

I guess it's possible that it's Sunday because the first Jewish converts to Christianity were no longer Jews, they were now gentiles and so would not have been allowed into the synagogue on the Sabbath, but would have been allowed in the day afterwards.

I know someone who thinks that worshipping on Sunday is a false doctrine that was started by Origen in 220 AD. I have no idea whether that it is the case. He subscribes to the Didache http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html I think these people are seventh day adventists who want to bring the Sabbath back as Saturday and believe the Sunday worshippers have the mark of the Beast.

It's all too much for me! I suspect Man's word, not God's word.

The Sabbath

Any idea why the Christian faith adopted Sunday as the day of rest and worship? Given that Christianity has a direct lineage to Judiasm, and for the Jew the 7th day -- Saturday -- is the Holy day of obligation. Here in the United States there are Christian sects that strongly insist upon Saturday still being the Sabbath, yet most of Christiandom views Sunday. (And Muslims, Friday.)

My guess is because Jesus rose again on Sunday, the first day of the Jewish week. We know that he was crucified on Friday, and there was a sense of urgency to have the three crucified that day dead and down from the crosses before sundown (hence the breaking of the legs of the two criminals who were not yet dead). Saturday would have been the Jewish sabbath in which Jesus lay in the tomb. Mary Magdalene was on her way to the tomb on that Sunday morning to finish the job of preparing the body for entombment -- a job apparently not done by sundown Friday and therefore forbidden to be done on the Sabbath itself.

* * *
I liked the Star Trek episode about the Horta. Spock doing the Vulcan mind-meld with the creature, and Dr. McCoy patching the wound with a cement trowel and some silicone patch.

Did you hear that the man who played Mr. Scott died just recently? Apparently he was an actor rather adept at mimicking accents. He was given the choice which he wished to use for the role. He chose his Scottish accent. I guess they named the character after that.

"It's life Jim, but not as we know it"

You wrote:

What is their legal standing?

Good question, reminds me of that episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" where Jean Luc was arguing that the android "Data" was not "property" and as "he" displayed "human" emotions -- such as love -- should be given the same legal rights as a human.

I would hope that "enhanced" humans would also be afforded the same rights as us, but you just know the lawyers are going to have a field day on this one. If you really want to see a person in the service of Satan just go and see a divorce lawyer (for instance). You may know what I am talking about, these people are the ugliest and most reprehensible pariahs of human misery. I think that just about covers it :-)

and

Who are their parents?

I guess you could argue that when the donors of say >50% of the childs genome can be identified then those donors could be considered to be "the parents". But you're right, the concept of "parents" in the genetic sense will become meaningless in the long term (one may be able to watch this unfold over the millenia from Heaven, but I don't have a good handle on the nature of Heaven so I am not sure about that). In any case, there are many people who consider themselves to be "parents" of children that they look after - even though there is no genetic link, so it maybe that "creche parent" will be the way the nomenclature goes.

When do they become "human" -- when they are lifted out of amniotic bath?

Well I guess they don't. If they have a different genome then by definition they are of a different species.

It's Sunday, let's praise the Lord for our lives and our talents. Amen.

Peace Brother :-)

Atheism and the ACLU

You asked: "is it ok for the atheists to attempt to destroy non-Christian religions?" If they were consistent in their efforts I'd have a bit more respect for them. But their focus is squarely on Christianity. They cloak their agenda somewhat in the more generic term "religion." Given that Christianity is the dominant religion in the United States, it makes sense they would target it. But I don't think it's a purely tactical consideration.

The other question you ask is whether the "separation of church and state" would apply to all religions, not just Christianity. The answer is yes, of course. But the focus of the lawsuits is virtually always Christian. I can't think of a single ACLU lawsuit challenging some Jewish or Muslim exercise of religion.

The proper interpretation of the First Ammendment would yield decisions that said, in essence: "The government won't sponsor your religious activity, but you're free to exercise it." Sponsorship has been defined through the various court cases as "if it occurs on school property." Hence the prohibition in many cases of after-school Bible study.

My belief is that the ACLU is under the influence of Satan, and they're extending their energy against Christianity because that is Satan's enemy. But that's just my opinion.

* * *
Let's put all the threads together -- a cloned embryo, genetically enhanced, gestated in a manufactured womb, taken to full term and "born." Think of the implications of this:

• What is their legal standing? Who are their parents?
• When do they become "human" -- when they are lifted out of amniotic bath?

* * *

I just don't know about why dinosaurs existed. But you know me ... I have no trouble at all with the idea of a 4 billion year old planet. I don't even have a problem with the idea of gradual change over time, provided God is the guiding hand. Why he would create things like that I just can't say.

Maybe he created dinosaurs so kids could have something that provides them with endless curiosity and enjoyment. After all, kids don't seem terribly excited by trilobites or primordial slime.

Jurassic Park?

Scientists have cracked open a 190-million-year-old egg to reveal the oldest known dinosaur embryo.

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=37548

In God's plan, I wonder what the purpose of the dinosaurs was? The Genesis account does indeed mention monsters, but the start of Genesis is all about the Universe being created, then the Earth, and then Man and the animals. All will be revealed !

My God is better than your God

Some questions and comments to your last four appends – thanks for keeping this blog going ..

You wrote on atheists:

“Their agenda is -- I suspect, but not in a vacuum -- to destroy organized religion as it's presently known. They have largely succeeded in their quest, though not completely ... yet.”

My question to this is, is it ok for the atheists to attempt to destroy non-Christian religions? Or should they leave them alone too? Ie. Is Islam “better” than atheism? (Or "more valid"?)

You said:

“All in the name of "separation of church and state," which really means "imposition of the atheist creed."”

Should the Church of, say Islam, be separate from the State of the USA also? If so, then isn’t it right that Christianity should be too?

You asked:

“Now let's say a slim minority of "X" finds a way to justify the murder of innocents in the name of "X."”

Justify to themselves I guess you mean here?

Does the majority of "X" have a moral obligation to condemn the actions of the few?

Absolutely Yes. “X” notices that a subset of “X” is not treating others how they themselves would wish to be treated – and as a result they should condemn that behaviour. This is what is currently happening with the Muslim Council of Britain – they are condemning the extremist bombers and saying that these people are not true Moslems.

The ACLU won’t be so vocally supportive of these “rights” when their headquarters gets wiped out in the detonation of a nuclear device that explodes in Mojique’s backpack and takes out The Whitehouse. Yes I can tell that these people are a sore point for you ! (Note: the name Mojique comes from the 1980 Talking Heads song “Listening Wind”, where Mojique was the protagonist who did this kind of anti-western terrorist thing).

Even scarier than manufactured babies are genetically “enhanced” people, it will happen, it’s not hard to forsee. Looking at the amount of spam I see on the net the first parts to be enhanced will be in the area of the genitalia. Am I concerned? Not really, it’s as inevitable as the motorcar, cars have been used for good and bad. I do think that mankind as a whole needs to carefully consider technological advancements and how they can be used for good as well as bad. But at the end of the Sun's life, we will need technology if we are going to survive.

I hope you are well this weekend my brother!

Take care.

PS. FreeBSD or Linux ?

Manufactured Babies

I came across this piece of news this morning while I was still on my first cup of coffee:

At Juntendo University of Tokyo, Dr. Yoshinori Kuwabara and his team of scientists have successfully removed goat fetuses from mother goats and placed them in tanks of amniotic fluid stabilized at goat body temperature, while connecting the baby goat's umbilical cord to machines that pump in nutrients and dispose of waste.

The purpose of Dr. Kuwabara's research is to provide a safe home for human fetuses prematurely expelled from the mother's womb. According to the British Guardian newspaper, it is expected that such methods capable of sustaining a child for the full nine months "will become reality in a few years."

Meanwhile, at Cornell University's Center for Reproductive Medicine and Infertility, Dr. Hung-Ching Liu and her team of scientists have been approaching the problem of fetal out-of-womb survival from the other side. She is developing a full artificial womb that can receive a just-conceived embryo -- with the hope that it will successfully gestate for the full nine months.

I find this somewhat creepy. From a technical point of view, I'm sure this is scientifically exciting stuff. But the notion of "creating" children in such a device makes my skin crawl. This is another example of mankind's scientific knowledge and abilities outrunning our ability to fully grasp the moral and ethical implications.

Imagine -- cloned embryos, gestated in these devices, perhaps without legal standing, being used as "farms" for the development of organs for harvesting. That sounds ghoulish, but I'm not so sure it's that far-fetched in our world today.

Arghhh

"The New York Civil Liberties Union is considering a federal lawsuit over New York’s new policy of randomly searching the backpacks of subway passengers. "

From last paragraph of http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/rl20050726.shtml

Incidentally, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) quite frequently represents the plaintiff -- almost always an "atheist" -- in anti-religious "separation of church and state" lawsuits.

The First Ammendment of the United States Consitution reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (emphasis added)

The United States Supreme Court has established precedent that provides "shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" greater weight than "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This was largely due to the efforts of the ACLU, acting as representing counsel to vocal atheists over the years.

Can you tell this is a hot-button with me?

The Responsibility to Condemn

Here's a question for you -- let's say there's a world religion that we'll call "X." The creed of that religion is, so they say, "treat others as you wish to be treated yourself." Now let's say a slim minority of "X" finds a way to justify the murder of innocents in the name of "X."

Does the majority of "X" have a moral obligation to condemn the actions of the few?

If they in fact do not condemn the few, what are we then to think of "X?"

If the majority steadfastly refuses to condemn the few, is there a point in time when we may look upon "X" as not abiding by their own creed? May we then condemn all of "X?"

Those are very serious questions.

What? Santa Doesn't Exist?

It can't be true! I got presents at Christmas! Therefore, Santa exists. The logic is flawless.

* * *
I see your point about atheism. And I'd agree with you without much reservation if people who claimed to be atheists were as benign as, say, I am in my non-belief that Mars is inhabited with small green creatures. I steadfastly believe there is no such life as that on Mars, but spend almost no time or energy whatever dedicated to that non-belief.

Not so the typical atheist. They are commonly quite energetic in their "belief" in the non-existence of God, and seek to make sure that no element of "religion" ever interferes with their existence. They are, in essence, more committed to their "faith" (in the non-existence of God) than are most people who profess belief in God.

The conflict is actually quite striking here in the United States. Lawsuits get filed nearly every day to scrub the landscape of any reference to "God." They (atheists) are a quite strident and organized bunch. Their agenda is -- I suspect, but not in a vacuum -- to destroy organized religion as it's presently known. They have largely succeeded in their quest, though not completely ... yet. They use the "separation of church and state" argument to drive any reference to God from anything even remotely connected to "government." Since government is involved in almost every aspect of society, they have succeeded in driving religion from those areas. The quest to strike the phrase "under God" from our "Pledge of Allegience" failed -- for now -- only because the atheists overreached and woke up the slumbering majority. But every day there's another case where some school is prohibited from allowing a student Bible study group to meet after school while other student groups of all shape and size -- including groups interested in the occult -- are allowed.

All in the name of "separation of church and state," which really means "imposition of the atheist creed."

That's where I'm coming from.

Santaism

Yes RC believes that God exists - but his premise for believing this is based in logic, ie. "something must have started the Universe and that something is God". I don't share that view. My premise is different, it's not based on logic it is purely ad hom and along the lines of "There is a God because I believe there is a God, and you ain't gonna convince me otherwise".

Yes please send through the mp3 if we're note breaking any laws!

Atheism and atheists. We're probably talking about slightly different things. I imagine a group of sentient beings who have never heard of God - so obviously they do not believe in Him, are they atheists? Secondly, what type of "ist" is someone who does not believe in Santa Claus? An aSantaIst? Or just "someone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus"?

I suppose that I am questioning the definition of the term "theism", by questioning its opposite. Someone who believes in God is a "theist" and someone who believes in Santa is not a Santaist - historically, why did things turn out that way - that the believe in "God" got its own word, and the belief in Santa did not?

I suspect that this is something to do with the perceived importance of the topic in question.

Therefore, in computer speak, "if theism then atheism".

So by my rationale, by atheism existing, it lends importance to theism. And I think this is why it is bandied about by the likes of RC, but I'm not sure that they are aware of this motivation.

I wouldn't want to offend any religion that teaches us to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated. If there is a religion out there that doesn't teach this, or teaches the opposite, and I offend it, then that does not worry me. It may be that I only object to certain parts of it's doctrine and/or message and not others however. Preaching love and not hate is generally a good thing in my opinion.

On Dr. R.C. Sproul

I felt it necessary to cycle back on a few things regarding your earlier post. Dr. Sproul is very definitely operating from a few foundational premises in his arguments:

• God exists
• The Bible is his true revelation

I've not spoken to the man, but I'm quite certain he would agree that the basis of his logical argument is dependent on those two necessary first conditions. Further, I'm quite certain that he's quite accustomed to having to cycle back and defend those two first principles. The MP3 I sent you was from a lengthy series giving an overview of the Bible. No doubt he felt anyone interested in hearing an overview of the Bible would have settled -- or at least temporarily accepted -- the idea that God exists and that the Bible is in some what related to God.

But that's not to say that R.C. Sproul is unschooled in the ways of science or philosophy (or the "isms" as you call them). He is in fact a quite intelligent man. His formal training is in philosophy and theology. He has an extraordinarily keen grasp on the historical structure of philosophical development, and in other series he goes to some length to explain where certain philosophical belief systems came from.

I just listened to one from a series titled, "Christian Worldviews" where Dr. Sproul explained where the idea of the utter separation of church and science came from (Emmanuel Kant, primarily, from a formal philosophical point of origin, it turns out). Sproul ties Kant's philosophical premises to earlier St. Augustine works, and explains how (in Sproul's opinion) Kant misunderstood what Augustine was expressing in his earlier works. Dr. Sproul finishes up with an explanation of the well-known strife between Galileo and the Catholic Church, and there makes an interesting and, in my view, credibility-building statement: "Science may very well correct the word of a theologian." The Catholic Church, at the time of Galileo, had endorsed an earlier Ptolemian view of the universe (earth-centric) and therefore had boxed itself in when the newer (and scientifically correct) Copernicun model had emerged. Science had indeed corrected the word of a theologian (collectively, the official view of the Catholic Church), but science did not correct the Word of God. For the Bible nowhere specifies that the earth (or the sun) is the center of the universe.

Sproul's talk on "Science" is actually quite interesting in that he welcomes the pursuit of scientific knowledge by believers, and offers a quite compelling argument how the two are never, ultimately, contradictory.

But it is built on the first two basic premises.

If you're interested in that MP3 (9MB in size), I can send it to you.

* * *

Contrary to your earlier post, I do believe that "Atheism" is a thing. It is very much a belief structure. They strongly -- and quite passionately -- believe in the absence of God. I fail to see how that's not a "thing" any less than "existentialism" is a thing.

* * *

I'm curious ... you seem particularly interested in not offending members of other religions. Do you draw a distinction between predominant religions and any religions? Would you be equally as concerned about the sensibilities of someone who belongs to a small sect or cult as you are about a billion-member religion? If so, why? Does the creed of the religion make a difference to you?

2D Atomic Crystals

Woah. Nice link to the University of Manchester.

I just want the entire internet to know that it is my idea to marry these to carbon nanotubes to make the space elevator a reality!

Ok so somebody else can go patent it. The Fountains of Paradise (Arthur C. Clarke) here we come!

Thank you for the link kind sir.

Chess ... A Waste of Time

I'm just kidding, of course ... I was just looking for a post title that would stand out.

Interesting that IBM has supplied those logs ... I wonder if IBM supplied them prior to the production of that movie, or after? If before, then the makers of that movie either didn't know, or intentionally lied about that aspect of the controversy. It wouldn't be the first time a filmmaker had an agenda that clouded their sense of honesty and integrity.

* * *
Here's the question ... why was the move that Deep Blue made so "un-computer like?" Was it because it offered no calculated advantage? About Kasparov's expectation that Deep Blue would "grab a pawn with 37. Qb6" ... you added, "but such a move was not optimal." Why would it be "un-computer like" to see that taking the pawn would not be optimal? Was the sub-optimal nature of taking that pawn based on something that could be calculated (or computed), or was it something only human intuition could reasonably arrive at?

* * *
Something interesting:

Scientists at The University of Manchester have discovered a new class of materials which have previously only existed in science fiction films and books.

A team of British and Russian scientists led by Professor Geim have discovered a whole family of previously unknown materials, which are one atom thick and exhibit properties which scientists had never thought possible.

Not only are they ultra-thin, but depending on circumstances they can also be ultra-strong, highly-insulating or highly-conductive, offering a wide range of unique properties for space-age engineers and designers to choose from.

Professor Andre Geim said: "This discovery opens up practically infinite possibilities for applications which people have never even thought of yet. These materials are lightweight, strong and flexible, and there is a huge choice of them. This is not only about smart gadgets. Like polymers whose pervasiveness changed our everyday life forever, one-atom-thick materials could be used in a myriad of routine applications from clothing to computers."

* * *
You wrote:

I think cross speciation is a whole lot more possible than people think, gardeners know this, and the human genome isn't that much more complicated than a plants (surprisingly).

Three questions:

1. What constitutes a "specie?"
2. Does cross-breeding to produce polka-dot rose constitute a new specie?
3. Does human intervention in the cross-breeding of plants or animal offer "proof" of natural selection?

The author of that article was suggesting that evolution worked its way into geology not so much that biological evidence was contained therein, but that the theory of evolution applied to the changes we see in the geologic structure of the planet. The planet has changed over time, but that's a different thing from things changing due to genetic mutation and propagation of those mutations through reproductive advantage.

* * *
I agree that faith ultimately comes down to a choice, as opposed to scientific proof of something that leads one to logically arrive at it. But I do not agree that the realms of science and faith are separated entirely. You write of the theory of the "expanding and collapsing ball" as a way to get around the issue of "who started the Big Bang." That suggests that the universe "always was," and had no initial creation whatever. Fine. Then at best God -- if he exists at all -- is no better than co-equal to the universe, since by definition God didn't create it.

These are issues you and I will never, I suspect, come to an understanding on.

Peace.

Man vs Machine

Sir, enjoy your time to yourself!

On Chess

Yes I saw that movie last year, I really enjoyed it but then again I am a chess head. I was logged in chessclub.com during game two and it's true that the computer played a very un-computer like move on move 37. Kasparov said IBM cheated as they never provided the computers log, but they did, and it is here
http://www.research.ibm.com/deepblue/watch/html/c.html

Kasparov was expecting Deep Blue (playing white) to (evenutally) grab a pawn with 37. Qb6 , but such a move was not optimal.

Instead Deep Blue continued 37.Be4.

The IBM logs (see above) show that Deep Blue calculated


37.Qb6 Rxa2 38.Rxa2 Bc7 39.Qe6+ Kh8 40.Be4 and now

40...Rb8 41.Ra6 Qd8 42.d6 Bb6+
40...Ra8 41.Kh2 Rb8 42.g3 Qf8
40...Qf8
41.Kh1 Bd6 42.Ra6 Rd8 43.Ra7

37.Be4 Rcb8 38.g3 Qd8 39.Kg2 (39. Ra6 Rxa6 40. Rxa6 Bc7 41. Rxf6) 39...Rxa2 40.Rxa2 Bc7 41.Qa7 Bb6 42.Qa6 Qd7

So Deep Blue played 37. Be4.

Unless there is a major coverup going on at IBM, they do not appear to have cheated. What's more, if I get my Dell pentium 4 to analyse the position it starts with 37. Qb6 but soon sees the error of it's ways and changes to 37. Be4. I don't think IBM cheated.

Kasparov resigned a bit later on after 45. Ra6. A few hours after the match, Bruce Moreland, the author of the Ferret Program (which he never released yet the bar steward!) reported on chessclub.com that the game was a draw by perpetual check after 45 ... Qe3. For someone like Kaspy resigning in a drawn position was too much and I don't think he ever recovered from game 2. To date.

Which is sad. Because I am a human and not a computer (most of the time).

On genes

Q1. Sorry not familiar with introns and exons either !

Q2. I think cross speciation is a whole lot more possible than people think, gardeners know this, and the human genome isn'tthat much more complicated than a plants (surprisingly)

Q3. No I don't think he precludes an "intelligent designer"

Note: Question: Who designed the law of Gravity?

The last part about evolution being in geology, well I guess that in the fossil record we (and British Petroleum) see lots of types of creatures that no longer exist, but how do we know that the current flora/fauna found on Earth evolved from them?

On Sproul

That announcer makes the whole thing seem like a joke! It's like "Welcome to McDonalds, Have a nice day".

RC is preaching to the converted, you have to believe to bother listening. He clearly doesn't care for how Jews, Muslims and Sikhs believe. Or anyone that doesn't believe in Christianity. He is very dismissive of the other "isms".He recognizes "atheism" as something, a "thing", which it really isn't. The hole in the polo mint isn't really anything, it's just the lack of a polo mint at that point in spacetime.

I don't tie skepticism to paganism (RC lumps them together).

He then goes onto say that there was a time the Universe did not exist, which is not necessarily true if you take the expanding and collapsing ball approach I mentioned in a previous append. He then asks "What started it?" - But does not address the question "What started God?" The questions could have the same answer could they not RC?

Then he talks about flat spacetime local phenomena such as inertia in relation to the Big Bang. A common mistake.

I do not believe that religious people should attempt these types of pseudo-scientific arguments,I believe that they should stick to scripture and not get hung up with science. One doesn't need any proof to believe, one just needs to believe. I choose to believe.
I believe that we should believe because we make the decision that we want to believe, it really doesn't matter what we believe, we all get to die so then we'll find out. Just be sure to treat others as you wish to be treated on the journey.
.
To RC - "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from miracles".

"Be Cool"

My dear bride is out of town this weekend, so I'm left to play bachelor. Being the boring old sot I am, that implies little more than eating fish (Lisa hates fish) and watching DVDs. Tonight I had grilled salmon and watched the movie "Be Cool." One thing drew me to the movie: Cedric the Entertainer. I love that guy ... he's a hoot.

* * *
Did you ever listen to the entire MP3 by R.C. Sproul I sent you? Any commentary?

Kasparov vs. Deep Blue

This evening I watched a DVD called "Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine." It was a documentary on the famous 1997 chess match in which the IBM "Deep Blue" computer beat Garry Kasparov in a six match tournament. The filmmakers tried very hard to draw a parallel between a chess-playing automaton from Napolean's era (called "The Turk" and, ultimately, discovered to contain a human being inside analyzing moves) and the Deep Blue computer. Kasparov himself, referring to the infamous Game 2, all but accused IBM of having a human player intervene and overrule a move suggested by the computer. The story goes that Kasparov offered a pawn in sacrifice and the computer refused to take it.

I don't know whether there's any truth to the rumor laid out in the film, though I suspect it's the stuff of conspiracy theory. IBM the company doesn't come off well in this film. Near the end of the movie Kasparov compares IBM to Enron, suggesting that before the collapse of Enron "this type of behavior" (meaning Enron's and, by comparison, IBM's during that tournament) used to be tolerated by the public.

Overall the film wasn't very good ... interesting, but a bit grating in spots as they kept cutting to this weird footage of the mechanical "Turk" moving chess pieces.

More on Evolution

I almost regret doing this, but it's a lazy Saturday afternoon, there's a thunderstorm brewing outside, the wife is back at her mother's, and I have little desire to work on my SHARE presentation. So, I shall jump back into the abyss.

Over at "Tech Central Station" (www.techcentralstation.com) there's an article on evolution. The link is here:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/072205B.html

The author is defending a statement he made in a pervious article in which he claimed the theory of evolution had been proved. The author provides this:

By the theory of evolution I mean the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological, structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one species from another.

I have no particular objection to that definition of evolution. In fact, that definition is a rather more concise definition than the one I typically use:

Random genetic mutation that leads to reproductive advantage.

The author reports he received considerable e-mail response, both pro and con to his original article. That'll happen any time the subject of evolution is opened up. (The same holds true for discussing the question of predestination and free-will.)

This leads me to ask a few questions:

Q1: What the heck is an "intron?" The website dictionary.com provides this definition:

A segment of a gene situated between exons that is removed before translation of messenger RNA and does not function in coding for protein synthesis.

Okay. Whatever. I won't run down the rabbit trail and ask what an "exon" is. It's an oil company, isn't it?

Q2: It's my understanding that there's no fossil evidence of trans-specie mutation -- in other words, any kind of "missing link." Some argue that the reason for that is that fossils are generally rare and do not survive the eons. That strikes me as a weak argument. "The evidence doesn't stand up well over time, so we have to assume it was there originally. So therefore our theory is true." If the theory is indeed "proved," wouldn't such evidence be more abundant and readily available?

Q3: Does the author's definition of evolution allow or preclude an intelligent designer? To my eye it does not preclude it.

The author then offers this:

For biology is not the only field for which the theory of evolution is an essential foundation. Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially founded on evolution.

I find that a rather striking assertion. If I go back to the author's own definition of "evolution," I'm not sure how "genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission" works its way into geology and chemistry. I suspect what the author has done is allow his focus to drift, and has re-defined evolution to mean "a gradual, cummulate change in scientific knowledge across time." Clearly the disciplines of geology and chemistry have benefited from work done in the past, such that the cummulative knowledge base has "evolved" across time. But that's not really the same thing as "evolution" in a genetic sense, is it? The chemical laws of nature haven't changed since the origin, have they?

Asymptotic Lines

First, let me say that if you took offense at my comment, then I apologize. I didn't wish to single you out and offer any form of judgment. The purpose of my comment was in response to what I felt was your earlier query: why doesn't God provide more solid proof? You and I are examples of people who have been blessed with fairly good experiential evidence of God's existence, yet both of us remain far short of perfect obedience to God.

The title of your previous post was "When is enough enough?" And the answer is, according to my understanding of Scripture, never. Our entire lives will be spent being sanctified; that is, tested and refined by God. The ironic thing is, I am led to understand, that the further down the trail one gets, the more one realizes how much further one has to go. It is like an asymptotic line -- one that trends toward, but never touches, the axis. Well, never touches until we are glorified in heaven.

C.S. Lewis wrote an interesting book on this subject called, "The Great Divorce." The premise of that book is that our lives represent trajectories. After death, that trajectory continues into eternity, producing either creatures of incredible glory, or creatures of horrible evil. The book got him into some measure of trouble by some fundamentalists because the story provided people in "hell" an opportunity to repent and go to heaven. ("Hell" was portrayed brilliantly in the story as like a grim, gray city that goes on forever because everyone in it can't stand one another and tend to move further and further apart from one another.)

It's a life-long journey, one of continued and incremental submission, gaining further insights and understanding, and undergoing more and more trials and testing in the act of sanctification. Or so I'm to understand. This parallels the story offered in "Pilgrim's Progress" -- the main character, "Christian," encounters repeated difficulties on his way to the "Celestial City."

Note: This notion runs somewhat contrary to contemporary evangelical Christianity -- at least within some circles -- whereby the act of regeneration is a "road to Damascus" moment, followed by perfect obedience and perfect happiness. I think that presentation is disingenuous. Well, that's being civil -- I think that presentation is flat-out wrong. I don't think Scripture supports that view, at least not at the high level. Perhaps a passage here or there could be extracted to support it, but the whole of the New Testament message is one of continued submission and refinement by the Holy Spirit.

From personal experience I can attest to this. I can only count as a blessing my awareness of my painful shortcoming. When I take the time to ponder the forgiveness offered, and what that means in terms of salvation from sin, and then compare that to my response ... well, the picture isn't pretty. The serious question I must answer is "Why?" I really don't know, other than the act of killing my former self takes time. Galatians 2:20 is not an instantaneous thing with me, I guess.

But I must keep striving towards that goal. That I know.

* * *
Here's another passage that caught my eye:

Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Phillipians 4:4-7, NIV

* * *
Thanks for the update on Wimbledon. I think tennis is a dead sport, sorry to say. I'm no expert on the topic, but from what I understand, part of the problem is the technology and the training, particularly in the men's category. Apparently the serves are getting to be so fast and powerful that they're almost unreturnable.

Interesting topic thread there ... what sports are "dead?" One, I think, is boxing. Certainly at the heavyweight level. I imagine there'll always be localized interest, but there'll never again be a Muhammad Ali. Hockey, here in the United States, suffered a year-long lockout over contract disputes. Television ratings for hockey here are virtually zero. The league is over-extended and the talent is too thin.

When is enough enough?

You wrote:

You claim a direct intervention from Jesus, yet you are not fully committed to God

My response is how would we know when we are fully committed to God? Is anyone fully committed to God? Even pastors and the like?

I do claim a direct intervention from Jesus, but I also believe that He put me in that state in the first place. I'm not 100% sure what for, I would think to teach me a lesson, which I am really trying to learn. I think the lesson is "always look on the bright side of life".

Roger Federer won the men's and Venus Williams the women's singles events at Wimbledon this year, but I didn't watch any of the matches. That movie was awful, I saw it on a plane earlier this year, not the best of venues admittedly but a serious lemon nontheless.

Love and peace be with you brother.

Wimbledon

First, a question ... who the heck won this year? It must be a testament to the state of the sport that the premier tournament comes and goes without the winner being common knowledge. Or perhaps its just me. I don't know who the players are anymore and I've long since stopped paying much attention.

Second, what large edible food substance meant to win Wimbledon? And who ultimately defeated it? Answer below.

Finally, we rented the movie "Wimbledon" this evening. It starred Kirsten Dunst and Paul Bettany. I like Paul Bettany, but I didn't much like this movie. Which is why I'm here blogging while my lovely bride continues to watch, though she has fast-forwarded a few times.

Answer: blanc mange meant to win Wimbledon. Angus Podgorney ultimately defeated the blanc mange to become the only Scotsman to ever win the tournament. (Monty Python)

Is the message true?

I was poking around on the web this morning, trying to find out more about the issue of Biblical "inerrancy" and "infallibility." A lot depends on the meaning and usage of those words, I discovered. From what I can gather, some have taken the meaning of those words too far and have tried to confer upon the Bible more than some noted theologians are comfortable with. I'm not smart enough to follow all the arguments. I'm not sure I wish to try.

As you know, my view of the Christian faith tends to focus on broader themes and frameworks, not on specific passages. It's quite possible to go find two sentences from this 1000+ page book, compare them and suggest a contradiction. The same is true of any book, including anything scientific.

It's also quite possible that somewhere across time the reproduction of the Bible produced "errors," such as the age of Ahaziah reported as 22 or 42. In my mind these don't detract from the central Truth of the Bible, any more than it would detract from a Stephen Hawking book if he used the word "there" when he should have used "their" or "they're."

Viewed at a higher level, the Bible provides revelation into the nature of God, the things he demands of us, the things he promises to us, and a wealth of instruction and insight into how we are to live our life. I believe that in these things the Bible is true; that is, divinely inspired and from God, therefore of God, therefore True.

As I mature -- oh, so slowly -- in the Christian Faith, I am coming to be more comfortable with my acceptance of the Bible as "true." It's not a precise definition. I don't tend to focus on minor items of apparent discrepancy ... probably because I know I'm just not smart enough to really hash out the issues at that level. Perhaps one day I will become more articulate in defending Scripture at the finer level, but I doubt it. I'm not sure I want to.

You wonder why God didn't provide a more "foolproof" (my word) method of revelation. He may have; the "garbage" genetic instructions may very well carry God's message. But here's the essential question: let's say we decoded it and it said something like this: "This is God. Trust and obey me and you shall enjoy me for eternity." Would we believe it?

There is ample evidence that we as humans do not follow instructions that even we know are true. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that inhaling the byproduct of tobacco combustion every day for year after year can't be good for our lungs, yet many do just that. The speed limit signs very clearly spell out the limit we may drive, but many -- including me -- disregard them.

On a Christian radio program here in Tucson I heard the host talk about how children often ask some of the most challenging questions about the faith. One he cited has stuck with me: "If Satan saw God face to face, why then did he disobey God?" That is an exceptionally important question to ponder. It gets to your question, and to the mine: if God very clearly made himself known, irrefutably, undeniably -- would people then turn over their lives to him? I doubt it.

I was blessed with an experience whereby God touched my mind and I truly understood, for a brief moment, the full scope and breadth of forgiveness through Christ. Yet today I am not fully committed to God. You claim a direct intervention from Jesus, yet you are not fully committed to God. So many others are the same way.

We yearn for "proof" of God's existence, yet I'm not certain it would make a difference.

There is elegance in the way God has revealed himself generally (in nature, in our consciences) and specifically (in Scripture, in Christ). It is compelling but not undeniable. It requires an extension of effort and will on our part to seek. In return, God rewards our sincere seeking with further understanding and guidance. When I willfully sin, God removes some of that and I flounder, requiring me to repent and come back to him. Each time -- and I must take care not to assume it will always be the case -- each time he provides me with a sense of his presence and assurance of his continued promise.

It appears to be God's divine plan that we are to trust him through faith, not through proof. To my eye it appears to be an progressive process, with decisive steps of faith along the way. I am firmly committed to the notion that belief in the Bible's essential truthfulness is one of those decisive steps. Doing so opens up new vistas of understanding. Such appears to be God's plan. If it were a definitive one-page declaration from God, we would quickly grow bored with it and drift.

Grace and peace be with you, brother. In Christ.

Message in a bottle

Yes, there are many examples of errors that are explained away in similar fashion, I would hold to the fact that if this causes anyone a problem (typically because they have been using Occam's razor liberally on such arguments!) then fear not, you can still believe in the fundamental message without needing your Bible to be inerrant.

Someone asked me why God would use such an inefficient and error prone method of delivering His word. They thought that if God had encoded the message in our genome then there would be much less room for misinterpretation.

Note: messages encoded in the genome could still be ignored, eg. we still would have "free will", whatever that is.

Then I got to thinking that maybe He did just that. In the genome that are sequences filled with "genetic garbage", no-one yet knows what these are for, and as a consequence are ignoring them. Perhaps the Bible *is* encoded there? It would be an optimal solution after all.

Furthermore, wouldn't it be fun if the genetic word of God, assuming it is there, acually caused us to behave in a certain way? Perhaps it gives rise to our conscience? I think C.S. Lewis referred to it as "we all have Jesus inside" or something like that?

We must keep an open mind, there is lots to learn I think.

PS. Must dig out by old gene sequencer !

The Age of Ahaziah -- 22 or 42?

The same resource -- Christian Apologetics Resource Ministry -- www.carm.org, offers the following in their "Bible Difficulties" section:

http://www.carm.org/diff/2Kings8_26.htm

I didn't copy the text to here because the explanation has to do with the way certain Hebrew words were written. CARM ascribes this to a "copyist error." I'm not sure I fully followed this explanation.

Take or leave this particular explanation. I offer it up only as one explanation. I'm sure this particular thing has been debated for years and years and years. Smart people have come down on both sides of this.