Contradictions in the Bible?

[prometheus]

What do you believe?

Creation with young earth? Or intelligent design?


Intelligent design is 'guided evolution' instead of Darwinistic evolution.

It is not pure creation.


It has been refuted by science. And the refutation has been accepted by an objective court.


You can't have read all the pages I linked to by now.

Why don't you try to counter the arugments used to attack Irreducible complexity instead of saying "it is impossible to refute God.  face it."


This isn't about god. Behe doesn't propose god created Irreducible complex systems.

[prometheus]

...and yet if you tract mtdna back - it's young!

No. The article you provided talks about trying to discover a mother(mtDNA is only passed down through the mother) that all humans have as an ancestor.

This is what the article that you provided actually said about an 'Eve' that is the mother of al humans:

Using this rate, they determined that the most recent common ancestor lived 140,000 to 290,000 years ago (which they roughly averaged to 200,000 years ago). That was back in 1987. Since then, researchers have updated the estimate to 120,000 to 150,000 years ago. However, the margin for error for this estimate and the previous one are significant -- when all of the variables are taken into account, the current range is more like 50,000 to 500,000.

You see, 120,000 to 150,000 on average. That's not young in the sense of 'young earth' because that claims the earth is only 6000 or 8000 years old.

But the error margin is also estimated to be very great:  50,000 to 500,000

Even 50,000 is much much bigger than 6000. So if there was an Eve she is no younger than 50,000 according to this article.

And remember, this is just about the human ancestor shared by all humans that are alive today.

We have homo sapiens fossils older than 130,000 years.

Also, we have the now extinct subspecies Homo sapiens idaltu that's even older with  160,000

[volodya]

The Bible is one of my favorite works of fiction.

[pianistimo]

otzi the ice-man is the oldest fossilized human on the european continent and he is only dated at 3300 BC. 

perhaps fossils in sandstone react differently to time than ice?  is ice the best form of fossilzed remains - and is the dating more accurate.  just a question.

genes specify what amino acids should be strung together to form protein molecules.

now there are some huge discrepancies in the dna and all this of apes.  we are actually closer to orangutangs in dna.  and yet, when you include mtdna - we have never been related. 

even scientists who create textbooks for middle school students try to divide up the subjects so that noone can make heads or tails of what is what and how it all adds up.  www.textbookleague.org/41evolu.htm

what is the second law of thermodynamics and how does it rule out abiogenesis?

[prometheus]

You mean that Ötzi the Iceman is the oldest mummy?


Anyway, there are also 'bog bodies' that didn't mummify. Hundreds have been found in areas where the celts lived. The oldest is Koelbjerg Woman dated 8000 B.C


Oldest fossilized H. sapiens found in Europe, 34,000 and 36,000 years old:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3129654.stm

The oldest hominid found in Europe is Mauer 1 (Heidelberg Man), 500,000 years old:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauer_1
It's a Homo heidelbergensis.

Just a jaw. But there are many more fossils older than your ice mummy found in Europe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_fossils


I don't understand what you say about DNA. The part about DNA and proteins is corrent but then what do you mean?

I am not going to defend someones textbook. This discussion is not about the quality of textbooks.

Second law of thermodynamics? What about it?

Maybe you are asking me how Creationists abuse it?
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_1.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html
https://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_4.html

[asyncopated]

This has been a seriouly educational tour for me as well.  I will read your dicussions and the sites you wave given in more detail this weekend, when I am more a wake.  I might have questions, prometheus, i hope you don't mind.

[ahinton]

You've got it all wrong, all of you (so far, anyway) on the creation issue. It astonishes me that even the most intelligent people on a piano forum such as this one don't appear to know better. God? Darwin? No - It was Haydn.

Best,

Alistair

[mephisto]

The Bible is one of my favorite works of fiction.

I like the book too(seriosuly!)

[mephisto]

You've got it all wrong, all of you (so far, anyway) on the creation issue. It astonishes me that even the most intelligent people on a piano forum such as this one don't appear to know better. God? Darwin? No - It was Haydn.

Best,

Alistair

Good one Hinton

[thalbergmad]

most scientists even agree that mankind (as the species IS) could not be over 10,000 years old. 

Just when you were beginning to sound like a normal person, you come out with a pile of dung like that.

[thalbergmad]

Me best friend "mental Martin".

Da missing link

[pianistimo]

no earlier than 10,000 years is where we realize the agricutural start of mankind.  there are no agricultural stuff (tools, etc) found before this time.  whY?  maybe it matches up with the bible.  woohoo! 

show me a prehistoric tool (besides some rocks that are thought to be tools) that actually looks like a useable tool.  scientists seem to agree that the agricultural stage is where humans began.  cain was a hunter, abel a tiller of the soil. 

now, the dating for the 3.2 million site at hadar, ethiopia where lucy and her recent 3 year old 'child' (similar fossil) were found - the dating used was potassium decay to argon.  what other methods of dating have been used on 'lucy' and her 'child.'  btw, the child's fingers are curved just a like a chimp.  hmmm.  and, the child was discovered in 2000 and is JUST NOW being released to the news in 2006.  sounds  alittle fishy.  maybe gave them time to file her teeth?

about dating methods of rocks - they are disputed because of noticeable changes in rock composition over time.  i think a mr. jolly? has studied this and proven that some rocks are much younger than they appear with argon gas studies.

i'd like to hear about how the earth's atmosphere evolved next.

**your friend is an exception to the rule.  he's ageless.  a sort of connundrum of the neanderthal with modern day.  i do think he's the missing link.

[mephisto]

no earlier than 10,000 years is where we realize the agricutural start of mankind.  there are no agricultural stuff (tools, etc) found before this time.  whY?  maybe it matches up with the bible.  woohoo! 

The world isn't 10 000 years old. It is 6000 years old. It's all in Bible!

[pianistimo]

mephisto, just go on the internet and find some tools.

[mad_max2024]

The world isn't 10 000 years old. It is 6000 years old. It's all in Bible!

Depends on the type of time measurements before the sun was created... 

[ahinton]

Good one Hinton

Thank you - but better one Haydn, methinks...

Best,

Alistair

[prometheus]

Going from hunter&getherer to agriaculture was an evolution in the cultural development of humans. Not evolution of the species through genes.

It's like saying that before humans could travel to the moon they weren't human because they didn't use 'tools'.


I already provided some hints about tools. Homo habilis fossils are almost always found with tools.


In Olduvai Gorge the oldest H. habilis is 2.5 million years. But the oldest fossil is only 2 million years.

We have even classified stone age tools in different groups. One is called the Olduwan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduwan


The Afar Triangle, where a new sepcies of hominid has been found in march this year:
https://www.stoneageinstitute.org/news/gawis_hominid.shtml


...is the place where the oldes human tools have been found. Dated 2.6 million years ago.


Then we have Acheulean
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheulean

These were used by the transitional Homo sapiens idaltu, Homo heidelbergensis, a still unclassified proto-Neanderthal species, Homo ergaster and Homo erectus.

Fire is also part of this technological development. The earliest species to have used fire is probably H. egaster. But evidence is still weak. But since these species also lived in the much colded euroasia it seems to be a requirement to have had fire.

Acheulean is dated from 1.8 million years to 100,000 years ago.




The oldest agriculture is found in Israel, yes 'biblical lands', site of Ohalo II dated 20,000 BCE.

There is also evidence for early agriculture at Abu Hureyra in Syria. Yes, the enemies of the Israelites. It's dated older than 10,000 BCE.

Also, the fact that there is no older evidence doesn't mean that humans didn't practice agriculture earlier. But surely it wasn't practiced 100,000 years ago.

Agriculture really took off in the Fertile Crescent of Mesopotamia in 8000 BCE. The Sumerians, who developed the myths which the bible significantly plagiarized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture#Ancient_agriculture


The oldest pottery is quite suprisingly found in northern Japan, 10,500 BCE by the Jomen people.

People independently developed pottery in North Africa, also 10th millenium BCE, but a little later and in South America 7th millenium BCE.

[mephisto]

Depends on the type of time measurements before the sun was created... 

I don't understand what you are saying. But I was kidding(in what I wrote in my last post)

[mad_max2024]

I don't understand what you are saying. But I was kidding(in what I wrote in my last post)

Before god created the sun, years must have been reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaallly long...
Actually I was also kidding...
 

[pianistimo]

i was just repeating what scientist say about the age of modern man (agriculture related) and also - after supposed 'pole-shift.'

now, dr. frank brown of uni of utah says this about argon 40/39 (in which argon 40 replaces potassium 40 and is compared to argon 39 to date things).  'the limiting factor with argon 40/39 is that it dates only volcanic products - not bones.' 

as i understand it - lucy is dated at 3.2 million years according to stratification of ash.  dr. brown confirms this by calling the ash 'crystals and pumice.'  now - what if... there were volcanoes that erupted before during and after the worldwide flood.  should we not have a n unusual amount of ash, debris, sand, silt, whatever - that suddenly is deposited.  making the strata unreadable since a lot was deposited at once?

and, regarding potassium 40 dating to argon - which is how lucy was dated:

'radiometric dating is a statistical science that assumes in every measurement that no physical process has distributed the individual atomic nuclea in some 'non random' manner...radiogenic dating neglects the history of the individual atoms before they congealed to form solid rocks.  all of the porcesses that give rise to elements generate them at temperatures that exceed their ionization temperatures by many magnitudes.  before these elements became bound up in rocks, they existed as plasmas....'

[thalbergmad]

no earlier than 10,000 years is where we realize the agricutural start of mankind.  there are no agricultural stuff (tools, etc) found before this time.  whY?  maybe it matches up with the bible.  woohoo! 

Strange, as you have previoulsy proved that the Earth is no more than 6,000 years old.

What does the Bible say about tools and agriculture?

Are you going to thank prometheus for giving evidence against the rubbish you have been spouting?

[ahinton]

Isn't Croatiansim possibly connected - albeit possibly by implication only and even then perhaps only tenuously - with the thread about racist posts being censored? Or am I missing something here?...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

The amount of time that actually passes through Genesis is unknown. So billions of years could have passed which would allow for fossils and what have you before Adam and Eve where kicked out. It would probably take someone billions of years to disobey god and eat that forbidden fruit in paradise

[asyncopated]

Isn't Croatiansim possibly connected - albeit possibly by implication only and even then perhaps only tenuously - with the thread about racist posts being censored? Or am I missing something here?...

Best,

Alistair

I really enjoy your posts.

[prometheus]

as i understand it - lucy is dated at 3.2 million years according to stratification of ash.  dr. brown confirms this by calling the ash 'crystals and pumice.'  now - what if... there were volcanoes that erupted before during and after the worldwide flood.  should we not have a n unusual amount of ash, debris, sand, silt, whatever - that suddenly is deposited.  making the strata unreadable since a lot was deposited at once?

There was no worldwilde flood.


It has been proven that 40Ar/39Ar can date things correctly. This is done by dating something which you already know the date off.

For example, the vulcano eruption of Pompeii:
https://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/pompeii.html

[pianistimo]

that is recent.  we're talking 3.2 million years.

[prometheus]

Yes, but it is the same method.

[pianistimo]

rocks and conditions change.  they are not static.  the dating method is using static methods and assuming that all stays the same over 'millions' of years because it is underground.  what if it is heated?  what if it is cracked (in earthquakes)?  many things happen to the layers of sediment over time.

i believe that it was created and that several catastrophes changed many many layers in a very short period of time.  that's all.  you can believe whatever you want.  i  hope you have a good new year, prometheus.  we both have given each other our minds.  and, i might add - in quite calm terms.  so, i thank you for all your efforts.  you have not convinced me - and yet, i will keep reading and re-reading the posts where you give links to other sites that you consider important. 

take a break.  go enjoy something outside!  you gotta get out, promey.  so do i!  i've been working again on this kindergarten musical.  i mean- i can't mess up on this music.  btw, does anyone know where i can get a few free pages of anything by the 'cheetah's' or from 'highschool musical' like 'breaking free?'  copyrighted, i suppose.  i just want a bit of melody to play as an interlude before the fifth graders.  i got the first two pages of it from jw pepper site - but need the next two or three pages to fudge through until the fifth graders start singing.

[thalbergmad]

 
take a break. 

You are suggesting that to somebody else

[mad_max2024]

It would probably take someone billions of years to disobey god and eat that forbidden fruit in paradise

Impossible
No woman is that patient...

[prometheus]

Beyond Belief 2006
https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1150978581009235713

[timothy42b]

rocks and conditions change.  they are not static.  the dating method is using static methods and assuming that all stays the same over 'millions' of years because it is underground.  what if it is heated?  what if it is cracked (in earthquakes)? 

"Pride goeth before destruction, and a sinful lust before a fall."  (sometimes sinful lust is translated as haughty spirit)

Your statement is so collossally arrogant it boggles the mind - truly it is astounding you have the nerve to make a comment like this one, or the earlier one about hominid skulls.

All opinions are not equally valid, except in a politically correct school system where there are no dumb questions and no dumb ideas.   

In particular, your opinion is not as valid as a scientist, who a) really is much smarter than average people, b) has had 8 plus years of college and higher level education in this field, c) has devoted his entire life to studying and researching this field and this specific area, and d) has enormous personal gain available from finding a flaw. 

You've spent 30 seconds thinking about a process you don't understand, and you've come up with a flaw no scientist could think of.  Did it occur to you that they have spent decades thinking deeply about what can go wrong, and how errors can creep in, and how they can be avoided? 

No. ......Sigh. ........It did not.

"What if it is heated?"..........er, what temperature do you think a volcano is? 

A scientist that finds a major flaw in any theory is pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize, fame, and fortune.  Even without this potential, it is built into their competitive nature to examine everybody else's work for the slightest flaw, for bragging rights if nothing else.  There are no new objections you can come up with.

Why is it you assume scientists are so dumb they can't see problems that are obvious to the uneducated?   

[prometheus]

Actually, I think you are going a little bit too far when this point is concerned. She claimed that all hominid skulls were hoaxed because some racists made hoax scientists debucked 60 years ago.

But when it comes to dating of these materials you do have to realise that there may be a chance that the results will be flawed. For example in the case of these vulcano-ashes. If they were reheated then the I think the time will reset and decay will restart.

But we aren't just talking about one rock. But a whole layer of sediment below the fossil of Lucy. The fossil could have been older if all this sediment was somehow reheated tenthousands of years after Lucy died.

Also, when the process for producing the dating isn't done properly the results can be flawed.

But the point here is that the results fit excellent with all other observations in nature. We know for sure that such a species as Australopithecus had to live in such a time period. There is no alternative. So the dating has been done accurately. We also know that the error margin is on average 1 to 2%.

But I don't really get it. What would it matter to you, Pianistimo, if this fossil was actually 1.2 myo instead of 1.8 myo? Surely it is not a thousand years. According to the bible such a creature could never have been found. Either this fossil doesn't exist or the bible is wrong.

The fossil being a hoax is impossible. Hoaxes are refuted by science, history proves this. And yet there are hundreds of non-human hominid fossils.

I guess you don't want to throw out your whole world view based on just one piece of evidence. And when it does have the potentional to be inaccurate, as radiometric dating, then it is easy to doubt. But everything else also points in the other direction.

You don't handle each piece of evidence by itself. You have an entire Jigsaw Puzzles that fits perfectly. Even if you think that the individual pieces look 'capricious'; you have the whole picture to deal with.

Also, there is no alternative. Reality contradicts the bible significantly.

I can't understand that if you truly believe in god why you would rather trust the bible than god's creation itself. And it goes beyond that. You must reject one of them. How can you reject god's creation? You do think god created reality? Right? So how can you say that reality isn't true?

Why don't you have enough faith in god to believe in god without a literal genesis?

[asyncopated]

A scientist that finds a major flaw in any theory is pretty much guaranteed a Nobel prize, fame, and fortune. 

I agree with all of the above except the fortune bit.  As a scientist, unless you inherit amount of money a huge from a dead aunt, there is no natural physical or social process that will make you rich. No pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.   Well you won't be poor, but certainly not rich either. 

Honestly, I don't think pianistimo is arrogant or "mentally challenged".  Rather, I think that she is quite a nice person, who is intelligent, but has be brought up to put her faith in god above all else.  When she looks at anything new, the first thing that springs to her mind is, 'what is god's role in all this', and 'how does it sqaure with my view of the world so far, with god in the center'.  We are trying to reason and possibly, but not too sucessfully, change over 30 years of indoctrination.  I'm even surprised that she is willing to let us have a go.

It's good that she questions -- it shows that she is at least partially open minded to new things.  I'd rather that than she going  'yep yep, you are right but I don't believe you anyway because I can't understand you' and slamming the door in our faces. 

[ahinton]

I agree with all of the above except the fortune bit.  As a scientist, unless you inherit amount of money a huge from a dead aunt, there is no natural physical or social process that will make you rich. No pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.   Well you won't be poor, but certainly not rich either. 

Honestly, I don't think pianistimo is arrogant or "mentally challenged".  Rather, I think that she is quite a nice person, who is intelligent, but has be brought up to put her faith in god above all else.  When she looks at anything new, the first thing that springs to her mind is, 'what is god's role in all this', and 'how does it sqaure with my view of the world so far, with god in the center'.  We are trying to reason and possibly, but not too sucessfully, change over 30 years of indoctrination.  I'm even surprised that she is willing to let us have a go.

It's good that she questions -- it shows that she is at least partially open minded to new things.  I'd rather that than she going  'yep yep, you are right but I don't believe you anyway because I can't understand you' and slamming the door in our faces. 

I am inclined to agree with most of this. I had not taken pianistimo to be arrogant per se either; intransigent, yes, but it is possible to be that without actually being arrogant as well.

Best,

Alistair

[Derek]

Yes yes,  all you anti-Christian thinkers are open minded and the Christians only occasionaly exhibit slight moments of open mindedness. What a generous and humble way to think.

[pianistimo]

thanks, asyncopated.  actually, i never really wanted to challenge anyone from the start of this thread on anything but contradictions in the bible.  now it has changed to contradictions from science to the bible.  i have to admit - i'd not be the first one to agree with timothy42b that my answers are not as well thought out as a scientist who studies it for 8+ years.

i also thought today the same exact thing.  'boy, have i been arrogant and just spouting off the little bit that i know - and trying to look like i can prove my points without someone majorly coming in this thread and helping me.'  it's like if someone off the street came into my piano studio and wanted to teach me a few beginning lessons.  of course, i'd be offended.  so, then i think to myself - 'must be more respectful.'

asyncopated is right about my intentions, though - and i have to say that plasma confounds me.  you know when those plasma tv's came out - i'd just stare at them.  plasma.  just saying the word over and over can make you feel like all of a sudden you might be sucked in and turn to plasma.  and, then, of course -these tv shows where people DO turn into plasma and then back again.

ok.  - so here's my thought for today - WHAT IF...what if the rocks were plasma only 6,000 ago.  what if lucy was a chimpanzee who was buried in a lot of vocanic ash quite suddenly.  and what if ... the light that is now supposedly reaching us after 13.7 billion years is just the radioactivity it always was from the point of creation.  if the big bang was 3000K and now we have something like 2.7 K microwave - why wasn't everything just cooked and exploding all over the planet.  we'd find animals with innards blown here and there.  now, at 3000K (which i think is just a random number because it happens to be one where you can have matter stay together with the electrons and neutrons and protons)  there'd be all kinds of electrical storms and problems and well, i don't think life could exist on the earth through all that.

so ---what radioactive stage did we finally get to - after the expansion of the first part (which BTW has to have been instantly and everywhere at the same time - because we've found consistencies inthe universe in dating and chemical compositions of stuff) to where life could survive this radioactivity and thrive? 

[asyncopated]

Yes yes,  all you anti-Christian thinkers are open minded and the Christians only occasionaly exhibit slight moments of open mindedness. What a generous and humble way to think.

Yes, that is true.  We are generous and humble.

[asyncopated]

i also thought today the same exact thing.  'boy, have i been arrogant and just spouting off the little bit that i know - and trying to look like i can prove my points without someone majorly coming in this thread and helping me.'  it's like if someone off the street came into my piano studio and wanted to teach me a few beginning lessons.  of course, i'd be offended.  so, then i think to myself - 'must be more respectful.'

Actually, I disagree with this.  It's more like a student comes into your studio, has a few of his/her own ideas, which in your experience you know is not really sound but you encourage your student to explore in a guided manner.

I think our discussions have been beneficial to all involved.  It's difficult for either side to change their views just from a few discussions.  These are very deep running principles that we keep dear to us, and governs the way in which we lead our lives.  However, I enjoy having my fundamental tenants challenged, in the end I think it will make me a better person whatever the outcome, if any. 

Due to these discussions (and perhaps also the media hype) of late, I've been thinking about god more which I think is a good thing. I like playing devil's advocate.  The more dawkins (and others) finds reasons against god, the more I would like to try and find reasons for.

P.S.  When I say playing devil's advocate, I mean within the confines of reason and logic or the scientific method, rather than faith. I can't argue using faith -- there is no argument.

[pianistimo]

interesting - because i've been thinking more about science (and how much i don't know).  i think we both have a lot to learn.  somehow, i think God is real to me and will never be disproven - and, yet - i want to learn about the creation...but i didn't get a scientific brain like other people.  i have to keep repeating elementary stuff over and over just to remember that!

anyways, i give plausible credence for both sides because of people much smarter than me.  www.grisda.org/origins/19008.htm

i think we should hear all the theories of cosmology and not just the ones from a few people. 

here's a spiritually discerned interpretation that would match the bible:

i got it from www.forum.physorg.com  from dad1

'so, there is a process of decay we can measure...it produces a daughter element.  AS LONG AS THE PRESENT STATE OF DECAY EXISTED, it can be assumed it worked the same. ..before there was no decay universally --the process would have been one that resulted in an eternal state of matter.  the daughter could not be used beyond the 'split.'  this is the period where the spiritual and physical universe were not separated.'

[cmg]

I think our discussions have been beneficial to all involved.  It's difficult for either side to change their views just from a few discussions.  These are very deep running principles that we keep dear to us, and governs the way in which we lead our lives.  However, I enjoy having my fundamental tenants challenged, in the end I think it will make me a better person whatever the outcome, if any. 

Due to these discussions (and perhaps also the media hype) of late, I've been thinking about god more which I think is a good thing. I like playing devil's advocate. 

Here, here!  Well said, sir.  Just this weekend, I was listening to that great recording of Elgar's "The Kingdom" with Sir Adrian Boult, Price, Minton, Shirley-Quirk, etc. and what moved me (after the music) was Elgar's religious convictions.  Agnostic that I am and occasional atheist -- when the bad hair day descends upon me -- I envied his depth of feeling.  As I do in Haydn's in his glorious masses.  Oddly, enough, my favorite non-piano music are settings of the Mass (and, no, I'm not a Catholic)!  I want to blindly believe, but cannot anymore.

I think it was Pianolist in another thread who rightly commented on the role science has played, in its tremendous advances, on the fanning of our doubts.  Raised a Christian by rather devout people, I'd probably still be one if organized religions weren't so hellbent on hypocrisy and violence.  "God," of course, has nothing to do with the hypocrisy of humans, but dogged and literal interpretation of the Great Book, with its glaring discrepancies and contradictions, had done much to foster hypocrisy, I think.  If one believes "God" infallible, then I think you have to abandon That Book as His/Her Word, don't you think?

What I truly want is Haydn and Elgar's faith.  But mine is gone, alas.  But, as Woody Allen said (or quoted), "faith is the path of least resistance."

I live only blocks from the former World Trade Towers.  I was there when they fell.  Only briefly and childishly, did I wonder, "Where is God now?"  And only briefly (and childishly) did I wonder when the response to THAT violence was MORE violence: "Where is God now and his Christian peacemakers?"

I'm going to listen to Haydn's "Heiligmesse" when I get home from work.

Over and out.       

[ahinton]

Here, here!  Well said, sir.  Just this weekend, I was listening to that great recording of Elgar's "The Kingdom" with Sir Adrian Boult, Price, Minton, Shirley-Quirk, etc. and what moved me (after the music) was Elgar's religious convictions. Agnostic that I am and occasional atheist -- when the bad hair day descends upon me -- I envied his depth of feeling...

...

What I truly want is Haydn and Elgar's faith.  But mine is gone, alas.  But, as Woody Allen said (or quoted), "faith is the path of least resistance."

A most intriguing and - if I may say so - sensitively considered set of thoughts. But you want Elgar's faith? Raised though he was as a Roman Catholic in a largely Protestant England, he was not only an outsider as a Catholic but he constantly entertained doubts about his entire "faith". Elgar was not an atheist, of course, but he was a major doubter, not only of religious things but of his own worth as a composer. "Elgar's faith" was therefore a far less certain and constant thing than some might imagine. The Dream of Gerontius - a masterpiece by anyone's standards if ever there was one - stands head and shoulders above all his other liturgically-inspired works - yet Elgar was not a devout and sure Catholic; he thought, worried, considered, etc. No one with one and a half brain cells to rub together could possibly doubt his depth of feeling in that work, yet he entertained doubts about matters of religious faith with regularity...

I live only blocks from the former World Trade Towers.  I was there when they fell.  Only briefly and childishly, did I wonder, "Where is God now?"  And only briefly (and childishly) did I wonder when the response to THAT violence was MORE violence: "Where is God now and his Christian peacemakers?"

So was Elliott Carter; he actually saw them fall from the window of his Greenwich village apartment on that fateful morning before he went to work (Mr Carter is 98 today, by the way).

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

dear cmg,

with all respect and appreciation of your views - and of your obvioius compassion for WTC victims after witnessing such a horrible event - i would differ with several things that you said.  faith isn't to me the path of 'least' resistance.  it's the path of the most severe resistance you will ever get in this life.  that is why Christ was tempted.  otherwise, Satan wouldn't have tempted him with the idea that His kingdom could be in this lifetime - granted to him by the 'god' of this world.  Satan himself.

now, i realize that i am in a minority of christians that actually believes that God AND His created angels (the angels of light and the angels of darkness of whom Satan (Lucifer)  is the head)  exist.  as i understand it - according to the bible - he is 'the god of this world' under whom's influence the world is blinded.  Christ said 'my kingdom is not of this world...'  so we know that even though He was tempted to take the easy way - and just accept the world and the kingdoms as they are now - blighted, but rich - He decided to wait.  and, smartly, as He wasn't yet ressurrected from the dead - although being in the 'form' of man surely didn't make Him lose sight of His Father for a second.

as i see it - patience IS a virtue.  Christ gave us an example of waiting for our reward of 'life' of being 'with God' and of having 'eternal rewards.'  we do not yet see them or know exactly what they are beyond little bits of gleaning of the words 'saints,' 'kingdom,' 'cities,' 'crowns'  and also a verse which mentions that we await 'joy' in full.  perhaps a much deeper kind of joy than a temporal sexual union.  a thrill of actual being in union with the Holy Spirit.  with something that elevates us beyond the physical realm. 

regarding the other different belief that i have - it would be that God IS infallible and His word never returns to Him empty.  that means that the word is like SEED.  it is scattered every place in the world.  some falls on rocks, soil, etc. and the depth (having the Holy Spirit) helps it take root.  before i was baptized, i can honestly say that i didn't give God a chance in my life.  I was taking hold of my own life in my own way - as with the song 'i'll do it my way...'  but, when i'd encounter difficulties - i'd say 'where's God'  - and  pray.  so it was a kind of false seeking.  but, when you look for God at all times (and there is a scripture that says something about 'if you seek Him - you will truly find Him...') and trust that He IS there - and that His plans and Words will effect great change in your life -- you take a leap of faith and become a child of God.

the result of this is that you no longer look inwardly but outwardly.  i was listening to joel osteen and he explained it like this:  many people in times of crisis become inward and do not think of anyone or anything but their problems.  a man/woman of God does the opposite.  then, he mentioned a sister that had a bad marriage and had to get divorced.  how she stayed in her room and never would come out or be encouraged by the family because noone could 'reach' her.  then, one day - after deciding for herself - she started a group for people with marital troubles and brought love and her own experiences for others to glean from.  later she remarried a very loving man and experienced something much better than she ever thought she would the first time.

or, with people who experience cancer.  he brought up his mother - who had gotten cancer and instead of waiting to die - started reaching out to other people who had problems and sending cards and encouraging them.  strangely, but not so strangely - she was (after some radiation probably ,too) healed completely of the cancer.  now, i don't doubt the medical establishement can help people stop cancer - but in terms of cures - i don't think so.

from my own experience with a broken bone - i have seen and felt God's mighty power in healing.  to explain this to someone else is difficult.  but, there is a certain confidence one gets that comes from 'nowhere.'  this confidence is from God.  i am not a particularly bright or talented person - rather average - but some very unusual things have happened for me many times in my life.  it makes me think that God - in His all powerful ways - DOES help us, encourage us, make us able to carry the burdens that we carry in this life - and actually pass off those burdens to Him when we pray and ask for help.  if we do not ask - we don't get it.  So - you HAVE to ask!  start with small prayers.  stupid prayers - like - OK God - help me out - i can't find the keys.  even over small stuff like this - i always ALWAYS get an answer.  this is hard to believe but TRUE.

[pianistimo]

i'm commiting a faux pas here, as nils suggested i not add a post to another post - but that one was kinda long.  ok. about why evil.  it is my interpretation of the bible that the 'end of this age' means the time we are living in right now.  it is also called an 'evil age.'  that people will not be seeking God in their lives and that Satan will be 'cast down to earth.'  not just in the form that He was cast down at the beginning of the ages (when adam and eve were tempted) but in the manner of knowing that 'he has but a short time.'  why the short time?  well, prophecy is known by Satan just as much as the angels and he knows that if Christians turn to God and follow God - that there will be many children of light - and not enough children of darkness.  our salvation BOTHERS him - because he knows how beautiful it is.  He once sat at the very throne of God and was a covering archangel - full of beauty and light. 

now, i realize this sounds very much like 1001 arabian tales to some - but i take it literally.  that there are other beings - not human - that God created to be his 'servants' and to actually watch over humans (their original job).  we are said to be 'under' the angels - but in the ressurrection - 'over' them.  perhaps Satan didn't like that idea?  and yet, i've never seen an instance in the bible - where position mattered at all.  Christ said that those who are leaders should serve those under them and have greater responsibility.  it's not necessarily the way it works in today's governments.  also, in the millenium - peace - which is nonexistent today - will be a reality because of Christ being King over all.  He says to us 'be of good cheer, I have overcome the world...'  this didn't happen with no effort at all on His part.  it was the most effort any 'human' has ever put forth for the most amount of result.  the entire world being saved.  with God - all things are possible.  if He can do it - He gives us hope that even if the worst possible thing happens to us (death) - it is not final.  God gives us our final destiny and reward.  and, i don't think He is anxious to punish - but wishes that all come to an understanding of His good will. 

He did not plan the WTC attacks.  He does not maim and kill whole entire populations in genocide and war.  He does not inspire evil.  Satan does.  that is why people are uncontrollable in mobs.  there is a spirit of evil working through people as a wind fanning flames.  you can see it as vicious as the flames that burnt the WTC.  that was a momentous occasion for prophecy and people who believe prophecy - because we see it as a financial system that = to the world = prosperity.  and yet, God doesn't want us to trust in money.  it is basically either or - you cannot serve both God and money.  of course, we need money to survive.  and having money is not evil.  or providing for yourself or your family.  but, greed is another matter.  to be greedy when many portions of the world are starving.  the beginning of the end - probably happened when israel became a nation in 1947.  then, we see the beginnings of the United Nations.  a putting into place of everything needed for the stage of the book of 'revelations.'  we have already gone through a year of 'tribulation' without knowing it.  but, it will become worse and worse.  but, we are told though there are 'wars and rumors of wars...be not afraid.'  why?  because if you trust God - you have no greater defence!  our military is not going to save us.  God IS.  God is first returning to the Mt. of Olives in Jerusalem - fighting against the nations that go to battle against Him (and against His holy city) - and His saints will be with him.  thousands.  that is what the bible says. 

maybe not scientific enough - but it surely is amazing when God's own words come true.  no better experiment than to see God's words return to Him with as much power as when they left His lips.

[pianistimo]

ok.  i'm about to get canned.  just had to add one more thought.  after much reflection as a christian - i think we are seeing the devolution of this world and the beginning of a new world.

[cmg]

This post is going to be, I think, a Piano Forum first, given that I am addressing both the "Eminent Believer" along with the "Eminent Doubter"!

Thank you, pianistimo, for your reponse.  The phrase, " . . .faith is the path of severest resistance . . .," is really quite poignant and I would offer up Elgar as a prime example of how I would interpret your comment -- thanks to AH who enlightened me on Elgar's great struggle.  Interestingly, I had also listened to "Gerontius" this past weekend.  And, AH, I concur with your opinion.  Such great music.

Just minutes ago, amazingly enough, a patient I was working with detailed his own spiritual crisis.  He's a young father and was feeling guilt over encouraging his little boy to "believe" in Santa.  I asked him, naturally, why this seemingly benign request for "faith" troubled him so.  He said, "well, as a boy myself, my Catholic parents encourgaged me to believe in Santa and I remember, indelibly, the day I learned Santa was a lie.  It was devastating for me."  He said that on that day he felt he lost his innocence.   His mother, he added, comforted him by encouraging him to pray to Jesus Christ.

My patient looked at me with the saddest smile.  "Jesus Christ," he said.  "Now how could my mother ever believe that I was up to taking on yet another myth?"

Faith, pianistimo, must truly be a gift -- or the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on human intelligence.  I honestly don't know which it is, but I do admire your talent for experiencing it as a gift and thank you for explaining your views.

And HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ELLIOT CARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

[maul]

I believe all of this belongs in the Plague of the Mind thread.

[ahinton]

This post is going to be, I think, a Piano Forum first, given that I am addressing both the "Eminent Believer" along with the "Eminent Doubter"!

Thank you, pianistimo, for your reponse.  The phrase, " . . .faith is the path of severest resistance . . .," is really quite poignant and I would offer up Elgar as a prime example of how I would interpret your comment -- thanks to AH who enlightened me on Elgar's great struggle.  Interestingly, I had also listened to "Gerontius" this past weekend.  And, AH, I concur with your opinion.  Such great music.

Indeed so - and profoundly moving...

And HAPPY BIRTHDAY, ELLIOT CARTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

Yes! - but PLEASE let him have his second "T" (!!)

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I believe all of this belongs in the Plague of the Mind thread.

ALL of it? - Elliott Carter and Edward Elgar included, huh? Ah, well - that'll save you having to bother to listen to a whole lot of music, then...

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

yes!  at 93 he must be doing something right! 

interesting you are enlightened to use the term 'gift.'  that is exactly what Christ termed the 'Holy Spirit.'  it is what allows people to see beyond the physical realm and be connected to the Spirit.  it doesn't happen all of a sudden.  'twinkle.'  born again.  it happens to everyone differently.  for instance, for some, they may be like the 'thief on the cross' and have a death bed confession (that they believe Christ is the son of God and will come in glory).  the best way to do it, imo, is to start with little steps that lead toward a goal of just becoming 'friends' with God.  after all - that is how people who are serious to be in a relationship of any sort probably want to start.  carefully.  measuring and seeing what the other 'person' is about.  when you take each little bit of encouragement and love - you see that God is FOR us and not against us.  Satan makes evil look good - and in the end - our result is depression, physical maladies, hopelessness.  this does not affect christians to the same degree- as you probably already know.  why?  because they have the help of something that is not physical.  the Holy Spirit! 

if i were a psychologist or psychiatrist - the first thing i would ask the patient is if they believed in God and whether they would entertain the thought of reading the psalms (at least one) every night before they went to bed.  i think composers like elgar, haydn, handel, mozart - were well aware of the psalms (as many other composers) because after all - they are 'songs.'  the 'song's of david.  there are places of the bible - that yes! can look depressing.  but, they are leading to a great place of 'freedom.'  there is freedom in Christ.  i think that ultimately He wants to share EVERYTHING.  that is what good parents do for their children.  they raise them - give them more and more autonomy and finally an inheritance.  a parent wouldn't move them off to a jail cell and be celebrating that!  i don't think God wants ANY to perish - but that ALL should have everlasting life.

ps the depressing part - is when we read about all the previous saints and their 'testing' and 'trials.'  none of them had an easy life.  they were asked to do very difficult things at bad times.  now, in the military you can overcome mental hangups about not getting things done - but spiritually -it's a warfare against the mind.  against 'spiritual wickedness in high places.'  that means- satan tries to get at us through our weak points - whatever they happen to be.  for Christ - he thought he would be tempted by 'power.'  for us - individually - it might be something else.  whatever tempts us to do evil (break the 10 commandments). it's not complicated.