THE MATERIALIST.

As an explanation of the world, materialism has
a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality
of the madman's argument; we have a sense of it
covering everything and the sense of it leaving
everything out. Contemplate some able and
sincere materialist, as, for instance Mr McCabe
[a noted anti-Christian rationalist of his day],
and you will have exactly this unique sensation.

He understands everything, and everything does
not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may
be complete in every rivet and cog-wheel, but still
his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow
his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman,
seems unconscious of the alien energies and the
large indifference of the earth, of fighting peoples
or proud mothers, or first love or fear upon the
sea. The earth is so very large, and the cosmos is
so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest
hole that a man can hide his head in.

GK Chesterton (1874-1936) from his book
"Orthodoxy", published 1908.

"JESUS OF THE SCARS"
by Edward Shillito.

The other gods were strong;
but thou wast weak;
they rode, but thou didst
stumble to a throne;
but to our wounds only
God's wounds can speak,
and not a god has wounds,
but thou alone.

ALBERT EINSTEIN QUESTIONS
THE CHARACTER OF GOD.

April 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurence,
including every human action, every human thought,
and every human feeling and aspiration is also His
work; how is it possible to think of holding men
responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such
an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and
rewards He would to a certain extent be passing
judgment on Himself. How can this be combined
with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to
Him?" Albert Einstein, "Out of My Later Years"
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1950) p27.

It seems to me that, Christians -who have actually
wrestled with these issues more than they are credited
with- can put the question more succinctly; "how do we
reconcile God's sovereignty with human responsibility?"

The obvious point to make is that Albert is confusing
being all powerful with being all initiating. That actually
isn't the Christian case, not even to a Calvinist like me!
It is certainly true that the scriptures never present God
as the victim of circumstance, but rather as someone
who works out his redemptive purposes irrespective of
events initiated by free agents. There is a redemptive
outcome to which God's actions drive. We see this with
Joseph, sold into slavery by his brothers. In Genesis
50v20 Joseph describes this act of betrayal as follows,
"you intended to harm me, but God intended it for good
to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of
many lives." We see this principle worked out supremely
in the cross of Christ; Peter on the day of Pentecost said
"this man was handed over to you by God's set purpose
and fore-knowledge; and you, with the help of wicked
men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross..."
Acts 2v23. And in so doing God did pass judgment on
himself, though not in the way Albert means. God is
never wrongfooted by evil, but rather he has set in
train - through the cross of Christ - a redemptive
purpose in human history.

No analogy is ever quite perfect but try this one for
size; when a chief fire fighter says "the fire is under
control" that officer is saying 'that fire is going
nowhere and it will be extinguished'. It may be that
the fire is quenched here and allowed to burn out
elsewhere, but it is being controlled, contained and
defeated. "Why not dynamite the building and destroy
the fire instantly" one might reply. The reason is because
there are people inside who need to be rescued first and
the motto of this fire department is 'the saving of many
lives'! God isn't ready yet to bring the house crashing
down but that does not mean he has made peace with
evil. Indeed this is an example of something God
cannot do. God cannot forebear evil indefinitely, not
because he is somehow constrained by evil but because
he is constrained by love.

Of course it is always possible to insult the fire officer as
an arrogant pompous ass who doesn't know what he
is doing. You might even have the gall to accuse him
of being the fire-starter - in which case, in fairness, one
would have to check what the fire has cost him personally
and in this instance it cost him dear. In the final analysis
there is only one issue: are you going to trust the fire
fighter or the fire?




Tagline, Calendar of Doom.

EUROPEAN UNION LANGUAGE
HARMONISATION DIRECTIVE.

It is agreed that English will be the official language
of the European Union, rather than German, the
other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her
Majesty's Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has
accepted a 5-year phase-inplan for what will be
known as Euro-English.

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c".
Sertainly this will be selebrated by sivil servants.
The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k".
This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards
kan have one letter fewer. There will be growing
publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". So words
like fotograf will be 20% shorter. In the third year,
publik akseptance of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated
changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double
letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate
speling. Al wil also agre that the silent "e" is a disgras
and something of a horibl mes. By the fourth year
pepl wil be respeptiv to replasing "th" with "z" and
"w" with "v", so that during ze fifz yer ze unesesary
"o" kan be droped from vords containing "ou". After
ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no
mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to
undastand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil
finali kum tru.