I did not get the "tap on the shoulder" I was expecting I guess it's for the believing only...
Could be a seed was planted...
Posts by hmike
-
10I went to church for the FIRST time...
by zeroday ini was out in california visiting the folks when my father and his wife invited me to their church for sunday services...well being out of the borg for 4 years and a devote atheist i said "why not"... they go to a nondenominational foursquare church...i first asked if this was snake night to my suprise no... so off i went...the service started with a christian rock band playing christian rock for about half an hour (not bad actually) everyone either standing or kneeling with outstreached hands the whole time...then the pastor got up and began his sermon titled:.
"the right way to die" ok i'm getting a little weirded out here and expect a punch bowl of koolaid to appear at anytime now... not so it was about getting right with god at the time of our death to meet the lord in heaven...all in all a very nice service and very nice people but i did not get the "tap on the shoulder" i was expecting i guess it's for the believing only....
-
-
hmike
-
65
KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE between what is real and what isn't.
by Terry inthe reality of our life stands in stark contrast to the imagined.. we can imagine whatever we like.
but, life intrudes.
and, by life--i mean the unavoidably real events we cannot wish away.. each of us is capable of avoiding unpleasant thoughts.
-
-
hmike
Terry, I would agree with about 90% of your opening post. To be fair, everything should be subject to skepticism, perhaps even skepticism itself.
-
5
Right Brain or Left Brain = Nonsense?
by TD in....that's the opinion of dr. steven novella, neurologist at yale university school of medicine.
http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=27.
specifically in reference to the spinning dancer illusion, he said:.
-
-
hmike
Some other research I've read agrees that this Left/Right distinction is not so definite, but this is one of those areas of dispute in the field of brain studies.
-
22
The Kingdom Of The Cults....
by lovelylil inby walter martin.
anyone read this?
my used copy from amazon just came today.
-
-
hmike
VM44,
Thanks for the link to waltermartin.com. It's good to see his work has been sustained by his daughter and family.
-
22
The Kingdom Of The Cults....
by lovelylil inby walter martin.
anyone read this?
my used copy from amazon just came today.
-
-
hmike
The Mormons do not like "Dr" Walter Martin!
A lot of groups didn't like Dr. Martin. Let's see...LDS, JW, Worldwide Church of God (under Herbert W. Armstrong), Eastern religions and their
Western transplant New Age groups, on and on. He didn't cut them any slack. He especially targeted LDS and JW because they were the large and influential, and because they misrepresented the Bible's teachings with their mishandling of the texts, and with the teachings in their supplementary books. -
22
The Kingdom Of The Cults....
by lovelylil inby walter martin.
anyone read this?
my used copy from amazon just came today.
-
-
hmike
I often listened to Dr. Martin's radio program, The Bible Answer Man, and I got to see him several times at Melodyland Christian Center and other places. I enjoyed listening to him immensely. He did have kind of a "rough edge" to him—sometimes he seemed harsh in the way he treated objections—probably acquired from all those years of debating about every belief under the sun. He could tell you exactly why you were wrong. I haven't paid attention to CRI since his passing as they have gone in directions he wouldn't have approved of, and they have pretty much dropped him from their heritage.
Dr. Martin also wrote Jehovah of the Watchtower, probably not available anymore.
-
41
The Right Brain vs Left Brain test
by JH inthe right brain vs left brain test ... do you see the dancer turning clockwise or counter-clockwise?.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22535838-5012895,00.html.
at first i saw her turn clockwise, then counter clockwise.......
-
-
hmike
The direction changes for me if I focus on the shadow of the landing foot.
Having taken several RB/LB tests, I come out in the range from 50/50 to 60-left/40-right. I have interests and tendencies on both sides. Sometimes, the two can be in conflict.
Some recent research suggests the separation of operations into LEFT/RIGHT may not be as well-established as had been believed.
-
71
ARE YOU PRO-UNION OR ANTI-UNION?
by Mary inwould you rather work in a unionized or non-unionized environment?
the place where i work recently voted 'no', we don't want a union in here (after being harassed by a very large union for the last 5 years).
there were some who voted 'yes', but the majority of us voted 'no' and those that were pro-union are quite pissed off that the rest of us 'fail to see the light'.
-
-
hmike
I've gone just the opposite way of ferret, who posted earlier.
When I was young and naive about such things, I was anti-union. I thought unions just interfered with productivity and protected the lazy. The way I saw it, employers were doing their workers a favor by providing a job, and if the employee didn't like the work, he or she could just go somewhere else. Now that I've been in the workforce some 35 years, because of what I've seen and experienced, I'm about as pro-union as one can get. I don't begrudge anyone whatever they can legally and ethically get. Several years ago, I took a class in supervision, but I realized I was so biased that I could never work in supervision or management because in any dispute, I would probably side with the employee against management.
Next time you see a union worker who seems lazy, slack, or rude, here’s something to consider: many times, these workers didn’t start out that way. Years of meaningless, unfulfilling work, possibly dealing with rude customers, with little or no opportunity for advancement, getting no respect for their input, no meaningful recognition, no encouragement, day after day, year after year, creates an attitude of "Why should I bother? I'll just do only what I have to do to keep getting a paycheck." Unions help create specific job duties to protect workers from being told to do something they are not qualified or trained to do, or that is worth more than they are getting paid. But that also prevents the worker from expanding his experience and value. Also, because union workers generally earn higher wages and better benefits, they become "trapped" in the job they don’t like because they can’t afford to get out.
Economics, outsourcing, and manufacturing out of the country has reduced union power quite a bit. Companies cry they can't afford the higher wages and benefits.
Once in a while, you find a company that makes its employees' welfare a concern. That's the way it should be.
-
16
Stephen Hawking
by lisavegas420 inwhat's the story on him?
i've read some of his bio, but i can't figure out how he got to be popular.
he's even had at least two guest appearance on the simpson's.
-
-
hmike
Stephen Hawking may be one of the greatest scientific minds of all time. The producers of Star Trek: The Next Generation thought enough of him to have Data create a holodeck program where he could play poker with Einstein, Newton, and Hawking.
Discovery Channel, PBS, and other educational networks present shows about him on occasion. One I saw recently showed that in a poll among his contemporaries as to who the greatest physicists of the last century were, Hawking finished about 20th on the list. Apparently, his contributions to the field are not seen as that significant by his colleagues.
Hawking has had ALS for something like 45 years. Amazing, considering he had been given two years to live when he was diagnosed. He has been near death on at least a couple of occasions. Even though he has the benefit of the best care available, I wonder if his survival has something to do with his intellect.
Last year, he got the chance to experience weightlessness in space, and is scheduled to go up again next year.
What we don't hear much about is the soap-opera-type personal life he has had—his marriage to a Christian in his youth, the stress she experienced caring for him, her involvement with another man (apparently sanctioned by Hawking), her charges that he was a tyrant and manipulator, the divorce, his marriage to his nurse, charges of neglect and abuse, on and on.
Unable to write, he has had to do all calculations in his head. His electronic speech is very slow and tedious. He has others to help him with his work, as he is totally dependent. What would his life have been like if he had been healthy?
-
24
Dr. Ehrman's "Problem" Verse
by hmike insome of you know about dr. bart ehrman.
for those who don't, dr. ehrman is a professor of religious studies at the university of north carolina, chapel hill, and has written several books including misquoting jesus: the story behind who changed the bible and why, in which he includes some biographical material.
in this book, ehrman recounts how he became a christian through a youth ministry while in high school, and he claimed to have had a genuine "born again" experience (although he doesn't give any details of what that experience was for him).
-
-
hmike
Looks like nobody has anything else to add, so I'll give a few of my conclusions, and maybe that will be the end, or maybe it will encourage additional input.
We seem to be dealing with two kinds of discrepancies: those within different copies of the same text, and those between different books covering common ground. In the first case, it looks like the best conclusion I can come to is that different texts became known and accepted with different churches in different regions. Once these texts became established in this way, they became resistant to change where they were known. This familiarity acted as a check against alteration, but as the books were circulated, changes crept in when they were copied outside the group that was familiar with them These altered texts survived to be re-copied many times, and even more changes were made. So now we are left with some diversity without knowing which documents go back at least to the original community. As for the latter case, where the books may have appeared to disagree (e. g., Luke and John), the texts were allowed to remain intact for the sake of harmony between the churches. The communities from which these books originated would not tolerate tampering with their text.
Certainly, all of us can accept that, regardless of who wrote the manuscripts, certain books with whatever their particular slants were accepted by certain communities or in certain regions (e. g., Matthew's work in communities with strong Jewish roots, Luke in Gentile communities or churches started by Paul, John in Ephesus, etc.) These may be seen as competing, but for those of us who accept there to be an ultimate Source common to all these texts and their inclusion into the canon, these are simply parts to the whole. We can talk of the teaching contained within a particular text, but it is also part of the whole Bible, and is properly understood when it is taken as part of the whole. Every writer had their part to contribute, and nobody had it all. This reflects the human element of the Scriptures—God worked with what the writers already had and what they could access. So he moved different people to make their contributions, and we benefit from having a bigger picture. Just as early Christians would have had personal visits from various apostles and their followers, now we have the writings left behind.
I've wondered why Jesus allowed so many differences within such a short time of his departure. I think it was to challenge his followers to find unity in love in spite of their differences. Certainly, there are some issues with which there can be no compromise, and the selection of some books for the canon and the rejection of others reflects that. Love of God is first—meaning faithfulness to the Supremacy of Christ and his teachings—but, love of neighbor—compassionate tolerance of other differences, even to the point of embracing diversity—must cover everything else. Splintered and divided, the church would not have survived. Embracing others and their contributions was part of the plan. It had to be because the early Christians, like us today, are so diverse in perspective.
That's my take on it, anyway. I know there are other ways of looking at this issue, but I wanted to make sure this way was represented.
Back to Dr. Ehrman...
In his book Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus (2007, InterVarsity Press), Dr. Timothy Paul Jones writes of his own struggle with the same issues Dr. Ehrman brought up. Ultimately, Dr. Jones came to entirely different conclusions than Dr. Ehrman. Dr. Jones agrees with Dr. Ehrman's observations that the texts have been altered. Where the disagreement occurs is with what its significance and meaning are. I find this to be the case with others who take issue with Dr. Ehrman's conclusions. (Other responses to Dr. Ehrman's book can be found in The Case for the Real Jesus, by Lee Strobel, 2007, Zondervan, and in The Gospel According to Bart, byDr. Daniel B. Wallace on the website bible.org at http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=4000). This is one of the fascinating aspects of the whole theist-atheist controversy—two people, looking at the same materials, can come to different conclusions. This is true in so many areas, from science to politics. I've been able to observe this first-hand in the jury panels I've served on. We would all have equal access to the same evidence, yet each individual would appraise its meaning and significance differently. We all have our reasons for what we accept and what we reject, and they clearly are outside of objective information.
Finally, to the texts that caused the problem for Dr. Ehrman...
I can see why some translations would render Mark 2:26 as "In the days of Abiathar the high priest..." It would not necessarily be to cover up an embarrassing error. Abiathar was far more prominent in the account of David's life than Abiathar's father Ahimelech. Hearers (and later readers) would recognize the name of Abiathar more readily, and it did happen in Abiathar's lifetime. I'm wondering something else, too. I'll assume that the translation should say "When Abaithar was high priest... ." From the account in 1Samuel 22:20-23, it would be easy to assume that Abiathar was quite young. (He avoided the slaughter of priests by Doeg on behalf of Saul, and escaped to tell David.) Since Abaithar outlived David, he was probably younger, but how much younger, we don't know, do we? Is it possible that we could have a situation similar to that of Annas and Caiaphas in John 18? Could Abaithar actually have been the high priest, but he was away at the time, and Ahimelech—formerly the high priest—was serving in that role in his son's absence? Granted, we may not get that from the text of 1 Samuel, but maybe this was known from some other source in the 1st Century AD. (I find it interesting that everyone who has addressed this issue assumed that the "mistake" was made by Mark. Since Mark was supposed to be quoting Jesus as related to him by Peter according to tradition, couldn't that also make Peter, or even Jesus himself, the source of error? I don't think the exemption of Jesus or Peter as suspects is due to any reverence, but, of course, to the questioning that this was actually stated.)
There are many possibilities, including a miscopying of the names of Abiathar and Ahimelech, which seems to have occurred elsewhere. In any case, it seems that, in itself, the suggestion by his professor was not significant enough to bring about the unraveling of Ehrman's confidence in the Scriptures. His present understanding of things seems to have been nearly a life-long process, and he may not be finished yet. I wonder if he questions every new conclusion, or if they just seem obvious to him. Frankly, I would like to go back to his experience all the way back in high school and the early years after that. I hope he does publish a follow-up book, and I hope he goes into more personal detail.
Thanks to all who contributed responses to this thread.
Regards,
Mike