Kjána hrollur dauðans

Það hlaut að koma að því en samt erfitt að trúa því og kjánahrollurinn sem fór um mig þegar ég sá þetta var svakalegur.  Kjána hrollur er ekki alveg eitthvað sem ég hef mjög gaman af, líklegasta ástæðan fyrir því af hverju ég á erfitt með að horfa á Klovn þættina.  Það verður mjög forvitlegt að fylgjast með þessum karakter, Pheonix Jones og í hverju hann lendir. Hann segist þegar hafa verið stunginn og að menn hafa dregið upp byssu á hann; sannarlega þurfa menn að hafa hellings kjark til að sækjast í slíkt. Ég ætti erfitt með að þora að klæða mig svona upp og segjast ætla að berjast á móti glæpum því sannarlega er Jones að bjóða upp á endalaust háð og síðan það að vera skotmark fyrir einhverja þrjóta til að ráðast á.  Maður bara vonar að þetta endi vel.

Glæpamenn nefbrutu ofurhetju

Hin Heilaga þrenning

Flest allar kirkjur aðhyllist kenninguna um heilaga þrenningu. Hver þessi kenning er, er ágætlega útskýrð í myndinni hérna til hægri.

Það sem þarna kemur fram er að Faðirinn er Guð en Faðirinn er ekki Jesú eða Sonurinn og að Jesú er Guð en Jesú er ekki Heilagur Andi á meðan Heilagur Andi er Guð.

Sumir vilja meina að þessi kenning hafi verið Kaþólskur uppspuni á fjórðu öldinni en það er ekki rétt því að þó nokkrir af kirkju feðrunum fyrir 400 e.kr. vörðu þessa hugmynd í þeirra ritum. Eitt slíkt dæmi er t.d. Tertullian skrifaði heila bók milli 100-200 e.kr. til að verja hugmyndina um heilaga þrenningu.

Tertullian ( Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7 )
"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation...[which] brings about unity in Trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Þetta situr í mörgum og einn slíkur hópur af fólki kallar sig Votta Jehóva. Það er vel skiljanlegt því að hugmyndin um þrjár persónur í einni einingu eða einni veru er ekki eitthvað sem við höfum reynslu af. Við þurfum samt að hafa í huga að við sem takmarkaðar verur eigum ekki að gefa okkur það að við getum auðveldlega skilið eðli Guðs.

Hérna er grein sem færir rök fyrir því að Jesú er ekki Guð, sjá: http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm

Aðal rök þessarar greinar og þeirra sem hafna heilagri þrenningu er að Jesú er sonur Guðs en ekki Guð sjálfur. Þeir vísa í endalaust mörg vers þessu til stuðnings. Það sem virðist fara fram hjá þeim í öllum þessu er að öll vers sem segja að Jesú sé sonur Guðs og þau vers þar sem kemur fram að Jesú talar um Guð faðirinn sem sinn Guð eru í rauninni ekki mótrök gegn kenningunni um heilaga þrenningu. Eina sem þessi vers sýna fram á er að Guð faðirinn er Guð og þegar Jesú gerðist maður þá gerði Hann sjálfan sig lægri en englanna og í því ástandi þurfti Hann á Guði að halda og ákalla.

^{Hebreabréfið 2:9}
En vér sjáum, að Jesús, sem "skamma stund var gjörður englunum lægri," er "krýndur vegsemd og heiðri" vegna dauðans sem hann þoldi. Af Guðs náð skyldi hann deyja fyrir alla.

Það sem skiptir máli í þessari umræðu er einfaldlega það hvort að Biblían segir að Jesú sé Guð og ég tel hana gera það mjög skýrt.

Ég ætla að fara yfir þá guðlegu eiginleika sem Biblían segir að Jesú hafi sem ætti að sannfæra hvern sem er að Biblían kenni að Jesú sé Guð.

Jesú hefur alltaf verið til

“Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.’”
John 8:58

"Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”
John 17:5

“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:16-17

Jesú er óbreytanlegur

“Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.”
(Hebrews 13:8

Jesú er almáttugur

“And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.’”
Matthew 28:18

“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:17

“For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”
Philippians 3:20-21

“…and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood-- and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father--to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen. BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be. Amen. ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’"
Revelation 1:5-8

“…which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church.”
Ephesians 1:20-22.

Jesú er alvitur

“But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men”
John 2:24

"Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God."
John 16:30

“…in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”
Colossians 2:3

Jesú er alls staðar á öllum tímum

"For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst."
Matthew 18:20. (Christ can only be with any and all assemblies if he is omnipresent)

“…teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Matthew 28:20

 Jesú er skaparinn

^{Hebreabréfið 1:8}
En um soninn: Hásæti þitt, ó Guð, er um aldir alda, og sproti réttvísinnar er sproti ríkis þíns.
⁹Þú hefur elskað réttlæti og hatað ranglæti. Því hefur Guð, þinn Guð, smurt þig gleðinnar olíu fram yfir þína jafningja.
¹⁰Og: Þú, Drottinn, hefur í upphafi grundvallað jörðina, og himnarnir eru verk handa þinna.
¹¹Þeir munu farast, en þú varir. Allir munu þeir fyrnast sem fat,
¹²og þú munt þá saman vefja eins og möttul, um þá verður skipt sem klæði. En þú ert hinn sami, og þín ár taka aldrei enda.
¹³En við hvern af englunum hefur hann nokkru sinni sagt: Set þig mér til hægri handar, uns ég gjöri óvini þína að fótskör þinni?

John 1
3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.

Col. 1:16
For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him"

Jesú viðheldur öllu sem til er

“He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
Colossians 1:17

“And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.”
Hebrews 1:3

 Jesú var tilbeðinn sem Guð en Biblían bannar alla tilbeiðslu sem ekki er beint til Guðs

“Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go, Satan! For it is written, “YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.”’”
Matthew 4:10

 

“And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, ‘You are certainly God's Son!’”
Matthew 14:33

“While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy”
Luke 24:51-52

“And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, ‘AND LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM.’”
Hebrews 1:6

 Jesú er upphafið og endirinn, alveg eins og Guð

Opinberunarbókin 1:8
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty."

Opinberunarbókin 1:17
“When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: ‘Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last.’”

Isaiah 44:6
"This is what the LORD says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God.”

Þessi grein var unninn út frá þessari hérna grein: http://www.apologeticsindex.org/563-trinity-doctrine-2

Það sem virðist rugla marga í ríminu í þessari umræðu er að Jesú gerðist maður og sem maður þá hafði Hann ekki aðgang að Hans guðlega mætti.

Philippians 2:5-8
5. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
6. who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
7. but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Sumir reyna að leysa þetta með því að gera Jesú guði, einhvers konar auka guði við hliðina á Guði föðurnum. Þá er ekki lengur um eingyðis trú að ræða, þá er ekki lengur gilt það sem Biblían segir um Guð.

Ég tel þessi vers segja mjög skýrt að Jesú er Guð og ég hefði getað bent á miklu fleiri, eins og t.d. spádóms versin um Jesú í Gamla Testamentinu. Greinin sem vísaði í ( http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/trinity.htm ) er mjög löng og ýtarleg og ég vægast sagt svaraði ekki öllu í henni en aðal ástæða þess er að mér finnst ég aðeins þurfa að sýna fram á guðlegu eiginleika Jesú til að halda í hina heilögu þrenningu sem hinn rétta skilning á eðli Guðs.

Ritskoðun

Ég er núna búinn að vera á mbl blogginu í minnsta kosti þrjú ár og mikið spjallað við heilmikið af fólki á þeim tíma.  Flest allt þetta spjall hefur verið á málefnalegum og vingjarnlegum nótum. Einhver hluti þessa spjalls hefur verið við fólk sem hefur hneykslast á minni afstöðu enda margir farið í gegnum lífið án þess að hitta nokkurn með þær skoðanir eða trú sem ég hef. Og örugglega mörg tilfelli þar sem viðkomandi hefur þekkt einhvern með líkar trúarskoðanir og ég en samt aldrei heyrt þær upphátt.

Nokkrir einstaklingar hafa verið duglegir að spjalla við mig en marg oft hefur það endað í rifrildi og leiðindum sem er auðvitað miður. Aftur og aftur var ég að grípa sjálfan mig í því að vera reiður og móðgandi og fyrir einhverju síðan þá ákvað ég að ég myndi forðast allt slíkt eins og heitan eldinn. Á þessum tíma líka hef ég marg oft lokað á ákveðna aðila en síðan hafa þeir birst aftur og aftur. Ég hef alltaf hreinlega leitt það fram hjá mér og vonað að þetta gengi betur í þetta skiptið en um leið og ég hef byrjað að sjá að viðkomandi ætlar að halda uppteknum hætti áfram þá hef ég lokað aftur á viðkomandi án viðvörunar.

Í augum þeirra sem kíkja af og til á bloggið mitt þá getur þetta virkað eins og að ég loki strax á þá sem eru ósammála mér en það er alls ekki það sem er í gangi hérna. Ég er að loka aftur á þá sem ég var búinn að rökræða við í mörg ár og marg búinn að loka á þá vegna leiðinda.

Það væri óskandi að geta haft opið fyrir alla að gera athugasemdir hérna en til að forða sjálfum mér frá endalausu skítkasti ákveðna aðila þá legg ég ekki í það.

Vonandi útskýrir þetta eitthvað...

Kierkegaard: A Parable of a King and a Maiden

Síðasta hvíldardag þá vísaði presturinn í sögu Kierkegaards um konung sem varð ástfanginn af fátækri stúlku. Þetta er virkilega hrífandi saga sem Kierkegaard notaið til að útskýra kærleika Guðs til mannanna. Þeir sem þekkja ekki til Kierkegaards þá er hægt að lesa smá um hann hérna: Sören Kierkegaard

http://trinitypastor.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/kierkegaard-a-parable-of-a-king-and-a-maiden/

Suppose then a king who loved a humble maiden. The heart of the king was not polluted by the wisdom that is loudly enough proclaimed; he knew nothing of the difficulties that the understanding discovers in order to ensnare the heart, which keep the poets so busy, and make their magic formulas necessary. It was easy to realize his purpose. Every statesman feared his wrath and dared not breathe a word of displeasure; every foreign state trembled before his power, and dared not omit sending ambassadors with congratulations for the nuptials; no courtier groveling in the dust dared wound him, lest his own head be crushed. Then let the harp be tuned, let the songs of the poets begin to sound, and let all be festive while love celebrates its triumph. For love is exultant when it unites equals, but it is triumphant when it makes that which was unequal equal in love. — Then there awoke in the heart of the king an anxious thought; who but a king who thinks kingly thoughts would have dreamed of it! He spoke to no one about his anxiety; for if he had, each courtier would doubtless have said: “Your majesty is about to confer a favor upon the maiden, for which she can never be sufficiently grateful her whole life long.” This speech would have moved the king to wrath, so that he would have commanded the execution of the courtier for high treason against the beloved, and thus he would in still another way have found his grief increased. So he wrestled with his troubled thoughts alone. Would she be happy in the life at his side? Would she be able to summon confidence enough never to remember what the king wished only to forget, that he was king and she had been a humble maiden? For if this memory were to waken in her soul, and like a favored lover sometimes steal her thoughts away from the king, luring her reflections into the seclusion of a secret grief; or if this memory sometimes passed through her soul like the shadow of death over the grave: where would then be the glory of their love? Then she would have been happier had she remained in her obscurity, loved by an equal, content in her humble cottage; but confident in her love, and cheerful early and late. What a rich abundance of grief is here laid bare, like ripened grain bent under the weight of its fruitfulness, merely waiting the time of the harvest, when the thought of the king will thresh out all its seed of sorrow! For even if the maiden would be content to become as nothing, this could not satisfy the king, precisely because he loved her, and because it was harder for him to be her benefactor than to lose her. And suppose she could not even understand him? For while we are thus speaking foolishly of human relationships, we may suppose a difference of mind between them such as to render an understanding impossible. What a depth of grief slumbers not in this unhappy love, who dares to rouse it! However, no human being is destined to suffer such grief; him we may refer to Socrates, or to that which in a still more beautiful sense can make the unequal equal.

But if the Moment is to have decisive significance (and if not we return to Socrates even if we think to advance beyond him), the learner is in Error, and that by reason of his own guilt. And yet he is the object of the God’s love, and the God desires to teach him, and is concerned to bring him to equality with himself. If this equality cannot be established, the God’s love becomes unhappy and his teaching meaningless, since they cannot understand one another. Men sometimes think that this might be a matter of indifference to the God, since he does not stand in need of the learner. But in this we forget — or rather alas! we prove how far we are from understanding him; we forget that the God loves the learner. And just as that kingly grief of which we have spoken can be found only in a kingly soul, and is not even named in the language of the multitude of men, so the entire human language is so selfish that it refuses even to suspect the existence of such a grief. But for that reason the God has reserved it to himself, this unfathomable grief: to know that he may repel the learner, that he does not need him, that the learner has brought destruction upon himself by his own guilt, that he can leave the learner to his fate; to know also how well-nigh impossible it is to keep the learner’s courage and confidence alive, without which the purposed understanding and equality will fail, and the love become unhappy. The man who cannot feel at least some faint intimation of this grief is a paltry soul of base coinage, bearing neither the image of Caesar nor the image of God.

Our problem is now before us, and we invite the poet, unless he is already engaged elsewhere, or belongs to the number of those who must be driven out from the house of mourning, together with the flute-players and the other noise-makers, before gladness can enter in. The poet’s task will be to find a solution, some point of union, where love’s understanding may be realized in truth, the God’s anxiety be set at rest, his sorrow banished. For the divine love is that unfathomable love which cannot rest content with that which the beloved might in his folly prize as happiness.

The union might be brought about by an elevation of the learner. The God would then take him up unto himself, transfigure him, fill his cup with millennial joys (for a thousand years are as one day in his sight), and let the learner forget the misunderstanding in tumultuous joy. Alas, the learner might perhaps be greatly inclined to prize such happiness as this. How wonderful suddenly to find his fortune made, like the humble maiden, because the eye of the God happened to rest upon him! And how wonderful also to be his helper in taking all this in vain, deceived by his own heart! Even the noble king could perceive the difficulty of such a method, for he was not without insight into the human heart, and understood that the maiden was at bottom deceived; and no one is so terribly deceived as he who does not himself suspect it, but is as if enchanted by a change in the outward habiliments of his existence.

The union might be brought about by the God’s showing himself to the learner and receiving his worship, causing him to forget himself over the divine apparition. Thus the king might have shown himself to the humble maiden in all the pomp of his power, causing the sun of his presence to rise over her cottage, shedding a glory over the scene, and making her forget herself in worshipful admiration. Alas, and this might have satisfied the maiden, but it could not satisfy the king, who desired not his own glorification but hers. It was this that made his grief so hard to bear, his grief that she could not understand him; but it would have been still harder for him to deceive her. And merely to give his love for her an imperfect expression was in his eyes a deception, even though no one understood him and reproaches sought to mortify his soul.

Not in this manner then can their love be made happy, except perhaps in appearance, namely the learner’s and the maiden’s, but not the Teacher’s and the king’s, whom no delusion can satisfy. Thus the God takes pleasure in arraying the lily in a garb more glorious than that of Solomon; but if there could be any thought of an understanding here, would it not be a sorry delusion of the lily’s, if when it looked upon its fine raiment it thought that it was on account of the raiment that the God loved it? Instead of standing dauntless in the field, sporting with the wind, carefree as the gust that blows, would it not under the influence of such a thought languish and droop, not daring to lift up its head? It was the God’s solicitude to prevent this, for the lily’s shoot is tender and easily broken.

But if the Moment is to have decisive significance, how unspeakable will be the God’s anxiety! There once lived a people who had a profound understanding of the divine; this people thought that no man could see the God and live. — Who grasps this contradiction of sorrow: not to reveal oneself is the death of love, to reveal oneself is the death of the beloved! The minds of men so often yearn for might and power, and their thoughts are constantly being drawn to such things, as if by their attainment all mysteries would be resolved. Hence they do not even dream that there is sorrow in heaven as well as joy, the deep grief of having to deny the learner what he yearns for with all his heart, of having to deny him precisely because he is the beloved.

The union must therefore be brought about in some other way. Let us here again recall Socrates, for what was the Socratic ignorance if not an expression for his love of the learner, and for his sense of equality with him? But this equality was also the truth, as we have already seen. But if the Moment is to have decisive significance (–), this is not the truth, for the learner will owe everything to the Teacher. In the Socratic conception the teacher’s love would be merely that of a deceiver if he permitted the disciple to rest in the belief that he really owed him anything, instead of fulfilling the function of the teacher to help the learner become sufficient to himself. But when the God becomes a Teacher, his love cannot be merely seconding and assisting, but is creative, giving a new being to the learner, or as we have called him, the man born anew; by which designation we signify the transition from non-being to being. The truth then is that the learner owes the Teacher everything. But this is what makes it so difficult to effect an understanding: that the learner becomes as nothing and yet is not destroyed; that he comes to owe everything to the Teacher and yet retains his confidence; that he understands the Truth and yet that the Truth makes him free; that he apprehends the guilt of his Error and yet that his confidence rises victorious in the Truth. Between man and man the Socratic midwifery is the highest relation, and begetting is reserved for the God, whose love is creative, but not merely in the sense which Socrates so beautifully expounds on a certain festal occasion. This latter kind of begetting does not signify the relation between a teacher and his disciple, but that between an autodidact and the beautiful. In turning away from the scattered beauties of particular things to contemplate beauty in and for itself, the autodidact begets many beautiful and glorious discourses and thoughts, (Symposium, 210 D). In so doing he begets and brings forth that which he has long borne within him in the seed (209 E). He has the requisite condition in himself, and the bringing forth or birth is merely a manifestation of what was already present; whence here again, in this begetting, the moment vanishes instantly in the eternal consciousness of Recollection. And he who is begotten by a progressive dying away from self, of him it becomes increasingly clear that he can less and less be said to be begotten, since he only becomes more and more clearly reminded of his existence. And when in turn he begets expressions of the beautiful, he does not so much beget them, as he allows the beautiful within him to beget these expressions from itself.

Since we found that the union could not be brought about by an elevation it must be attempted by a descent. Let the learner be x. In this x we must include the lowliest; for if even Socrates refused to establish a false fellowship with the clever, how can we suppose that the God would make a distinction! In order that the union may be brought about, the God must therefore become the equal of such a one, and so he will appear in the likeness of the humblest. But the humblest is one who must serve others, and the God will therefore appear in the form of a servant. But this servant-form is no mere outer garment, like the king’s beggar-cloak, which therefore flutters loosely about him and betrays the king; it is not like the filmy summer-cloak of Socrates, which though woven of nothing yet both conceals and reveals. It is his true form and figure. For this is the unfathomable nature of love, that it desires equality with the beloved, not in jest merely, but in earnest and truth. And it is the omnipotence of the love which is so resolved that it is able to accomplish its purpose, which neither Socrates nor the king could do, whence their assumed figures constituted after all a kind of deceit.

Behold where he stands — the God! Where? There; do you not see him? He is the God; and yet he has not a resting-place for his head, and he dares not lean on any man lest he cause him to be offended. He is the God; and yet he picks his steps more carefully than if angels guided them, not to prevent his foot from stumbling against a stone, but lest he trample human beings in the dust, in that they are offended in him. He is the God; and yet his eye rests upon mankind with deep concern, for the tender shoots of an individual life may be crushed as easily as a blade of grass. How wonderful a life, all sorrow and all love: to yearn to express the equality of love, and yet to be misunderstood; to apprehend the danger that all men may be destroyed, and yet only so to be able really to save a single soul; his own life filled with sorrow, while each 7 hour of the day is taken up with the troubles of the learner who confides in him! This is the God as he stands upon the earth, like unto the humblest by the power of his omnipotent love. He knows that the learner is in Error — what if he should misunderstand, and droop, and lose his confidence! To sustain the heavens and the earth by the fiat of his omnipotent word, so that if this word were withdrawn for the fraction of a second the universe would be plunged into chaos — how light a task compared with bearing the burden that mankind may take offense, when one has been constrained by love to become its saviour!

 But the servant-form is no mere outer garment, and therefore the God must suffer all things, endure all things, make experience of all things. He must suffer hunger in the desert, he must thirst in the time of his agony, he must be forsaken in death, absolutely like the humblest — behold the man His suffering is not that of his death, but this entire life is a story of suffering; and it is love that suffers, the love which gives all is itself in want. What wonderful self-denial! for though the learner be one of the lowliest, he nevertheless asks him anxiously: Do you now really love me? For he knows where the danger threatens, and yet he also knows that every easier way would involve a deception, even though the learner might not understand it.

Every other form of revelation would be a deception in the eyes of love; for either the learner would first have to be changed, and the fact concealed from him that this was necessary (but love does not alter the beloved, it alters itself); or there would be permitted to prevail a frivolous ignorance of the fact that the entire relationship was a delusion. (This was the error of paganism.) Every other form of revelation would be a deception from the standpoint of the divine love. And if my eyes were more filled with tears than those of a repentant woman, and if each tear were more precious than a pardoned woman’s many tears; if I could find a place more humble than the place at his feet, and if I could sit there more humbly than a woman whose heart’s sole choice was this one thing needful; if I loved him more sincerely than the most loyal of his servants, eager to shed the last drop of his life-blood in his service; if I had found greater favor in his eyes than the purest among women — nevertheless, if I asked him to alter his purpose, to reveal himself differently, to be more lenient with himself, he would doubtless look at me and say: Man, what have I to do with thee? Get thee hence, for thou art Satan, though thou knowest it not! Or if he once or twice stretched forth his hand in command, and it happened, and I then meant to understand him better or love him more, I would doubtless see him weep also over me, and hear him say: To think that you could prove so faithless, and so wound my love! Is it then only the omnipotent wonder-worker that you love, and not him who humbled himself to become your equal?

But the servant-form is no mere outer garment; hence he must yield his spirit in death and again leave the earth. And if my grief were deeper than the sorrow of a mother when her heart is pierced by the sword, and if my danger were more terrible than the danger of a believer when his faith fails him, and if my misery were more pitiful than his who crucifies his hope and has nothing left but the cross — nevertheless, if I begged him to save his life and stay upon the earth, it would only be to see him sorrowful unto death, and stricken with grief also for my sake, because this suffering was for my profit, and now I had added to his sorrow the burden that I could not understand him. O bitter cup! More bitter than wormwood is the bitterness of death for a mortal, how bitter then for an immortal! O bitter refreshment, more bitter than aloes, to be refreshed by the misunderstanding of the beloved! O solace in affliction to suffer as one who is guilty, what solace then to suffer as one who is innocent!

Such will be our poet’s picture. For how could it enter his mind that the God would reveal himself in this way in order to bring men to the most crucial and terrible decision; how could he find it in his heart to play frivolously with the God’s sorrow, falsely poetizing his love away to poetize his wrath in!

And now the learner, has he no lot or part in this story of suffering, even though his lot cannot be that of the Teacher? Aye, it cannot be otherwise. And the cause of all this suffering is love, precisely because the God is not jealous for himself, but desires in love to be the equal of the humblest. When the seed of the oak is planted in earthen vessels, they break asunder; when new wine is poured in old leathern bottles, they burst; what must happen when the God implants himself in human weakness, unless man becomes a new vessel and a new creature! But this becoming, what labors will attend the change, how convulsed with birth-pangs! And the understanding — how precarious, and how close each moment to misunderstanding, when the anguish of guilt seeks to disturb the peace of love! And how rapt in fear; for it is indeed less terrible to fall to the ground when the mountains tremble at the voice of the God, than to sit at table with him as an equal; and yet it is the God’s concern precisely to have it so.

Sagan af örkinni - 2

Áframhald af Sagan af örkinni - 1 þar sem ég svara gagnrýni á söguna af örkinni og syndaflóðinu. Það er eitt sem flækist fyrir mér í því að svara þessari gagnrýni en það er það að oft finnst mér að um er að ræða fáránlega strámenn sem ekki er þess virði að svara. Ef að einhverjum finnst að einhver punktur þarna sé mikilvægur og ég hef ekki að svarð honum þá endilega benda mér á það. Ég vil líka taka það fram að ég er ekki að svara greininni í heild sinni heldur aðeins að fara í gegnum hana skref fyrir skref svo það er margt eftir sem ég á eftir að svara.

The Impossible voyage of Noah's Ark
Creationists realize that the ark had a limited amount of room and they are aware of the large number of species in the animal kingdom. Therefore, they have employed various tactics to reduce the population needed on board.

Eitt af því sem Dawkins talar um að Darwin hafi lagt af mörkum til vísindanna var að dýrategundir breyttust og gætu orðið fleiri með tímanum en þetta var eitthvað sem vísindamenn fyrir tíma Darwins voru búnir að sjá út og þeir sáu það út frá sögunni af flóðinu. Þeir gerðu sér grein fyrir því að dýrategundirnar hlytu að hafa verið miklu færri þegar flóðið átti sér stað til að þær kæmust fyrir á örkinni og þar af leiðandi fjölgað eftir flóðið. Þannig að þetta er ekki einhver óþægileg útskýring eftir á heldur eitthvað rökrétt sem menn sáu út úr sögunni sem gaf þeim skilning á hvernig náttúran virkar.

The Impossible voyage of Noah's Ark
In the centuries before the deluge, these strange progenitors must have rapidly diversified into their potential species, as the fossil record shows. The equine kind developed not only zebras, horses, onagers, asses, and quaggas but Eohippus, Mesohippus, Merychippus, and other now-extinct specie

Fjöldi tegunda fyrir flóðið er alveg óþekktur, að tala um þróun dýra frá Eden til flóðsins er bara kjánaleg umræða, jafnvel fyrir sköpunarsinna sem taka söguna alvarlega því að við höfum afskaplega lítið til að byggja þá umræðu á.

The Impossible voyage of Noah's Ark
The trick is, which does our ancient zoologist choose? A male kit fox and a female Great Dane?

Þegar hérna er komið í sögunni þá segir Biblían beint út að Guð sá um að velja. Hafa síðan í huga að þær tegundir sem við höfum í dag, voru líklegast ekki til þarna svo að nefna einhverjar tegundir á ekki við.

The Impossible voyage of Noah's Ark
In reality the ethnic complexity found throughout the world cannot be derived from the flood survivors in the few centuries since that time.

Hérna vil ég leyfa mér að vísa í útskýringu úr grein sem fjallar um þessi atriði

Speciation and the Animals on the Ark
The genetic potential to produce a wide range of variation in any animal kind or species, regardless of how these terms are defined, easily provides 30,000 different species from fewer than 15,000 different kinds. Genetic potential is the amount of variation that a kind or type of organism can produce from the genetic material that is already present. It is possible for a pair of animals to harbor nearly all of the alleles (variations of a type of gene) for their kind in their genome.

Other alleles result from mutations to existing genes (human red hair color would be a good example of this). For example, two humans (Adam and Eve?) could have all the common DNA variations (called polymorphisms) found in all ethnic groups. This would require only one DNA base difference every 667 bases between the two of them. This is hardly a difficult situation for the genomes of two people and can account for much of the genetic variation observed in people today. Rare polymorphisms are few in number compared to common polymorphisms and are likely the result of the accumulation of mutations. These rare polymorphisms are frequently referred to as personal polymorphisms, since they can be used to identify an individual.

The effects of common and rare polymorphisms can be easily illustrated by all domesticated animals and their various breeds. Dogs, cattle, hamsters, and tropical fish all have many different breeds that easily demonstrate what genetic potential is. Of course, these are all artificially selected animals and selecting for these breeds has led to a much faster rate of variation (what some call evolution) than would be expected in the wild. (Most dog breeds have been developed in the last 200 years.)

The Impossible voyage of Noah's Ark
The taxonomy of kinds is another bewildering subject.

Auðvitað er það að flokka öll dýrin erfitt og flókið verkefni, alveg eins og að flokka dýr í dag í tegundir, fjölskyldur og svo framvegis er flókið verkefni. Að finna út hvaða tegundir tilheyrðu upprunalegu sköpuðu tegundinni er mjög forvitnilegt verkefni en við höfum samt ekki mikið til að fara eftir, aðalega það sem Biblían segir sem er að viðkomandi dýr geta átt afkvæmi saman. Þar af leiðandi, ef hægt er að framkalla afkvæmi tveggja tegunda, hvort sem það er frjótt eða ófrjótt, þá er það hluti af sömu grunn tegundinni sem var sköpuð í upphafi.  Hérna er stutt og skemmtilegt myndband þar sem er fjallað um þetta, sjá: Rapid Speciation

Jæja, ég læt hér staðar numið enda þessi grein orðin allt of löng.

To save a life

Þessi frétt minnti mig á virkilega góða mynd sem ég sá um jólin, myndina "To save a life". Hérna er heimasíða myndarinnar, sjá: http://tosavealifemovie.com/

Myndin fjallar um ungan strák sem gengur mjög vel í lífinu. Er stjarna körfuboltaliðsins, er búinn að fá skólastyrk og inngöngu í virtan háskóla, vinsæll og með gullfallega kærustu. Dag einn fremur æsku vinur hans sjálfsmorð, vinur sem hann í rauninni hafnaði þegar hann byrjaði að vera vinsæll í skólanum.

Þessi mynd er gerð af kristnum einstaklingur og frá kristnu sjónarmiði en samt held ég að hún höfði til flestra. 

Það er fátt sorglegra en þegar einstaklingur tekur sitt eigið líf, sérstaklega þegar ástæðan er að viðkomandi upplifir að samfélagið hafnar honum og engum þykir vænt um hann. Hérna ættu allir kristnir að sjá ákveðna köllun til að bjóða upp á kærleiksríkt samfélag fyrir alla, sérstaklega þá sem minna mega sín.

Hæddust að sjálfsvígsbréfi á Facebook

Myndband - hvernig setlögin urðu til

Margir hafna sögunni af synda flóðinu vegna þess að þeir sjá ekki hvernig svona atburður gæti búið til mörg þykk setlög. Hérna er myndband sem reynir að útskýra nokkur af þeim ráðgátum þó margt er ennþá óleyst.

Ellen White og gagnrýnendurnir

Þegar fólk heyrir fyrst um Ellen White sem spámann Aðvent kirkjunnar þá fara margir á www.google.com og leita hvað fólk hefur skrifað um hana. Það sannarlega finnur nóg af ásökunum og hérna er góður fyrirlestur sem svarar helstu ásökunum á hendur henni þó ég mæli helst með að lesa eitthvað af hennar eigin bókum til að kynnast henni af eigin raun.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sagan af örkinni - 1

Fyrir nokkru var mér bent á grein sem bendir á það sem mörgum finnst ekki ganga upp þegar kemur að sögunni af Nóa og flóðinu sem við finnum í Biblíunni.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
Ancient shipbuilding did achieve a considerable level of technological sophistication, so much so that marine archaeologists are divided over its history

Ég vitnaði aðeins í smá part af kafla sem hélt því fram að bygging arkarinnar væri ómöguleg. Gagnrýnin þarna virtist aðalega vera byggð á þeirri hugmynd að um var að ræða skip sem er hannað til að sigla því t.d. þá vitnar höfundurinn í skip sem fólk hefur verið að smíða í gegnum aldirnar. Málið er einfaldlega það að örkin var aðeins hönnuð til að fljóta, ekkert annað. Hún þurfti að vera stöðug og sterk en ekki hraðskreið eða lipur eða hvað annað sem menn reyna að ná fram þegar þeir smíða skip.

Meira um þetta hérna: How Could Noah Have Built the Ark All by Himself?  og kannski enn frekar: Safety investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway

 

Sömuleiðis, bara fyrir forvitnissakir þá hefur Answers in Genesis ákveðið að smíða örk í réttri stærð, sjá:  http://arkencounter.com/

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
The needs of the animals.

Næsti kafli fjallar lauslega um þarfir dýranna. Vandamálið við þessa gagnrýni er að við vitum afskaplega lítið um þarfir þessara dýra.  Við vitum í rauninni ekki nákvæmlega hvaða tegundir þarna voru því að dýrin hafa síðan þá aðgreinst í alls konar tegundir, margar hverjar hafa sér þarfir í dag en forfeður þeirra gætu hafa haft allt aðrar þarfir. Sömuleiðis þá eru erfiðleikarnir miklu minni ef um tiltulega ung dýr er að ræða en rökréttast hefði verið að hafa dýrin eins ung og hægt væri.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark
Problems for the builders.

Aðal gagnrýnin hérna er að þekkingar skortur en við auðvitað getum voðalega lítið vitað um þekkingu fólks á þessum tíma. Hérna þá falla menn oft í þá gildru að gera ráð fyrir að þróunarkenningin sé sönn og síðan dæma þessa sögu í Biblíunni út frá þeim forsendum. Út frá sköpun þá hef ég enga ástæðu til að ætla að Nói hafi verið eitthvað minna gáfaður en við erum í dag, í rauninni hef ég ástæðu til að ætla að hann og fólk almennt hafi verið töluvert gáfaðra. Síðan var Nói sömuleiðis alveg ágætlega gamall og menn geta lært töluvert á langri ævi og ævin hans Nóa var mjög löng.

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

God told the patriarch to coat the ark, both inside and out, all 229,500 square feet of it, with pitch, and, in fact, this was a common practice in ancient times. But when Noah hurried to the corner hardware store, the shelf was bare, for pitch is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon similar to petroleum

Þessi gagnrýni hérna gerir ráð fyrir því að orðið sem þarna er notað, sem var skrifað niður fyrir sirka 3500 árum síðan, þýði hið sama efni og við höfum í dag. Ég tel enga leið til að vita fyrir víst hvaða efni þarna var um að ræða og orðið sjálft þýðir aðeins "að hylja / þekja".

The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark

Finally, our farmer-turned-architect had to confront the gravest difficulty of all: in the words of A. M. Robb, there was an "upper limit, in the region of 300 feet, on the length of the wooden ship;

Aftur er hérna vandamálið í þeirri forsendu sem þeir gefa sér, sem er að um er að ræða skip til að sigla en ekki tank til að fljóta. Þeir sömuleiðis gefa sér að ekkert járn hafi verið notað en við getum ekki útilokað það.

Læt þetta duga í bili, það er nóg eftir og mörgum mun án efa telja mín svör ekki fullnægjandi en þetta verður að duga í bili.

 

Góð verk á árinu 2011

Biblían ítrekar að þeir sem vilja lifa samkvæmt vilja Guðs eiga að leggja stund á góð verk. Gott dæmi um þetta:

^{Títusarbréf 2:14}
Hann gaf sjálfan sig fyrir okkur til þess að hann leysti okkur frá öllu ranglæti og hreinsaði sjálfum sér til handa eignarlýð, kostgæfinn til góðra verka.

Í lögmáli Móse þá var það skylda allra að passa upp á hag ekkjunnar, munarleysingjana og útlendingana.

Þegar ég horfi yfir síðasta ár þá finnst mér góð verk ekki vera eitthvað sem einkenndi hvorki mitt líf né starf minnar kirkju. Þetta finnst mér alls ekki nógu gott og langar að þetta breytist. Ég veit kannski ekki af öllu sem var gert, ég veit t.d. af hóp sem gaf matargjafir fyrir jólin, hópur sem stóð að ókeypis námskeiðum og gerði upp hjól og gaf. Allt mjög gott en mér finnst eins og í velferða samfélagi eins og við lifum í þá er ekki svo augljóst hvernig maður getur látið gott af sér leiða.

Svo, mig langar að heyra hugmyndir, hvaða góðu verk gæti maður sem einstaklingur gert á þessu ári sem var að byrja og sömuleiðis hvað gæti kirkja eins og mín kirkja, lagt af mörkum til samfélagsins?