untitled
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 09:32:42 -0400
From: Mike Ryder
Subject: Oops ..... and after a proof read
To: [Family member A]
Cc: [Family member B]
Sorry for sending my missive last night. It was very late when I
finished and I thought I had proof read it. I was using a
dictation program and as you can see it requires additional training.
This version is somewhat cleaned up.
Hello,
My, what a long e-mail......
First off I'd like to say 'don't sell yourself short'. You have
as much ability to learn, understand and discuss your opinions as does
anyone else.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 22:30:50 +1200
>Subject: hi mike
>
>.hi what a busy time emailing?unlike you i am just learning about
how to use
>a computer so writing the message for me is actually the easier
part - i
>think.
>
>You say bible prophecy is as reliable as a horoscope and provide an
example
>of this as the Jews returing to their land as being self
fulfilling. I see
>this as being anything but self fulilling.
I didn't actually mention reliability. My point was that biblical
prophesy (and the bible in general) is subject to many interpretations
and reinterpretations. I include my original post here "It seems
that there are so many interpretations and reinterpretations that it is
possible to read anything into biblical accounts. Sometimes it's
literal, sometimes it's symbolic. The interpretation is up to the
reader. I'm tempted to compare this to a horoscope where
predictions are 'recognised' after they occur or are self-fulfilling."
>About 2000 years ago the Jews
>were scattered all over the earth as we know. In recent time
Britain had
>sovereignty over israeli land, then palestine i think, being a
barren piece
>of land. Although there were always a few zionists that did
want to return
>to israel, the vast majority of jews pre world war 2 were very
happy as they
>were and where they were, secure in their riches across the
world. Most
>Jews therefore had no desire to return to israel, neither did
Britain desire
>to release sovereignty anyway.
>It was of course as we know the near genocide of the jewish people
in WW2
>that gave the jews a desire to return to their homeland and probably
>produced guilt in the other countries to supply israel with their
land. ( i
>did read up about this a little from the library quickly)
Your history regarding the timing, motivation and accuracy of events
leaves a fair bit to be desired. I'm certainly no expert myself,
but a quick review of Jewish history shows a different reality than you
perceive. Following are two of many events that predate your
statements,
1920 April 24, THE SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE AT SAN REMO
(Italy) Assigned the British government the Mandate over Palestine,
directing her to establish a national home for the Jewish people as
presented in the Balfour Declaration. As part of their mandate the
British were instructed to recognize "the historical connection of the
Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting
their national home in that country." In addition, Britain was to
"facilitate Jewish immigration" and "close settlement by Jews on the
land." The civil administration was established on July 1, 1920 with
Sir Herbert Samuel as the first high commissioner.
1920 June 15, HAGANAH (Eretz Israel) Self-Defense Force was formed
during a meeting of the Ahdut Avodah party. It was designed to take the
place of the Ha-Shomer Ha-Tzair movement, and was dedicated to
havlagah, or self-defense. The original idea had been proposed by
Israel Shochat eight years earlier. With the onset of the British
Mandate the Zionist leaders had thought there would not be a need for a
self-defense organization. The Arab attacks earlier that year proved
them wrong. Eliyahu Golomb was its first commander.
>You asked me to tell you what fruit Israel exports. A
quick search of
>google supples information that Israel irrigated their land when
they took
>it over. Along with the US, South Africa, Turkey, the
Netherlands, Belgium
>and Spain, Israel is a major world exporter of citrus fruit.
Israel's
>farming and Agriculture accounts for 2-3% of world GNP. Also
Israel's soil
>and climate gives the fruit the appearance and flavour that
commands a high
>price. This is quite a high world export considering their
population is
>$6.8 million. Israel also exports wheat sunflowers peanuts
chickenpeas
>grapefruit oranges lemons dairy product cotton beef and poultry.
Thank you for the information on Israel's exports. I think
however you may be incorrect with your figures. I can see
Israel's fruit crop being around 3% of Israel's GNP. But if it
were, as you state, 2 to 3% of the world's GNP then it would be a
mighty big export indeed.
>Check out
>Luke 21v 29-31 and Jer 23v3-6 if you want to know what will happen
when
>israel blooms with fruit again and jews return to their land.
I read the passages that that you indicated. I'm afraid I didn't
see any predictions there other then perhaps a reference to the second
coming. It says that the generation shall not pass before these
things happen, however I think the generation in question has already
passed. But I could be wrong.
>I stand corrected about evolution being a faith. What i meant
by that
>statement was that because of the way evolution is presented in the
new
>zealand classroom today (that being a fact rather than a
theory) students
>are turning evolution in to a "faith" as they grasp it as
fact. I am told
>by several students at 6th form level this is true - one said he
did not
>know evolution was a theory until he read it was in small print in
the
>textbook of his science book at the back. I have not checked
his science
>book to know if this is true but will believe it on face value
given that at
>teachers college i was told by lecturers evolution is very much the
chosen
>theory to teach and creation is not. i don't know if this is
the case in
>Georgia schools, georgia being such a religious place.
Theory versus fact is an interesting topic for discussion. By
definition every scientific concept is a theory. In general
language some scientific theories are treated as fact. For
example the theory of gravity, we usually consider gravity a
fact. Astronomical theories such as the sun being the centre of
the solar system, or the earth being spherical in shape, scientifically
speaking these are theories. Admittedly they are theories well
supported by data and evidence but nevertheless there are still people,
many of them educated, in the world that would dispute the shape of the
planet and in fact believe that the planet is flat.
I am interested in your comment concerning the treatment of evolution
as faith. Any scientific theory is by definition
characteristically different to faith in as much as a scientific theory
is supported by data, empirical evidence, and repeatability.
Faith on the other hand, also I think by definition, requires an
acceptance of a concept without data, empirical evidence, and
repeatable experimentation. It is for this very reason that faith
(religion) does not belong in a school science curriculum. It is
anathema to the very definition of scientific inquiry. Having
said that, religion certainly has a place in the school curricula, that
place would-be in subjects such as history, social studies, and
philosophy.
As for the situation in Georgia, I was reading earlier today that there
was a Supreme Court ruling some years ago that made it illegal to teach
creationism within the science curricula. I'm sure that this law
is loosely applied in the state as well as many other states in the
south, in fact in various parts of the country. I should
emphasise that I believe the court ruling only applied state funded
schools and not religious base schools. I can tell you of a
certain that there are a lot of Christian-based schools in this state.
>As far as the book review goes about Jeffrey by the Christian book
reviewer.
> . . I realize Jeffrey is not a scientist but I think
that he has stated a
>good case for creation using the resources he has eg other
scientists
>opinions, doctors opinions etc and put it together in an
interesting form
>for the layman by the layman..which i thought we both were.. maybe
you would
>enjoy reading Lee Strobel's "The case for a Creator" if you are
still
>interested in the subject, as the book reviewer says. I have
heard he is an
>excellent author but have not read his stuff as yet.
Thanks for the recommendation to read the case for a creator, dad has
also recommended a book by the same author called a case for
Christ. I intend to look into the book that dad recommended
however I'm reluctant to do so with your recommendation as I don't see
the point in reading something and then having no one with whom to
discuss my thoughts. If you would like to read the book yourself
then I'd be happy to do so also. The reason that I'm reluctant to
read books on third-party recommendations is that I could spend the
rest of my life doing so and I had no wish to go down that road. I'm
glad you realise that Geoffrey is not a scientist, unfortunately he is
touting a philosophy (intelligent design) as a scientific discipline
when it is not so. This is tantamount to deception of his reading
public. As I said before his literature is aimed at the gullible
or the already converted.
>Regarding the 27 page blurb on Jeffrey about the bible code he has
written
>on I have not read that book so can't comment. To be fair
though to
>Jeffrey, once again as I said, he is only quoting other scientists
opinions
>and writing in an accessible form to a lot of people like me.
About the
>bible code i have no idea if that is true or false. I can't
really can i if
>i have no proof to see it for myself. However if it is true
it would not
>surprise me but i will hold it losely...creation though to me is
another
>thing . i can see, feel etc it all around me and my brain just
knows that
>there is design in it.
I am not sure to what 27 page blurb you are referring. Jeffrey's
quotes should be taken with a grain of salt many of them are misleading
and deceptive. The scientists and doctors he quotes, whilst carrying
those credentials are often not experts in the fields to which is
quotes pertain.
Your belief in creation is a leap of faith. There is nothing
wrong with having a leap of faith, just recognise that for what it
is. I assume, from your comment 'my brain just knows', you are
saying that despite any later theory or evidence to the contrary you
wish to maintain this belief. I think this qualifies as a
romantic belief, as it seems to have no rational or scientific basis.
>I read your email to dad about bible numerics. I don't know
much about it
>but we did touch on it at teachers college on a basic level.
I am borrowing
>a book from a guy at church this sunday so will read up on it
because i
>think it sounds amazing, and I remember thinking so at the time
while at
>college. Because my maths is abismel (and i think my spelling
now) as you
>know i do struggle with these number things though.
You don't need much in the way of mathematical skills to understand the
Bible code and numerics. They are very simple constructs. You do
need to have some appreciation of statistical analysis and probability
theory to understand the claims touted by the promoters of these
concepts. On the face of it claims appear very impressive and the
result is quite remarkable and repeatable. Dig a little deeper,
read some critical reviews, and you'll begin to realise the flaws and
weaknesses in the various methodologies. Again, the people who
promote these concepts aim for a lay audience who is either predisposed
to believe their claims or are incapable or too lazy to critically
evaluate them.
Did you manage to get hold of the book from the guy at church? if
so what did you think of the
contents?
>Finally for now on a personal note mike I would like to share
something of
>an experience that changed my mind if i may.
You certainly may.
>We were brought up in the same christian circles you and me.
I think you
>departed from the faith (if that is what happened) for reasons i am
unsure
>of.
We were certainly brought up in the same Christian circles. I
think as soon as I became old enough to question and observe the
phenomena and dogma attached to Christianity, I began to have serious
doubts. As I grew older and considered matters more deeply, read
more widely, I came to see what I believe is the folly of
religion. I don't necessarily differentiate Christianity from any
other religion past or present except to the extent that it is the
dominant religion within the society within which I live.
>i held onto my faith for longer but not that much longer. I
>encountered what i now believe to be false religious doctrine which
i took
>on board and when it did not work for me in my life the way i
expected it to
> i became disheartened. at this stage i looked at other
things like the
>new age beliefs ( which i now believe to be based on self first
teaching),
>immursing myself into music, alcohol, fun whatever.i think the
final nail on
>the coffin for christianity came for me at the time i went to
massey uni and
>studied an english paper.
I sense an underlying theme here which is equating knowledge and higher
education with straying from the path of "truth". It's a theme
that I find quite repugnant. Without the ability and bravery to
question existing in prevalent dogma, we would likely not have advanced
as a society beyond conditions found in the 16th century. Perhaps
I'm wrong in my suspicions about an underlying theme, I certainly hope
so.
>im not saying that the paper precipitated the
>final departure but i think given the circumstances i entered the
>institution in, with my confused spiritual state i lost the plot as
it were.
> at massey we looked at poetry, stories, life from different
philisophical
>viewpoints. what i quickly came to learn from that was that
most of these
>views questioned the existence of God.
Education is supposed to precipitate the asking of questions. So
in this respect you are receiving an education. All too often
education is viewed as the learning of facts. This is a sad
indictment on our education system. We tell people assumed truths
rather than teaching people how to think. This phenomenon is much more
apparent in this country than I ever witnessed it being in New Zealand.
Of course the problem and asking questions is a typically that,
although you may arrive at an answer, it is just as likely that that
answer will spawn a series of further questions. This is the
nature of inquiry. Were we to know all the answers the world
would become a very boring place.
Of course some people are not happy unless they have answers.
Perhaps this is your situation. I can understand how romantic
beliefs can fill this void. I think we all have a rational and
romantic side to a personality. In some one is more emphasised on
the other. The trick is for the individual to find a balance that
will satisfy each side.
>These questions were dark questions
>for me and it seemed to make logical sense to question this because
there
>seemed probable cause to question. However over time these
dark questions
>never led to any answers.
Fear of the unknown is always dark. It is comforting to stick
with what you know, or what you believe to be true. Perhaps
somewhere inside your brain you still wonder what might have been
hidden by the darkness. Maybe one day you have the courage to
find out. I certainly would understand if you do not.
>The meaning i once saw in life turned into
>meaninglessness. On the outside i appeared to have fun
singing, playing
>keys in bands etc and although i did enjoy myself a lot inside i
was really
>in the dark about who i was, if there was a god, or where i was
going - and
>actually tried not to think too much about it as i filled up my
life with
>continual things.
>
>Quite a few years later when i moved to tauranga i went to Teachers
College.
> At this institution our lecturer in science Tony Hawkins
taught us on a
>basic level ( we were to be primary school teachers not rocket
scientists)
>the theory of evolution vs creation. He is an excellent tutor
and the way
>he presented the creationist view with design facts was to me
enough to come
>full circle and believe in a creator again. I probably should
mention at
>this point that when i was a teenager and i first became a
christain i
>doubted that God was real often and prayed that God would give me a
solid
>foundation. I believe i have found this foundation and that
this was a
>direct answer to prayer even though it took a long time to
eventuate.
I am happy your content with this outlook on life. Unless I'm
mistaken I believe the college you attended as a Christian College and
I would be very interested to know how they portrayed the science
curriculum. I'm assuming that the debate you mention was taught
in a scientific context. If this is so, you should demand a more
in-depth analysis of the data and evidence supporting and questioning
either side. This is how scientific investigation is done.
That you state that this was taught at a basic level, indicates to me
that any conclusions you formed could probably be swayed fairly easily
one way or another by a more in-depth analysis. Of course you may
choose not to undergo this analysis. That this concept seems to
be very central and important to your life, would indicate to me that
you would want to know as much as you can both for and against each
positions as to increase your understanding and confidence.
Perhaps I am wrong in your content with a basic understanding.
Unfortunately if you cease to inquire, in my opinion, you are merely
inviting deception.
>
>If you ever want to have faith in God's existence I believe if you
ask God
>to give faith to you he will give it to you maybe slowly but surely
if that
>is what your hearts desire is even though you may think it is
impossible to
>have any faith right now.
I understand that you have a mission to convert people to your
faith. I'm not looking for faith in the supernatural, and am
unlikely to be doing so in the foreseeable future. I suppose my
mind is wired differently from yours in that I will not accept any
concept as the at the absolute truth. I am happy to consider any
concept and debate any concept and look at the evidence and logical
consistency for and against any concept. As I do this I formulate
my own hypothesis concerning the concept's validity. As data and
evidence continue not to contradict a hypothesis my confidence in that
hypothesis increases. If data and evidence do contradict a
hypothesis then I'm happy to modify or disregard the hypothesis and
test a new hypothesis. I have found this methodology has served
me well thus far my life, I certainly acknowledge that I have plenty
more to learn and that some of my current understanding is likely to be
flawed.
I think it's always possible to take leaps of faith, sometimes it's
very inviting. It requires discipline and integrity to look
before you leap.
>To bring the Jeffrey discussion full circle i hope i've not
offended you.
>this has never been my intention.
You are likely to offend me by participating in a discussion. I
really appreciate your point of view and believe it or not am trying to
understand how you came by it and why you retain it. I'm not sure
if I come across as arrogant or naive, perhaps a little of both.
I would like to close out by quoting John A More, From Genesis to
Genetics: the case of evolution and creationism.
The evolution versus creation debate can be viewed as a conflict
between two incompatible paradigms, the romantic and the
rational. For centuries humankind has spoken of the affairs of
the head and of the heart as different realms. Romantically they
are; rashly they are not. Both scientists and humanists require
both a thinking head and pumping art. The prognosis for those who
choose one or the other is poor. The challenge is to employ the
metaphorical heart and the metaphorical head in ways that emphasises
the strengths and limitations of each.
The feeling of awe that comes from understanding the natural world and
the unifying principles that control interactions of all matter can be
a deep religious experience. One need only think about the long
history of the great mountain ranges to be awed by the mighty forces of
the crustal plates crashing against one another, pushing up the surface
to form mountains, and the power of the wind and rain that sculpted
them. And every living creature reminds one not only of its long
history going back to the origin of life itself and of the
extraordinary structures and functions that permitted survival in what
can be an unkind world. One can experience a profound sense of
wonder in being a part of a knowable world.
Whether or not God is the driving force behind that world is not for
any scientist, speaking as a scientist, to say. Scientists as
scientists can deal only with phenomena they can be studied, and this
does not include God. As individuals, however, they can except
that there is a God-a position that is based on belief, not scientific
evidence. According to author and editor Greg Easterbrook(1997),
there is a growing feeling among many scientists and religious leaders
that accommodation and even mutual support of their possessions maybe
the mode of the future, "perhaps the fact that the two schools of
thought has often been at each other's throats stems from mutual
recognition of the linked destinies, and the joint commitment to the
idea that the truth is out there. Rather than being driven even
further apart, tomorrow's scientist and theologian may be each other's
solace".
It is hard to imagine a synthesis occurring any time in the near future
because science and religion still use very different thought
patterns-one based on evidence and other on belief. Rather than
predicting a synthesis of science and religion, it may be more useful
to regard them as equals with different domains. Science attempts
to understand how the natural world works, and this knowledge not only
feeds our natural curiosity but also provides us with an astonishing
power to live and to change our lives. But for most people this
knowledge is not enough; the question "what does it all mean?" Is
equally important. In a general way we can say that religion
deals with the questions of meaning as well as with standards of
conduct. But these meanings and standards are assigned by human
beings, not derived from what science tells us about the mechanisms of
life. There is one science for the entire world, but innumerable
and often conflicting answers to questions about the purpose and
meaning of things. "What is the purpose of human life?" Has
answers that vary from one human being to another and even vary at
different times for the same individual. Herein lies a gap that
is so far unabridged. Whereas science is discovered, meaning is
assigned.
From this standpoint, science and religion need not be seen in conflict
because their domains and distinct. We should recognise that the
first is preeminent in providing knowledge of the natural world that
can be exciting and awe inspiring as well as provide for modern
medicine and the comforts of modern life. These comforts are not
to be enjoyed unless each society can agree on a moral code of
behaviour so necessary to civilised life.
However science and creationism come into serious conflict when the
politically active anti-evolution creationists, or creation scientists
as they sought to be called until recently, campaign to have their
brand of creationism taught in the schools alongside evolution would be
given "equal time." This subset of creationists are not
scientists; they do not seek new information in laboratory studies or
field explorations to test their hypothesis. They ignore the
conclusions of scientists that over the past two centuries have
provided a body of considerable evidence that leads to the conclusion
that, beyond all reasonable doubt, evolution has been the dominant
phenomenon of life over the ages. Creationists have every right
to ignore all this and believe whatever suits them, but creationism is
not science and cannot be taught as science in public schools.
Religion has a chequered influence during human history; it has been
responsible for much bloodshed and misery in the past as well as today
in many parts of the world. This is less a function of religion itself
and more the interpretation of religion and sanctioning what
individuals, cultures, and nations wish to do. Battling nations
each proclaim that God is on their side, which suggests a robust
polytheism. "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to
every nation" has been read as a command to destroy the cultures and
many native societies in North and South America, Australia,
sub-Saharan Africa, and Islands throughout the world. And much of
the strife among different peoples has been supported by discoveries in
science and conversion of that knowledge into instruments of personal
and mass destruction. Science has a way of knowing nature is
neutral and its power that can be used for infinite good or infinite
evil. The choice is ours.
Throughout the ages they have always been a few who, without abandoning
their religion, did forego the blind acceptance of dogma and
superstition. They undertook the extraordinarily difficult,
lonely, and frequently dangerous path of using their unfettered minds
for rational inquiry. It is these individuals that have given us
the modern world and the possibility of truly great improvement of the
human condition. They have replaced the primitive view of nature
as chaotic, mysterious, and often threatening with a view of the
universe and life is responding in patterns that are precise,
beautiful, and awe-inspiring. Beyond giving pleasure to the
inquisitive, analytical mind, this progress in understanding provides
previously unimagined ways to feed the hungry, heal the sick, and
lessen toil. Lives are poorly lived with a lookout upon a cold,
hostile, inscrutable world; lives are enhanced when they look out upon
a world with an appreciation of its beauty in order and its suitability
as a warm and friendly home. It matters little for the great
moral and ethical questions facing humanity whether or not the human
brain and mind are consequences of random events in evolution, though
scientists are convinced they are. However, it matters a great
deal that we use our brains and minds honestly, humanely, intensively,
and effectively to preserve and improve the world for ourselves and for
the generations that follow.
bravenet.com