April 14, 2006

Pope Benedict XVI: Still Too Catholic

Speaking as one who is decidedly non-religious, the following statement has a lot to recommend it;

At the Third Station of the Cross, where Jesus falls for the first time, Archbishop Comastri has written: “Lord, we have lost our sense of sin. Today a slick campaign of propaganda is spreading an inane apologia of evil, a senseless cult of Satan, a mindless desire for transgression, a dishonest and frivolous freedom, exalting impulsiveness, immorality and selfishness as if they were new heights of sophistication.”

Times Online notes "some will regard their emphasis on sin and the dark side of human nature as retrograde". Oddly enough!

Full text of the meditations at the Vatican website.

(SDA flashback.)

Posted by Kate at April 14, 2006 12:40 PM

God on the Brain - (faith as temporal lobe epilepsy)

Rudi Affolter and Gwen Tighe have both experienced strong religious visions. He is an atheist; she a Christian. He thought he had died; she thought she had given birth to Jesus. Both have temporal lobe epilepsy.

Like other forms of epilepsy, the condition causes fitting but it is also associated with religious hallucinations. Research into why people like Rudi and Gwen saw what they did has opened up a whole field of brain science: neurotheology.

Better than sex

Posted by: steve in bc at April 14, 2006 12:56 PM

I used to be tolerant of people who followed religeon
I found that they were never quite as tolerant as myself in my dis-believing secular ways..

I now view all such people with pity,as who really in their right minds could swallow the pap they regurgitate on a regular basis...

Posted by: kursk at April 14, 2006 1:07 PM

Wow! The comments above are right on topic. Way to go, guys!!

Posted by: new kid on the block at April 14, 2006 1:21 PM

Hadn't you heard? Sin has been redefined while you were away. Here are some new commandments:

1. Thou shalt have no gods before Mother Earth.

2. Thou shalt do nothing which is said by your enemies and the recipients of grants to harm Mother Earth.

3. Thou shalt allow Judeo-Christian ideas of God to be insulted.

4. Thou shalt unquestioningly protect Muslim ideas of God.

5. Thou shalt approve of everything that expands the limits of modern 'values', lest someone's sense of who they are be constrained by your disapproval.

6. Thou shalt see no inconsistency whatsoever between #4 and #5.


Posted by: Halfwise at April 14, 2006 1:38 PM

The quote of:

"We have lost our sense of sin..a slick campaign of propaganda is spreading an insane apologia of evil, a senseless cult of Satan, a mindless desire for transgression, a dishonest and frivolous freedom, exalting impulsiveness, immorality and selfishness..."

is probably the usual rant against the West, capitalism, etc (ignoring that the Vatican is the wealthiest corporation in the world)..but, this description is far more applicable, in every aspect, to Islamofascism.

It's also a comment (inadvertent, of course, just as is its comment on Islamofascism)against postmodernist relativism. Relativism is also a denial of sin, or evil because it refuses to evaluate.

One blogger on sda, defined hate as an act of not accepting all 'groups' (i.e., people, opinions, modes of behaviour) as equal. I reject this refusal to evaluate, this refusal to acknowledge differences, this rejection that there is such a thing as evil, or even, unethical and amoral behaviour.

Another blogger rejects dissent, rejects fighting against someone trying to take away his freedoms. He advocates submission to their force, because he doesn't want to be hurt (physically). The hurt he might suffer, intellectually and spiritually, when he has been transformed into a slave, doesn't seem to bother him.

This too, is a refusal to recognize 'sin', which I (an atheist) define as evil, as unethical and amoral behaviour. I don't need a god to point out such behaviour to me; my reason will suffice to enable me to differentiate between what is good and what is bad.

But, the rejection of values, which is operable within a rule of law (the rule of law is based on a recognition of values)..and the elevation of the use of force, pure force, to 'get one's way' disastrous.

In France - we saw the students/unions, rioting to get their way. The fact that what they want is guaranteed employment no matter how incompetent the employee's work, is destroying France's economy..which cannot continue to function as a Great Pay For No Work...doesn't bother their current 'frivolous freedom and selfishness'.

In France, a lawyer has just stopped a 40 day hunger fast - which he went on, to get a Japanese company to maintain a plant in his home town. That's the use of force. The fact that, with France's Employ Me Forever No Matter How Incompetent I am system - it might mean that the Japanese company can't afford to maintain that plant - doesn't bother this man. Force, rather than reason, works.

Posted by: ET at April 14, 2006 1:52 PM

For charity, I've edited kursk's convoluted little rant:

"I used to be tolerant of people who follow [sic] religion. However, I found that they were never quite as tolerant [sic] as I am, in my disbelieving, secular ways . . .

"I now view all such believers with pity: How could people in their right minds swallow the pap organized religion regurgitates on a regular basis?"

I guess religious pap would include such pitiable teachings as "Love thy neighbour as thyself".

Kyrie eleison.

Posted by: lookout at April 14, 2006 2:08 PM

As someone who in my twenties lived as an "unreligious" person, and then "saw the light," (like Johnny Cash and Hank Williams, et al.) I find myself in total agreement with the third meditation. I used to live as though there was no such thing as sin or evil--and got myself into trouble--and witnessed a lot of others my age being self-destructive, too. Fortunately, for me, becoming "religious" was the point at which I began to realize that life is far more than just me (and my immediate wants and desires) at the centre of my little universe. GOD MADE THE UNIVERSE, infinitely beautiful and full of variety, and aren't I blessed that I get a shot at living on this amazing planet Earth?

When I recognized that, yes, I sin--I harbour resentment towards others, I am self-centred, I hurt others by my insensitivity, I have strings attached to most of my relationships and place conditions on others, etc.--that was the beginning of my seeing others in a more compassionate way. Who was I to pass judgement? It's enough to recognize that I should not be throwing any stones, seeing as I live in a glass house. It's enough that I receive God's grace, mercy, love, and generosity and learn to pass it on. That's a hallucination? I call it a Hallelujah!

Mindless, senseless, frivolous, inane, dishonest, impulsive, immoral, and selfish seem like pretty accurate descriptors of much of the behaviour being exhibited by a lot of people in North America today (let's leave out the rest of the world, for now). In saying that, I'm not throwing stones at anyone, I'm simply making an observation about what I see around me: those who have eyes to see, let them see.

There's a lot of really destructive behaviour out there: promiscuous sex (LOTS of people are getting sick and dying), illicit drugs, binge drinking, very few volunteering any more (25% of Canadians volunteer, which means that 75% don't) etc., etc. It's not as though people haven't been doing these kinds of things for centuries, it's just that they used to be recognized as sinful, even by people indulging in them, whereas now there's this idea that everything's OK. There's no such thing as "sin."

We seem to have bought the idea of moral equivalency, the idea that what I choose to do is just as good as what you choose to do. But it's by the fruits of people's lives and actions that we discern whether something is good and helpful or whether it is destructive and dangerous.

Christians are far from perfect. God knows. We're human. It's pretty obvious that people who denigrate others' faith by calling it hallucinatory, dangerous, pap, etc. (hey, kursk, I thought you said you were MORE tolerant than religious people: That's news to me...) have no idea about how many--most--people of faith live their lives. They're running soup kitchens, second-hand clothing depots, food banks, sending relief to victims of hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc., I could go on.

There's so much more that could be said. Suffice it to say that today is one of the most solemn days in the Christian calendar. It is Good Friday, the day on which Jesus Christ died on the cross for each one of us, out of His love for us. By His wounds we are healed. God knows our world needs healing.

Don't pity those of us who believe. We are blessed! And our prayer is that everyone should be blessed.

Thanks, Kate, for the opportunity to share from a faith perspective on this holy of holy days.

Posted by: new kid on the block at April 14, 2006 2:13 PM

ET wrote " ... ignoring that the Vatican is the wealthiest corporation in the world ..."

The Vatican, like any other organization, comprised of human beings, with all their failings, may not be immune from what some term "corruption" because of the wealth it has amassed throughout the ages. But isn't that wealth a treasure trove of our civilization, a record of MAN stepping throughout time? Should the Vatican sell off all its works of art to invest in NGOs to feed the hungry? Would melting down all the golden chalices and gem-encrusted silver crucifixes end poverty, hunger and all the social problems of the world? I think not.

Posted by: Gabby in QC at April 14, 2006 2:21 PM

Speaking as a struggling catholic, take what I say with a grain of salt.

Lots of folks, (inlcuding some commenters here) look at religion from an outside viewpoint where they see an amorphous, frightening cult where people lose their minds. They have to understand that religion is a multi-layered thing; peel away one layer and look at it deeper.

From the outside, the all you see is the mythology of religion; genesis, the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, etc. It all seems like irrational magic.

Understand this is all METAPHOR. The question is ... metaphor for what? I can't answer that, at least not like a clergyman would. Suffice it to say that there's a deeper meaning to the outer shell of religion, encompasing philosophy and universal truths. If you're really curious, you'll find it yourself. If you're not curious, I can't help you.

What pisses me off about the MSM and "modern" society is that they stop at the outer shell.

Speaking of shells, an analogy here might be that religion is to universal truth as Unix shells are to the kernel. E.g. all religions have the concept of the "golden rule". You have to dig into the kernel to see what it's really all about. The particular faith you have is just a path to that. Then of course you have the "Bourne-Again Shell".


Happy Easter.

Posted by: Norman Lorrain at April 14, 2006 2:29 PM

You think the leader of the church should ignore the bible. What he says is true. We have become an immoral society. Good for him for speaking the truth instead of couching it in political correctness so that those of us who are responsible for the situation he describes can sleep better at night. A pope that isn't a puppet - fancy that.

Posted by: ferrethouse at April 14, 2006 2:34 PM

Well, I'm an atheist; I don't accept that there is a metaphysical agent, i.e., a god. I do think that the universe is organized in a rational or logical manner; it isn't random. But, this has nothing to do with a priori intentionality of some external agency. It's internal to the universe - the order of the universe is self-organized. Otherwise, matter could not exist; it would dissipate in a flash. However, ...

My comment is with reference to Gabby in QC's comment on the wealth of the Vatican. You've set up several fallacies.

First, you suggest that the wealth is not 'corporate wealth', as, for example, that of some evil Shoe Company, but is 'intellectual wealth'. That's a neat semantic switch. But, shoes are the result of intellect too, and I don't buy your semantic switch. Wealth is wealth, which means, that it can be exchanged for goods and services.

Then, you set up an 'either-or' scenario of 'either keep and preserve this 'intellectual wealth' or 'melt it down'. You don't have to melt it down. Sell it to museums, or to wealthy Saudi Arabians or whoever, and insist that (1)the objects be maintained and displayed; and (2) the money received must be used to establish, for example, universities in the Middle East (where there are almost none), devoted to educating both genders, devoted to science. Now - that would do a heck of a lot more good than keeping those chalices stored away in the Vatican. Or, if the Vatican shudders at the ME, use it for scholarships around the world.

My point remains; the Vatican is one of the, if not the, wealthiest corporations in the world. And here's my own Either-Or suggestion. Use that wealth IN the world, OR, stop talking about 'poverty' and blaming the West, and particularly the USA, for that poverty.

Posted by: ET at April 14, 2006 2:49 PM

ET wrote:
1. "I don't buy your semantic switch"
While some may show great ease with words longer than one syllable, they can still be empty. Whether one wants to label the Vatican's wealth as corporate, material, intellectual or whatever, the fact remains that within its walls lies the repository of a civilization's temporal and spiritual passages through time. Would you also insist that the British monarchy and others divest themselves of their cultural heritage?

2. "Sell it to museums, or to wealthy Saudi Arabians or whoever ..."
What you see as mere assets to be sold off to the highest bidder, I see as the record of mankind's search for meaning.

3. "and insist that the objects be maintained and displayed ..."
Yes indeed, the seller can dictate how those items can be used ... As if ...

4. "about 'poverty' and blaming the West, and particularly the USA, for that poverty."
The prayer at the Fifth Station of the Cross invites Catholics to reflect on the following:
"Lord Jesus,
our affluence is making us less human,
our entertainment has become a drug, a source of alienation,
and our society’s incessant, tedious message
is an invitation to die of selfishness.
Lord Jesus,
rekindle within us the spark of humanity
that God placed in our hearts at the dawn of creation.
Free us from our decadent narcissism,
and we will find new joy in life
and burst into joyful song."

Nope, I can't say that I see any accusations being levelled at the West or the USA in that prayer. However, one does have to wonder whether a society where some devote more care to their pets than to their children, or that condones all manner of perverse behaviour hasn't somehow lost its way and needs some direction.
Have a "Happy without any reference whatsoever to any deity or religious affiliation" Day.

Posted by: Gabby in QC at April 14, 2006 4:06 PM

No, Gabby, don't divert attention. We are talking about the Vatican's wealth. Don't move into the fallacy of IF some, THEN All. The discussion is about the Vatican's wealth, not the wealth of the British monarchy.

And, please, no ad hominem.

The Vatican's wealth is hardly confined to its historical collections. The Vatican owns billions of shares in international corporations - such as Gulf Oil, Shell, GM; it has investments in numerous world banks. Their solid gold, not their gold-plated cups, amounts to several billion dollars. They have real estate, property, shares, stocks..etc..all over the world, and all, under the Vatican. And, they pay no taxes on the income from these investments. That's the wealth I'm talking about - and it puts the Vatican as probably THE world's largest corporation. Nothing to do with paintings, books and etc. Stocks and bonds and property.

And, I don't think that the Vatican is the repository of mankind's intellectual and spiritual evolution. The knowledge of the world is not kept within its walls. The scientific knowledge exists outside of it; there are thousands of other museums. The libraries of the world.

The 'fifth prayer' - how does it deal with that invested, untaxed wealth of the church?

And, your subsequent assertion that 'some people devote more care to their pets than their children' is irrelevant. What's your point? How does that relate to the wealth of the Vatican and Catholic church? (Before you get into more ad hominem, I don't have any pets).

My reference to the 'wealth of the West' is that the Church usually refers to this wealth as emerging within capitalism, and capitalism, is a synonym for The USA.

Thank you for your 'best wishes', but, don't get into ad hominem. I'm an atheist - and, that doesn't mean that you, who obviously believe in god, have the right to denigrate my choice.

Posted by: ET at April 14, 2006 4:59 PM

The truth that is behind Christianity is not as some have posted a metaphore. It can not be grasped with our only too earth bound brain. The truth behind Chrisitianity can only be experienced and once experienced it can never be denied. Thus shall remain the great divide. Those who have experienced the truth will spend the rest of their lives trying to explain it like a sighted man explaining a sunset to a man born blind. Those who have not experienced it shall likewise forevermore deny. Yet there is Hope! For the experience is but a prayer away and whomsoever will seek shall by no means be turned away.

Posted by: Joe at April 14, 2006 5:44 PM


It truly is refreshing to hear from someone who is a free-thinker and (presumably) libertarian on this blog. Someone who recognizes the value of, for example, free markets and liberal democracy, but doesn't kiss the filthy arse of Religion like some here do at every opportunity.

Having said this, I share with you and Pope Benedict your disdain for moral relativism.

Posted by: SonsofMonkeysandSwine at April 14, 2006 7:40 PM

I don't mind that atheists and secular Christians (churchgoers who deny the authority of scripture), and assorted others disagree with me. It's a free (well, sort of) country and God's graciously given us free choice.

What I do mind is the shallow, one dimensional, preening opinions of people like ET. ET thinks that the Vatican should divest itself of its assets. Does the same standard apply to any lefties with considerable wealth, e.g., Barbra Striesand, maybe the Trudeau boys, etc.? In a free world--ET's supposed to esteem freedom--shouldn't individuals and corporations--which, in law, are treated much like people, I believe--be allowed, more or less, with some reasonable restrictions, to use their assets as they see fit? If one gives them all away--based on whose assessment?--how can one sustain one's ethos and mission--a reasonable goal in a free society--both now and in the future?

Think of a family. E.g., I entirely disagree with the way the Stronachs are using their wealth to promote their legacy. However, I've never had a problem with the fact that they have the right to do so. ET's thesis that they don't--a logical extension of this person's flawed thinking--is both intellectually starved and totalitarian. (Hmmm . . . haven't those two attributes been associated before?)

ET, a limited, parallel challenge: Why don't you eliminate from your diet any food or drink outside of the most mundane and basic for your survival and give the saved $$ to some worthy cause? Think of the vast amount of money you could divest to more worthy causes than yourself. Then, think of someone--like you--watching you to report on any transgressions--that beer or shrimp: horrors!--you had the audacity to consume. Then think of yourself being publicly judged. (And you accuse Christians of fundamentalism.)

Another example of ET's minimalist--almost to the point of not being there--thinking. I quote (copied and pasted):

"for example, [the Vatican's wealth should fund] universities in the Middle East (where there are almost none), devoted to educating both genders, devoted to science. Now - that would do a heck of a lot more good than keeping those chalices stored away in the Vatican."

This is MAGIC thinking at its best--or worst! ET, just how the heck do you propose to get the theocratic, Middle Eastern--you think the VATICAN'S bad?--powers that be to agree to this Judeo-Christian (J-C) concept of equality and the idea of progress? Do you actually think they'd accept your happy little (J-C, by the way) concept of what education should be and change their whole way of thinking to accommodate? Dream on and don't throw away those rose coloured--for totalitarianism--glasses. (Too bad your glasses for more enlightened philosophies and institutions seem to be mud coloured.)

While I'm on this topic: Why, ET, do you think it's those societies based on the J-C ethic and tradition that provide the enlightened kind of education to which you and I would both subscribe? Why do you think migration's virtually always from oppressed societies, like the one you correctly cite, to those based on the J-C ethic? (ET, just close your eyes--not your mind--and THINK. Then you might see what I'm getting at.)

And why, in God's name, would the Vatican fund universities where Christians (and Jews, for that matter) would be, at the least, banned? ET, you might not know that, in the countries you refer to, non Muslims live severely restricted lives. At best, they live in dhimmitude.

If you know the meaning of that word, your ability to think is more truncated than even I imagined. If you don't know the meaning, I suggest you take a sabbatical from posting nonsense and educate yourself. (Unfortunately, however, the Canadian Oxford Dictionary might be of little assistance here: the word "dhimmitude" is, astonishingly, missing.)

ET, I'm sure you've got many positive attributes. If I met you in person, I might even like you very much. However, this doesn't change the fact that your flawed thinking is a real problem.

Posted by: lookout at April 14, 2006 8:06 PM

I've just sent my post about ET and read the swill of SonsofMonkeysandSwine (SoMaS). What self-contradictory drivel!

SoMaS, my advice to ET goes for you too.

Posted by: lookout at April 14, 2006 8:11 PM

Oh, great font of knowledge, thou great teacher who signest as ET, I humbly bow before the limpidity of thy logic.

But wait ... thou wilt have no truck with disagreement of any kind! Thou dictatest "No, Gabby, don't divert ... Don't move into ... The discussion is about ..." A little too restrictive and dictatorial for my taste, timid and submissive though I may be ...

Thou then continuest with:
"And, your subsequent assertion that 'some people devote more care to their pets than their children' is irrelevant. What's your point? ... (Before you get into more ad hominem, I don't have any pets)."
To which in all humility I reply:
1. Thou hast learnt a new phrase, it would appear, from thy predilection for "ad hominem" (used three times in thy retort).
2. What thou perceivest as "ad hominem" in my meek rebuttal "some people devote more care to their pets than their children ... " refers to an indefinite "some." It's not ALL about thou, thou diggest?
3. Not having a pet is not necessarily a recommendation.

Thou completest thy peremptory missive with "Thank you for your 'best wishes', but, don't get into ad hominem."
Aha! There's that phrase again! And more commands!

And "I'm an atheist - and, that doesn't mean that you, who obviously believe in god, have the right to denigrate my choice."
I confess - oh the shame of it - I DO believe in God. What I will not confess to is DENIGRATING your choice. A more careful reading of my posts, without thy assumptions, would reveal that.

Since thou didst not appreciate my previous "best wishes" and took offense at it, I shall amend the error of my ways ... Ave atque vale in vitam aeternam!

Posted by: Gabby in QC at April 14, 2006 8:22 PM

What could be more natural than God becoming a Man in order to redeem them from chains of our own making. That only He can break.

In my opinion unlike Darwin & his heirs. I do not think Frozen energy created the Universe. Matter is not a God, but a condition of energy in stasis.

I believe life tends towards greater communication. On a micro & macro level. That an iron rule not seen, but felt. Is self sacrifice.
Think about it. Anything worthwhile takes time & lifespan to achieve. Even helping ones friends & family is giving up your time to them out of fidelity & love.
To say nothing of ones life work. Some give away there health , some money. Some give there lives. Symbiosis is an aspect of this rule in the animal Kingdom. Our precursors knew this & perverted the principle human & animal sacrifice. It was allowed in the Temple, to show the brutal results of sins penalty, & an ugly metaphor for what it would take to erase from us of the darkness caused by our pride & other negative takes on honest emotions. Love can turn ugly. As hate can be used to purge evil by exposing it. If no one hated nazism,communism or other isms , or injustice. Where would we be?

Is it so difficult to understand that God may have felt that way towards us? The more achieved the greater the sacrifice. Christ allowed himself to die for mans evil. All evil. No one else could. Than rose from the dead to prove it, & establish a new Kingdom centered in the heart of men by Gods spirit.

There is even a part of our brain dedicated to religion as is sight, hearing, smell & touch. Why?

In the end its always comes back to the same thing. Men who betrayed him, all died for him , except John. The tomb is empty Amen!!

God bless & Happy Easter to all.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 14, 2006 9:37 PM

Pakistan "Releases" Jailed Christian After Five Years
Bos News ^ | 12 April 2006 | Bos News

Posted on 04/14/2006 7:02:19 PM PDT by Qaz_W

ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN (BosNewsLife)-- A headmaster of a Christian school in Pakistan who spent five years in prison on "blasphemy" charges was released after he was found "not guilty," a human rights group said Wednesday, April 12. Voice Of the Martyrs Canada (VOMC) told BosNewsLife that Parvez Masih of the school in the area of the city of Lahore, had been arrested in April 2001 for allegedly blaspheming the Islamic Prohet Mohammed. VOMC said Masih was detained after some of his students asked him about Mohammed's nine-year-old wife Aisha. The headmaster simply mentioned her name and told them to find more information in the Koran, regarded as a holy book by Muslims. On April 1, 2001 he was arrested and accused of violating Law 295C, blaspheming Mohammed as a result of the testimonies of two of the boys. It is believed that a teacher of a rival high school was involved in an attempt to close the Christian school, added VOMC, which had organized an international letter campaign for his release. Pakistani officials could not immediately be reached for comment. CONCERN REMAINS VOMC, which did not give more details surrounding the circumstances of his release, stressed however it remained concerned over the plight of other Christian prisoners in the mainly Muslim Asian nation, amid reports of torture and abuse. As an example, VOMC said it had learned that on April 7, Christian prisoners at the central jail in Sahiwal, Pakistan, were attacked as they gathered for prayer and Bible study. VOMC claimed that Muslim prisoners passing by began to make derogatory comments when two of the jail staff approached. PRISON STAFF The two prison staff members allegedly joined in the attack of the four prisoners, who were identified as Chand Munawer, Ijaz Gulzar, Riaz Gulzar and Pervaiz Rehmat. +

Re: Posted by R. Dream: "In my opinion unlike Darwin & his heirs. I do not think Frozen energy created the Universe."

Please cite Book, Chapter, Verse by Darwin wherein Darwin stated such.
Is the "theory of evolution" incompatible with the Resurrection? +

Posted by: maz2 at April 14, 2006 10:32 PM

Natural selection hits a physiological wall as any breeder can tell you. You can only stretch any species so far before sterility or the traits one breeds for can actually weaken the animal by depriving it of other traits used in survival. Darwin was aware of this but insisted that this was abrogated in the wild.

The theory of evolution goes back even farther than Augustine. Darwin himself said after 120 years of fossil hunting that if the intermediate species where not found it would be false. Well in 1995 the geological society flat out told Dawkins & the other Darwinists like Gould. Gould before he died was as he said "stricken" with the news. That the only proof they have after more than 200 years of fossils & geological ages . That there are seven great extinctions. After each one the complete fauna & flora appeared. Every fossil including the ones claiming human origins have proven false, or fakes. As had the so called bird-lizard & others. Darwin stated it was matter & life arose from it. Its why so many spend so much, trying to recreate a mythical conjectured Earth from the past in labs .Uniformatism is dying, it what Huxley & others pimped. Why? They wrote that Darwinism had to be protected or else religion would gain hold over science( Which was ridiculous, when most scientists where to begin with) & stop there rationalist revolution. Its why this theory is so protected & even the illustrations of fakes are still in textbooks. Its a religion. Woe betide the heretic who disagrees. Remember the continental drift theory? the two originators where vilified to death by peer review. One ended up a suicide the other a drunk.
This ossification of science has crippled us. Science is observation coupled with repeated blind experiment. BY that criteria alone its just a theory.

Anyway Darwin had no notion of what constituted matter or energy in his day. His latter deacons introduced that when it became clearer that natural selection was by itself alone a weak mechanism, Mutation is even worse. I cannot quote verse & Chapter, as was your request. Frankly if Darwinism was introduced today with the knowledge we have it would not have left the egg.

Can a Darwinist believe in the resurrection. Sure why not. But most think where only chemical robots with no soul. Only electrical impulses. Even self sacrifice is claw & tooth, based on just physical survival. Self will is an illusion according to this doctrine (so is Calvinism in religion) we are just walking flesh bots, pushed on by a chemical soup.

Any way Intelligent design is Only a theory as well. Personally I think God used all that extra DNA after each extinction event to activate it for an entire new animal. There could be a natural mechanism as well that operates under extreme environmental conditions. Who knows it’s a theory , not fact.

Peer review is today’s inquisition used by Universities that like simple explanations. NO publishing, no research monies. Right? I would like to ask them where the ½ a billion tons of copper is , that was dug up in Michigan in the meso American era? Stripped mined no less. Little blimps like this make me mistrust the whole lot of the so called guardians of history & science.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 15, 2006 1:54 AM

New Books
Round and round we modern readers go, disputing facts about Easter and its history. Maybe if we listened to the New Testament itself...

After the Resurrection
Robin Griffith-Jones
Robert M. Price and Jeffrey Jay Lowder, editors
Jesus beyond the grave
545pp. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. $30; distributed in the UK by Lavis, Oxford. £21.50.
1 59102 286 X

Towards the end of the second century, the pagan Celsus wrote an attack on Christianity; Origen has made the text famous by his rejoinder. Celsus put part of his assault into the mouth of a Jew, lambasting the Jews among the Christians:

We must examine this question, whether anyone who really died ever rose again with the same body . . . . After death he rose again and showed the marks of his punishment. But who saw this? A hysterical female, and perhaps some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery, who either dreamt in a certain state of mind and through wishful thinking had a hallucination . . . or, which is more likely, wanted to impress the others by telling this fantastic tale, and so to provide a chance for other beggars. +,,25349-2129555,00.html

Posted by: maz2 at April 15, 2006 7:28 AM

To lookout from Gabby in QC:

Thank you for your good wishes. Please accept mine.

Posted by: Gabby in QC at April 15, 2006 10:26 AM

After 2000 years Maz2 of people trying to prove it was not empty. I would say the anti Christian faction has come up zero for zero. Even at the time they said the body was stolen puprposly because they had no explination. The Roman guards whould have been executed, as was standard practice for sleeping on duty.They where not. Jesus was only one of many preachers of the time. Why did He change the world , unless something spectacular happend? It was not just hysterical Women (a slur on the ladies by the way. These Women unlike the men, stayed with Jesus while he died.No cowards they!)but the disiples as well. Including Peter who had betrayed him. The same fellow who demanded to be crucified upside down because he didnt feel he should be allowed to die lke his Master because of that act.

After the reserection. We are not talking resusitation but a complete transformation. One that will happen to us all according to scripture.

He as an indvidual has had more influence om human affairs than any individual in history. This from a backwoods preacher. God uses the weak & dispised things of the world to confound the wise.Thats all I have to say. People thank God ae free to believe as they wish. These are mine.

Posted by: Revnant Dream at April 15, 2006 3:58 PM

Happy Easter!

Amen, Allelujah!!

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 16, 2006 5:06 AM

Eggs Benedict the XVIth for breakfast anybody?

Now you can have holy eggs for breakfast!! Who'd a thunk it?

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 16, 2006 5:08 AM

i think that most religions today are thieves. John Wycliffe was right when he stated that no church should own land property or wealth. If we truely are in the image of God then we ourselves are to help others. We need no church. No great buildings, no priests. And In regard to the moslims comments, Islam began in the 6th century its teachings are Jewish in origin, Mohammed admire the Jews. Mohammed was a Jewish missionary to the arab world. His teachings are but a shadow of the truth. Moslims and christians only have partial truth. The bible is true when it states , in regard to moslim fundimentalists, The wicked man seeks to slay the righteous, Thats why moslims hate and kill, because they are wicked. Thats all there is to say. False religion is a way of death. The way of Islam, Its important to note mohammed had a 7 year old concubine. So Islamics follow the teachings of a pedophile.

Posted by: BillyBob at April 18, 2006 10:47 PM