Sunspots 358

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Humor: How to pronounce "ghoti."

Science: Karl Zimmer, science writer extraordinaire, in Discover, reports that autism is due to the addition of too many brain cells during fetal growth. Amazing!

National Public Radio reports on the size of the eyes of giant squid -- the largest eyes known on earth.

Politics: (sort of -- not much) National Public Radio reports that adding renewable energy to the US power grid causes problems, because of its unpredictability.

Image source (public domain)

Prayer and Devotion, by E. M. Bounds, part one

Devotion has a religious signification. The root of devotion is to devote to a sacred use. So that devotion in its true sense has to do with religious worship. It stands intimately connected with true prayer. Devotion is the particular frame of mind found in one entirely devoted to God. It is the spirit of reverence, of awe, of godly fear. It is a state of heart which appears before God in prayer and worship. It is foreign to everything like lightness of spirit, and is opposed to levity and noise and bluster. Devotion dwells in the realm of quietness and is still before God. It is serious, thoughtful, meditative.

Devotion belongs to the inner life and lives in the closet, but also appears in the public services of the sanctuary. It is a part of the very spirit of true worship, and is of the nature of the spirit of prayer.

Devotion belongs to the devout man, whose thoughts and feelings are devoted to God. Such a man has a mind given up wholly to religion, and possesses a strong affection for God and an ardent love for His house. Cornelius was “a devout man, one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed always.” “Devout men carried Stephen to his burial.” “One Ananias, a devout man, according to the law,” was sent unto Saul when he was blind, to tell him what the Lord would have him do. God can wonderfully use such men, for devout men are His chosen agents in carrying forward His plans. Prayer promotes the spirit of devotion, while devotion is favourable to the best praying.

This post is one of a series, taken from The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. The Essentials of Prayer is in the public domain. The previous post in the entire series on the book is here. Thanks for reading. Read, and practice, Bounds.

Green Oxalis leaves

Green is emphasized on this day of the year:



These are leaves of Oxalis, a common plant -- Oxalis, the genus name, is also often used as the common name. It is not especially closely related to clovers or shamrocks. These plants grow in our flower garden, but this photo was taken in Southern California.

In 2005, I posted a series on the colors. Here's the post, in that series, on green.

Thanks for looking, and reading.

Water into wine

John 2:1 The third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there. 2 Jesus also was invited, with his disciples, to the marriage. 3 When the wine ran out, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no wine.”

4 Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with you and me? My hour has not yet come.”

5 His mother said to the servants, “Whatever he says to you, do it.” 6 Now there were six water pots of stone set there after the Jews’ way of purifying, containing two or three metretes* apiece. 7 Jesus said to them, “Fill the water pots with water.” They filled them up to the brim. 8 He said to them, “Now draw some out, and take it to the ruler of the feast.” So they took it. 9 When the ruler of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and didn’t know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the ruler of the feast called the bridegroom, 10 and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when the guests have drunk freely, then that which is worse. You have kept the good wine until now!” 11 This beginning of his signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and revealed his glory; and his disciples believed in him. 

*2 to 3 metretes is about 20 to 30 U. S. Gallons, or 75 to 115 liters. (From the World English Bible, public domain.)

This is a remarkable story. Only John's gospel tells it. There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that this is to be taken any other way than as a history of something that Jesus did. Therefore, there are two possibilities. Either John (or someone else) made this up, or it really happened. I believe in the truth of the Bible, so I reject the first possibility. If it really happened, it was some sort of miracle.

I say some sort, because, of course, John didn't tell us exactly what Jesus did, presumably because he, John didn't know. What, then, did Jesus do? I certainly don't know, either. But I can muse about it.

Verse 6 apparently means that the capacity of these water pots was about 100 liters, not that they were filled with water already. It doesn't completely rule out that there was some water in one or more of these pots. Verse 7 indicates that the servants filled these pots, perhaps from the village well. Apparently, as the water was poured, the contents of the pots became wine.

How did Jesus do this? We don't know, of course, but however and whatever He did, it was miraculous.

The chemical formula for alcohol (ethanol -- there are many kinds of alcohol. Ethanol is the kind in alcoholic beverages) is C₂H₅OH. The chemical formula for water is H₂O. There are no carbon atoms in pure water, and, even if the water was impure, with some carbon atoms in it, they wouldn't be expected to be  incorporated into molecules of ethanol. Somehow, Jesus either created ethanol molecules, or transformed water molecules into ethanol. Such feats are beyond our ability, even today. (It is possible, I suppose, that Jesus, instead, acted on the taste buds and nasal passages of the ruler of the feast, and the other guests, but the text doesn't suggest that, and, even if it happened, it would be as miraculous as creating, or transforming, molecules.)

Some people of past times, including the alchemists of the West, believed that there is a philosopher's stone, that has the power to produce gold by transformation of other elements. Elements generally don't change into other elements, but this does happen, through some kinds of radioactive decay, and it is possible for humans to use nuclear reactions to change some types of elements into others. (See the Wikipedia article on Nuclear transmutation.) But don't expect to go to your friendly neighborhood university physics department and expect that they are capable of transforming hydrogen or oxygen atoms into carbon atoms, or water molecules into ethanol molecules. This is just not possible. (It is believed that several hydrogen atoms, through a long and involved processes, can be transformed into a carbon atom, in the heart of stars.)

How is wine made, normally? The process is carried out by yeast organisms, which require sugar to work on, and contain the appropriate enzymes for breaking the sugar down and making ethanol and carbon dioxide from it. (See Wikipedia article on ethanol fermentation) That normal process is remarkable enough that I consider the ability of yeasts to carry it out to be similar to a miracle, although it is a natural process -- somehow God has made it possible for it to be carried out, apparently with no divine intervention. But Colossians 1:16-17 indicate that Christ somehow sustains the universe at present, including sustaining yeasts, grapes, and ethanol fermentation:

16 For by him all things were created, in the heavens and on the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.

There is more to wine than ethanol and water. There is a science, or art, of wine tasting, which I know very little about, but there are numerous chemicals in wine, besides ethanol and water, and the ruler of the feast must have detected a pleasing mixture of these, and ethanol, in what he tasted. Jesus would have had to create other substances, besides ethanol, in this wine.

I confess that I started thinking about this subject yesterday, and decided to write this post without checking the approximately 2,000 posts already published in this blog. I just now discovered that I had already posted on this miracle. However, I decided to go ahead and publish this post, which is a little more extensive.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 357

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science: National Public Radio reports that scientists at Fermilab believe they have evidence for the postulated Higgs boson, the so-called "God particle."

Wired reports on the possibility that worker bees may have personalities.

Politics: (sort of) National Public Radio says that the U.S. is approaching energy independence, and not because of the efforts of big oil, or the policies of Mr. Obama (or any other President).

Christianity: Ken Schenck says that sermons don't have to be based on scripture, and he has a good example to back up this claim -- the Apostle Paul.

Image source (public domain)

Jane Eyre

A few weeks ago, I read an entire book on one of our computers for the first time. The book is Jane Eyre, which is public domain. I had never read it. The Wikipedia article on the book, which is rather thorough, and lists the characters, and gives the plot, says that there have been about a dozen movies based on the book, in English and other languages, including one in 2011, which I saw, and which gave me a reason to read the book.

Before reading the book, based on its reputation, and the movie, I thought that it was a romance novel, and gothic, too. It is those things, but it is more. The Wikipedia article indicates that the portrayal of Jane as a strong character makes the book a pre-femininist novel. It is also a Christian novel, in that it has a Christian world-view, and that some of the characters, including Jane, are believers, and attempt, sometimes at considerable cost, to live lives compatible with Biblical morality. That was my impression, and the Wikipedia article agrees. Here is an excerpt that illustrates these ideas:

St. John is unmarried: he never will marry now.  Himself has hitherto sufficed to the toil, and the toil draws near its close: his glorious sun hastens to its setting.  The last letter I received from him drew from my eyes human tears, and yet filled my heart with divine joy: he anticipated his sure reward, his incorruptible crown.  I know that a stranger’s hand will write to me next, to say that the good and faithful servant has been called at length into the joy of his Lord.  And why weep for this?  No fear of death will darken St. John’s last hour: his mind will be unclouded, his heart will be undaunted, his hope will be sure, his faith steadfast.  His own words are a pledge of this—

“My Master,” he says, “has forewarned me.  Daily He announces more distinctly,—‘Surely I come quickly!’ and hourly I more eagerly respond,—‘Amen; even so come, Lord Jesus!’” (Chapter XXXVIII. These are the last words in Jane Eyre: An Autobiography, public domain, by Charlotte Brontë. My source is the Project Gutenberg edition. The Wikipedia article on the book is here.)

Thanks for reading. Read Jane Eyre, if you wish to.

Prayer and humility, part five

How lowly the attitude of Abraham, the friend of God, when pleading for God to stay His wrath against Sodom! “Which am but sackcloth and ashes.” [Genesis 18:27 -- see here for Genesis 18, KJV] With what humility does Solomon appear before God! His grandeur is abased, and his glory and majesty are retired as he assumes the rightful attitude before God: “I am but a little child, and know not how to go out or to come in.” [1 Kings 3:7 -- see here for 1 Kings 3, KJV] The pride of doing sends its poison all through our praying. The same pride of being infects all our prayers, no matter how well-worded they may be. It was this lack of humility, this self-applauding, this self-exaltation, which kept the most religious man of Christ’s day from being accepted of God. And the same thing will keep us in this day from being accepted of Him.

This post is one of a series, taken from The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. The Essentials of Prayer is in the public domain. The previous post in the series is here. Thanks for reading. Read, and practice, Bounds.

The Lord Howe Island stick insect -- big and amazing

I recently heard about the Lord Howe Island stick insect, Dryococelus australis. It's big, and amazing. It also almost became extinct. Here's an article, with photos, and a video. There's also a Wikipedia article on the animal. Enjoy (or not!)

Thanks for looking at this.

Sunspots 356

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science: Carl Zimmer tells us that mammals have a gene that's absolutely needed for embryonic development, that came to us from a virus.

From Fox News, a report, with a picture, on a flower grown from seed frozen into the ice, thousands of years ago.

Wired reports that dolphins do the equivalent of saying "Hello, I'm Jane Smith."

Image source (public domain)

Inconsistency in politicians, and the rest of us.

Here's a fascinating essay, from National Public Radio, on inconsistency in politicians, and in the reactions of non-politicians to such inconsistency. This is not a partisan piece, and the findings apply to more than the United States. For one thing there's an analysis of whether or not consistency is important for good leadership.

There's also a quiz on the inconsistencies of the current candidates for President, including President Obama.

Read, and ponder.

Prayer and humility, part four

Humility holds in its keeping the very life of prayer. Neither pride nor vanity can pray. Humility, though, is much more than the absence of vanity and pride. It is a positive quality, a substantial force, which energises prayer. There is no power in prayer to ascend without it. Humility springs from a lowly estimate of ourselves and of our deservings. The Pharisee prayed not, though well schooled and habituated to pray, because there was no humility in his praying. The publican prayed, though banned by the public and receiving no encouragement
from Church sentiment, because he prayed in humility. To be clothed with humility is to be clothed with a praying garment. Humility is just feeling little because we are little. Humility is realising our unworthiness because we are unworthy, the feeling and declaring ourselves sinners because we are sinners. Kneeling well becomes us as the attitude of prayer, because it betokens humility.

Humility is the first and last attribute of Christly religion, and the first and last attribute of Christly praying. There is no Christ without humility. There is no praying without humility. If thou wouldst learn well the art of praying, then learn well the lesson of humility.

This post is one of a series, taken from The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. The Essentials of Prayer is in the public domain. The previous post in the series is here. Thanks for reading. Read, and practice, Bounds.

Christ's coming, or heaven? Paul's letters to the Thessalonians

All the passages in Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, which are about heaven, or the second coming, are given below:

1 Thessalonians 1:9b how you turned to God from idols, to serve a living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come.

1 Thessalonians 2:19 For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Isn’t it even you, before our Lord Jesus at his coming? 20 For you are our glory and our joy.

1 Thessalonians 3:11 Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way to you; 12 and the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward all men, even as we also do toward you, 13 to the end he may establish your hearts blameless in holiness before our God and Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with God’s trumpet. The dead in Christ will rise first, 17 then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air. So we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Thessalonians 5:1 But concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need that anything be written to you. 2 For you yourselves know well that the day of the Lord comes like a thief in the night. 3 For when they are saying, “Peace and safety,” then sudden destruction will come on them, like birth pains on a pregnant woman; and they will in no way escape. 4 But you, brothers, aren’t in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a thief. 5 You are all children of light, and children of the day. We don’t belong to the night, nor to darkness, 6 so then let’s not sleep, as the rest do, but let’s watch and be sober.

2 Thessalonians 1:5 This is an obvious sign of the righteous judgment of God, to the end that you may be counted worthy of the Kingdom of God, for which you also suffer. 6 Since it is a righteous thing with God to repay affliction to those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted with us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 giving vengeance to those who don’t know God, and to those who don’t obey the Good News of our Lord Jesus, 9 who will pay the penalty: eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired among all those who have believed (because our testimony to you was believed) in that day.

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to him, we ask you 2 not to be quickly shaken in your mind, nor yet be troubled, either by spirit, or by word, or by letter as from us, saying that the day of Christ had come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For it will not be, unless the departure comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 he who opposes and exalts himself against all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he sits as God in the temple of God, setting himself up as God. 5 Don’t you remember that, when I was still with you, I told you these things? 6 Now you know what is restraining him, to the end that he may be revealed in his own season. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness already works. Only there is one who restrains now, until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will kill with the breath of his mouth, and destroy by the manifestation of his coming; 9 even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10 and with all deception of wickedness for those who are being lost, because they didn’t receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

The passages above were taken from the World English Bible, which is public domain. I have quoted all the passages, in Paul's letters to the Thessalonians, that refer to either heaven, or the second coming of Christ. The only use of "heaven" that I found was as the location from which Christ will return to earth. There are, as you can see, abundant references to the return of Christ. I guess that somewhere between a third and a half of these two short books deal with that subject.

This post was triggered by a comment, by someone, on the books, saying that the Second Coming was an important theme of both of them. It is. However, one thing that struck me is that, at least in the circles in which I move and read and listen, we emphasize heaven much more than the Second Coming, and, I fear, we talk about heaven as if it were an extended vacation, or an escape from hell, rather than as if it were an opportunity to be with the Risen Lord. That wasn't the attitude of the New Testament writers. God help me, and us.

Thanks for reading.

If humans descended from apes, why are there still apes?

"If humans descended from apes, why are there still apes?"

I have seen this question, or one much like it, on Facebook, a couple of times in the last few days. I doubt that the person posting that really expects an answer, of any kind. It's (I suppose) a rhetorical flourish. However, here's an answer.

No serious biologist believes that humans descended from chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas or orangutans. Most scientists believe that these great apes, and humans, had a common ancestor. It is possible that they are wrong, and that humans were specially created by God. I'll not consider that any further in this post, because the statement I'm responding to is really saying this: "OK, Mr. Scientist. You believe that humans descended from apes. How can that be possible, since apes are still around?"

I'll respond with this question: "If cell phones descended from land line phones, how come there are still land line phones?" Granted, of course, that phones don't descend from anything, but are manufactured, and that all analogies are less than perfect, it still is relevant to the original question.

In the first place, we can see the "common ancestor" again. Both cell phones, and land line phones, have evolved since the first cell phones were introduced. (See here for the Wikipedia article on the history of mobile phones, which were first introduced in the 1940s) The common ancestor is not around any more.

Second, different types of phones are in existence because there is, or has been, a market for them. Land lines are usually cheaper than cell phone service. Most people can't use their cell phones for connecting their computers to the Internet, and, for example, downloading large application programs. Our land line works well for that. On the other hand, there are many things you can do with a cell phone, even a non-smart phone, that are impossible with a land line. For example, if your land line stops working, you can use your cell phone to inform your land line carrier of the problem.

What does this have to do with apes and humans? Biologists believe that, for a new species to arise, it must occupy an ecological niche. What is an ecological niche? It's where the species lives, and how it obtains its energy. For animals, where it lives, and what it eats. Presumably primitive humans, either created specially by God, or coming from some ancestral form, were able to take advantage of ways of living that other creatures were not, most likely by being able to construct or occupy dwellings of various kinds, and by being able to cultivate crops and to domesticate animals. So they survived as a species. But there are other ecological niches, still occupied by the great apes, that humans don't fill, or don't fill very well, such as living on less than 200 species of plants, on the cold and cloudy slopes of mountains in Africa, as the Mountain Gorilla does. As long as there are available ecological niches, which humans are poorly equipped to occupy, we can expect the great apes to continue to exist. (Unless we hunt them to extinction.) This is true whether or not we share a common ancestor with them. There are good reasons for the continued existence of humans, and of great apes. Similarly, land lines and cell phones both exist because there are good reasons for their existence -- there are niches for both of them. In both cases, the arrival of a new entity did not mean that an older one would cease to exist.

Another response is this. "If dogs descended from wolves, why are there still wolves?" (As far as I know, all biologists, including those who believe that humans were specially created on an earth which is only a few thousand years old, believe that dogs descended from wolves.) The answer is similar to the telephone story. Dogs exist because there is an ecological niche, however artificial, available to them. So do wolves, in a different ecological niche. Clearly dogs have evolved into many different breeds or races, mostly under the direction of dog breeders. But dogs which seem to be much like wolves still exist. Most likely, wolves, themselves, have changed in small ways over the last several thousand years, so that they, also, are not identical with the wolf-dog common ancestor, or ancestors. But there are still wolves, and there are still dog breeds which most likely gave rise to newer breeds. The arrival of dogs didn't mean that wolves would immediately go extinct.

I hope that this answers the question. Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 355

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science: (sort of) a photo of a museum display of  Robert Wadlow, the tallest person who ever lived, considering only certified measurements, with a brief description of his short life.* The display includes a lifelike statue of Wadlow.

Politics: Cal Thomas, conservative commentator (and Christian) had to apologize. He also said this: "Why do so many of us only watch programs that reinforce what we already believe? Where is the growth in that?" Where, indeed?

Christianity: Weekend Fisher is running an anti-virus program on her soul.

*I know. "Short," in this context, is a pun. I mean no disrespect to Wadlow. I just couldn't think of a better word.

Image source (public domain)

Medical Students and evolution

There has been a fair amount of discussion, over the past few years, as to whether pre-medical students need to have some background in the basic ideas and theory of evolution. (For more on this, do a search on the phrase "medical student" combined with the word evolution.) Part of this discussion was generated by the story of a pre-med student who was a young-earth creationist, and was denied a recommendation to medical school by a faculty member.

The Panda's Thumb is a multi-author blog, with several contributors. The main thrust is against the Intelligent Design movement, and some of the posts have been strident and intolerant of Christianity in general, as well as of the ID movement. However, some posts do an excellent job of considering scientific evidence bearing on evolution, particularly as it relates to the scientific claims of the ID movement, and some authors seem to understand the concerns of Christians, and sympathize with them. The blog is required reading for anyone expecting to keep up with the Intelligent Design field. A post, a few years ago, by Jack Krebs, considered the question "Why should medical students study evolution?" I was impressed with the tone, and the content.

The author is, or has been, a high school teacher himself, and knows full well that, whatever the subject of a high school class, students won't retain all of it, and may never use the specific course material in their careers. He also knows that that shouldn't mean that students aren't taught anything, and that a few students really may use a lot of the material of some high school classes. (Speaking from experience, the same is certainly true of university classes!)

Although he doesn't define evolution -- an all too common problem with writing on the subject, from many different viewpoints -- he is sympathetic to the claims of religion, and indicates that he opposes a naturalistic world-view.

Krebs goes on to answer his question by including an actual example, where knowledge of the biochemistry, genetics and neurobiology of mice seems to offer some hope of treating bipolar disorders in humans. Almost certainly, if no one had looked at similarities between humans and mice, with a view to learning more about their similarities, this hope would not have been possible.

Krebs doesn't make a knock-down case, but it's a case, and should be pondered carefully by those who believe that studying similarities between organisms is not of use in the medical profession.

Prayer and humility, part three

Humility is an indispensable requisite of true prayer. It must be an attribute, a characteristic of prayer. Humility must be in the praying character as light is in the sun. Prayer has no beginning, no ending, no being, without humility. As a ship is made for the sea, so prayer is made for humility, and so humility is made for prayer.
 

Humility is not abstraction from self, nor does it ignore thought about self. It is a manyphased principle. Humility is born by looking at God, and His holiness, and then looking at self and man’s unholiness. Humility loves obscurity and silence, dreads applause, esteems the virtues of others, excuses their faults with mildness, easily pardons injuries, fears contempt less and less, and sees baseness and falsehood in pride. A true nobleness and greatness are in humility. It knows and reveres the inestimable riches of the Cross, and the humiliations of Jesus Christ. It fears the lustre of those virtues admired by men, and loves those that are more secret and which are prized by God. It draws comfort even from its own defects, through the abasement which they occasion. It prefers any degree of compunction before all light in the world.

This post is one of a series, taken from The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. The Essentials of Prayer is in the public domain. The previous post in the series is here. Thanks for reading. Read, and practice, Bounds.

Sunspots 354

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Humor:  (or food) Pictures of some really elaborate (and weird) cakes.

Science: (or food) National Public Radio on whether adding fiber to food is good for you.

Sports: A Sports Illustrated columnist has a radical idea on who gets to take the last shot in a close NBA game.

Politics: How advocates for opposite positions reached a compromise that's good for both the interest groups that they represent. Oh, that there were more of these stories. (From National Public Radio)

Image source (public domain)

Human construction praised by God? Jeremiah 22:6

Jeremiah 22:1 Thus said Yahweh: Go down to the house of the king of Judah, and speak there this word, 2 Say, Hear the word of Yahweh, king of Judah, who sits on the throne of David, you, and your servants, and your people who enter in by these gates. 3 Thus says Yahweh: Execute justice and righteousness, and deliver him who is robbed out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence, to the foreigner, the fatherless, nor the widow; neither shed innocent blood in this place. 4 For if you do this thing indeed, then shall there enter in by the gates of this house kings sitting on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, he, and his servants, and his people. 5 But if you will not hear these words, I swear by myself, says Yahweh, that this house shall become a desolation. 6 For thus says Yahweh concerning the house of the king of Judah: You are Gilead to me, the head of Lebanon. Yet surely I will make you a wilderness, cities which are not inhabited. 7 I will prepare destroyers against you, everyone with his weapons; and they shall cut down your choice cedars, and cast them into the fire. 8 Many nations shall pass by this city, and they shall say every man to his neighbor, Why has Yahweh done thus to this great city? 9 Then they shall answer, Because they forsook the covenant of Yahweh their God, and worshiped other gods, and served them. (World English Bible, public domain)

The Hebrew word, bayith, translated "house," occurs in verse 6, which I wish to focus on. It also occurs in verses 1, 4, and 5, and in verse 13 of the same chapter, which I did not quote above. As in English, there is some uncertainty about the meaning. House can mean a dwelling, or it can mean the people who are associated with a household. Since it seems pretty clear that Jeremiah was talking about the royal palace in verses 1, 4, and 5, I'm going to assume that he was also doing this in verse 6. (See here for a number of translations of this verse.)

It seems likely that this translation is correct: 'Now this is what the LORD says concerning Judah's royal palace: "I love you as much as fruitful Gilead and the green forests of Lebanon. But I will turn you into a desert, with no one living within your walls.' (New Living Translation) Other translations agree with this one, but not all do.

If that translation is correct, it means that a human creation is praised by God, Himself, as being as beautiful, as worth considering, as part of the natural world.

See Exodus 36, which describes the construction of the tent of meeting, and 1 Kings 10, which, to some extent, describes the palace, in the time of Solomon. I have previously posted on taking care of the environment, more than once. The most important of these posts is here. Thanks for reading.

Animal fat prohibited in Jewish dietary laws

Leviticus 7:22 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying, 23 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying, ‘You shall eat no fat, of bull, or sheep, or goat. 24 The fat of that which dies of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of animals, may be used for any other service, but you shall in no way eat of it. 25 For whoever eats the fat of the animal, of which men offer an offering made by fire to Yahweh, even the soul who eats it shall be cut off from his people. 26 You shall not eat any blood, whether it is of bird or of animal, in any of your dwellings. 27 Whoever it is who eats any blood, that soul shall be cut off from his people.’” (World English Bible, public domain)

The Old Testament has many dietary regulations, some still kept by some Jews (and some Christians). See the Wikipedia article on kosher foods.

The text quoted above prohibits the consumption of fat from types of animals which could be offered as a sacrifice. Since the Jews were not allowed to eat any part of most kinds of animals except those listed, they would not have had much fat in their diet. However, an article in the Jewish Encyclopedia says that "The fat of birds or of permitted wild animals is not forbidden."

In my musing on this subject, I note a few things:

1) Fat formed an important part of the sacrifices. Perhaps that's the main, or the only, reason why the prohibition on eating it. It is also possible that the prohibition was so the Israelites wouldn't get too much cholesterol, or be more likely to be overweight.
2) This had to have been symbolic, rather than absolute. Meat usually has fat blended in with the muscle, so that it would have been impossible to remove all the fat from, say, the leg meat of a cow. We can buy hamburger which is 96% lean, but the Jews couldn't have eaten meat that was 100% lean.
Note, also, that the King James Version uses the phrase "fatted calf" to describe an animal to be killed and eaten as part of a celebration, as in the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15, or in the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22.
3) In Acts 15:20, the Jerusalem Council asked Gentile Christians not to eat blood, but there was nothing said about fat. Why? (A search for "fat" turns up over 100 instances in the Old Testament, mostly about dietary laws or sacrifices, but no occurrence at all in the New Testament.)
I would guess, and it's only a guess, that the reason has to do with the symbolism of blood sacrifice. It was Christ's blood that paid for our sin, not his "meat."

Any thoughts? Thanks for reading.

Prayer and humility, part two

The parable of the Pharisee and publican stands out in such bold relief that we must again refer to it. The Pharisee seemed to be inured to prayer. Certainly he should have known by that time how to pray, but alas! like many others, he seemed never to have learned this invaluable lesson. He leaves business and business hours and walks with steady and fixed steps up to the house of prayer. The position and place are well-chosen by him. There is the sacred place, the sacred hour, and the sacred name, each and all invoked by this seemingly praying man. But this praying ecclesiastic, though schooled to prayer, by training and by habit, prays not. Words are uttered by him, but words are not prayer. God hears his words only to condemn him. A death-chill has come from those formal lips of prayer—a deathcurse from God is on his words of prayer. A solution of pride has entirely poisoned the prayer offering of that hour. His entire praying has been impregnated with self-praise, selfcongratulation, and self-exaltation. That season of temple going has had no worship whatever in it.
On the other hand, the publican, smitten with a deep sense of his sins and his inward sinfulness, realising how poor in spirit he is, how utterly devoid of anything like righteousness, goodness, or any quality which would commend him to God, his pride within utterly blasted and dead, falls down with humiliation and despair before God, while he utters a sharp cry for mercy for his sins and his guilt. A sense of sin and a realisation of utter unworthiness has fixed the roots of humility deep down in his soul, and has oppressed self and eye and heart, downward to the dust. This is the picture of humility against pride in praying. Here we see by sharp contrast the utter worthlessness of self-righteousness, self-exaltation, and self-praise in praying, and the great value, the beauty and the Divine commendation which comes to humility of heart, self-depreciation, and self-condemnation when a soul comes before God in prayer.
Happy are they who have no righteousness of their own to plead and no goodness of their own of which to boast. Humility flourishes in the soil of a true and deep sense of our sinfulness and our nothingness. Nowhere does humility grow so rankly and so rapidly and shine so brilliantly, as when it feels all guilty, confesses all sin, and trusts all grace. “I the chief of sinners am, but Jesus died for me.” That is praying ground, the ground of humility, low down, far away seemingly, but in reality brought nigh by the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. God dwells in the lowly places. He makes such lowly places really the high places to the praying soul.

This post is one of a series, taken from The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. Public Domain. The previous post in the series is here.

Pilgrim's Progress anniversary

On this date, in 1678, The Pilgrim's Progress, by John Bunyan, was published. It has never been out of print since.

Here's an excerpt:

Saw! why, I went but a little further, and I saw one, as I thought in my mind, hang bleeding upon the tree; and the very sight of Him made my burden fall off my back (for I groaned under a very heavy burden), but then it fell down from off me. It was a strange thing to me, for I never saw such a thing before; yea, and while I stood looking up, for then I could not forbear looking, three Shining Ones came to me. One of them testified that my sins were forgiven me; another stripped me of my rags, and gave me this broidered coat which you see; and the third set the mark which you see in my forehead, and gave me this sealed roll. (And with that he plucked it out of his bosom).

Christian, who is the pilgrim of the title, is explaining how his load of sin was taken from him. Wonderful! Here's my source for the text of the first part of the book, which is public domain.

Thanks for reading. Read Bunyan!

What Intelligent Design is, and isn't

I have run into a new blog, which looks like it is going to be relevant to my interest in Intelligent Design. The author is intelligent, seems open-minded, and writes clearly, although readers probably would be better off with at least a nodding acquaintance with the intersection of philosophy and science.

One post concerns the question of exactly what Intelligent Design is. There are several fine comments, including some on the question of whether ID, or evolution (which is not defined in this post, but should have been) is falsifiable.

Thanks for reading.

Dragonspell, by Donita K. Paul

I recently read Dragonspell, by Donita K. Paul. Here's the book's web page in the author's web site. Dragonspell was honored as a finalist for the Christy awards for Visionary novels for 2005. The Christy awards are presented annually for what I have called Faith Fiction, that is, fiction that tells a story that is designed to appeal to conservative Christian readers, and, generally, is marketed by members of the Christian Booksellers Association.

So, what is explicitly conservative Christian about Dragonspell? There is a supreme being, Wulder, who can be spoken to, and is the supreme creator. His followers invoke his protection when threatened by evil beings. Wulder does not appear in the book. Paladin, apparently meant to represent Christ, does appear a few times. Paladin is said to understand the mind of Wulder completely. I found no evidence of an analog of the Holy Spirit in the book. Satan is represented by The Pretender, who does not appear in the book. There are a number of moral choices presented to the characters, especially to Kale Allerion, the teenaged girl who is the protagonist. For example, she is instructed not to use her magical powers for show.

If you are going to have God the Father, and God the Son, in a work of fiction, why not God the Holy Spirit? And if Paladin represents Christ, why didn't he die for the sins of others, only to be resurrected?

It seems that Dragonspell was influenced by Tolkien. What fantasy novel, in English, hasn't been?

There are several species (Paul calls them races, but the differences seem too great for them to have mutual children), in fact seven (usually) good ones and seven bad ones, apparently always evil. But Paul is not as good at naming things as Tolkien. Mordakleep and bisonbeck are the names of two of these types. She also names other things, such as pnard potatoes, razterberries, and druddums, the last being a nasty sort of animal. Elizabeth Moon, a successful fantasy writer, said this: "In fantasy, you can make up words for things–and I do–but making up new words for everything will make the writing look silly (and incomprehensible.)" Paul came close to incomprehensible, and silly, at times.

In spite of these negative criticisms, I mostly enjoyed the book. There's great appeal in seeing a slave girl becoming aware that she has great magical power. The characters who go, with Kale, to look for a particular kind of dragon egg are interesting. So are the dragons, which are of several types, and can also make moral choices. Great, it's not. Good enough, it is. I hope to read the next book in the series.

Note that I have steered clear of setting the plot before you, as much as possible. If you really need to read about that, read Paul's summary, or look up the Amazon or Barnes & Noble pages on the book.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 353

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

 Sports: Jeremy Lin, NBA player from out of nowhere (well, from Harvard) electrifies New York city basketball fans as the Knicks beat the Los Angeles Lakers. (Warning - 10 minute video. You can get the idea in the first 30 seconds.)

The Arts: (also Anthropology) A web site on the so-called pygmies of Central Africa, with emphasis on their music.

Computing: Wired on how to (at least a little bit) hide your activity from Google.

Image source (public domain)

Prayer and humility, part one

In humility there is the total absence of pride, and it is at the very farthest distance from anything like self-conceit. There is no self-praise in humility. Rather it has the disposition to praise others. “In honour preferring one another.” It is not given to self-exaltation. Humility does not love the uppermost seats and aspire to the high places. It is willing to take the lowliest seat and prefers those places where it will be unnoticed. The prayer of humility is after this fashion:
“Never let the world break in,
Fix a mighty gulf between;
Keep me humble and unknown,
Prized and loved by God alone.”
Humility does not have its eyes on self, but rather on God and others. It is poor in spirit, meek in behaviour, lowly in heart. “With all lowliness and meekness, with long-suffering, forbearing one another in love.” The parable of the Pharisee and publican is a sermon in brief on humility and self-praise. The Pharisee, given over to self-conceit, wrapped up in himself, seeing only his own selfrighteous deeds, catalogues his virtues before God, despising the poor publican who stands afar off. He exalts himself, gives himself over to self-praise, is self-centered, and goes away unjustified, condemned and rejected by God.
The publican sees no good in himself, is overwhelmed with self-depreciation, far removed from anything which would take any credit for any good in himself, does not presume to lift his eyes to heaven, but with downcast countenance smites himself on his breast, and cries out, “God be merciful to me, a sinner.” Our Lord with great preciseness gives us the sequel of the story of these two men, one utterly devoid of humility, the other utterly submerged in the spirit of self-depreciation and lowliness of mind.
“I tell you this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” Luke 18:14.
God puts a great price on humility of heart. It is good to be clothed with humility as with a garment. It is written, “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” That which brings the praying soul near to God is humility of heart. That which gives wings to prayer is lowliness of mind. That which gives ready access to the throne of grace is selfdepreciation. Pride, self-esteem, and self-praise effectually shut the door of prayer. He who would come to God must approach Him with self hid from his eyes. He must not be puffed up with self-conceit, nor be possessed with an over-estimate of his virtues and good works.

This post is one of a series, taken from The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. Public Domain. The previous post in the series is here.

What makes a sermon Christian?

In a previous post, I responded to a commenter who asked me what makes a blog Christian. She also asked me what makes a sermon Christian. I had never really considered either question, and I am grateful for them. In this post, I'll attempt to answer the second question.

First, what is a sermon? The Free Dictionary gives two definitions:
1. A religious discourse delivered as part of a church service.
2. An often lengthy and tedious speech of reproof or exhortation.

A commenter on the previous post said that we probably shouldn't call things Christian, because people can be Christian, but inanimate objects and human creations cannot be. Well, not everyone agrees with that distinction, although I see the point. The dictionary disagrees.

Here are the definitions of Christian, from the Free Dictionary:
adj.
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.
n.
1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

By the second definition, a blog, or a sermon, could be Christian. And, if it didn't relate to or derive from the teachings of Christ, it wouldn't be. It would be a Moslem sermon, or a humanist sermon, or a materialist sermon, or a political sermon. I really don't think I can give a better answer than that. A Christian sermon is a discourse, relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.

Thanks for reading. Thanks again to Weekend Fisher for asking the questions.

What makes a blog Christian?

I received this comment recently (on this post) from another blogger. I am pleased to read her work on a regular basis, and often comment on it, and I suspect that she is my most faithful reader and commenter.

Weekend Fisher wrote... I've found myself wondering: What are the criteria for a Christian blog? And, What are the criteria for a Christian sermon?

I have some thoughts on it myself, but my question to you is: Would you have parallel criteria for those, compared to the ones you have for novels? Would the requirements be higher / lower for blogs? Sermons?

For example, I consider your blog a Christian blog -- and I've read blogs by pastors and theology professors that I do not consider Christian blogs.

I'd be much obliged if you'd share your thoughts.

Take care & God bless

Anne / WF

First, I am grateful for the question, and the assessment. I try to produce a Christian blog. But "what makes it one?" is a good question. (I'll try to deal with sermons in a separate post, later.)

One aspect of being a Christian blog is, I hope, found in my "Guidelines for this Blog," published nearly seven years ago. I hadn't read that in quite a while, but I still think I'm trying to follow these guidelines. The first one is the most important: "I hope to glorify God with this blog." That is the most important criterion. A Christian blog must glorify God. I understand that no objective measure of whether or not I do so is possible. God knows, and understands, my motives, and what, if anything, is accomplished by a blog, or a blog post. A Christian blog should have, as its fundamental purpose, to glorify God. Does every post need to do that? No. An occasional political post, recipe, photos of the family dog, or setting forth the blogger's side of an academic, theological, or philosophical dispute would also be acceptable, and need not take away from the main purpose, it seems to me. A personal blog -- one that's about aspects of the blogger's daily life -- can glorify God, and I have seen some that do.

Conversely, a blog that is mostly about selling something, glorifying the blog owner, seeking redress for actions that the blogger perceives as hurts to her, or to put forth some partisan political view* is not Christian. A blog that isn't written from a Biblical world view cannot glorify God, as I see it.
*What do you get when you mix religion and politics? Politics."

Do you have to testify or preach in a blog, for it to glorify God? No. Instruction on what the Bible says, for example (Anne does this very well.) glorifies God.

Glorifying God need not be done explicitly. For example, in posting excellent poetry or photographs, a Christian blogger need not say that she is doing this for God's glory. If it's good enough, and has a Biblical world-view, it will do that without having to tell any one that you are doing it. As C. S. Lewis wrote: "What we want is not more little books about Christianity, but more little books by Christians about other subjects--with their Christianity latent." (God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, edited by Walter Hooper. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970, pp. 89-103. Quote is from p. 93.) Lewis never saw a blog, but I think this statement applies, if anything, more to blogs than to books. I thus propose a second criterion, namely that a Christian blog should be excellent. It should use language well, use graphics that are appropriate and well-done, and, where appropriate, refer to pertinent recognized sources. It should mostly stay clear of subjects that in which the blogger has no real expertise, or at least it should steer clear of pontification on such subjects.

Excellence, of course, is also subjective. I'm not proposing that every Christian who blogs should try to emulate C. S. Lewis, Oswald Chambers, or Billy Graham, but that every Christian who blogs should try to do her best.

I would propose a third guideline, which is important, but especially on posts on controversial matters, namely that the blogger observe the golden rule: treat readers, commenters, and the authors of source material, as you would want to be treated yourself, in the same manner that Christ would treat them. A Christian blogger, then, should answer comments courteously, treat the views of others with respect, and have a humble attitude. Again, this is subjective.

A commenter, who disagreed with me on a particular issue, demanded that I remove a post. I didn't do it, and I suggested that further comments on this particular post, by this person (who says he is a Christian, but had made several long comments, most of them claiming that I must not have read the Bible) would not be welcome. I did not delete any of his comments. I hope I treated the commenter with more respect than he used in treating with me. I saw caving in on this matter as forsaking excellence.

Thanks for asking, Anne!

Should "Christian" fiction be labeled as such?

Sorry, but I won't answer this question, but I will refer to previous discussions on the subject.

Recently, Rachelle Gardner, a literary agent, apparently one who serves authors of Faith Fiction, argues that "Christian Fiction" should be so labeled, as part of honesty in marketing. Mike Duran, who uses Gardner as his agent, begs to differ. There are many comments on both posts.

I have previously posted, several times, on what Christian fiction is, or isn't. Most of these posts are analyses of the works of authors of fantastic literature. This post is an attempt at describing Christian novels. It includes links to posts by others, including some professional authors, related to the question of definition, which is related to labeling.

Thanks for reading.

Sunspots 352

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science: Wired reports on a study of the number of generations it would take to evolve from the size of a mouse to that of an elephant. (A lot.)

Speaking of rates of evolution, the New York Times reports on a virus that changes very rapidly, and how dangerous this can be.

I learned something I didn't know, or had forgotten, namely that some spores (which are microscopic) have elaters attached to them. See here and here for some great photos.

Image source (public domain)

The Celtic Crusades trilogy by Stephen R. Lawhead

I recently read the Celtic Crusades trilogy by Stephen R. Lawhead. The books concern one Scottish family, and some Norwegian allies, and a search, during the time of the crusades, for three relics of the time of Christ, namely the spear that was driven into Christ's side, while He was on the cross (The Iron Lance, see here and here), the cross, itself (The Black Rood, see here and here), and the cup Christ used in The Last Supper (often called the Holy Grail, but called The Mystic Rose in Lawhead's series -- see here and here.)

Lawhead writes Faith Fiction. That is, his books are marketed towards a conservative Christian audience, and often sold through the Christian Bookseller's Association. At least one of the three books won the Christy Award. Books of Faith Fiction generally do not use the f___ word and other such words, do not usually include sexual intercourse between characters portrayed as good, who are not married to each other, and often include some explicit religious experience, such as a conversion experience. Faith Fiction may be historical, contemporary, romance, in the sense of being mainly about falling in love, murder mystery, fantastical, and more. (See here for the source of the term, and my analysis of a discussion of it by an author who writes Faith Fiction.) I prefer to read mainstream fantastic literature, having usually been somewhat disappointed by fantastic Faith Fiction, either because it is too preachy, or not well written. I read Lawhead's series, the Pendragon Cycle, five volumes about the story of King Arthur and related characters, many years ago, and have never been moved to re-read those books. I would call them fantastic literature, inasmuch as magic, and myths, were an important part of the plots. (I like magic and myths in fantastic literature, by the way.)

I don't want to give away much of the plot of the three books under discussion, since I was pleased enough by them to recommend them to readers who are interested in historical faith fiction. I will say that there was no magic, as such, in the books, except for some miracles and visions. There was no waving of wands, no spells cast by wizards. At least some parts of the books were true.

The writing was good. The plots were interesting, and at times gripping, and occasionally surprised me. There were interesting characters, including strong female characters. The main character in one of the books was female. There was no conversion, as such, but some of the characters had visions which were life-changing experiences, and were challenged to live an unselfish life, dedicated to the service of Christ, and of others, when they had been selfish, ambitious, proud, seeking personal vengeance, or a combination of these, before the experiences. There was an emphasis on true Christianity, as opposed to the emphasis on politics and profit in much of the church in the time of the crusades. (And before and after that time.)

The main character in each book fell in love, and two of them got married. This is often a characteristic of Faith Fiction.

The main problem that I had with the books was their premise, which, I guess, was realistic enough, considering the time when the stories took place, namely the importance of the sacred relics. I (and many other Protestants and others, and even some Roman Catholics) are not happy with the emphasis placed on, say, The Shroud of Turin, or the Ossuary of James. My faith does not depend on such items, and emphasizing them, genuine or not, could easily become a kind of idolatry, as I see it. The fictional people in the books, including the main characters, did revere the three objects.

Another interesting aspect of the books is that some of the Middle Eastern characters were fabulously wealthy, seeming to have enough servants, enough liquid assets, and a large enough dwelling to be able to accomplish almost anything. Some of the things that they did accomplish were for the good, by the way. Could there have been so many wealthy people in the area in the same time period? I'm not sure. There must have been many, many, poor people, as well.

Well, enough said. Thanks for reading.

Prayer benefits the entire person

As every part of man’s complex being enters into true praying, so every part of that same nature receives blessings from God in answer to such praying. This kind of praying engages our undivided hearts, our full consent to be the Lord’s, our whole desires.
God sees to it that when the whole man prays, in turn the whole man shall be blessed. His body takes in the good of praying, for much praying is done specifically for the body. Food and raiment, health and bodily vigour, come in answer to praying. Clear mental action, right thinking, an enlightened understanding, and safe reasoning powers, come from praying.
Divine guidance means God so moving and impressing the mind, that we shall make wise and safe decisions. “The meek will he guide in judgment.”
Many a praying preacher has been greatly helped just at this point. The unction of the Holy One which comes upon the preacher invigorates the mind, loosens up thought and gives utterance. This is the explanation of former days when men of very limited education had such wonderful liberty of the Spirit in praying and in preaching. Their thoughts flowed as a stream of water. Their entire intellectual machinery felt the impulse of the Divine Spirit’s gracious influences.
And, of course, the soul receives large benefits in this sort of praying. Thousands can testify to this statement. So we repeat, that as the entire man comes into play in true, earnest effectual praying, so the entire man, soul, mind and body, receives the benefits of prayer.

This post is one of a series, taken from The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. Public Domain. The previous post in the series is here.

Coping with sudden death

This post is in reaction to the accidental death of a seven-year-old girl that I didn't know. She died yesterday. I did know a little about her father, and had spoken briefly with him several times at his place of business. I know a number of his employees, and former employees, pretty well. I know an adult daughter of the person who was driving the vehicle that was involved in the accident. My Facebook page has had a lot of posts by others on this event in the last few hours. Some of them have been wonderful. Many of them have been perplexed. If this helps anyone else, fine. I hope it does. But I'm just musing about it. I'm not an expert.

How should sudden death be coped with?

Be ready! Death comes to everyone, and death is permanent. After death, there are no further chances for communication. Death ends all chances to fix things, to do things, to say things. I should be ready to go at any time. I should be sure that I tell the people that I love that I love them, often. I should be sure that my relationship with Christ is up-to-date. (I hope that I love Him. I know that He loves me.) I should realize that this is true of others, not just me, and, if I truly believe that heaven is for real, and that there is a hell to shun, try to lovingly persuade those others to be ready for their deaths, in as many ways as possible. In Luke 12:20, Jesus told a story of a man who wasn't ready for death, and called him a fool.

My will should be made, and up-to-date, and I should have made plans for others to access my important documents, written a tentative obituary, and planned my funeral.

Comfort! In John 14, and elsewhere, Jesus tried to comfort His disciples, in advance of His death. He sent the Holy Spirit, who is also called The Comforter, to them. The Holy Spirit didn't come right away, but several weeks later. Survivors need comfort, after death, for a long time. Comfort can be given in many ways. Showing up, taking food, helping clean, hugging, saying "I love you," or "I'm sorry," calling, and in other ways.

Forgive! This includes self-forgiveness. I don't know all the circumstances of the accident, but the driver surely has had reason to question a lot of things -- why didn't I do this, and why did I do that, and what if. The parents must have such questions, too. And not just about the accident. Did they show her enough love? Were they perfect parents? No one is a perfect parent, and no one is a perfect driver. Try to realize, and accept this, and move on. It won't be easy.

Of course, it may be necessary to forgive someone else. Is that always easy? Of course not. But what good does it do to not forgive? Unforgiveness eats away at a person. It hurts the unforgiving individual more than it can possibly hurt anyone else.

It may be necessary to ask for forgiveness, too. If so, do it carefully, prayerfully, lovingly and humbly.

It's not about me! It's about the person who has passed, and everyone else. The devil wants me to use any excuse to become the axis that the world revolves around. I'm not, and I must try to avoid trying to be, or thinking that I am or should be. Is this easy? Of course not. Christ provided the example, and Paul tells us about that in Philippians 2:5-11 and 1 Corinthians 13.

Pray! For yourself, for others affected, and, that, in the entire situation, Christ will be glorified, perhaps in ways that you never see.

May God help this family, and those associated with this tragic event, and all the other tragic deaths.

Thanks for reading. I'm no expert on this subject. Both my parents are dead, but both of them were in declining health, and had been for some time. A brother-in-law was murdered, two years ago today. But I haven't coped with the death of a spouse, or a child, a grandchild, a close friend, or, as a child, a young parent. I probably will have to do some of this at some point.

Sunspots 351

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Humor: (Sort of) McDonald's is different in France, according to National Public Radio.

Science: Wired reports on a small shrimp (yes, there are fairly large ones) that emits a cloud of glowing material when attacked.

The US Department of Agriculture has released a new plant hardiness zone map. Gardeners, check it out.

Image source (public domain)

Prayer requires our whole selves

In one word, the entire man without reservation must love God. So it takes the same entire man to do the praying which God requires of men. All the powers of man must be engaged in it. God cannot tolerate a divided heart in the love He requires of men, neither can He bear with a divided man in praying.

In the one hundred and nineteenth Psalm the Psalmist teaches this very truth in these
words:
“Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.”

It takes whole-hearted men to keep God’s commandments and it demands the same sort of men to seek God. These are they who are counted “blessed.” Upon these wholehearted ones God’s approval rests.

Bringing the case closer home to himself the Psalmist makes this declaration as to his practice: “With my whole heart have I sought thee; O let me not wander from thy commandments.”

And further on, giving us his prayer for a wise and understanding heart, he tells us his
purposes concerning the keeping of God’s law:
“Give me understanding and I shall keep thy law; Yea, I shall observe it with my whole heart.”

Just as it requires a whole heart given to God to gladly and fully obey God’s commandments,
so it takes a whole heart to do effectual praying.

This post is one of a series, taken from The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. Public Domain. The previous post in the series is here.

Do different roads lead to the same end?

People often say that there are different ways to God.

Anne has posted some simple, but important arguments against that view, here. (I know Anne only from her blog -- I don't even know her last name.)

Thanks for reading this. Read Anne.

Sunspots 350

Things I have recently spotted that may be of interest to someone else:

Science: Perhaps more than you want to know about dodder, a parasitic plant that wraps (usually yellow) stems around other plants, from the Botany Photo of the Day. 

Wired reports on tuberculosis germs that are resistant to all antibiotics currently in use.

Politics: (Sort of) National Public Radio discusses the health benefits of adding a 1 cent tax to soft drinks/sodas/pop/whatever you call them sale prices. There are some such benefits.

Image source (public domain)

A good, but short, look at the brain: Edge question

Every year, Edge publishes responses to what it calls a "World Question." This year's question is "2012 : WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE DEEP, ELEGANT, OR BEAUTIFUL EXPLANATION?"

I confess that I haven't read all of the many responses, from various prominent people, but I did read the one from David Eagleman, a neuroscientist.

Here's part of his excellent brief essay: "The . . . brain . . . possesses multiple, overlapping ways of dealing with the world. It is a machine built of conflicting parts. It is a representative democracy that functions by competition among parties who all believe they know the right way to solve the problem."

Thanks for reading. Read Eagleman.

The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle

I recently re-read The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle. According to the Wikipedia article on the book, it has been translated into twenty or more languages, and sold over five million copies.

What's the attraction? I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but the good guys (and girls and unicorns) win. And that some of the good guys are flawed characters. Hardly a surprise. Here's a pretty good description: "During the meal Schmendrick told stories of his life as an errant enchanter, filling it with kings and dragons and noble ladies. He was not lying, merely arranging events more sensibly . . ." Peter S. Beagle, The Last Unicorn. (New York: Penguin, 1991, p. 47)

"Whatever can die is beautiful -- more beautiful than a unicorn, who lives forever, and is the most beautiful creature in the world . . ." ( p.108.)

The title comes from the situation of the unicorns. They are immortal, or nearly so. All of them have disappeared, into the sea, out past the castle of King Haggard. Haggard's magical red bull, an enormous beast, has chased them there, and keeps them.

Schmendrick is one of the good guys, and the main character. He is a mediocre wizard, at best, except for two occasions, central to the plot, when he tells his magic to go ahead and do whatever it needs to, without direction. The results are not what anyone was expecting, in either case. Molly Grue is another important character. She has been partner to a man who is in charge of some forest knaves, who rob, and act as pale imitations of the mythical Robin Hood. They know that they are imitations.

The book has some beautiful scenes, some amazing symbols (including mythical beings), magic, a unicorn, and a plot which surprised me more than once. If you haven't read The Last Unicorn, and fantastic literature (with no vampires) holds an attraction for you, you should read it. Thanks for reading this.

Prayer requires concentration

It is man’s business to pray; and it takes manly men to do it. It is godly business to pray and it takes godly men to do it. And it is godly men who give over themselves entirely to prayer. Prayer is far-reaching in its influence and in its gracious effects. It is intense and profound business which deals with God and His plans and purposes, and it takes wholehearted men to do it. No half-hearted, half-brained, half-spirited effort will do for this serious, all-important, heavenly business. The whole heart, the whole brain, the whole spirit, must be in the matter of praying, which is so mightily to affect the characters and destinies of men.

The above quote is one in a projected series, using The Essentials of Prayer, by E. M. Bounds. Found through the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, here. The work is public domain. The previous post in the series is here. Thanks for reading.

Race, science and medical ethics - Henrietta Lacks and HeLa cells

I was recently privileged to read The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, by Rebecca Skloot. (See here for a New York Times book review of the book, here for the Wikipedia article on the book, as well as here for a Wikipedia article on the late Mrs. Lacks.)

HeLa cells, the human cells now used most widely in culture, were taken from a sample tissue from a cancer in Mrs. Lacks. She didn't know that this was done. Some medical supply companies made billions off of her cells.

Every person who deals with medical patients in an office or a hospital should read this book. I won't re-tell it, but here are some of the lessons I got from the book:
1) Every person, regardless of race, sex, or knowledge, is entitled to respect as a patient, and, as far as possible, to informed consent -- they should be told the consequences of procedures they are about to undergo, so that they can understand they consequences.*

Henrietta Lacks, the descendant of slaves, was not usually told the consequences of the treatments she got, let alone told the risks, in any way, let alone in ways she could understand.

Her children did not know what a cell was, or, really what cancer is. They couldn't help their ignorance. Skloot, in the course of writing the book, saw to it that, finally, they did understand the basics of what happened to their mother.

2) Scientists can be pretty stupid. HeLa cells are hardy, and spread easily. They infected literally millions of dollars worth of other cell cultures that weren't supposed to be HeLa, but really were. Even when this was pointed out to them, most of the cell culture scientists didn't believe it, or take proper precautions to avoid more contamination.

3) According to Skloot, US law still does not give patients control over cells derived from them. They are deemed discarded by the patient, and the doctor or hospital is free to use them as they see fit. Maybe that's OK, maybe not, but something seems unfair about this matter.

Besides the above, the book is absorbing, scientifically, ethically, historically, and personally. Ms. Skloot has done the Lacks family, and all of us, an enormous service, and worked very hard, under adverse conditions, for years, to accomplish the writing.

Skloot is a science writer by profession. She claims no religious belief, and was amazed, and, I think, impacted, by the religious expression and belief of the Lacks family.

The author used some of the proceeds from her book to fund the Henrietta Lacks foundation, which attempts to help people who have made unwitting contributions to medical science, like Lacks.

Thanks for reading. Read Skloot.

*  *  *  *  *
*A decade or so ago, I took a relative of mine, who was unable to read, to a hospital, for some routine matter. He was given a consent form, small print on both sides of normal-sized paper, and asked to sign it and return it, with the expectation that he do so immediately. The signature supposedly absolved the hospital from liability, should anything go wrong. He signed it, and I didn't object. I had been to the same hospital, and seen the same form, presented in the same way, a year or so before. I can read fairly rapidly, but it would have taken me at least 20 minutes to read and (maybe) understand the form. I did read enough to see that the form said that, in signing the document, you were certifying that you had read and understood it. This lawyer-inspired farce was mostly harmless, but it definitely wasn't informed consent! I would assume that the signature really wouldn't have exempted that hospital from claims for damage, in the event of negligence or malpractice.