Post(ur)ing

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

An ode to literature

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

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

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

Most sincerely,
A science student.

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

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


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


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


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

Burn out

Maybe I know what it is, maybe.

Hell - not just a pizza shop?

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

so anxious

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

Jesus died. Case closed?

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

(Picture courtesy of Wikipedia)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

proteins

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

On Fairy Stories

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

not skilled to understand

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

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

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

John Morton dies

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

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

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

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