My son Tim sent me the link to the Modesty Survey in the Rebelution.com site. The survey is an excellent idea and is sure to be useful to many.
Perhaps you evolved from an octopus
Two million years ago, the australopithecines were changing.
They began to use blunt stone tools to smash branches of trees for wood.
This was an important step in the evolution of man.
Today’s NZ Herald has an article called ‘See you later, suckers’ that begins:
“Our closest relatives in the animal world, chimpanzees and orangutans, have long been known to use tools. But octopuses?“
The article goes on to explain what the veined octopuses (Amphioctopus marginatus) do:
“They not only gather the coconut shells and stack them like bowls, but then carry them long distances, assembling them into armour when predators approach.”
The example of Joni Eareckson Tada
Prisy, Tim, and Lydia,
I don’t know what is in store for you in your lives. But I hope you’ll always take comfort in the knowledge that we have a God who is sovereign and in control of all things. Not a sparrow falls from the sky without His knowledge. He can never be taken by surprise.
Joni here, speaks about how God sometimes permits what He hates to achieve what He loves. God allowed His Son to die on a cruel Roman cross so that He could open the floodgates of heaven for His people. He allowed terrible suffering in Joni’s life to refine her character and prepare her for a lifetime of service.
And this is Joni on the Larry King show. She talks about how she had to lean on God more after the accident, and the more she leaned on Him, the more she realised how strong He was.
About skits and solos and video clips in church services
I love the graciousness with which John Piper expresses what he believes about these things in the worship service Vs the power and place of preaching.
Are you thinking what I am thinking? [B]
Dinosaur footprints found in Nelson reads the title of a news piece in NZ Herald.
What makes this discovery special is the unique preservation of the footprints in an environment where they could easily have been destroyed by waves, tides, or wind.
Northwest Nelson was largely submerged under the sea between 70 and 20 million years ago and the footprints would have been covered by hundreds of metres of marine sediments.
With the development of the modern plate boundary, New Zealand was uplifted and northwest Nelson emerged from the sea.
Isn’t it interesting that dinasaur footprints are often associated with water. You’ve got to have some unusual phenomenon happening in a very short span of time for footprints to be preserved. Sounds pretty much like The Flood to me.
Well, if science be true, it will eventually meet and agree with the Bible, rightly interpreted. If the previous sentence is not true, it does not matter. Nothing matters after that.
My Father, Let My Country Awake
[India 2002]
In Feb 2002, we had the terrible riots in Gujarat, after which minorities–Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians–in India felt uneasy. Everywhere you turned, you did not see the abhorance that you would have thought normal.
For those readers who are not familiar with the 2002 riots, the trigger was the burning of a railway coach in a place called Godhra in Gujarat, killing 58 people, mostly Hindu pilgrims. The event triggered what is thought to be state-sponsored rioting in parts of Gujarat resulting in the deaths of about 2000 Muslims and 300 Hindus.
The following is an article I sent seven years ago, almost to the day, in October 2002 to The Hindu, a leading national daily newspaper in India, not long after the Gujarat riots and days before the Tamil Nadu legislative assembly passed the controversial anti-conversion bill. My article obviously did not meet the paper’s standards and was not published. Happily, the draconian law was annulled some years later in Tamil Nadu, although my countrymen in other states (Rajasthan, Arunachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Himachal Pradesh) still live under its shadow.
Although my article was not published, I sent it to a respected friend, whose level-headed and excellent papers were often published in The Hindu. I am honoured to have received his reponse, which I have pasted below my article. This friend, Mr. Balakesari, is a retired member (staff) of the Railway Board who also served as Chief Mechanical Engineer with the Southern Railway. Incidentally, he was one of the experts who assisted Justice U.C. Banerjee in probing the burning of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express at Godhra in February, 2002.
[From my covering letter : These are time of roiling when religious discord seems to be spreading at an alarming rate. This spread needs to be checked at the intellectual level first. Most of the articles published in your esteemed daily put forward the popular view, which states that all religions basically teach the same thing. But I feel that there is another legitimate view that is more realistic, which states that religions may be really very different and that despite this, there is no reason why we should not all live together in peace. This view needs to be expressed and understood. I have enclosed my article on this subject for your perusal and publication in the ‘Open Page’ section or any other appropriate section of your esteemed daily. I have referred to Prabha Rani's (New Delhi) recent letter to the editor and the article Need for Tolerance by Naresh Gupta on Oct 1, 2002.
I do not subscribe to the view that all religions are basically same and yet I strive to be a good citizen of this country. I know of many like me who bleed inwardly at the kind of religious discord we are seeing. I thought I should put pen to paper and express this point of view. My lack of experience in writing on this subject may be evident in the article but I hope you will consider publishing this article because of its relevance to the times.]
Intolerance for people of other religions is a problem that must be tackled at various levels including at the oft-ignored intellectual level. While the broad and accommodative Hindu view has been expressed time and again, people from the minorities are not so forthcoming with their contributions towards this debate and have thereby contributed to the fuzz surrounding the issue.
Naresh Gupta, in his article Need for Tolerance, acknowledges differences among religions, but goes on to say that, ‘…beneath that diversity there is oneness, which is unmistakable and underneath many religions there is also one religion.’ This is Mr Gupta’s view and he is perfectly justified in voicing it. Incidentally, it is the popular broad view and is held by the vast majority of thinking people in this country, which is why it is important that other views go on record too.
It is perceived that anyone who does not subscribe to the popular view is intolerant of other religions. It is the purpose of this article to show that this is not true. On the contrary people who have understood and accepted the fact that religious differences are not merely skin deep are now free to be truly tolerant of all points of view.
Hindu philosophy accommodates everything and everyone. A good part of the credit for India standing up as a shining example of secularism must go to this fact because the majority of our people are Hindus. Many of my Hindu friends participate in the religious festivities of other faiths.
Being so accommodative, it is not unreasonable to imagine that Hindus would like to see their friends from other religions reciprocate this generous acceptance. And I know professing Christians and Muslims who do. Recently we heard of the facilities for pooja being arranged in a train by a Muslim. We have heard about our president’s scholarship of the Hindu scriptures. These are admirable traits and readily understandable not just by people who espouse the broad Hindu view but also by the world at large, which is moving towards a new era of openness. Another case in point is the all-religion prayer meeting held by Dr Kalam and staff members of the Rashtrapathi Bhavan to celebrate Gandhi Jayanthi.
But there are other views too that must be respected. Many Muslims and Christians as well as some Hindu sects, atheists etc., will not subscribe to this broad view on religious matters no more than a doctor of the Allopathic school would accept other methods of treatment. And they should not if they are true to their convictions. Some readers might find this rather startling, which is why I feel that this is an important issue about which many are unaware. The lack of clarity in this area is the reason why intolerant and irritable feelings are creeping even into educated circles. If the intelligentsia is clear about this, it might be able to prevent blood baths of the kind Gujarat witnessed.
Prabha Rani of New Delhi recently wrote a letter to the editor of The Hindu where she said, “It is the insistence on the sameness or the desire for it that leads to fascist and terrorist activities. It is respect for differences and the willingness to protect each other’s right to this difference that leads to harmonious coexistence. In an enlightened society, while every citizen should have the right to believe that her/his religion is the best, she/he should respect the other’s right to believe the same.” I think she just hit the nail on the head. The word ‘insistence’ is crucial. The so-called ‘broad view’ by its very insistence on sameness (and its dogmatic assertion that truth is not the exclusive property of a single scripture) can plant seeds of discord in the minds of people. It is not logical or morally right to compel everyone in this country to believe that all religions teach the truth.
Look at it this way. One night, a helicopter dropped pamphlets all over the city announcing a music show. A person sleeping on the street noticed this. In the morning, there were many theories of how the city came to have so many pamphlets. Some said that street urchins were paid to do this, others said that several auto rickshaws had been hired to do this and so on. Most realized that there were many ways this could have happened and were open to ideas. But it so happened that they were only open to ideas as long as the holder of the idea was the open-minded sort and did not lay claim to it with any degree of certainty. However, that one man who saw the helicopter was not open to ideas because he was convinced about what he saw. Does he have the freedom to be closed in his thinking?
In matters of God, and the meaning of our existence, different religions have taken different positions. Muslims believe that Allah is God and none else. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He died for mankind, that He arose from the dead, and that only those who accept His gift of salvation can go to heaven. Logically there is always room for someone to have got it right, as many already claim to have, and if we care enough about these matters, we need to have the freedom to accept it for ourselves if and when we encounter the truth. Let each person take his/her position with freedom. But our freedom ends where the next man’s begins, which someone pointed out is only till the tip of our noses. And far be it that we should be hurtful or, still worse, harm each other because of what we believe.
Many friends have tried to tell me that all religions teach the same thing. This again is wishful thinking and perhaps a part of the Hindu ethos. Expecting all religions to basically teach the same thing will lead to disillusionment and anger when the differences start surfacing. According to tenets of a particular religion, there may be religious functions that allow only its adherents to attend. In another scenario, all may be welcome to a certain celebration and the invitee belonging to another religion may decline to accept the prasadam. My friend, a follower of a well known Sadhguru, tells me that we cannot know God or self through the mind and that realization has to come from an intuitive or mystic experience. Christianity, on the other hand teaches its adherents to cogitate before accepting any thing as the truth.
No, all religions are different. Maybe no religion teaches its followers to hate and kill but rather to live peaceably and there ends the similarity. We need to understand that there are differences. We are a free country and we can be different. We can practice our religions and we can share our knowledge on religious matters with others. If a Christian then wants to become a Hindu or a Hindu a Muslim, so be it. It’s a free country. Now this last statement is my opinion. Lets not kill each other over religion. Religion is a matter of individual choice.
I have never found any one’s religion an obstacle to friendship. I am very serious about my Christian faith and ever ready to share my religious ideas with friends with all the zeal of a salesperson and yet only when my audience is really interested. No thrusting religion (or network marketing or anything else for that matter) down an unwilling person’s throat. I also listen to their views and we have had many a lively discussion. But all this within permissible limits and with respect for the other’s point of view. As I said earlier, the bottom line is that no one’s freedom should be impinged upon. When we find ways to book those who cross the limits, we should be careful not to fetter our own freedom. To do this we need to understand what freedom entails. If this task is approached on the basis of the premise that all religions teach the same underlying truth, we are likely to end up cutting our nose to spite our face.
Perhaps many readers will disagree with me. They may feel that Indians should realize that all religions basically teach the same things, that all people should be satisfied with the faith they were born into, and that there is no need for anyone to ever change their religion. This is a legitimate view and they have a right to feel the way they do. I know people will have other opinions than I have. So be it. And as long as they do not kill me to have it or try to stop me from having my opinion, they are free to think as they do. It’s a free country.
Mr Balakesari’s response
My father GB’s memoirs
My father spends the day studying the Bible. Right now he is reading Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones’ commentary on Romans. He also shares the gospel with some in India by writing letters and speaking over the phone, and teaches some others. From time to time I request him to write about some thing or other from the past. In a few hours, he hands me a bunch of papers with handwritten notes. I have a growing pile of these in my drawer.
As and when I have time, I’ll type them out as posts that can be accessed from here.
By His stripes we are healed, a story about niece Hilda on her 75th birthday
Sketches from Church History by S M Houghton Chapter 13
Some of us are going through Sketches from Church History by S M Houghton one small chapter at a time. (By the way, the book has pictures.) Aiding us in this study is the work book by Rebecca Frawley. Both are Banner of Truth books.
Now we are at
Chapter 13 The Papacy at its height
The struggle between Henry II, King of England and Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury
Becket felt that it was enough for corrupt church officials to be ‘defrocked’. The king was of the opinion that in addition, they must be tried in the civil court. In a fit of temper the king ordered Becket dead. Becket was regarded as a martyr and the church of the day became stronger for it.
General Council of Churches convened by Pope Innocent III in 1215
In 1215, the same year that the English barons required King John to sign the Magna Carta, Pope Innocent III called a General Council at Rome.
The Pope announced that the Lord had given Peter (read ‘the Popes’) headship of the church and dominion over the whole world.
The Pope also introduced the doctrine of transubstantiation and, in so doing, legislated idolatry in the church.
Bernard of Clairvaux
If any of us were disappointed by this man’s connection with the Second Crusade, which we looked at in the previous lesson, here is something to warm the heart. Bernard of Clairvaux was a man who loved God from a true heart. He declined the honours that came to him in the church. His followers held high positions and one of them even became a pope. To him, Bernard said: Remember that you are a successor of him who said, “Silver and gold have I none.” Gold and silk and pearls and soldiers you have not received of Christ, but they came to you from Constantine. Never strive after these things. Would to God that before I die, I might see the Church as it was in olden times when the apostles cast their nets, not to catch gold and silver but the souls of men!
Pitiful condition of the church of the middle ages
The masses of people had blind faith in the church and tradition. They did not know what the Bible taught about sin and redemption from it. Sometimes external abuses were corrected but corrupt doctrine was left untouched. There was no appeal to the word of God. Houghton ends the chapter like this:
Dark was the night, and more than human power was needed to drive away the thick clouds. But, as we shall see, in God’s time, dawn came.
Sketches from Church History by S M Houghton Chapter 12
Some of us are going through Sketches from Church History by S M Houghton one small chapter at a time. (By the way, the book has pictures.) Aiding us in this study is the work book by Rebecca Frawley. Both are Banner of Truth books.
Now we are at
Chapter 12 The Crusades
Emperor Constantine and his mother Helena had built costly churches in Palestine, and so Palestine was regarded as the Holy Land and Jerusalem as the Holy City by Christians.
In 636 Jerusalem was captured by the Mohammedans under Caliph Omar. Except for some restrictions, by and large, Christian pilgrims were able to visit the “Holy Land.”
In the 11th century, Jerusalem was captured by fierce Seljuk Turks. After this, Christian pilgrims were subjected to harsh treatment. This led to the crusades.
The Crusade movement comprised a series of religiously-sanctioned military campaigns, which lasted two centuries and cost the lives of nearly five million Europeans, in addition to the lives of muslims and others lost. The Crusades are an unfortunate part of church history. The wars had no scriptural basis and were uncalled for. Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and the warfare of Christians for religious purposes should only be spiritual. Having said this, we must remember that many of the crusaders were brave and imagined that they were fighting for a good cause, wanting to recapture what they believed was their Holy Land so that Christians may be able to worship there in peace.
Something about some of the crusades:
First Crusade: Preached by Peter the Hermit and Pope Urban II. The Pope promised forgiveness of sins to all crusaders. This is ofcourse totally unbiblical. Untrained people, even women and children, went and were defeated by the Turks in Nicea. A later group of men trained in warfare had success. They captured Jerusalem, carried out a terrible massacre of the inhabitants including women and children, and then held the city for 50 years.
Second Crusade: In 1147 Bernard of Clairvaux (who wrote hymns like ‘O Sacred Head once wounded’) undertook a crusade, which ended in failure. This encouraged Saladin to capture Jerusalem in 1187.
Third Crusade: This was undertaken by three European kings. Frederick Barbarossa, Emperor of Germany, Philip Augustus, King of France, and Richard Coeur-de-Lion, King of England. This ended in failure.
Children’s Crusade: This crusade came about because Stephen, a French boy, claimed to have seen a vision, and Nicolas, a German boy, spread the news in his country. Thousands of children joined this movement. Many died on the way in the snowy alps. The sea did not divide as they expected and many returned. Seven ships took 5000 children on board, to take them to Palestine. Two ships struck rocks and sank. The other five were slave ships and took the children to Palestine where they were sold as slaves, never to be heard of again.
Sixth Crusade: Promoted by St Louis, the French King ended in failure.
Seventh Crusade: By St Louis, joined by Price Edward I of England, also ended in failure.
I’d like to add a personal note here. The Crusades are a part of history that most of the world may have forgotten. But they are indoctrinated in the minds of Muslims world over in a highly imbalanced and subjective fashion. I was rather taken aback by the vehemence of a good Muslim friend over this subject. With Middle Easterners, history, although seldom objective, matters.
To read more about Sketches from Church History
