twenty-seven years invested.
category: uncategorized
tags:

so i’m working on a side project right now and for the 3 people that read this blog, if you guys can go and check out my new blog about biking/cycling and let anyone you know that rides about the blog.  it’s gonna be something great for the bike community in houston and everywhere around.  :)

pedalmikester.wordpress.com

3 comments

September 25th, 2014

Bippy123>Great posts yet again Stephen, Thanks.>plus another part of the Maillard rtecaion is that it doesn’t explain the xray like quality of the hands, wrists, parts of the femur and the skull.Good point. And the flower and coin images (which are in my series’ pipeline). >I wonder why some shroud researchers still hold to it, Some are not Christians, like Barrie Schwortz, and therefore the Shroud being an effect of Jesus’ resurrection is not an available explanation.And some Shroud researchers who are Christians, like the late Ray Rogers, want there to be a “scientific” (which to them means “naturalistic”) explanation.Therefore for both these types of Shroud researchers, a weak naturalistic explanation (e.g. Maiilard rtecaion) is preferred by them to a strong supernaturalistic explanation (e.g. ). >plus as you correctly stated, if this were so we should have many images like this on burial shrouds, but we have none.That simple fact is DEVASTATING to the Maillard rtecaion (and every other naturalistic) explanation. But the Shroud researcher (non-Christian and Christian) who is a committed , i.e. who holds that scientific explanations must necessarily be naturalistic, will just shrug their shoulders at such contrary evidence and say they will just have to keep searching for a better naturalistic explanation. >If the evidence leads more reasonable to a super natural cause why won’t they allow the evidence to lead them to wherever it goes?Because their minds have, to varying degrees, been taken captive by the philosophy of Naturalism:: See to it that no one TAKES YOU CAPTIVE BY PHILOSOPHY and empty deceit, according to human tradition, ACCORDING TO THE ELEMENTAL SPIRITS OF THE WORLD, and not according to Christ.That we Christians are not immune to being taken captive by naturalistic ways of thinking is evident by the fact that St Paul wrote the above to a Christian church.Stephen E. Jones

March 5th, 2015

, The fact that our faith in the reality of sohmteing strikingly accords with our wishes is not proof that such faith is merely wishful. In Feuerbach and Freud the characterisation of religion as merely wishful is undoubtedly linked to their prior commitment to some form of materialistic/scientistic outlook. They think they know independently that morally grounded human needs cannot be a guide to what the world is truly like, because all there is to the world is what natural science can tell us. Freud, for example, plainly shows in The Future of an Illusion his commitment to the belief that science fully reflects what is real. And in the next paragraph he says, No one can deny that the kind of hermeneutics of suspicion developed by thinkers such as Freud bites home. Some facets of religion fit Freudb4s suspicious interpretation of it very well. Religion, on the moral interpretation, does make a grand ontological claim about the match between our deepest moral values and the fundamental structures of reality .It is natural and inevitable that the stance of religion, so characterised, can be seen in one of two ways: as a monstrous piece of wishful thinking arising out of a failure to appreciate that the human self is located in a truly independent reality, or as a justified, absolutely necessary commitment to the only hope which can keep human moral endeavour alive. Personally, I think that there is a third option, which would move the entire discussion from the realm of human psychology to historical reality, but that is another discussion for another day. In the meantime, you can see that I am not making these things up. I am still confused as to how you donb4t know that this is the case. Of course, this scientific metaphysics has been under heavy fire for the past 30 years and many people today have a less arrogant view of the ability of science to fully reveal reality. In this post modern age, there is a different take on truth and our ability to understand reality at all much less fully . In fact, Peter Byrne ends by saying Here the value of Kantian agnosticism about our ability to know what the world is like in itself surfaces once more It might be seen as a strength of the moral interpretation of religion that it leaves the status of religion in human life deeply ambiguous. Still, my position goes further in the direction of historical reality of the events described in the Bible as the epistemological and metaphysical foundation for our belief in God and in the necessity and centrality of the cross. For Christians, it is more than just a moral interpretation of religion. It is a relationship with the God who is there. It is more like a sacred romance than simple acceptance of propositional truth statements however difficult to believe under normal circumstances. At the same time, the moral interpretation of religion still exposes the scientific metaphysics of atheistic secular humanism for what it is. Atheism is giving way to agnosticism. Arrogance is giving way to a more ambiguous approach if not actual humility in the face of the possibility that we are not alone on this planet we call Earth. Hope that helps. Bert

April 14th, 2015

Good! Our church has tahugt us that the best way to show the mercy and love of God is by ourselves, by how we behave, how we react to different things, how we improve, how we change…… I think, that is what you tried to ask for in the article, right? If you can’t be a role model, there’s nothing the others can take from you.

leave a comment