MetaEquilibrium - a weblog of half-formed thoughts

New Testament reliability

2011-11-24T22:09:00.003+13:00

The number of manuscripts is not the whole story of course, but it's still interesting.

http://visualunit.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/nt_reliability1.jpg

300th

2011-11-21T16:11:00.006+13:00

This is my 300th post. That probably doesn't include the one or two that I've deleted, realising that they were a bit too offensive in hindsight. I think there's some interesting stuff here anyway, along with much that is inane, bizarre or irrelevant. I'm considering starting a new blog which would include the most coherent thoughts from this one, while being more carefully edited and perhaps including some photos of nature rather than wikipedia images, but we'll see...

I quite like Plato, from what little I have read that is attributed to him. I also like Nietzsche in how straight-up he is. This quote relates and contrasts the two, along with the incarnation, in a way that I find quite brilliant.

"Nietzsche loves the real world of ever-changing dynamism over Plato's realm of unchanging forms, but God loves this world more. In fact, in joy he created its diverse forms of life and his providence keeps history's ever-moving, ever-changing dynamism in play. It was not by the self's escape from this world and embodiment to achieve union with the upper world, but by God's becoming flesh that salvation has been brought to the earth.
...

That which actually happens in this world, not what philosophers argue must be the case should always take precedence. For that very reason, the gospel's claims must be allowed to disorient and reorient our presuppositions about God and the world."

speeding out of the rat race

2011-11-09T21:33:00.002+13:00

talking about time, here's a clip about what happens when you give rats drugs - specifically marijuana and cocaine (not at once though - intriguing possibility however).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWRMOKvb_xU

I'm currently learning (studying/cramming I guess) about rats and cocaine with relation to neurotransmitter transport. Fun stuff.

on time (and out of time)

2011-11-06T20:06:00.006+13:00

The nature of our nation
abundantly displays
yes, portrays
the beauty of creation

the tui in the tree
flitted and swooped
then settled
- and sang, next to me

mid-gray clouds match the sea
both brooding;
sad, maybe?
- a mood of ambiguity

many gifts, bestowed;
presents presented,
accepted
- their giver unknown

mechanical, purported-accidental
watchers watching
the turning
ceaseless timepiece universal

”collocation, self-organisation!”
or quiet indication,
contrived;
a .. purposed manifestation?

softly conscience whispers
questions, perceives these qualities;
a final
cause? (for thought) - one wonders

healthy dose of humour

2011-11-05T18:17:00.003+13:00

a special humorous cartoon for anyone who reads this blog - it's high quality, I guarantee it

it should say 'gentlemen' though. :(

thought for the day

2011-10-26T15:20:00.004+13:00

If moral improvement has actually occurred over the centuries (if norms of the past were less advanced or ethical than our own), there is a moral standard by which cultures may be judged - there is a standard towards which improvement has occurred.

Hence,

moral facts exist.

Likewise, if you believe moral improvement has actually occurred over the centuries,

then,

you believe that moral facts exist.

As with anything, you may be mistaken in your beliefs, but nevertheless you believe them. Much as you believe that the sun is a source of heat for the earth. etc.

From whence these moral facts?

after all, a Christian can't be a real philosopher, right?

2011-10-24T13:54:00.006+13:00

the debate over the debate over whether R. Dawkins should debate W.L. Craig has het up.

This is a fair response to it I think.

I am a little tired of the cheerleaders on both sides. Craig is not perfect, but he seems to me a nice enough guy who presents classical Christian apologetical arguments in a rigorous-yet-accessible way to audiences of university students, academics and other interested people. He is a gifted communicator and probably rightly widely regarded as the foremost defender of Christian theism today. His well-publicised debates are backed up with scholarly and popular books and articles, particularly concerning the metaphysical implication of the origin of the universe and the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

Dawkins has done some well respected work in evolutionary biology, but his main area of influence has been through his popular science books and of course his more recent railing against religion. He is an effective communicator and like Craig is charismatic with a wide following. However, I cannot take him seriously as an academic outside his field of expertise in biology or as a public intellectual rather than a polemicist, given his reluctance to actually interact with the arguments he claims do not exist or to have refuted . One notable exception was in his debates with John Lennox; yet in these he is widely regarded as having come across as the least persuasive of the two. Supporters of his who have imbibed the 'new atheist' hatred of religion and religious people need to calm down and learn to have a reasonable academic discussion - even with those who pointedly disagree - or they will face accusations of insularism, anti-intellectualism and cowardice.

Religion is here to stay and the New Atheism probably is too in some form; ridicule and invective from either side (as guilty of it as I may be) strikes me as a fairly unproductive route and a highly frustrating one when the actual issues are covered up by personal attacks and ignorant bluster. If anything is to sort out the fundamental misunderstandings contributing so greatly to this cultural divide, perhaps it is numerous instances of friendly chats over coffee, combined with a little prayer and a challenge to actually explore the claims being made by each 'side' for oneself. I for one am happy to engage in this project!

accidental coincidences

2011-10-22T18:59:00.003+13:00

Are the gospels reliable as historical accounts? One line of evidencing bolstering their claims are coincidences between them which were not designed, for instance where one gospel incidentally fills in gaps in what another has reported.

Prof Tim McGrew is an authority on 'evidence', being known as an academic in the field of the philosophy of science. He is also one of the world's foremost experts on historical Christian apologetics (i.e. past apologists) and particularly, apologetics which makes use of historical argument to show the plausibility and truth of the gospel and related claims about Jesus.

This 10 min youtube clip is worth watching, at least taking a peek at to get the gist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVLeC5HbSQ

Or for a paragraph summary of the idea, see here: http://historicalapologetics.org/blunt-john-james/

More on this after exams perhaps.

truly revealing

2011-10-20T14:27:00.007+13:00

Hey procrastinators, check this out - I think you'll enjoy it!

so ..., we throw our pain at this canvas
of life

again and again we throw our pain
at it

and it all seems so random, pointless
empty

and it sloshes and reverberates
around

but we have fun; break the dreariness
of life!

told it’s all absurd we learn to laugh
at it

but this too is fleeting, shallow,
empty

‘til ... the great Painter flips our canvas
around

revealing Jesus, the true meaning
of life.

Experts, experts - get your experts!

2011-10-18T22:30:00.003+13:00

I'm intrigued by the fact that everyone else is an expert on the economy (& the effectiveness of the free market and such), but as an economics student I have no idea. Sure, I have various prejudices and suspicions, but in actually arguing something, I'd hardly know where to start. What caused the financial crisis - lack of govt regulation or over-regulation?? Many people making bold claims about this don't seem to even be aware that the alternate possibility is being seriously suggested.

I'm the last person to help out here. And I will very soon have a degree in this stuff, more or less.

God help us all.

decentralised power structure

2011-10-13T22:03:00.003+13:00

In case anyone likes history or, perhaps, navel-gazing. This is from Sydney and I find it interesting how useful history is and how it can repeat itself in some ways. Convergence perhaps (reading Simon Conway Morris' "Life's Solution" has got me thinking along these lines.)

"The idea of a faculty system for the SUEU was broached for the first time in 1945; teams of students to minister in schools and on missions were established in 1946; as well as a more elaborate sub-committee structure for administration. Of course, the danger which these moves were seeking to prevent was that of nominalism ..." http://www.sueu.org.au/about/history/building_foundations

thinking-then-speaking

2011-10-11T10:31:00.001+13:00

"You will not be able to extemporize good thinking unless you have been in the habit of thinking and feeding your mind with abundant and nourishing food. ... Take it as a rule without exception, that to be able to overflow spontaneously you must be full."
Charles Spurgeon

HT: Justin Taylor

why an atheist I am not

2011-10-03T23:00:00.005+13:00

(image thanks to Wikipedia. Only the vaguest idea what it means.) I don't like how this blog is formatting itself now, but there are more important things in life. Like death, life after death, life before death, etc.

This is the draft form of a talk that was spoken today.

I take it that to accept atheism is to believe the claim that God does not exist and neither do gods, goddesses or, presumably other supernatural beings.

I am not an atheist as I have found - and continue to find - Christian faith to be, (rather than ugly or irrational) – in fact, both attractive and coherent. I have been privileged to have been raised in a Christian home, attending Church since the age of 4. I came to know I am not a good person. I have found a need in my own life for what God offers in Jesus Christ; and this really has been life-changing, in changing and continuing to change my actions, thoughts, priorities, hopes and even my interests. I was pleased to be baptised at the start of 2009. So I am a Christian.

Atheism is a hopeless philosophy. It offers little; in the realms of ultimate explanation, – in science! - and in aid of human flourishing. Three fields of interest to me, I think seek a grounding:

Firstly, “reason” and rationality

*The importance of seeking truth; makes sense on theism, less so given naturalism. In seeking truth over self-interest, as we do, we borrow from a non-naturalistic worldview, in line with the Christ-focussed mottos of some of the world’s top universities. As a summary, God grounds rationality - it is far from clear that materialistic processes adequately account even for rational belief formation, let alone the question I raise of the legitimacy of a search for truth, prioritising it over falsehood.

*Also, atheism is not the obvious default metaphysic. A question for you all - is the universe an array of brute facts – a collection of matter/energy and its regularities, (and perhaps too mathematical facts and/or moral facts) – or does it all have a transcendent (and even personal?) source? Which is the correct explanation? To simply begin and end with naturalism is to take too much for granted – (indeed, the whole universe.)

Secondly, science

*Science is popular here. The fact that we can do science ought raise questions. The world is ordered in a particular way, the human mind is ordered in a particular way – so as to comprehend a fundamental, mathematically structured reality. These orderings coincide and we can do science. Brute fact, or God-given?

*Also the evidence for Fine-tuning of the physical constants (leading to the development of rational moral agents) is evidence for theism, in that it is more probable given God than in God’s absence.

Third category, “society” (and human flourishing.)

*The existence of human rights and dignity and a desire for justice do not find their natural home within atheism.

*The phenomena of evil - and death point away from atheism. Often when horrors perversely done in the name of God are rightly condemned, a notion of evil is assumed. Yet naturalistic atheism has no answer to evil and indeed no room for it; it denies its existence. Atheism too, has no answer to death; indeed, all, it seems to me, on atheism, is finally meaningless – we are simply star dust perhaps with some pathetic illusion of personality or importance - and while that might seem pretty in a fleeting way, rocks and rubbish dumps are equally star dust with us - and with the same fate – some collections of atoms get ‘lucky’ briefly, but it all comes to an end.

So, I’ve surveyed Reason, Science and Society and touched on the intellectual cost of atheism; however my personal focus and the motivating factor for not merely holding an abstract belief, but living in a particular way, is Jesus. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus are somewhat of an enigma for a naturalistic account of the universe. It might seem to be convenient for some if he had never existed, but this simply will not do, on the evidence. Of course, if Jesus was not raised, this faith is utterly futile, but if he might’ve been, then this conversation is very worthwhile.

translation project

2011-09-17T12:30:00.001+12:00

I have come to the conclusion that if you cannot translate your own thoughts into uneducated language, then your thoughts are confused. Power to translate is the test of having really understood your own meaning. - CS Lewis

what is the gospel?

2011-09-14T21:35:00.003+12:00

“This is the gospel. The just and loving Creator of the universe has looked upon hopelessly sinful people and sent his Son, God in the flesh, to bear his wrath against sin on the cross and to show his power over sin in the resurrection so that all who trust in him will be reconciled to God forever.”

- David Platt (excerpt from “Radical”)

thanks to the website of "Ascend the Hill", a band whose music I am enjoying. For free!http://ascendthehillband.com

Christian thinkers in science

2011-08-31T22:22:00.002+12:00

these people are fascinating ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_T._Bakker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Isham

I'll add/write more on this eventually. I hadn't heard of the dinosaur guy before.

molecular evolution

2011-08-26T09:03:00.003+12:00

some interesting stuff on molecular evolution, which I hope to come back to

starting with a post by Mike Behe, on a proposed mechanism for the evolution of complex cellular systems like the spliceosome: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08/irremediable_complexity049851.html

"Overwhelmingly, progress in biology has consisted of finding new and ever-more-sophisticated properties of systems that had been thought simple. If apparently simple systems are much more complex than they initially seemed, I would bet heavily against the hypothesis that apparently complex systems are much simpler than they appear."

also, I will read this eventually: directed evolution and enzyme alterations:
http://www.nature.com/nrm/journal/v10/n12/full/nrm2805.html

discordant beauty

2011-08-22T17:07:00.005+12:00

You never know what temporal days may bring

So laugh, love, live free and sing.
When life is in dis/cord

Praise ye the Lord.

-Anberlin

the html on this site has gone weird and formatting is a hassle, so I don't bother when I'm meant to be studying

naturalism as explanation

2011-08-20T09:17:00.006+12:00

I'm currently reading a paper by Peter van Inwagen on whether God is an unnecessary hypothesis and am absolutely drinking it up.

Thought I'd share (the insight below is not particularly controversial, but I find it is helping to clarify some things; you've gotta love analytical philosophy. I don't think I've ever seen this stated so clearly and it leads on to a bunch of things that I'm excited about.), partly as a reminder to me in future to read it again when I have time to scribble some thoughts on related things:

Consider the proposition that there exist natural things. This is a fact, and one easily veriﬁed by observation. Has it a purely natural explanation? That seems unlikely. How could facts about the properties of natural things and how they are related to one another (which are the only facts a purely natural explanation may appeal to) explain the existence of natural things? The difﬁculty of seeing how there could be an answer to this question suggests a general principle: To explain the existence of things of a certain type, we must somehow appeal to things that are not of that type.

...

Reﬂection on the fact that there are natural things suggests that the best course for the proponents of the superﬂuity argument to take might be to say that they hadn’t got their premise quite right, and to qualify it as follows: insofar as an observed fact has an explanation, this explanation is a purely natural one. That is, perhaps they should concede that some observed facts have no explanation at all, and go on to say that those observed facts that do have an explanation have a purely natural one. They could say that the proposition that there are natural things was a necessary truth, and thus had no explanation – at any rate, no causal explanation. But it doesn’t seem very plausible to suppose that the proposition that there are natural things is a necessary truth. The friends of the superﬂuity argument would, I think, do better to maintain that the fact that there are natural things is a brute, contingent fact – a fact because there are natural things, contingent because there might have been no natural things, brute because there is no explanation whatever of there being natural things.

How plausible is the thesis that every fact has either a purely natural explanation or else no explanation at all? Theists will certainly not ﬁnd this thesis plausible. Theists think that at least one observed fact, the fact that there are natural things, has an explanation and has no natural explanation – its explanation being, of course, that there are natural things because God created them. Doesn’t the thesis that everything we observe either has no explanation whatever or else has a purely natural explanation simply assume the falsity of theism?

more here: http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Is_God_Unnecessary.pdf

Zeal

2011-08-16T21:52:00.001+12:00

Question for the day:

Is zeal without knowledge dangerous or just disturbing/embarrassing in our apathetic world?

meaningful exchanges

2011-08-12T23:14:00.015+12:00

The gospel: it’s truly relevant

Intrinsically; part of it.

Selfishness’s final solution

Good news: life which goes on and on

But how can someone communicate

This - 'true but inconvenient'?

Our faux-righteousness is no payment

Grace, free; generously given

Little surprise, faces resistance

All men want to be sovereign

Yet God exchanged divinity’s throne

With servant’s form; that’s upside down!

Crucified so that peace may be known

Take up your cross, the slave is now crowned

What of ourselves, now Death's overturned?

May our lives help make this Truth heard?

ambiguous violence

2011-08-09T22:48:00.001+12:00

Man, the London riots.

What's up with that?!

Maybe I'll write more on this sometime.

If you don't believe that people are sinful, check out what's going down over there.

On a lighter note, I found this comment from the Metropolitan Police's spokesman a tad ambiguous:
"Those involved in criminality should be under no illusion that we will pursue you."

standing in my defense

2011-08-06T00:03:00.002+12:00

One of my favourite song verses/sections:

Your blood: speaks a better word
Than all the empty claims I've heard upon this earth
Speaks righteousness for me
And stands in my defense

Jesus it's Your blood.

Some day I intend to write more about this; about how and why and that the blood of Jesus the Messiah was shed to rectify my stubborn opposition to the God who created me and is sovereign over the universe.

Your comments, of whatever stripe, are welcome. This is not merely some article of lofty faith for me, but really important to how I live my life and why I do what I do - if I'm wrong about this, I want to know and if you are, I think you should want to as well.

Religion - evil?

2011-07-31T12:53:00.001+12:00

Thinking about the tragedy in Norway, I find this of interest and on the mark:

"The crimes of which Anders Breivik stands accused don’t show how religion can inspire evil. Quite the contrary: They are proof positive that a Christ-less Christianity is a cultural construct that can’t bring the depth of relationship required to prevent the horrors that evil inspires. ..."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/dont-blame-religion-for-anders-breivik/article2111872/

The gospel of Mark

2011-07-23T20:36:00.008+12:00

I keep returning to the gospel of Mark - particularly since hearing it described as "the gospel for a sceptic in a hurry", I've been intrigued by it. Particularly its christology, or view of Christ. I'd love to talk with you about this, whoever you are, though admittedly I've only dabbled briefly in the topic. This gospel also contains one of my favourite passages, (as I may well have said here before.) That passage reminds me (and vice versa) of this skillet song. In related news, a NZ scholar of Mark I happen to know, Derek Tovey, will be speaking on the book's view of Jesus on Tues 2nd August at 1pm at Auckland Uni as part of Jesus Week.

Anyway, I think the gospel of Mark is also worth listening to. That's right, listening to!

Living in the 21st C, we're fortunate to have access to mp3s, including of the bible - that book that continues to influence so much and so many.

One of my favourite bible translations is the 'NET' bible (New English Translation), partly as it doesn't have the copyright issues of some other translations. It is also fairly literal and comes with some very useful notes.

As a service to someone out there, I've compiled the links to the chapters of the gospel of Mark, the NET version, read by some American guy whose voice isn't too disagreeable (lack of Queen's English or upper-class American accent notwithstanding) here - at an approximate calculation, you could listen to the whole thing in around an hour and a half or so. How about that?! Give it a shot.

Courtesy of http://net.bible.org

(chapters) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

kiwi music

2011-07-23T20:24:00.003+12:00

Hey, here's a site worth checking out if you want some easy-listening kiwi (Christian) music to download for free - I hope you'll like it:

http://strahan.co.nz/

I envisage setting up a gig for him sometime, somehow.

How did Muhammed die?

2011-07-01T20:34:00.008+12:00

It's an intriguing question for me and maybe for you - how did Muhammed, the prophet of Islam, die?

Another intriguing question for me is why the html on this site has been such a hassle recently - hence the large gaps and occasional lack of gaps in some of these posts.

Anyway, was it by poison? While it seems an ignoble death, particularly given Islamic conceptions of prophethood, the hadith seem clear on the topic (google it if you like.)

This Islamic response fascinates me - not least because it quotes, unblushingly, sections from the New Testament which show that prophets before Jesus died - fair enough - but also, explicitly state that Jesus was likewise killed. Believing that Jesus was killed is very unorthodox for a Muslim and I don't think the author believes this at all - but what basis could there be for using these accounts about Jesus only where they line up with what you already believe? What extra weight does such use of quotations give an argument?

The author also accepts the parable of the tenants, in Mark 12: 1-12 as authentic from the mouth of Jesus and points out that "the son" is clearly talking about Jesus. This is hardly controversial for most readers of the New Testament, but coming from the mouth of a Muslim apologist, it is unexpected. Perhaps I am missing something.

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_the_prophet_s_death_from_poison_disprove_his_prophethood_or_was_it_an_honorable_death_for_our_beloved_prophet_

Spooky.

2011-06-24T17:31:00.002+12:00

Trent Dougherty says a lot of things (or a few things anyway) that I feel I would say if I was better educated in philosophy.

Enjoy (his insights on why some people need to get real when it comes to evaluating certain philosophical claims (particularly theism-friendly ones)):

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2011/06/spookiness-get-.html#more

In the name of Science

2011-06-21T11:13:00.004+12:00

A personal note:

For those who’ve followed my scientific career, this may be hard to believe - but I am now something of an expert in chicks, as in baby chickens. You could even say, with fairly minimal exaggeration, that they “flock” to me. I could give you the details, but I won't, as it might put you off your dinner to be honest.
So, for all your limb-bud grafting needs, text me anytime - or leave a message at this blog.

Here's a random superchic(k) song, enjoy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-goGUFT35c

You know what?

2011-06-19T15:23:00.009+12:00

You know what? I think we should change the world. You, me, that guy/girl we’re ‘friends’ with on Facebook. And their mates. Yeah, why not?! We should, we even could: feed people, clothe people, tell them about Jesus (order negotiable); fight for democracy, or socialism or compassionate communitarian conservatism or something, anything, other than the icky status quo. Common wisdom is overrated, I .. believe .. we need a change.
(Pronounced with due dramatic flourish.)

Me for President. Or maybe you!

Who’s with me (us)?!!

Oh, wait – it’s exam time. :(

Sorry folks.

And then there’s that little issue of the middle-class dream. We wouldn’t really want to give that up, would we?

And the student loan to pay off.

You’ve got to be secure, you know! Emotionally, financially, socially, the rest. Got to. It’s common wisdom.

So, yeah.

*Shuffles feet*

*Clicks pen & glances at notes*

Maybe I’ll be back later…

(Picture courtesy of Wikipedia - percentages of populations undernourished)

Post(ur)ing

2011-06-17T09:07:00.007+12:00

This, below, is a link worth reading, about Facebook.

Incidentally, I'm quite proud of the title of this post, (invented in a flash of brilliance while pondering the mouse linked below) I may even have to use it elsewhere.

I almost posted the link, below, on Facebook, but then I was briefly caught in a loop of self-assessment/analysis and couldn't work out what my motives for that might be, so stuck it here instead, as far fewer people will read this. And if you're reading this, you're probably either past judging me (having been desensitized) or you're a random whose opinion isn't going to affect me much, if at all. And let's be honest, if your opinion doesn't impact on me, I'm not going to be too concerned about it.

Occasionally I'll promote something at this blog that I've put effort into - I'll probably post a talk I gave on Jesus in the Bible (as compared, implicitly, to the Qur'an), after exams and once I've written a sermon which I'll be preaching at the end of August, I'll put that up and might link on Facebook if I decide someone there may be interested; but most of the rest will just be writing practice for me and something I can look back on and cringe at in future minutes/days/months/decades.

http://cruciality.wordpress.com/2011/06/16/writing-to-the-choir-facebook-and-%e2%80%98the-new-scourge-of-writing%e2%80%99/

I love the picture: http://cruciality.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/fb-mirror.jpg

A thought:
If you're reading this and I know you, the chances are I don't affirm you nearly enough, being caught, as perhaps with near-everyone else, in my own web of self-concern. The chances are also, that if you're human and not scarily self-sufficient, you're also actually looking to be affirmed occasionally by those around you. So, sorry about that; I'll try & work on it.

An ode to literature

2011-05-30T19:55:00.000+12:00

Oh, … literature!
Are you dead?
I’d like to know.

I’m talking about good literature
That’s actu’lly read
And enjoyed (and discussed)

I’m wondering if you’re deceased
To be honest
Perhaps it’s only as I am

Most sincerely,
A science student.

"Against hope, he believed in hope ..."

2011-05-28T18:42:00.002+12:00

I had written some thoughts, very briefly, but they got deleted when I tried to copy the post in order to prevent it accidentally being deleted. Some might call that irony.

Anyway, here are the two passages I had posted, minus my little commentary and highlighting, as I need to study protein structure and function. If you read this and want to pray for me, that'd be lovely; it's been a stressful couple of weeks for me, as for many others no doubt.

Romans: 4:13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 4:14 For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified. 4:15 For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either. 4:16 For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants – not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 4:17 (as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”). He is our father in the presence of God whom he believed – the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do. 4:18 Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, “so will your descendants be.” 4:19 Without being weak in faith, he considered his own body as dead (because he was about one hundred years old) and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 4:20 He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God. 4:21 He was fully convinced that what God promised he was also able to do. 4:22 So indeed it was credited to Abraham as righteousness.
4:23 But the statement it was credited to him was not written only for Abraham’s sake, 4:24 but also for our sake, to whom it will be credited, those who believe in the one who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 4:25 He was given over because of our transgressions and was raised for the sake of our justification. 5:1 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 5:2 through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory. 5:3 Not only this, but we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 5:4 and endurance, character, and character, hope. 5:5 And hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Hebrews: 4:13 And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account. 4:14 Therefore since we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast to our confession. 4:15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, but one who has been tempted in every way just as we are, yet without sin. 4:16 Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help.

Burn out

2011-05-06T23:25:00.003+12:00

Maybe I know what it is, maybe.

Hell - not just a pizza shop?

2011-04-30T15:45:00.002+12:00

I had written some bullet points for this post, but publishing it didn't work and they got lost in limbo. I'll come back to it some time.

so anxious

2011-04-27T20:46:00.001+12:00

"As I read and re-read all the non-Christian or anti-Christian accounts of the faith, from Huxley to Bradlaugh, a slow and awful impression grew gradually but graphically upon my mind—the impression that Christianity must be a most extraordinary thing. . . . It was attacked on all sides and for all contradictory reasons. . . . What again could this astonishing thing be like which people were so anxious to contradict, that in doing so they did not mind contradicting themselves?"
-Gk Chesterton

Jesus died. Case closed?

2011-04-19T21:17:00.012+12:00

“Can you imagine a movement today claiming that a soldier in World War Two rose physically from the dead, but when you asked for proof all they offered you were a mere handful of anonymous religious tracts written in the 1980's? Would it be even remotely reasonable to believe such a thing on so feeble a proof? Well—no.” - Richard Carrier, 2006

(Picture courtesy of Wikipedia)

Thanks RC, you make a good point, in that if your analogy is a good one, Christianity is in evidential trouble. Let’s examine it, making some quick comparisons to the claimed resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.

As a test for myself and to save time and effort, I’ll do this response from the top of my head, or mostly anyway, so it may be a little fast and loose; but anyone who reads it will get the general idea. I’ll also add a little to this if I find time† I’ll also link in some of my favourite sources, some of which are easy to access on the web.

Carrier is here implicitly talking about the gospels. What are these things and is he being fair in his characterisation? To start with, in one sense, yes. RC gets his maths right, insofar as modern scholarship generally dates the gospels to around 40-50 years - and the final one, John, a little later - after the key events in question, i.e. those surrounding the death of Jesus.

Yet if we grant that, the analogy fails in at least these four ways (assuming we can substitute ‘evidence’ for ‘proof’, given that the subject of discussion is not pure mathematics):

1) The gospels are not the only literary evidence we have for the resurrection
2) The gospels do not contain merely religious content as implied by the comparison to ‘tracts’
3) The gospels are tied back to eyewitness testimony and not entirely ‘anonymous’
4) The resurrection was not an isolated or free-floating event or claim; it occured in a unique historical matrix and had real consequences.

Also, incidentally the synoptic gospels (i.e the first three) can be quite reasonably dated, within the bounds of mainstream scholarship, to within (i.e. prior to) 40 years after the death of Jesus, particularly Mark's gospel. Further, the gospels compare extremely favourably, in documentary evidence and proximity to the source, to other ancient records and writings – if we judge these ancient historical accounts by criteria reasonable for their context, they stand out.

1) The resurrection was a central belief of the early church, found in various of the letters written in the first century, including those of Paul (and slightly later writings such as 1 Clement), with most of his letters accepted across the board as being written before the standard dates for the gospels. Notably, we find this belief and the importance of eyewitness testimony to be the centre of an early creed, found in 1 Cor 15:3-7 and dated to within a decade, or considerably less (the letter itself, which repeats an earlier formula, was written prior to 60AD), of the death of Christ. Paul adds to the early creed (by my reading) his own experience of the risen Jesus, albeit one of a different kind to the others. This resurrection appearance resulted in his conversion from persecutor to missionary. As the next numbered point indicates, other aspects of the gospel accounts receive 'outside' corroboration. To expect hostile witness to the resurrection itself however strikes me as at best slightly absurd. Anyone who believed in the resurrection would, I'd expect, be a Christian; so that the only sources advocating that event are Christian is only to be expected. But that belief in the resurrection was early is a matter of historical fact - a fact which stands in contrast to the general vague modern-day application of the term 'myth' to Christian belief. What you do with it is up to you.

2) The gospels fit broadly into a genre of Greek biography (comments on related things here), with Luke being reasonably classed as historiography. The term ‘tracts’ is one designed to elicit derision from Carrier’s readers; perhaps the actual arguments aren’t strong enough to do all the work required for such inflammatory claims to fully pass. The gospels talk about real places and real people, as corroborated by contemporary sources including historical accounts and archaeological evidence. This differs from some other religious accounts, which are far more clearly mythological in character. We don’t have access to all of the contemporary historical accounts that might help give context, but, for instance the early secular historians Tacitus and Josephus both refer to the existence and death of Jesus. I've looked quite closely into the controversies over Josephus and the case for an historical core of the most controversial passage seems to be the mainstream position.

3) I leave arguing this to Richard Bauckham, in “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses” – it’s about what the title suggests it’s about. Available in university libraries. More info on the general reliability of the NT here, here and elsewhere.

4) The resurrection was not an isolated miracle. Jesus was known as a miracle worker – it is a consistent theme of the gospels and is attested in the Talmud (see 2nd 'Evidence' video.)
Jesus’ resurrection started the church – a community originally focussed around Jerusalem, convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead – and quite willing to suffer for this claim. Later tradition indicates many of the eyewitnesses were persecuted and killed in the name of Jesus, but even disregarding this it is clear that they changed their lives and patterns of worship and culture significantly. What caused this abrupt change? Finally, the early Christian community was itself no stranger to miracles, as the book of Acts attests. Something happened at Easter and it didn’t all stop there.

† If you want a proper treatment of the issue, try something like NT Wright’s ‘the Resurrection of the Son of God’. I only got 30-40% of the way through it on my last attempt over the span of a few weeks, but hey, it’s worth a try.

(As a side point, some of Carrier's other contentions are discussed on this website - I've only skimmed thru' these responses.)

proteins

2011-04-18T14:30:00.002+12:00

I really like proteins. They're pretty awesome. I may even write a poem about them if other things begin to seem less important. If you also want to fold proteins, check this out; download this little programme and get to it! There's even music as you go. http://fold.it/portal/ It seems you can be part of The Cause of Science in this way, as well, contributing to actual research. (I get to do the tutorial problems for a lab, but don't let that stop you participating for entertainment.)

On Fairy Stories

2011-04-18T14:21:00.006+12:00

(For some reason I can't insert spaces in between lines. Perhaps I shall have to learn html to fix this.) Anyway, this is courtesy of JRR Tolkien, fairly well regarded in the genre of fantasy literature: (I've only skimmed parts of this long essay; one day I shall get around to reading it, along with various other files and books lying around, in full) "... it has long been my feeling (a joyous feeling) that God redeemed the corrupt making-creatures, men, in a way fitting to this aspect, as to others, of their strange nature. The Gospels contain a fairystory, or a story of a larger kind which embraces all the essence of fairy-stories. They contain many marvels—peculiarly artistic, beautiful, and moving: “mythical” in their perfect, selfcontained significance; and among the marvels is the greatest and most complete conceivable eucatastrophe. But this story has entered History and the primary world; the desire and aspiration of sub-creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The Birth of Christ is the eucatastrophe of Man's history. The Resurrection is the eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation. This story begins and ends in joy. It has pre-eminently the “inner consistency of reality.” There is no tale ever told that men would rather find was true, and none which so many sceptical men have accepted as true on its own merits. For the Art of it has the supremely convincing tone of Primary Art, that is, of Creation. To reject it leads either to sadness or to wrath. ... But in God's kingdom the presence of the greatest does not depress the small. Redeemed Man is still man. Story, fantasy, still go on, and should go on. The Evangelium has not abrogated legends; it has hallowed them, especially the “happy ending.” The Christian has still to work, with mind as well as body, to suffer, hope, and die; but he may now perceive that all his bents and faculties have a purpose, which can be redeemed. So great is the bounty with which he has been treated that he may now, perhaps, fairly dare to guess that in Fantasy he may actually assist in the effoliation and multiple enrichment of creation. All tales may come true; and yet, at the last, redeemed, they may be as like and as unlike the forms that we give them as Man, finally redeemed, will be like and unlike the fallen that we know."

not skilled to understand

2011-04-07T11:05:00.004+12:00

This is one of my favourite songs. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jazyUn4LMgA Maybe I'll blog a bit more in the next couple of weeks. I'm thinking, or hoping to think, a little about 'the origin of universe and of life', 'the place of religion in the public sphere', 'contingency and macroevolution', 'the rationality of naturalism', 'what human nature is' and such trifles; as well as natural law theories and the molecular basis of cancer, protein structure and medicinal chemistry for uni. Also, the dynamics of small groups and how one might reach tertiary institutions with the truth about Christ will also occupy some of my thought-time, all going well. I'm looking forward to actually doing some reading. If you're reading any interesting books, in any field (preferably non-fiction, though I can stretch to that for some people), let me know; I'd be interested in hearing what you think.

"The University is the most influential institution in any nation."

2011-03-23T22:33:00.002+13:00

Seems a fairly plausible statement. Let's hope and pray our universities are sources of light and life.

John Morton dies

2011-03-11T09:37:00.002+13:00

Sad to note the passing of NZ biologist and Christian intellectual, John Morton.
Glad to remember the resurrection of the dead.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/education/news/article.cfm?c_id=35&objectid=10711028

"In 1960 he became the first person to be appointed to the chair of zoology at Auckland University, where his teaching style and influence have been well-documented in The History of Biology at Auckland University 1883-1983. He helped to found the marine laboratory at Leigh and went on to lead the marine party of the Royal Society's expedition to the Pacific. In 1969, he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand."

see here for an article from a while back: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=183940

so, I guess this 'gospel' thing is pretty urgent then..

2011-02-22T21:43:00.006+13:00

I've tried to write this twice before and keep on losing it, by pressing some weird combination of keys. Third time we may be successful.

Death comes seldom to NZ. Particularly seldom in large doses.

How do we respond?

How ought we?

Ought we: "Remember the value of family"? "Reassess our priorities"? "Live life to the full"? "Try to draw meaning out of chaos"? "Ignore it all"? "Make the best out of a bad situation"? "

You tell me, if you'd like.

Personally, I remember the gospel is important, it is a matter of life and death and it is not something to save for a rainy day as once it has started to rain, it is too late for some. There is a real answer to death; not one created by humanity, but one, the only one, given by God. It is the cross, it is Jesus Christ - it is the gospel.

It's worth thinking about; for without it, well, perhaps you begin to realise what a world without genuine Good News looks like.

Introvert at the Top?

2011-02-10T15:12:00.003+13:00

Introverts can lead.

I think.

Preferable to have someone in charge who's thought about stuff and perhaps who doesn't say everything at once, or exhaust the depths of their intellect in casual conversation.

Go here for some further comments, found thanks to an article on Compass.org.nz
It concerns leadership in churches; but perhaps the thoughts have wider application.

something worth saying

2011-02-07T20:54:00.003+13:00

One day soon I hope to spend some time reading classic sermons. There is wisdom there.

Here is one example - the entire excerpt, from Robert Hawker, is quite short and worth reading, here. I found it when quickly searching a point of doctrine I'd taken for granted in my own talk/sermon yesterday.

Precious, precious Redeemer! was it thus thou didst offer thy soul an offering for sin? Was there no method, in all the stores of Omnipotency, for satisfying divine justice, but by thy holy, harmless, undefiled body dying the violent, cursed, painful death of the cross? Oh by the crimson fountain of thy blood, which issued from thy pierced side, enable me to sit down, day by day, until I find my whole nature crucified with thee in all its affections and lusts. Let there be somewhat, dearest Lord, of an holy conformity between my Lord and me; and if Jesus died for sin; may my soul die to sin; that by mortifying the deeds of the body I may live; and by carrying about with me always the dying of the Lord Jesus, the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in my mortal body.

Amen.

Let our powers combine - ..., he's our hero ...

2011-02-06T15:26:00.004+13:00

I've been trying to research conservatism - and I found this fair point and challenge:

when bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle - Edmund Burke, classic conservative thinker

from (according to Wikipedia) Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents

Cell death

2011-01-28T07:52:00.002+13:00

Somehow, I haven't blogged recently; drowning in assignments and trying to read up on other things were significant contributing factors

Anyway, I found this, on the (main?) discoverer of apoptosis. Read it, if you want:

http://scienceandbelief.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/death-as-preservative/

Fighting to Think

2011-01-18T10:18:00.002+13:00

I came across a unique sport today, I think for the first time.

I used to play chess, probably being well-described as your bog-standard nerdy kid.

But I was never particularly good and I got self-conscious in realising how uncool it was, or something, so not much came of it.

Whatever my backstory, I would have had - and still would have - no hope at "Chess Boxing"

Fundamental

2011-01-15T22:31:00.005+13:00

My assignment has gone so well in the past hour or three that I’ve been inspired to blog on the human condition; on evil, goodness and you. Yes, you. I’ll take the liberty of using a collective “we” to begin the post.

This is a picture of a Kafka book with the title "metamorphosis". It seemed suitably pretentious. Apparently, in it, a man gets turned in to an insect.

We tend to think of people as fundamentally good – a leftover verse from a hymn of the Enlightenment, perhaps it was, that created this common consensus. We snuck a look at it, lying on the trashpile and we framed it, ignoring any irony or conflict. This may be an apposite and quotable quote I have invented: “a consensus without strong fences is a fragile one”. In any case, of course, in holding such a belief in the goodness of those around us, we are faced by many glaring contradictions; occasionally we must at least glimpse the face of evil. But these tend to be distanced from us in actuality – experienced through television, WOW3 and other media, perhaps we do not consider them real or let them impact us substantially. Our family and classmates and workmates and flatmates and the mates that are too good to get a prefix are good, really. Like, they’re not bad, you know?!

This easy-going optimism – maybe it’s partly a kiwi thing – may be contrasted, at least implicitly, with a ‘religious’ view. On such a view, humankind is damned, is evil and the world sucks. Let it burn; somehow or other, a handful of moralists are righteous and the rest are goneburger. Such an ugly view; perhaps we suspect it to be disturbingly close to the truth (who after all wouldn’t want to be more moral, if it came easily?) but sure as hell, we’d rather not believe it.

A naturalist believing in no moral order (a consistent naturalist, I’d suggest), believes, or says he does, that human beings are fundamentally neither good nor evil. For, the terms are meaningless and what is required is a neutral view (it may be a moot point whether “required” could be an appropriate term.) I’ll let you assess whether this position is plausible; for now, I move on to what I consider a more promising alternative to each proposal outlined above.

The Christian view is, I would suggest, both similar and different to each of these. Firstly, the Christian view asserts that evil is real and present and ugly and real and yes I can say that twice and it’s inside every single one of us and it is something we need to face up to. But there is a but; in fact, there are two. God made mankind in his image; we are made to represent him in his creation and he intended us for good – indeed, he intended us for “very good”. The image has been trodden upon; in a bizarre self-referential loop, in trashing others and their cities, we’ve trashed ourselves and we’re stuck. Yet finally, the Christian view is hopeful. We can expect something better; we are justified in believing that justification before God is on offer to humanity, by his grace. Jesus Christ has risen from the dead; he has been vindicated and we can trust him and his atoning sacrifice, such that in doing so, we now have access to the full life that God intended for us. This is a story worth making your own.

The world is not neutral - it is subtly but crucially (yes, that ugly wooden 'cross' seems to pop up in our language even here, thanks to the derivation of our words; our so-carelessly used words!) different to that - it is two-faced, but one face is more significant than the other. It is a cliche, but it's a damn good one - the better face is the "face of love" and his name is Jesus. So many words have been written on Him and on the human condition in light of Him - and there are many more to come.

How do I come up with this.. awesomeness, you may wonder? Inspiration was drawn from working on an analysis, of this article for an English course (I may submit that here after handing it in), along with reading this blog-post: I’d also credit the Bible, particularly the early chapters of Romans, though any errors are my own rather than God’s. Recent discussions about salvation, creation and sin have also fed the conversation, so perhaps I can blame any falsehoods on my friends, the books I have read or my cultural conditioning.

Dilbert takes down science

2011-01-13T14:21:00.003+13:00

couldn't get this to embed properly, but they don't seem to mind people sharing it:

Thanks to http://www.dilbert.com/

A reply to a blog convo elsewhere

2011-01-12T22:17:00.004+13:00

Hey Pbf,

The tone of any reply seems to me to be that my commentary is 'wrong', not for what I am saying, but for who I am.

*As far as 'who you are' goes, I believe you're a rational human person, made in the image of God, but fallen and marred through sin. Furthermore, the intended image is able to be restored as God has laid open the path to Himself, through the cross.

Then there are the general put-downs, calling any dissenters 'Fleas' and such. I guess if I came here to find out what Christians are like, if they're all not just exactly like the trolls that come on other blogs I follow, now I know.

*Sorry if you've been offended; not sure where some of that stuff has come from, but I haven't been following all of your conversations on the blog. I'd hope Christians could be civil, but I guess some aren't.

As for your historical evidence, well, they are just stories after all, aren't they?Washington had wooden teeth? The pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock? Columbus had eight bodies, each buried in a different city!?There's a few 'historical facts' right off the top of my head.

How about some Scriptural facts? The four Gospels were four untitled versions, given names well after they were written. The 'trusted historian' and apparently physician, Luke, seems to disagree with modern scholars about when Herod died and when any kind of a census was done and copied most of his story from Mark. Luke also gives us Jeus' ancestry, which is different from the one written by the author they named Matthew, both being different from the ancestral line-so-far in Chronicles.

*No reason why Luke shouldn’t use the earlier Mark as a source, particularly if it was influenced by Peter, as held in Church history and argued by e.g. Richard Bauckham “Jesus According to the Eyewitnesses” (a worthwhile read). How the gospels got their names and when/if names were attached to the early papyrus versions are subjects of debate - your assertion may sound impressive, but is hardly a fact. I have no idea about the death of Herod, it'd take too long to look it up now. The census is an interesting question, there are various options around who Quirinius was and what governor/administrator actually meant. The census would also take a while to be rolled out around the Empire, leaving more flexibility in the dates than may at first be assumed. The genealogies are both stylised and selective, intended to make their own points. If you want a harmony, differences between L&M might be explained by complex relations of marriage and adoption in a couple of places.

There is no archeological evidence for a city of Nazareth, a town of Nasareth or even a village of Nazareth at the time in question and no hill with a cliff in the area to match a story involving Jesus.

*Not really true. No reason to doubt it was a small town and wouldn’t be referred to in many places. It is known to have existed in ~132 AD as we have an inscription about priests settling in this town. There are archaeological remains from before that (particularly near-by tombs), but I’m no expert on what can be trusted and what can’t. Some sceptical sources on the topic need to be taken with a large grain of salt. E.g. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html is not even internally consistent. It implies that Nazareth only existed after the move of priestly families in ~132AD (mentioned in an inscription from ~300AD found in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima) and that the author of the gospel heard of this shift by poor priests and chose the town as Jesus’ location. This is ridiculous as the gospel of Matthew was written before 132AD. Nazareth mentioned is in the other two synoptics, as the site goes on to note; but both of these were also written well before 132 AD – evidence for this includes them being referred to in writings known to be before this date.
There seem to be plenty of hills around. Maybe what counts as a “cliff” is moot.

A lot of the prophecies in the Bible are obviously anachronistic accounts where the author knows more detail about the supposed future than he does about his 'present'.

*This stuff is often the subject of vigorous debate. E.g. the time in which the book of Daniel was written. http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html and here http://www.tektonics.org/guest/danielblast.html As liberal scholar J.A.T. Robinson apparently said, "prophecy ex eventu has to be demonstrated, and demonstrated by minute and strict criteria, rather than [being] simply assumed."

Others are just lines copied from the Old Testament and reprinted with, "He said, as was foretold he would say by Isaiah(for example)", and drivel like this.

*You don’t convince me you know what you’re talking about. That phrase or something of identical meaning is exceedingly rare or non-existent in the gospels. Jesus doesn’t go around saying stuff he was ‘meant’ to say – he does things he was meant to do. Some of these could be manipulated, some less so. You’re welcome to look up the details. E.g. comparing his death to Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53.

Christianity is such a 'huge tent' religion that it is amazing to me how you guys can still call it the same religion. (that there's a HUGE elephant in the room), and the whole anti-science stance that millions upon millions of people of 'roughly your version' who nevertheless feel that they are privy to guidance/'knowing' from the Spirit of the creator OF the universe ITSELF is nothing short of astonishing.

*Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

Now philosophy is touted to be something it is not, some saying that it is meant to clarify, but in reality, philosophers turn out to be the trickiest word-magicians of all, perhaps outdoing politicians.

*You’re suspicious of philosophy and history when they don’t support your beliefs. That’s interesting.

We're never sure if a philosopher is imagining that he has the upper hand from before engaging in a discussion simply because of the wordplay that, "Since God is defined AS existing, the sentence, 'God does not exist.', is ludicrous nonsense!", and such.

*I’ve never said that.

How do you know that God exists then Andre? Could it be something about time not going back for infinity? Could it be that there 'must be' a necessary first cause?

But that's not it really, is it? No. You think God exists and HE is the Christian God because you grew up in a Christian society, THAT's why.

*Back at you. Why are you a secularist (of whatever form) – could it POSSIBLY be related to having grown up in a secular society? I’ve analysed the evidence available to me and come to an adult decision. I acknowledge that Jesus Christ has changed my life, for the better. I have friends who’ve gone other ways; from various backgrounds. Some have become Christians, others have given it up. The same choice is available to you.

Madeleine is dead wrong that you guys want students to question their faith, because when questioned, you guys automaically think that the questioner is questioning YOUR faith. Isn't THAT right?

*I don’t get what you’re saying. If someone questions Christianity, yes they’re questioning my beliefs, as I am a Christian. This doesn’t mean I need to take it as a personal insult – perhaps it depends on how it’s done. I don’t go around calling atheists stupid and the mantras of naturalism and its devotees “drivel”, though a number patently are.

And, as I noted above, judging from the tone of the responses I get, you guys just can't handle it.

*Thanks for trying. I'm glad you see that truth matters - it does. And ultimately, it's personal, insofar as it's found in the person of Jesus.

Not feeling my happy self today, Andre, I'll look in and see if you can manage a civil response.

Best wishes for your future blog trawling and life more generally.

cbs?*

2011-01-11T14:39:00.004+13:00

The mathematician, physicist and philosopher Pascal wrote, as from the perspective of the person who does not perform any action concerning finding the truth about God:

As I know not whence I come, so I know not whither I do. I only know that on leaving this world I fall for ever into nothingness or into the hands of a wrathful God, without knowing to which of these two states I shall be everlastingly consigned. Such is my condition, full of weakness and uncertainty. From all this I conclude that I ought to spend every day of my life without seeking to know my fate. I might perhaps be able to find a solution to my doubts, but I cannot be bothered to do so, I will not take one step toward its discovery.

quote thanks to this article at 'Be Thinking'

It seems to me that while these options mentioned are not the only logically possible ones, they are the two most significant 'live' options for those in a Western context in particular. For myself, in any case. Either there is no supernatural reality, or there is a God who will judge the world. If the possibility of the latter is at all significant, some time investigating the details is warranted.

*(cbs means "can't be stuffed")

My other Honda is a Jet Plane

2011-01-06T14:48:00.004+13:00

I recently bought a Honda car, off that abode of awesomeness commonly known as 'trademe'.

Yesterday, I put tyre shine on the tyres and black plasticy bits, so it looks pretty nice for a cheap car if I say so myself.

But, not as nice as this Honda:

Yep, 'Honda Aircraft Company', a subsidiary of the one that makes cars, is making fancy little get-abouts that'll go about 780km/hr. That's pretty cool. I don't actually own one, but if I did, I would quite possibly use the title of this post as often as possible in conversation.

Info and picture thanks to MIT's "technology review" - check out the full article! I'm not even paid to say that - unless someone wants to pay me (that'd be awesome).

Gideon, God, the messenger and the fire stick

2011-01-06T14:31:00.005+13:00

Here's an interesting story, from the biblical book of Judges. I've highlighted in blue the bit that attracted me to it - then I decided to give you the whole lot. Who knows; someone may even read it!

6:11 The Lord’s angelic messenger came and sat down under the oak tree in Ophrah owned by Joash the Abiezrite. He arrived while Joash’s son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress so he could hide it from the Midianites. 6:12 The Lord’s messenger appeared and said to him, “The Lord is with you, courageous warrior!” 6:13 Gideon said to him, “Pardon me, but if the Lord is with us, why has such disaster overtaken us? Where are all his miraculous deeds our ancestors told us about? They said, ‘Did the Lord not bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and handed us over to Midian.” 6:14 Then the Lord himself turned to him and said, “You have the strength. Deliver Israel from the power of the Midianites! Have I not sent you?” 6:15 Gideon said to him, “But Lord, how can I deliver Israel? Just look! My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the youngest in my family.” 6:16 The Lord said to him, “Ah, but I will be with you! You will strike down the whole Midianite army.” 6:17 Gideon said to him, “If you really are pleased with me, then give me a sign as proof that it is really you speaking with me. 6:18 Do not leave this place until I come back with a gift and present it to you.” The Lord said, “I will stay here until you come back.” 6:19 Gideon went and prepared a young goat, along with unleavened bread made from an ephah of flour. He put the meat
in a basket and the broth in a pot. He brought the food to him under the oak tree and presented it to him. 6:20 God’s messenger said to him, “Put the meat and unleavened bread on this rock, and pour out the broth.” Gideon did as instructed. 6:21 The Lord’s messenger touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of his staff. Fire flared up from the rock and consumed the meat and unleavened bread. The Lord’s messenger then disappeared. 6:22 When Gideon realized that it was the Lord’s messenger, he said, “Oh no! Master, Lord! I have seen the Lord’s messenger face to face!” 6:23 The Lord said to him, “You are safe! Do not be afraid! You are not going to die!” 6:24 Gideon built an altar for the Lord there, and named it “The Lord is on friendly terms with me.” To this day it is still there in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.

Where Christianity isn't Easy-anity

2011-01-05T16:50:00.006+13:00

Here's a video from the Lausanne Conference on Evangelisation a little while ago; a testimony from a girl born in North Korea.

I found it hard to watch, but worth my slight discomfort. Many thousands have seen it; I hope some are challenged to take Jesus more seriously - he took us pretty seriously, after all.

Btw, to the left you'll see a North Korean soldier, courtesy of Wikipedia

H/T: http://pjsaunders.blogspot.com/

Belonging, Leaving, Believing

2011-01-04T19:42:00.004+13:00

Former vampire novelist Anne Rice decided to leave the Catholic church and the name 'Christian' part way through 2010, after returning to Catholicism, the faith of her childhood, in 1998. But she still claims very definitely to follow Christ, to read the Scriptures daily and e.g. to read biblical scholarship. I note the last point as it's always nice to see people reading the work of some of these scholars.

Here's an interview with her, from Christianity Today.

I've been thinking about what it means to be a follower of Jesus, to belong to 'the Church' and to read Scripture and biblical scholarship - well, for the last five or so years. So this was an interesting interview. Like Anne Rice, (while unlike her, I've only read a smidgeon) I'd also recommend e.g. NT Wright and Craig Keener's works.

Defending the Faith

2011-01-03T16:45:00.017+13:00

Political activists "soapboxing" in New York in 1908. Picture courtesy of Wikipedia.

Many different faiths and belief-systems have apologists of some kind or another - people who defend their beliefs, explaining why they're actually reasonable and why you should hold them, even though they may appear other than reasonable or desirable. Many of these people spend a large portion of their time engaged in this curious activity. I say 'curious' as I sometimes find it strange that upright bipeds should care so much about the ideas they have concerning the ultimate nature of reality. Going by my limited knowledge of other primates, I'd be inclined to think a few more bananas or other tropical fruit would satisfy us; though such a belief would be patently ridiculous.

I spend quite a bit of time reading what they write, these 'apologists'. The vast majority of the time I spend in this way is spent reading stuff that broadly falls into this category from Christians, atheists (and other secularists) and Muslims.

Sometimes what I read simply confuses me. Certain kinds of apologist are dishonest in the extreme. I say 'in the extreme' not because I'm accusing anyone at the moment of being a blatant lier but because it is subtle and frustrating, but clear to those who have some background in reasoning and e.g. reading the New Testament texts. When it comes to complex details around textual criticism (of either Christian or Muslim scriptures) and conflicting details, say, from the Hadith about the life of the prophet Muhammed, I can understand mistakes being made and errors through lack of careful scholarship. No one is perfect and the 'copy-paste' function is easily accessible. But in other cases, amazingly bold and easily falsifiable assertions are made; particularly in friendly forums.

I've now edited the rest, as I made a mistake. Oops.

Here's an interesting quote I just found on one Muslim site, run by a popular Islamic apologist, Bassam Zawadi. His apologetics is of a reasonably high quality. I didn't read the article properly initially, so misinterpreted what he said - so the quotes from Romans aren't directly relevant now. He said:

“Nowhere in the Bible do we see people believing in Jesus Christ's coming to die for our sins and therefore making them righteous and perfect before God.”

In response, I'd point to Hebrews 11. Maybe there are other places too - I can't think of passages that deal with those who came before Christ off the top of my head. It's pretty clear to me that those saved, from whatever time period, were saved by Christ's work, not their own works.

It was silly of me to pick up on what was a fairly incidental comment, albeit a bold one. That distracts from the main points being made at such sites. The apologist's main argument in the particular article under assessment was that other people in the OT are called "sinless" or similar things, so Jesus isn't special. The quotes tend to be from the poetic books. One of them is from Psalm 18 (vs 23), a psalm of David. We all know that David wasn't sinless, so basing the argument on passages like that isn't too convincing.

I'm curious whether the prophet Muhammed ever sinned. Perhaps he did not.

Maybe I'll have to think about all this a bit more, to work out and explain the relationship between the Old Testament, Jesus and Islam in a way that would make sense to Muslims.

Recently, I've also been reading my way through the book of Romans - i.e. the letter the apostle Paul wrote to the Christian community in Rome just past the middle of the first century - and thinking about faith. Romans is a good letter on this topic. Christian belief, like most beliefs, has its complexities. Reading scripture as a whole, it's clear that mere intellectual assent does not constitute saving faith - but that genuine faith/belief in Jesus nevertheless saves, is the clear witness of the New Testament. There are probably numerous places in the bible which refute the above claim, but a few in Romans will do (I give some longer passages (from the NET Bible translation) for context; this leaves some things that I would explain if I were preaching rather than blogging - but in the interests of keeping it short, I highlight the bits that are particularly apposite for my point, leaving you to ponder the rest):

3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed – 3:22 namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. 3:24 But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 3:25 God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed.

3:28 For we consider that a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the works of the law.

4:4 Now to the one who works, his pay is not credited due to grace but due to obligation. 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous, his faith is credited as righteousness.

5:1 Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 5:2 through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory.

10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law: “The one who does these things will live by them.” 10:6 But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) 10:7 or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). 10:8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach), 10:9 because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10:10 For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation. 10:11 For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” 10:12 For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him. 10:13 For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.

I have often made vague promises about future posts and not fulfilled them, as my attention has been caught by other topics and/or exams and the like. However; in a future post, I intend to give more verses which explain the relationship between Jesus' death, our faith and our standing before God. Soli Deo Gloria

C&H

2011-01-02T20:04:00.007+13:00

Since I can't really be funny by myself, I'll try and point you to people who can.

This is the least inappropriate recent Cyanide & Happiness comic: http://www.explosm.net/comics/2275/ and I laughed, kinda, too.

This one was almost quite funny as well: http://www.explosm.net/comics/2270/

This is interesting, is from Nietzsche and is titled "for the New Year", so it must be appropriate:
http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2011/01/for-the-new-year.html

Have a nice day/evening.

Oh, gravity - a rhyming conversation

2011-01-01T08:12:00.013+13:00

The rise of the New Atheism
Cruelly halted by the gravity
Of th’ human situation
(Evil is real; now, how do we deal with it?)

“The world is amoral!”
("but science is good
And religion, surely, inexorably
Bad.")

Mere naïve nonsense;
A dying intellectual fad

“But, you don’t believe in gods like Thor(!)
You’re virtually an atheist;
Come on, just take off one more!”

No. I’m a trinitarian monotheist.
My world comes with ordered laws
(moral, logical, physical)
But hopeless and irrational - that’s yours

“‘Fine tuning’ is mere whimsicality
Many universes eliminate
Any improbability!”

Precisely.
The multiverse is science’s hearse
Yet won’t kill God or compensate
For the fact this world is no fluke show

We’ve grown out of religion, we’ve got too old!
Beliefs and metanarratives change and evolve
I see no reason to trust what you say
Your brain’s no better than that of a monkey!

Tu Quoque .

“I’m a rationalist, humanist, scientist;
A believer in our ability
to shape our destiny!”

So you believe in human rationality,
dignity, free will and an ordered universe..
And you’re an atheist?
God help you.

Well, .. maybe I’m a deist!
It’s possible naturalism has missed
A little bit here and there, but it’s nothing
like your crazy parochial faith

Is God personal?
Did God choose to come to earth and save people?
Is the true story of God found in the Bible?
These are good questions; you’re on the right path.

'Der erste Trunk'

2010-12-28T14:41:00.002+13:00

I don't know much about physics, but Heisenberg knew a bit. He said, apparently:

"Der erste Trunk aus dem Becher der Naturwissenschaft macht atheistisch, aber auf dem Grund des Bechers wartet Gott."

Regardless of whether he said it, I like it.

my translation: the first drink from the cup of natural science makes [one] atheistic, but at the base of the cup waits God.

I post this as it was an excuse to use my German and as, in between a few books I'm trying to finish, I'm slowly working my way through a few articles on science, belief, empiricism, intelligent design and other fun stuff. I came across this in the search and the blog seemed to want feeding. Now I've started, its appetite has been awakened, but we'll see if something novel can be found; otherwise it may just have to run on empty.

21st C Nativity

2010-12-26T11:23:00.005+13:00

Here's some post-Christmas humour: http://www.suslik.org/Humour/Religion/xmas.html#elves

Thanks to Dr Peoples at http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/ for the link

More on Christmas & Xmas, from CS Lewis; thanks to Victor Reppert's 'Dangerous Idea': https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=2640934164108243826

what's the use?

2010-12-23T14:49:00.002+13:00

From 'the Voyage of the Dawn Treader' (p 137 in my copy):

'But what manner of use would it be ploughing through that Darkness?' asked Drinian.
'Use?' replied Reepicheep. 'Use, Captain? If by use you mean filling our bellies and our purses, I confess it will be no use at all. So far as I know we did not set sail to look for things useful but to seek honour and adventure. And here is as great an adventure as ever I heard of, and here, if we turn back, no little impeachment of all our honours.

Let us dare treat life as an adventure; with Another's honour more important than our own.

The Ultimate Presence

2010-12-21T12:28:00.026+13:00

All I want for Xmas is a gigantic awesome remote controlled attack helicopter!!!

Someone needs to equip one of these with some kind of paintball weaponry and have war games. Please?!

I've never been a huge fan of Christmas. Maybe I've never really got awesome presents (since when I was small, when most presents count as pretty awesome), maybe I've never really had lots of money to spend on presents or noone to buy for, or maybe a combo of all the above; with other reasons beside, no doubt.

But for a little while now, I have been a fan of Jesus. Not his number one fanboy; I'm a bit too cautious, wannabe-intellectual and introverted for that, but a fan nonetheless. I was going to write a screed here, off the top of my skull; and I may get around to that, but first, I am reminded by my prologue of this curious little song, courtesy of Owl City: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMdv603yr1A "I believe that Jesus is truly the only way; I celebrate Christmas [even though sometimes I cringe about what we've done to it] because it's his birthday."

I figure, now, that my attempts at poetry are more accessible than a 'dear Diary' about faith, virgins, mangers and astrologers (as fascinating as that sounds). So, here's a little something, in the celebrated 'stream of consciousness' style, I was in the process of scribing:

Let me tell you a story.
It doesn’t get boring
It shall not get old
Or pass into the past
Without leaving its mark

It’s a story of grace

This stuff can’t be bought or sold
But let it be sought, and told
Let the sound resound at last
In the marketplace, the public square
and hiding places; halls of fear

‘Cause: God’s love has a face

The medium is the message
The raising of the negligible
Planned from the start
It is stark and powerful
Beautiful, a making new

Slowing right down the pace

Learning to communicate,
Seeking the truth
We will triangulate
Upon something worthwhile;
A trinitarian mystery.

Making sense of the race

Both far and near;
This God has come here
Changing murky to clear
And allowing a new start
For the new year.

Happy Christmas

The early CS Lewis

2010-12-14T11:33:00.004+13:00

I've thought briefly about this English professor recently and am looking forward to watching the new Narnia movie soon. I was pleased to just find this nice little article on his early letters; i.e. letters written prior to his adult decision to follow Jesus Christ, in 1931.

Not infrequently, you will find claims that atheists who convert were never really genuine in their disbelief. I find such claims a little ridiculous, for instance in how they blithely import Christian ideals of belief into an incohesive atheistic worldview (i.e. if atheism is true, the concept of 'genuine' belief is a little strange) - but anyway, have a read if you like:
http://www.sydneyanglicans.net/archive/indepth/the_epistles_of_lewis/

found via: http://www.dangerousidea.blogspot.com/ (2nd post on Sunday 12 Dec) and an internet search.

The moral for me - and I have seen it in my own life - is that unbelief need not be permanent.

land of the long cloud

2010-12-03T23:16:00.002+13:00

This article from the NZ herald concerns me. Obviously we're all aware that child abuse happens, but this story helped to make it more real. That child deserved a hug and a happy home. Children are so precious; it is upsetting.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10691793

While good intentions are to some extent praiseworthy, I'm not sure about the necessity or level of benefit of government-provided preschool for under 2s. Emotional reactions, whatever political direction they're coming from are of little help. Perhaps more preschool care is a useful band-aid, but it's not getting at the real issues of abuse and neglect. Maybe it's a good way to ensure a minimal standard of care for our young people - sad and troubling if many of our families really have reached that point. More secure funding for Plunkett would seem to be a very good idea. There are benefits that come from them being a community rather than govt organisation, but whatever the organisational situation, having more caring nurses out in the community aware of all that's happening on the ground could only be a good thing. (It's the kind of service churches could perhaps have provided if we had not lost the goodwill of many in this nation.)

We need a cultural change; we need hearts that care passionately about the issues, but not only that; we need minds that understand the real problems in our society (including the structures supporting and failing to oppose them) and willing hands to do the hard costly work required to enact the change.

A gem:

2010-12-03T22:54:00.002+13:00

"There is no argument that alcohol is one of the constant and significant ingredients in alcohol-related incidents”

This is of course taken slightly out of context, but as a philosophy student I find it humourous.
It is from a serious contribution to the 'drinking age' debate from a while back.

time to question atheism, yet again; broken record, I know

2010-12-03T09:02:00.015+13:00

Sorry, first off, for the poor structuring/layout/whatever-it's called. 'Formatting' - that's the one. I find it a hassle and can't be bothered getting the html to work. But anyway:

Sometimes I read richarddawkins.net. I'm not really proud of this, but it fills in the time.

Rich likes to show off the emails he gets from crazies. Fair enough; but if he wants to point and laugh at crazies, he should read the forums on his site. Given what you see in various internet forums and comments lists, populated by ignorant young men with self-esteem issues, I can imagine sites such as "reasonablefaith.org" must also receive some interesting emails.

More interesting however for me is the section of the site labelled "converts corner" and the associated "Good" emails that Rich has received. Their spelling, let alone comprehension of the issues, is little better than that of Dawkins' specially-picked (for the purposes of mocking) opponents.

This is an interesting quote:

I was reading on your website the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly section and it
just amazes me how so many christians, who preach about the love and compassion of their religion, can say such vile things, but I think they really need to look in the mirror when they say atheists are "dumb, clueless and hateful", as was quoted in one of the letters from your site. I don't see atheists trying to
brainwash people, or telling people that they're doing to burn in some imaginary hell... that's awful. Atheism has never caused any wars or mass murders.

I do see atheists, a la Dawkins, trying to brainwash people - and lack of belief in God has sadly, I would suggest, been a contributing factor in a number of wars and mass-murders. Incidentally, I don't believe in "some imaginary hell". Unfortunately, I believe in a real one, of some sort. Maybe those who reject God are 'just' extinguished; either way, it's not the best way to go.

Presumably Rich's people are fairly proud of this letter, the first in their list. It's quite revealing -

I've highlighted the interesting and some of the more questionable bits in blue. Commentary below.

I must thank you immensly for your work. I'm getting to the end of your
fantastic book 'The god delusion' and couldn't wait until the end to thank you.
I first got to know about you through Mr Brown's book 'tricks of the mind'.
Having been raised quite alike him in an evangelic christian community, I
related a lot to his story. So, I had to get hold of the book to which he is so elogious.
I gave up my parents (and my) beliefs sometime around my teenage years.
Thinking more and more about my received teachings, I arrived to the simple
conclusion that they just conflicted with common sense! In the past, i've found
myself cornered by my lack of knowledge, which gave the christian defending his
beliefs automatic (perceived in his sense) victory! Needless to say how
nauseating this is. Your book is a gold mine of proof that i hope will put in
doubt every religious believing person that crosses my way from now on.

Another teenager rejects his parents beliefs (or, taking a literal reading, perhaps gave up his parents?), apparently without knowing too much about them (evangelic?). Since when should 'common sense' accord with reality, given atheism/naturalism? e.g. Dennett is rather keen on rejecting common sense - well, when it suits anyway.

"A gold mine of proof". Wow. Just.. wow.

I leave you with some more gems. If you like them, step in to my shoes and/or come visit my bookshelf.

I see the irrationality of religion. My hope is that other
will see the true light. Thank you again. I won't hesitate
to speak my mind and support my position if challenged by
an irrational religious person!

--
The fervour with which exponents of religious ideals evangelise their
beliefs on an un-informed public, needs to be met with an equally zealous
counteract, to educate and inform.
--
Incidentally my atheist enlightenment came from understanding that the attraction of two magnets could be explained by physics! I used to carry two plastic magnetic turtles into my Belfast Sunday 'school' in the hope that they would repel the irrational lunacy that I was being force fed, and attract some rational thought.
--
Now, I am still amazed at the complexity of nature. But it is nature itself, and not such a sill book written by cavemen, that reveals to us the truths of this world. I have finally found my true religion, which is no religion.
----
----
If you're not tired yet, read this and the comments to get some grip on people's twisted view of the world: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/676 Some are actually proud of the fact that they can't understand Plantinga's argument, or complain that they get a headache from reading it. I could go on; but I humbly suggest that if you think you're smarter than this guy, it is quite likely you haven't read his work carefully enough. If you're an atheist posting comments on Dawkins' website and you think you're smarter than Plantinga, I would like to meet you - I will most probably laugh. I do appreciate it however when people try to actually engage with careful Christian thought - kudos to those people.

though we know it not

2010-11-27T15:30:00.001+13:00

a poem

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2010/11/herder-on-the-dream-of-life.html

and a question

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/03/fred-sommers-abandons-whitehead-and-metaphysics-for-logic.html

finally

2010-11-27T14:49:00.003+13:00

It's quite gratifying to get good marks occasionally. My last two (in both senses - I probably won't be doing any more philosophy for a while, if ever) philosophy courses gained me A+s to help drag my grade point average up a little. I feel an A+ in philosophy is somehow particularly noble, though am not sure why. I finally feel too like I might finally be almost living up to my potential in philosophy. But to balance this, I know I didn't put a huge amount of work in to the courses, particularly the second one. Lectures were missed and revision largely consisted in me trying to reinvent the field with the help of the internet, as that was more interesting. I didn't have much background in it for a stage 3 course and to be honest, it seems I snuck in between the academic cracks using my native intelligence; competing against people who, as interested as they may claim to be in philosophy, have been blessed with less of this as well as with less interesting ideas (i.e. I know how to be controversial without going too far) and of course, along with everyone else I've been taking advantage of general grade inflation. I find it hard to believe that high marks in advanced courses have always been given out so easily as they would seem to be now, particularly in Arts courses.

Comparing all this with my molecular biology papers is potentially a little depressing, but to some extent the same goes there, in that I don't have much background in this field either - the difference is that in that realm, it actually shows up in my marks. I can start to see the stereotype of an Arts degree kind of course in my philosophy papers; pity I've only really just got used to the art of intelligently bullsh*tting as that part of my degree comes to an end. Of course, I tend to believe what I write, but I know full well that it isn't particularly rigorous or even, usually, novel - I just also know that it's better than what my classmates are writing.

Taking another tack, I particularly enjoy getting good marks for defending Christian orthodoxy in fields which are generally presumed to have 'gotten over it'. Perhaps I have postmodernism and the tolerant pluralistic society to thank, but I'm seeing that Christian faith stands up well when articulated clearly and when in critical dialogue with other options on offer in the marketplace of ideas.

Where, o death? Pike River

2010-11-24T17:44:00.004+13:00

So it turns out the the miners trapped at the Pike River Coal Mine have died, perhaps en masse - in the recent second explosion if they weren't already killed in the first.

Thousands of people around New Zealand prayed that they might be discovered alive; from the prime minister downwards - but it looks like this hope won't be fulfilled for any of the remaining miners. Were these prayers pointless? Is it time to shrug in confusion and continue life as usual, or reassess how we're going about it all? "If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"?

Is prayer just a futile attempted exercise in wish fulfillment? Is it necessarily silly? Is the universe ultimately a giant fluke of many atoms, bizarrely ordered; and occasionally heart-wrenchingly disordered, with no-one pulling any strings - or somewhere out there is there someone who cares? Where's the evidence? What kind of evidence do we want?

Why do people die? Why do many die 'before their time'? What is a life well lived and what is robbed from those who die early; and if there is any such thing, by whom is it stolen? If life is not perfect, or if we are not, what is the cause? Where do the ideals we have come from and do they hold any real value?

Death comes for all of us. Some of us are killed by carbon monoxide poisoning, others by an explosion, others by cancer, car crashes, drowning, heart attack, murder or chilling accident. Life matters. I hold too, that the ending of a life is truly significant. It's not just a subtle shift in the configuration of a particular collocation of atoms. But why might I think this?

I commend to your attention and study 1 Cor: 15, particularly from verse 12 onwards. I like the option this site gives you to 'listen' to the scriptures; why not check it out?

to keep up a theme - may as well stay true to the blog's subtitle

2010-11-23T20:10:00.003+13:00

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

In my travels I've met a number of committed people of faith from non-Christian families, in some of the most unexpected places, like the Anglican Church - now I've almost come to expect it when out and about in churchy circles.

Here's one I haven't met, a New Zealander who's associated with people I have. Here he briefly talks about marriage and what it might mean, a topic on which I have no clue but am also starting to develop some views. I'll leave the discussion to him. The blog is a collective one called 'kiwifruit' as it's about bearing fruit of the gospel here in New Zealand.

http://www.kiwifruitblog.org/2010/11/dont-hide-distinctives.html#more

women of the reformation

2010-11-23T11:32:00.001+13:00

struggling to find something to post here - too much to do and rather little motivation

this was interesting tho: http://theresurgence.com/2010/11/14/awesome-women-of-the-reformation

nano to meet you

2010-11-13T08:01:00.002+13:00

it seems to me that out of Christians involved in the upper echelons of science, a disproportionate number are involved in Nanotechnology. Why is this? Is Nanotechnology not real science or is it particularly good science, is it coincidence, or am I quite wrong in my supposition?

I think, at least, of James Tour, Cees Dekker, Richard Smalley (deceased, Nobel Prize), Jeff Tallon (NZ) and a couple of British professors at Oxford and Imperial College whose names I can't remember.

Soon I'll write an article of some kind vaguely relating to this kind of thing.

In the mean-time, for some pretty pictures, here's a project relating to one of these people:
http://ceesdekkerlab.tudelft.nl/art-of-science/

yet, I see

2010-11-03T13:04:00.004+13:00

A piece of prose from Jack Kerouak, turned into free-flowing poetry of sorts by moi
(apparently this section provides the context)

Yet I saw the cross
just then
when I closed my eyes
after writing all this.
I cant escape its mysterious
penetration
into all this brutality.

I just simply
SEE it
all the time,
even the Greek cross
sometimes.
I hope it will
all turn out true.

random quotes, sayings and stuff like that

2010-11-02T10:26:00.002+13:00

"Anyone who can say with a straight face that Hitler was a Christian.. overdid the plastic surgery." - me

"abortion is highly questionable" - an atheist philosopher from a top UK university

"Wenn du dass glaubst, werdst du mich sehen und verstehen was ich mein wenn ich sag ich will Frei sein." Xavier Naidoo

[Christianity] “was dreamed up by illiterate goatherds 2,000 years ago” – AC Grayling

"If you don’t like the fact that God has intentions for your life, I suggest you simply do not know what those intentions are." - me

[my name] isn't rich

2010-11-01T18:12:00.003+13:00

but Google's sponsored links seem to think so. I sent an email to a friend mentioning "the economics of energy markets" and Google gave me an ad on the sidebar for a BMW dealer in NZ. That was kind of them. Sending emails about science or philosophy (or God!) don't seem to have the same result.

Perhaps this is a hint that I really should keep going with the economics if I want to make money. Fortunately for my sanity, I've given up the "make lots of moolah" plan. I'd probs go with a Porsche anyway.

sermon draft: the beginning of the Church; radical Jesus community

2010-10-25T19:28:00.005+13:00

picture of a model of the 2nd temple in Jerusalem, courtesy of Wikipedia

(From the NET Bible):
Acts 2:42 They were devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 2:43 Reverential awe came over everyone, and many wonders and miraculous signs came about by the apostles. 2:44 All who believed were together and held everything in common, 2:45 and they began selling their property and possessions and distributing the proceeds to everyone, as anyone had need. 2:46 Every day they continued to gather together by common consent in the temple courts, breaking bread from house to house, sharing their food with glad and humble hearts, 2:47 praising God and having the good will of all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number every day those who were being saved.

---

If you know much about the book of Acts, you may have noticed that today’s passage gives an account directly following the event of Pentecost, in Jerusalem. I wonder though, does anyone know what the original Jewish festival was about? Why were people celebrating it and why was it called ‘Pentecost’, for instance?

..

It celebrated the giving of the law on Mt Sinai, after Israel’s central event figuring and prefiguring salvation – the Exodus from Egypt. God had saved his people from slavery in Egypt, the time partly covered in the movies “Joseph, Prince of Dreams” and “Moses, Prince of Egypt”. This was celebrated yearly at the time of the Passover. And then, after Egypt, God gave a framework for his community; the law, including the 10 commandments. The feast of the law, or the feast of weeks as it came 7 weeks after Passover, was the feast of Pentecost.

Jesus was crucified at the time of the Passover festival, we find in all 4 gospels – and in the light of this new, final salvation event, God creates a new community, at the feast of Pentecost. It’s over simplifying it, but we could say that while the old community of Israel was centred on the Law of God – the new Israel, was a community of the love of God, empowered by the Holy Spirit.

The new community is the Church, a vibrant, attractive, missional community. Let’s look at what this passage says about what it means to be a part of this community.

I’m fairly convinced that the Church is worth being committed to. Christian community is worth my time, worth our time. The early Church agreed; we see in our passage in Acts that they met every day, fellowshipping together, praying, eating together and devoting themselves to the doctrine, the teaching of the apostles.

But the modern world disagrees with me; if you agree with me about the importance of Christian community, it probably disagrees with you too, tho perhaps in different ways. Many of you have been around longer than me, so you know what it’s like. Sometimes it disagrees emphatically, but generally apathetically; sometimes I’d also say just pathetically. What we don’t see so much in the modern world is what we read about in this passage in Acts. A little while after Jesus’ death and resurrection the number of people identifying themselves as following Jesus in community in Jerusalem had just grown from 120 to 3000plus people and it was still growing. People joined up on a daily basis.
In New Zealand, how many churches could claim this? None, let us be honest. Now some tell us that in fact we see a trend towards disbelief that can only continue; we see atheists loud and proud, in certain areas anyway, including some populist billboards. Atheists are a real phenomenon and I think most of the church has ignored them for too long. It seems to me that we see people asking questions that have already been answered (to some extent) by the Church, but they don’t know it because the Church is not, unlike the Church of Acts, saying anything in public. We see other religions increasingly prominently in our country as well – if we cede the public sphere further in favour of some kind of privatised religion, we will probably see people converting to these other religions because they claim to offer something the secular world does not. I think we’ve seen this for quite a while in things like the popularity of psychics, crystals, horoscopes and other New Age phenomena. But all of this is not the whole story; the extent to which Christian faith is widespread and maybe even growing, under the secular and pluralist surface continues to amaze me sometimes – I could give various examples. It’s not all bad news for the Church, by any means.

We do have a Church in New Zealand and we will for many years to come, of some sort. Yet frankly what I think we, the reasonably affluent western Church of middle class suburbia, lack in comparison to Acts is the devotion in this passage. If we were actually committed to living out the things in this passage, we would be more visible. Devotion in combination with sound understanding is a powerful mix. On a related note, I love vocal atheists, for instance I really like billboards which try to be clever about religion; and one of the reasons is that they help to clarify things, including, by the way, how dull the ‘New Atheist’ movement really is. The masses in New Zealand float around the middle somewhere, interested in Jesus but not too close to the Church, pulled in one direction or another by popular culture and if the Church’s doors are open, maybe God will yet pull many more in.

Ok, so I’m advocating devotion, but devotion to what? Clearly devotion to God is important for a people claiming to be God’s people; a Church, but this should have practical, visible outworkings and we need devotion to living these out. I can’t tell you what commitment to Jesus should look like for you. I can tell you something about what it looked like in the early church and some of the consequences the world saw of that commitment. I’m told it’s traditional to have three main points in a sermon, so here’s an attempt:

*Firstly it’s commitment to the teachings of the apostles – those who had been with Jesus and were sent out as teachers.
*Secondly these people are committed to fellowship and hospitality; to each other and building up the community
*Thirdly, commitment to prayer.

The rest of what we see happening follows from these. I’ll let you think about some of those details and I’ll focus on the three points.

But first, note that these weren’t self-initiated. This community wasn’t a nice idea a few people had – it only existed in response to what God had done and particularly it was in response to a single sermon which the apostle Peter had preached at the time of Pentecost.

So, a quick look at the first point of commitment; the teachings of the apostles:
Peter was a rock on which the Church was built – the way he built up the church was through preaching through key passages of hope in the Old Testament, relating them to Jesus. Public proclamation of God’s word to a receptive audience bore fruit. This was what I was trying to get at earlier – the Church was visible as a community, it made sure the truth about God was heard – this is still important today. This fruit was developed through further study of the word and the apostles’ teachings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, which we have collected in the New Testament.

Secondly, the early Church was committed to radical hospitality. The Greco-Roman world saw the way that these people treated each other and it showed up as different. The same opportunity exists in today’s individualistic society. Many people want to be able to rely on the state, I suspect because they don’t trust their family, neighbours and community to be reliable. The Church can offer a different kind of hospitality and generosity; I hope that this stands out. The early Church realised that their resources were not their own; they sold them as resources were needed by the community. Not for the sake of some communist or communitarian ideal but because of need and the simple realisation that assets are generally not given to you by God to be sat on. By common consent, these people lived sacrificially.

The Jesus community straight after Pentecost, which had just seen 3000 people added to their numbers could easily have been self-satisfied or triumphalist about their situation. Instead, they committed to prayer as a community. How much more is this necessary in situations like ours today?

Devotion is hard work and it hurts. It’s not the same thing as hype. I’ve seen Christian hype, you probably have too; and I’ve seen it fail - but I’ve also seen the real effects that people genuinely excited for Jesus can have. So there’s a balance there I guess. If there’s one thing the early Church in this passage models that the Church could do with more of, it’s commitment. Not commitment to structures or buildings, but to the unchanging sound truth of the apostles’ teaching, to a way of living that is painful; costly and joyful – and to prayer, which binds it all together.

The challenge I see in this passage is to ask: am I committed to working out my commitment in these three ways? I think so. If we want to see salvation come to people around us, these things are worth working on, in God’s community.

polytheism, monotheism, atheism and the number of husbands

2010-10-22T17:25:00.002+13:00

It's fairly frequently said that much as 'Religion' developed from polytheism to monotheism, we can expect intelligent members of society to catch on to the trend, adopt atheism and for society to gain commensurate benefits.

To my mind, this blatantly commits something like the "xkcd extrapolating fallacy". This should be avoided.

http://xkcd.com/605/

Naturalism is a drastic cure searching for a disease. The bogeyman of 'Religion' does not cut it.

Get rid of God and you lose a lot, including some of your own footing. The phrase "self-defeating" is one which avid naturalists need to learn, relearn and check their thoughts against before they're verbalised too vocally. The turn to monotheism prevented the worship of nature and self - attempting to remove God seems to just result in retrogression. Let's not go there.

a quale of quail

2010-10-10T19:46:00.006+13:00

Yesterday, I had the quale (experience) of, whilst it was quiet and I was walking up my street, seeing two female (I think) quail on a rail (fence top) - it was quite exciting and quaint really. We used to get quail, including baby quail quite frequently wandering up and down our street, until all the neighbours got cats and the good old days switched over into the 21st Century.

I partly write this as I'm studying the philosophy of mind, a course in which I'd like to learn more about qualia (the plural of quale) and free will but won't, maybe because the course has a bit of a physicalist bias and maybe also because these topics can soon get horrendously complex. As a side note, I half-expected the course would turn me into a physicalist (presumably a Christian one - there are some VERY good philosophers in this category) and we'd read lots of stuff by Dennett and maybe I'd do really badly or have to pretend to be a Dennett fan, but it didn't turn out that way (or hasn't so far anyway). I actually got an A+ (93%) for a blatantly theistic essay promoting dualism (not because I felt particularly attached to it so much as just cos I saw a possible gap and wanted to be controversial and run for it) - not a particularly great essay by any account, I had thought. Sooo, that's a bonus. I also partly write this as I'm meant to be writing an essay and am trying to work out how to fit qualia into it, which reminded me of the quail, 'as you [they] do [would]', as they say.

This was just a ramble, but it might encourage me to post more frequently at this blog again. I've been genuinely busy recently, but much of the busyness was probably closely related to the act of being slouched in my chair absent-mindedly scrolling through facebook late at night rather than reviewing lectures on topics I don't really care about; so its value as an excuse is small, a bit like the non-existent baby quail in my street.

since when is it funny to insult people without mercy?

2010-09-27T22:00:00.000+13:00

Since today, that's when.

Intelligence Officer

2010-09-24T22:00:00.002+12:00

If my university education all goes to custard and/or no one wants to employ me afterwards (particularly likely if I avoid / make a mess of biology and attempt to enter the murky depths of academic philosophy), I could presumably be an "Intelligence Officer" with the RNZAF. Surely the skill set required isn't too formidable and it sounds like the kind of job which a doctorate or two would help in obtaining. Pay is $14.42 an hour! (up to $33.65) At that rate, I'll have my loan for a few decades, but at least I'll be happy and my intelligence could hardly fail to be recognised. If necessary, I would wear a badge.

..

paidea - education

2010-09-18T14:15:00.000+12:00

Cornell West challenges the plebs and the rest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r5wjXl8IEE

weighing the facts

2010-09-18T10:34:00.003+12:00

Many atheists are annoyed at how they are, as they see it, misunderstood by Christians.

The fact - and it is indeed a fact - that many people do not treat atheists and their views fairly and with respect does very little to show that the atheists themselves really understand what they are themselves critiquing.

Hypocrisy is rife, integrity is valuable and the truth matters. This is the world we live in.

There is a kind of faith that is easily lost, but I'd rather not have it

2010-09-18T10:29:00.001+12:00

read this if you want

http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2010/08/clergy-who-lose-their-faith----james-howells-reflections.html

billboards

2010-09-11T21:32:00.002+12:00

I'm quite enjoying this site: http://www.nogod.org.nz/generator/?page=0

Some of the Christian ones are ok (I may have added a couple) and there are a few I'm not sure about - are these people atheists or mocking and/or just internet trolls like me?

Arguably one of my favourites is:
"Excuse me? Aren't you to old to have a imaginary friend?"
(Old enough to have passed through primary school in any case.)

By no means are crude errors in spelling and grammar the least impressive thing about The Internet Atheists. Sorry guys, but telling everyone else how smart you are isn't as great as you may think, particularly when so many of your assertions are demonstrably false.

it's a catch CO2, or release CO2, situation

2010-08-30T21:18:00.003+12:00

I'm quite looking forward to being able to drive and owning a car; maybe in a few weeks, all going well. Cars create CO2. CO2 is bad. That's a problem. Maybe I just need to plant more trees (like, at least one) - but trees cost money and money doesn't grow on trees (not that I have any trees anyway). The alternative of non-independence isn't too appealing however.

I figure I'll make up for it later. The same logic which can justify a host of evils. But I NEED this, right?

Christians are so ... urgh.

2010-08-29T19:25:00.003+12:00

The Onion makes me cry. Or cringe, in any case. Come on everyone; cringe with me!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/kind-bearded-christian-has-guitar-story-to-tell,926/

this one's interesting too: http://www.theonion.com/articles/smart-qualified-people-behind-the-scenes-keeping-a,17954/ particularly this salient point: "the reality is most of the smart, qualified people in this country are wasting away in assistant professorships at struggling public universities or making millions of dollars in some venture capital group. In fact, that's exactly the kind of job I would have right now if I were a real person. Which I'm not."

Don't be offended, but

2010-08-29T17:48:00.006+12:00

(in other words, get ready to cry);

In letting this blog run downhill, at least in title choice, I was just trying to communicate at your level,

or the level of the hypothetical "you" who reads this blog.

BUT
I've decided, after relative failure in that regard and now that I almost have a break from uni and some time to think, that I'll forget about targeting this blog to the audience I know it gets atm and just write stuff that I care about. If you don't like it, the internet is a free country. As it were.

True humour

2010-08-26T19:57:00.006+12:00

From an absolute master (Plantinga) comes this review of science and religion in the standard free philosophical reference, the SEP. You may not laugh much, but it is brilliant, in an appropriately subtle way. There is a reason why this man has, arguably, nigh on single-handedly (with the help of some of his cronies and students) transformed the landscape of analytical philosophy of religion in recent decades.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

Here's a taste:

For example, suppose I tell you that I saw you at the mall yesterday afternoon. Then with respect to part of your total evidence base—a part that includes your knowledge that I told you I saw you there, together with your knowledge that I have decent vision and am ordinarily reliable, and the like—the right thing to think is that you were at the mall. Nevertheless, we may suppose, you know perfectly well that you weren't there; you remember that you were home all afternoon thinking about methodological naturalism. Here the right thing to think from the perspective of a proper part of your evidence base is that you were at the mall; but this does not give you a defeater for your belief that you were not there. Another example: we can imagine a renegade group of whimsical physicists proposing to reconstruct physics, refusing to use memory beliefs, or if that is too fantastic, memories of anything more than 1 minute ago. Perhaps something could be done along these lines, but it would be a poor, paltry, truncated, trifling thing. And now suppose that the best theory, from this limited evidence base, is inconsistent with general relativity. Should that give pause to the more traditional physicists who employ what they know by way of memory as well as what the renegade physicists use? I should think not. This truncated physics could hardly call into question physics of the fuller variety, and the fact that from a proper part of the scientific evidence base, something inconsistent with general relativity is the best theory—that fact would hardly give more traditional physicists a defeater for general relativity.

Similarly for the case under question. The traditional Christian thinks she knows by faith that Jesus was divine and that he rose from the dead. But then she need not be moved by the fact that these propositions are not especially probable on the evidence base to which HBC [Historical Biblical Criticism - ME] limits itself—i.e., one constrained by MN [Methodological Naturalism - ME] and therefore one that deletes any knowledge or belief dependent upon faith. The findings of HBC, if findings they are, need not give her a defeater for those of her beliefs with which they are incompatible. The point is not that HBC, evolutionary psychology and other scientific theorizing couldn't in principle produce defeaters for Christian belief; the point is only that its coming up with theories incompatible with Christian belief doesn't automatically produce such a defeater.

Plantinga, Alvin, "Religion and Science", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/religion-science/

bloody haemoglobin!

2010-08-26T08:53:00.006+12:00

Eating my breakfast, trying to focus on an upcoming biochemistry test (largely on oxygen-transporting metalloproteins) this (the title) was all I could think for a few seconds - quite depressing; then I realised the irony.

EDIT(2) - lol - 'irony', gettit??.. heme, iron - wow.

As for the 'Root Effect'; ah .. well, you can perhaps guess my thoughts around that one.

EDIT: after a few mins of study, I am more fond of haemoglobin. It is, like much of biochem, so freakin' clever. Whoever made this stuff, I take my hat off to you. As one of my first year lecturers said, (something like) "God is a very subtle biochemist - that's worth thinking about." Two negative allosteric effectors (which reduce oxygen binding, i.e. make haemoglobin give up the O2 it is holding) are carbon dioxide (indirectly, through reactions producing H+ and the Cl- shuttled into red blood cells, to replace hydrogencarbonate, by a Cl- transporter) and higher temperature. It just so happens that both of these conditions are found in exercising muscle, thus facilitating the exchange of O2 for CO2 here and keeping you folks alive. We see here a tight, tight relationship between the structure of the haemoglobin protein tetramer, its function (influenced in the 'right direction' by various different molecules/conditions) and its environment - but at the whole organism level of oxygen transport as well as at the molecular. E.g (as above): the temperature increase in skeletal muscle cells which is a side-effect of respiration also happens to affect the haemoglobin protein in the right way for it to function well when it reaches these cells.

More along vaguely similar lines, particularly on the relations between CO2 and HCO3- (as I recall) here:

good times on wikipedia

2010-08-20T20:32:00.004+12:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swallow

"Swallows are excellent fliers, and use these skills to attract a mate, feed and to sometimes carry coconuts."
Or, I am guessing, all three at once!

But, holey maccaroni, I've got to get me a swallow and test this statement.

the writing is on the plant cell wall

2010-08-18T16:42:00.005+12:00

Recently I have perhaps been too callose with myself and others.

I shall cease and desist and instead spend more time working on my puns.

EDIT: it just turns out my lab report due date got extended. Yayness! Now I can celebrate by thinking of more puns, or more probably, by actually doing a decent job of this report and writing an essay on dualism. Yep, dualism.

Incidentally, the title comes from the original 'Writing on the Wall' in Daniel Chapt 6.

This isn't exactly plant or wall related, but if you're reading this you can't have anything too urgent happening: it has struck me recently that in the grand scheme of thrill seeking, danger-finding and ueber-gambling, the board game grandiosely called 'Risk', for all the potential upset when Papua New Guinea invades Western Australia (or such), doesn't really feature. It's a bit like calling your child "King Alfonso III" when you know, given your lifestyle, he's most probably gonna spend the rest of his life selling, using -or a combination of both options- various chemical substances in dark metropolitan alleyways in order to survive and get some enjoyment from life. It's a little unwarranted, but perhaps its inconsistency somehow excuses it.

does that make me a stranger?

2010-08-17T19:54:00.001+12:00

This blog has got more strange recently, I admit.

I blame the current testing environment.

And science - it does weird stuff to you.

my best friend's the curator of the universe

2010-08-16T19:23:00.003+12:00

This title was so good I decided this post should have some content;
to accompany. So:
A little nonsense verse, written from the back of a hearse
well not really - perhaps a horse, though not that either:
(I'll sort out the metre some other time and place;
I'll be sure as sure to change the pace, just a little later.)

So, I've been thinking
about this world, sinking
into mud of our own creation
The weevil, the beagle, the eagle and the ant
all wait in eager anticipation
of their approaching emancipation

You might find that in Galatians
But for surety you'll have to check.
(Above I'd like to add in the tui and the beaver
but they just don't fit.)

The sun shines blue
and the sea waves cheerily
and I'll take this mostly as true
cos if it ain't then we do verily
have a bit of a problem here.
Note that I don't want to scare you.

The tui warbles, as is quite normal -
but I'd rather not take it all for granted.

Rhamnogalacturonan II

2010-08-15T21:30:00.006+12:00

No, it's not a planet in Star-Trek. (Well, it might be - it's been quite a while since I've indulged-in / stooped-to old sci-fi.) Instead, it's one of the most complex molecules in the biosphere. It's a plant polysaccharide domain, a sub-category of the pectic polysaccharides.

I'll post more on this molecule once I've gone and studied about it. It's got something to do with cross-linking other sugars and borate esters. Bioinorganic chemistry is, from my limited knowledge, quite fantabulous.

If this doesn't fascinate you, you either need to get your brain checked or to stop reading this blog. Now. (If you want.)

Nocturnal Omissions

2010-08-15T11:45:00.010+12:00

Decided I should try and stay honest to the banner for once.. Kind of.

I have some interesting stories about uni at night, but I'll keep it P.G. and share this one I've adapted somewhat:

Around 10 o’clock on a Thursday evening, a dude (you can call him Joe if you want) was walking alone, hoping to get from uni to the Sky Tower to catch his bus home, taking a short cut through Albert Park. On the way some guys on drugs of some kind or other jumped out of the bushes from behind, and attacked him; his branded clothing. leather wallet and cellphone were taken (yep, his cellphone - these people had no mercy) and he was left moaning on the ground slightly regretting his travel decision. Note that this story goes downhill before getting better.

Soon someone came past – the Vice President (VP for short) of the Conservative Christian Club on his way home after a late outreach meeting. He, the VP, wanted to get home in time to read the Bible, as was his custom - and realised that if he stopped for the dude, he’d be later than would be usual for the VP, so he (the VP) prayed for him silently and passed by.

But not to worry, it seems the prayer was answered quickly; for someone else approached from the other direction. She was another religious leader (surprisingly common at uni), this time President of the Bible Study Union, popping into uni for a late prayer meeting and some community-building time. Being quite conscious of personal safety and cleanliness and already late for the important meeting, she hurried by with her coffee, while of course praying for the dude’s health and safety (she intended to work for OSH after graduating).

Next, however, a drunken Engineering student came tipsily near, after leaving a crowd of his rowdy mates, recently having topped up their alcohol levels at Shadz, as was their custom. (Note to the particularly slow or non-NZ reader - this probably isn't going to go too well - we all know about Engineering Students!) He saw the dude, now semi-conscious and no longer moaning, laughed a little and got down on his knees on the gravel, dealt to the dude’s bleeding leg, worked out what had happened to the dude and informed the Police, then sorted and paid for a taxi home for him.

Who acted like a good neighbour for Joe?

Jesus says, “Go and do likewise.”

do you mind?!

2010-08-09T17:51:00.003+12:00

Since I'm looking into the phil of mind, I'll share this fascinating contribution. Enjoy.

My Philosophical Beginning:A Completely Fictional Account
As it happened, I started out as a Cartesian. And I didn't even know it. Here is what happened. Before I had ever heard of philosophy, I was an art student in a small college called the "California Institution for the Artists and Others" (CIAO). The atmosphere at CIAO was bright, energetic, uplifting, and Mediterranean. Naturally we were never short of olive oil. CIAO offered an unusual, strange, bizarre, and unexpected major; world-renowned curriculum in Food Art. Being dazzled by the unusual, strange, bizarre, and unexpected, I promptly signed up for it. One day the instructor gave us a challenging assignment. We were to create an aesthetically assertive model of a body part using edible stuff. I could readily think of several body parts suitable to be modeled by fruits and vegetables. But I had to be above the ordinary and the mundane. I had to transcend the level of simplistic thinking that would have had me make tibiae out of celery stalks or fingers out of ladyfingers. I rejected every idea that occurred to me within the first hour of receiving the assignment. I had to refuse to listen to the societal authorities. I had to reject all conventions. I had to dig down deep to the very foundations of imagination and aesthetic assertiveness. I seated myself quietly in front of a fireplace. Staring at the fire, I concentrated. I wanted my project to be so strong that its impact was inescapably real, not only formally but objectively. I struggled for hours. Then suddenly, an idea presented itself, clearly. I would create a model of a retina. Next I had to choose the edible stuff to use. Again I concentrated in front of the fire. More hours passed. Then suddenly, an idea came to me, distinctly. I would use a sweet potato. Once I had decided on all aspects of the project, I wasted no time. After six days of intense work, during which I especially struggled to achieve a delicate balance between the rods and the cones, I was ready to put the final touch on my creation. I went to an open studio to choose a special dye. I saw my instructor behind a large table. On the table was a series of ten bowls containing ten varieties of ink. I examined them all very carefully before deciding on the third bowl from the end. I held high in my hand my sculpture of a retina made out of a sweet potato. I wanted my instructor to know which dye out of those ten I needed and for what use. I pointed to the bowl I had picked and said:"Eighth Ink, There, For Eye Yam."

H/T: shamelessly stolen from Takashi Yagisawa: http://www.csun.edu/~vcoao0fk/cogito.html

Scary little fulla

2010-08-08T14:18:00.003+12:00

I'm not too sure if this is a fulla or a fullarette, but either way it's pretty cool imho.

Does anyone else think 'Asgard' when they see this?

H/T: Wintery Knight

don't steal this thought - or link back if you do

2010-08-08T14:09:00.004+12:00

This is my considered opinion on the probable recipe for a recent movie:

3/7 ['The Matrix'] + 2/7 ['Oceans 11'] + 1/7 ['Avatar'] + 1/7 ['Titanic'] = ['Inception']

By considered opinion, I mean in this case that it popped into my head (I won't go into the possible details of how it got there) and after a few seconds' thought I see no reason, such as a scary woman with a knife, to deny its veracity.

webcomik or death

2010-08-07T16:44:00.002+12:00

Absolutely splitting my sides with cyanide and happiness - humour FTW!

This one's a bit more serious tho.

http://www.explosm.net/comics/2097/

(I don't want to kill your fun, but I immediately thought of abortion when I saw it.)