I really shouldn't be breaking my Lenten silence, but this was just too much.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/04/jesus.science.reut/index.html
This is so lame, I am almost inclined to think it is a joke.
Any child who reads the account in John(6.1-22) will see right through Nof's hypothesis, beginning with Verse 3.
Comments?
5 comments:
As a conversation starter, I'm onpassing this from a friend over at St Sam's, with his kind permission.
--------
I think GetReligion's blog entry pretty much sums up my reaction.
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=1506
Let me give the bullet points:
1. Ice on which one can walk implies cold for a fairly long period (days
at least), not to mention reasonably still water.
2. The account says that the disciples' boat was close to swamping in
heavy seas. Hence, no still water.
3. The account says that on the immediately previous day, Jesus had been
host to 5000 people at a picnic, sitting down on the "green grass."
Hence no long period of cold weather.
Or, to quote the anecdote with which the blog entry opens, "Amazing! The
entire Egyptian army drowned in a few inches of water!"
One commenter noted, "I am with Asimov on this. It is one thing to deny
that any such things happened. . . but to claim that they happened AND
were just ordinary 'explicable' occurrences..."
You have to remember that most of us scientist types aren't literary scholars. I think they simply confused The Gospel According to Saint John with Titanic.
It is a joke. A sad joke.
--RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com
As a scientist, but not a worshipper of Scientia Omnipotens, the whole idea is not watertight in the least. But perhaps if it did happen this way, this was the miracle.
However Scientia Omnipotens can only speculate and conject on what happened. As far as we Christians are concerned is the Lord walked on the water as a demonstration of how far he would go to reach out to His little ones in distress. As it was, He would go a lot further as next week reminds us.
For us Christians, the "how" has no meaning, it is the "why" that affects us most.
Y'know, I don't care about the plausibility or possibility of this strange scenario. To me there is one thing crystal clear: the presentation of this idea in the way it's presented has only one purpose: the denial of the possibility of a God that can do something. I believe in a God that can, and does. If God is God, there are no impossibilities, and it really doesn't matter how He does what He does. Warwickensis is right on. It's the 'why' that matters. "God so loved the world . . . " There it is.
ed
Post a Comment