Still, I agree there certainly is conflict between a literal read, especially of Genesis, and science. Just like there’s conflict between a “this is divine writing, not human writing”-read of the Old Testament and the notion that the Bible is a good moral compass (and that the God described by that kind of read is a moral and benevolent).

I’m all too aware of that.

An interesting potential side-effect of the middle-class thinking person, is some form middle-class angst. Being blessed with a hard-working father with much foresight, is indeed a blessing. Not something I deserved. So here I am, all cushy in my cottage, with three computers in my area, and more books on my shelf than I can read right now. And I know I don’t “deserve” all this. So there’s guilt… the classic “bleeding heart liberal guilt” about the children under the bridge. About the unfairness of the world. And the realisation that I’m supposed to be making a difference there.

Very much why the supernatural interventionist perspective is so prevalent and popular. No need to go make a difference to the children under the bridge, we’ll just say a daily prayer that God will look out for the poor. There, done, played my part, God will take care of them.

Bullshit.

I’m not saying God doesn’t care, I’m just saying that, as a person with a rather naturalistic perspective on how things get done, I do strongly believe we are God’s hands and feet. That it is up to us to go and make the difference. I’m all too aware of that.

And I continue scratching my head as to how I can then contribute, without “just praying”, but also without climbing out of my middle-class comfort zone. Sick isn’t it. Friggen hypocrite. Or procrastinator maybe, always saying “I’ll figure out the best way for me to contribute, and once I’ve done that, I’ll do it.” Yea, right…

And then I’ll be in Switzerland in August. And I’ll look for charities for sending money to. And my employer will meet my donations, thereby doubling them. And I will feel better, because I “sent some money”. Whoopdiedoo… Did I really make a difference?

Sorry, excessive and unnecessary verbosity. I think the money will make more of a difference than prayer, but I still wouldn’t have gotten my hands dirty. But I continue seeking to find that solution that is significant enough, but within my comfort zone’s reach…

I hope this verbosity helps us understand one another?

Once a week, feed one or two hungry, abandoned children whom you get to know by name until those two kids are adults and can find and feed one or two hungry children, once a week too. The rest of the world may not care much to do it – but those children will take over the world.

That’s why I do it.

I know you don’t care much for me speaking about Slabstown and the poor little kids down under the bridge there, I have yet to find any one who does, they are an embarrassment here and nobody needs what seems to amount to emotional manipulation – but since we are both orphans ourselves – let me ask you an orphan to orphan scientific question Hugo … If your dad hadn’t made financial arrangements so that you would never know financial stress when he died and you had to do the orphan thing my way, the hard, hard, hard way – do you think you would give a rat’s ass for them now? Where would you have got the money to read McClaren? You would have had to come to those conclusions yourself anyway, like I said you can. Don’t take that the wrong way, never feel under pressure because you did not need to suffer poverty – that is not what I am getting at. It is good that you weren’t burdened in that respect – too. Do you hear me?

Once a week, feed one or two hungry, abandoned children whom you get to know by name until those two kids are adults and can find and feed one or two hungry children, once a week too.

It will change the world forever.

When looking at the natural world, you see majesty and intricacy and wonder, and you stand in awe. You think “wow!” You appreciate life and all it has to offer. You appreciate the miracle that it all exists. If you call the source of that “God”, you can agree with Paul. Even many atheistic scientists have a reverence for “God” in a poetic sense, but their perspectives on “God” is somewhat more pantheistic than theistic. In effect, you could say there is just some disagreement about the nature of “God”. And that isn’t exactly going to get resolved. That doesn’t reduce the value of the essence of Paul’s teachings, but not everyone is going to connect that awe and reverence with a personified God that responds to prayer through divine intervention, y’know?

I’m happy that, in a strongly theistic culture, the sense of awe and wonder at existence and the world is expressed in a strongly theistic way. And I believe that the value of that kind of teaching still exists in a post-theistic or non-theistic culture, or pantheistic or panentheistic or whatnot-fancy-schmancy-label you can dream up, where the essence is an embracing and acceptance of the miraculous gift that is our very existence, the gift that is life. But not everyone is going to connect that to the Christian tradition, or to a monotheistic tradition, or whatever language one speaks when speaking about spirituality and what it means to be a living human. So I’m not going to be pushing Christian monotheism on everyone on this blog, I’m going to be looking at the essence and the value of the things I see, and share that, explaining the various contexts from which they can be understood. And by that I hope to build bridges, aid cross-cultural understanding, and attempt to encourage cooperation in bringing about what is known in the Christian tradition as “letting the Kingdom come, on earth, as it is in Heaven”. In that regard, we are in agreement and share the same mission, even if I’m trying to communicate with people that don’t share the Christian tradition or background.

With regards to Paul in general, by now it should be quite clear that my “Christianity” is of the strongly liberal flavour. When I look at Paul’s letters, I look at the writings, the letters, of a particular fallible person that believes he met Jesus in a vision, but never did know Jesus in real life, in person. He wasn’t a disciple. So I wonder how much he knew of Jesus’ teachings. Apparently he took about three years before he even went to speak to the main leaders in the Jesus movement, in Jerusalem. As such, I remain skeptical as to how well his teachings (especially his early teachings) line up with the ideals and teachings of Jesus himself. Based on my understanding and knowledge, Paul was a big promoter of the “Jesus died for your sins, he’s your personal saviour” kind of doctrine. And Shofar loves Paul. To connect this particular early church leader to your concerns, it is interesting to note that his first letters didn’t have much to say about the poor: only after visiting Jerusalem and meeting with the people that knew the living, breathing, pre-easter Jesus, did his letters start containing a strong “give money to the poor” message, more specifically “send money to Jerusalem”, iirc. Maybe he was trying to appease the main leaders to get his own ministry more recognised, or maybe he discovered the importance and value of some of Jesus’ teachings that he hadn’t heard through his “vision”. (Or maybe I’m just being the typical skeptical liberal Christian here.) But this is how I see it. I see a guy that believed the world was going to end in his lifetime. I see a guy whose teachings weren’t perfect. There is much that I can learn from Paul, but I do not take his authority as “the authority of God”. And I also believe he sometimes writes, about some of his advice, “it is not God that says these things, but I”.

That’s a good place to start. What is it saying?

In terms of wasting time, this blog is largely doing things that I want to do. Hard to justify sometimes, spent a few hours hacking on a post about evolution yesterday. Not biological evolution in particular, rather the concept in general. It lays foundations for further discussions that I’d like to run. In particular, the evolution of religion, from something that cares about the poor, to something that cares purely about “procreating”. Counting “saved souls”… and going for the money is more useful in such a situation, because that helps feed the machine to “save more souls”. Lekke bullshit, y’know. But the background post on evolution comes first, because that’s how I’m building my story, my blog. That’s how I’m trying to do the science education thing as well, ’cause science is something I’m passionate about. So for the record. this isn’t true:

Creationists and evolutionists only exist intellectually to dis-prove each other – something neither one can do.

Creationists try to get that “controversy” belief going, hence the propaganda word “evolutionist”. Science, in the mean time, is unanimous about the situation. There is no controversy. But I understand that the creationists can continue to simply ignore science.

I have another angle that I also want to take, but I’ve been postponing that as well. I don’t know how useful that will be, I don’t know what your comments or feedback on that will be, but I have external reasons for postponing it. Now looking at late July. Basically, we’ll start looking in more detail at what Shofar teaches. At that point I would love more theological input. I’ll probably ask some of my friends that are studying theology, whether they would like to provide some input on the details. And we will also apply our minds. Multiple angles and viewpoints of the situation. Hopefully an attempt to get diverse opinions and beliefs shared. And I’m sure you will understand how playing aggressive-aggressive then will shut down some potential conversations?

I continue scratching my head about how to tell someone they’re wrong, without them shutting down and running away. Because people’s minds and beliefs go into defensive mode, where they are no longer open to learning.

In terms of this:

My ideas scare people do they? I frighten them – yes? Well break out the pitchforks and torches boy and girls … you got a problem on your hands.

It wasn’t the ideas. It was the way they were presented. People commenting that they’re scared to say something that might upset you, because they’re afraid of how you would react. That doesn’t have much to do with the ideas being discussed, that has to do with attitude, aggression, style, and only that. So the actual ideas do not get discussed. Cornered animals, cornered by aggression, not by ideas in debate, are again not open to learning. They’re not open to ideas. They’re just looking at what the best course of action is for survival. When people are worried about their own survival, they won’t give a rat’s ass about “some poor kids under the bridge”.

People are fundamentally irrational. Getting past the irrationality is hard. There are different ideas of how to do it, of course, but I’m not sure how much of a contribution aggression makes.

OK, and in terms of your comments on this post, I think you will agree that they’re not that much about making a direct contribution, and more about starting a discussion on your frustrations with my approach to the matter… right? Something like that?

In terms of your suggestions, I’m still not always sure what exactly you suggest (for this blog), or sometimes the things you suggest are not the things that I can do. So I continue on my path, making the preparations I want to make. (And yes, I’m taking “much too long” to get anywhere, but such is the path I’m walking.)

Listen very carefully: You do not need McClaren et al. Apply your mind, reduce everything to it’s most simplest and no further – you will come to the same conclusions he did. You are more than able to do it.

Then question then Hugo, is why are you wasting your time and more importantly – where do we go from here…?

Creationists and evolutionists only exist intellectually to dis-prove each other – something neither one can do.

Waiting, waiting, waiting….Some lateral thinking … something, any bloody thing.

Last year I very politely asked to open a discussion, here – not the kind of crap you are reacting to or pulling trying to pull yourself – and still pandering here – an open thoughtful discussion based on people’s OWN conclusions – and it went nowhere. We trotted back down the path of who’s read what, off into ad hominems and I knows what big words all like a big person. Whoo wee teacher says I’m clever. Forget the books, the educations, all the utter drivel in between – what does anyone think? Really think???

Will those conclusions give us answers to global hunger, global warming, spiritual decay, financial corruption of the gospel…???

What does someone think?

Not Fred May or Batten or Ping-pong Paluka-boy – they don’t live here. Of course, I’m pissed off – kids are in deep, deep shit in my town and it is going to get worse and the best that comes out of it is an argument about stones?

After years of this bullshit – How old is a stone?

You don’t like the fact that I’m saying: Stop this bullshit, if we all have our clothes off – let’s fuck. I must play the game the play-play way and be all floral and stupid too. No.

I turn up the heat, get the nasty right out there, without the bullshit nice-nice packaging – because face it, passive-aggressive or aggressive-aggressive like I play – is still the same crap, and my, my, my – it cuts doesn’t it?

Why? See, now answer that. I’m just doing what everyone else is doing – MUCH LOUDER.

See, why I find it so irritating. It gets no one anywhere. You yourself were moaning about wasting three years of your life on one topic and achieving nothing….

How old is a stone?

How tall is a dwarf?

My ideas scare people do they? I frighten them – yes? Well break out the pitchforks and torches boy and girls … you got a problem on your hands. I’m not my past, my anger is now and present and lies bleeding in the street. It is sucking a tik pipe or planning to break into your house.

In Greece they broke out the knives when arguing – to make a sharp point … excuse the pun.

You know as well as I do that some Shofarians will simply ignore what you write. Ditto for some non-Shofarians. And I know your writing is effective to some. But you should realise I’m taking a different approach with this blog, my mission does differ from yours. But if you keep on turning every example of my kind of discussion into your kind of discussion, then this site ends up being just another one of your sites, catering to the same crowd. I’m specifically trying to cater for a different crowd.

Your comments scare people, Al. And I’m not talking about people in Shofar, I’m talking about outsiders observing. You have passion and drive, and that’s great, but these things can dominate and suppress discussions.

Now you come in with:

This has absolutely nothing to do with Christ or Christianity – this is backwater intellectual politics by minor league aspirants.

Do you try to offend, Al? This blog is indeed not a Christian blog, it’s main topic isn’t Christ and Christianity. This blog does seem to have more of a science leaning. This blog is the way I like it. If you want to think of science and critical thinking as “backwater intellectual politics”, you’re welcome to do so, but respect other people’s paths through life. Please. And who are you calling utterly ignorant? Me? (I am…) Or the science PhD’s that have been commenting every now and then?

Yes, there’s been some atheistic comments as well. There we’re talking about another group that is discriminated against unfairly. And in my fight against bigotry, I’m also going to defend the atheistic world-view. Not everyone believes the same thing, and that is fine. I will also be looking in more depth at Jesus’ teachings, and Christianity’s origins and developments. Some unfortunate recent developments, e.g. American fundie evangelicalism. But I’ll get to it when I’ll get to it, because this is my blog.

In terms of pointing to outside resources, what’s wrong with that? Why do you have to go offend a contributor? Aren’t you playing ad-hominem attacks now?

nobody is interested in your links

Al, speak for yourself. If you’re not interested in what’s happening here, then shut up and go away. Or learn to be more diplomatic. You could have said the same things in a much friendlier way. I know that the children you used to work with didn’t respond to “friendly diplomacy” like that, that you have to know how to communicate with rough kids before you can do so. I respect that. But you know that us kids here grew up all cushy and sheltered and don’t know what the hard life is like. That’s us. And clearly you don’t know how to talk to us. Please bear that in mind or respect that, or go back to working in the circles that you are good at.

Respectfully. I hope you understand what I’m trying to say, because I do appreciate your comments. Can you keep them on-topic though?

1. Utter ignorance on both sides, from “prove God to me!” to “lions ate lettuce in the garden of Eden” – have you idiots listened to yourselves … forget the other mutt – listen to how stupid you sound yourself, and then you still want to trot out your utter idiocy for the world as a wannabe expert an expect your nonsense to be taken seriously.

2. The internet is a wonderful place to play linky, linky, Wikki, wikki – in a feeble attempt make you folks look like you know what you are talking about, because you can google links to a hundred fools as stupid as you are – to neatly fit your pre-supposition’s search phrase criteria. All it proves, is you lack the capacity to think for yourself or formulate you own conclusions. It is lazy and opportunistic, borders on plagiarism and you know it. And you cannot show, not one of you how you came to your conclusions, just whom you’ve chosen to back on your partisan side of the fence. If I were your hypothetical lecturer on this topic – I would fail most of you in a class on this topic starting with everyone in Shofar – because it is irritating trying to teach parrots who can’t think or produce their own conclusions.

Try this on for size, not that I think you can, else someone would have done so by now – but please do try and get beyond the reams and reams of: ad hominem, ad nauseum, ad nauseum … Here, this blog is supposed to be called think too much, so think!!!

Open a real discussion on this topic and nobody is interested in your links to the super writer of the week’s opinions – do something you have never, ever done before – think for yourself and you evangelicals, grow up and get out of silly iron age superstition – Galileo is dead and he was right. If the cycles of physical life and death were not a part of this world, then where did the animal skins come from that Adam and Eve dressed in??? Idiots. And yet, you think you are doing the gospel a favour …

Discuss this:

God said: Let there be light … and the language he spoke was mathematics, and the alphabet of that language is what we call the periodic table. A billion years is as a second to God and a second is as a billion years – God equates them equal … so at which hour were we commanded to go love the broken world and break bread with it?

The proof of God is we can hear His voice, whether we choose to acknowledge this or not. See … else you wouldn’t be reading this … and you wouldn’t be irritated with me for bringing bread into it. You can’t feed a poor child with stones that were dead animals, no matter how old they are.

When creationists ask for a cross between a fish and a lion there is going to be trouble.

Tell me what you think, please.

Sergio L

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html