Science and speculation

The Scientific Paradigm and how to I learned to live with it.

I realise that  some might end up hating me for this, but I want to spell out my thoughts on Science and Materialism. Here goes...take a look, and tell me your thoughts, for or against my argument.

A scientist is somebody who examines the Universe in a particular way - looking for material evidence to back their conclusions. A scientist, if s/he is working properly, has got to be trying to prove that they are wrong. Only when they succeed in doing this are they satisfied. Supposing a scientist looks at a Petri dish and sees that the bugs he was growing were spoiled, because somehow, a fungal spore had got onto the dish - and no bacteria were growing near it.

Someone else might throw the dish away - it should be growing diphtheria or something, not fungal spores. But Fleming (our scientist in this case ) said ' hang on - these ~fungal spores~ might be killing the bacteria - but how do I know that?'

And so he asked himself what the 'something else' might be, and set up ' controlled experiments' maybe it was the sunlight killing the bacteria, not the spores. So , he left one dish in the light, the other in the dark. Same result. Whatever it ws could kill in the dark. so he made it warmer, then colder. Now, bacteria found it hard to grow in the cold anyway, but warmth did not affect the killing power that seemed to be coming from the fungal spores. One by one, Fleming eliminated all chance of ' something else' and settled the question. Pennicilin mould could and did kill bacteria.

And this is how science works. Try to prove you are wrong and if you fail, you must be right. it is not true that Scientists do not have beliefs. Francis Collins, who led the Human Genome Project, is a Christian - he just didn't bring his beliefs about Jesus into the lab. An Atheist , doing what he did , would get the same results.

The problem is that asking a scientist to look at Ghosts , or ESP, or Reincarnation, is like asking a pastry cook to do a bit of choux pastry without using an oven. A 'good' (honest) scientist will say " This is something non material in nature. I can only work with material evidence". A bad one will tell you that you are either a lunatic or a liar if you say you have seen or experienced anything that is 'paranormal'.

The Burden of Proof, in Science, is always on the person making a claim.

And, even if I do an experiment, it has got to be repeatable. So the fact that we have those casts of people's hands, totally inexplicable by natural means, is not conclusive unless I can do it ' on command'.

Now, this does not mean that it cannot happen - just that it cannot happen under laboratory conditions. We must first of all ask "Can we find things that science cannot explain, or does science control everything ?"

Poetry, art , love - these are things that the material scientist may well agree do have an objective existence. They 'are', but cannot be replicated in a lab. Shakespeare could obviously write sonnets and plays of outstanding quality. he used a pen, some paper and the English alphabet. Well, I have got all that, but could I write a sonnet?

Could I, or any Materialist write a bit of comedy that would make people laugh? See, laughter is definitely a "measurable and observable Physical Phenomenon". So, can a scientist replicate this in the lab ? Or does it take a comic genius like Eric Idle or Ronnie Barker to do something like the famous ' Four Candles' sketch or 'The Galaxy Song '?

I believe that Barker and Idle were 'comic geniuses' . They just are - their work could not be replicated by a machine or computer algorithm, however sophisticated it was. So too, with psychic phenomenon. It seems to flow from some people and leave others untouched. I think that there is a concept called 'magisteria', meaning ' rulership' or 'Authority'. This says that "There are Rules that work in certain fields of endeavour, but not others"

When doing physics or chemistry the lab, all you need is a steady hand, and the right gear, and it will work - whatever you are doing".
In the field of making music, or writing comedy, however, those rules no longer apply.
Andre Previn, the great classical conductor, appeared on the Morecambe and Wise Show once. Eric tried playing the piano, and then Andre showed him how it should be done. The difference was quite clear, even to someone with no musical training whatever.
 Previn angrily rebuked Eric, saying " you are not playing the right notes !"
" I am" , insisted Eric, equally straight faced ," but not necessarily in the right order."

This brought gales of laughter from the audience. It is reckoned as a great classic moment of Comedy TV. Morecambe was n't doing great piano playing - but was doing outstanding Comedy. And it brings us to the heart of the question about The Paranormal.
"Can science explain everything - or are there things outside the scope of science that can only be explored and experienced by other means?". 

To me it seems that there are indeed, things that we can all agree are ' there' in an objective sense. Some people are great comedians and have real, indisputable talent for making people laugh. when it comes to music and drama though , it is a bit more 'a matter of taste'. Jimmy Hendrix or Johann Sebastian Bach? Brahms or the Beatles? Or were they all great in their own way ?

The point is that Science is not what to drag into that debate. But Scientists would never try to kid us that music and drama were 'just in our heads', because they experience these things themselves, outside the lab. Calling it ' Art' makes more sense.
Now, I would contend that religious, or spiritual experiences may be attributable to us having ' souls' - however, I cannot go and eliminate all causes as much as I would like. Some reincarnation experiences may be down to ' ancestral memory' - but even there, Science does not really have any sort of ' rational explanation ' for this.

BTW, Darwin did not have a 'rational explanation' for Evolution at first. Yes, he knew that animal populations exhibited change over time, but the mechanism was unknown to him. today, we can postulate ' genetic drift', but Darwin himself knew nothing of genes.

I have read the book D+, and agree that there may well be a soul, a Mind that created Matter. I rather hope there is in fact. but Science isn't really being Science if it takes and accepts things without repeatable and measurable physical evidence. 

We really have to accept that there are different Magisteria - perhaps Science can shed some light on things, but not ultimately answer yes or no. Science can point to trickery if the trick can be done. But not rule it out (or in) if not. I would contend that some truths may be beyond the reach of Science - and that ESP, reincarnation and similar phenomenon are among these.

 It may be wise to inquire about such things, but not leave science or ethics waiting in the hall while we do. For, just as there is Great Art and Music, there is also an awful lot of second rate, banal and indifferent rubbish being presented on screen these days . Likewise, we have the Parable of the Good Samaritan,  the Epistle of James and the Book of Ecclesiastes on the one hand , and the ravings of the Westboro Baptist Church on the other. It isn't fair to judge Religion by the WBC  any more than it is to judge Brit Pop by the Spice Girls.

Theist or Deist ? You tell me...

 Someone has asked me  - "Am I a Theist, Deist, or just some old guy who has lost the plot?
See, I would say that God /A Higher Being of some sort ( not necessarily the one in the OT or Q'uran made the Universe. However, S/he did not just wind it up, set it down and walk away.

On the Other hand, nor is the Creator all powerful - a logical impossibility, and so works with the Universe as a potter works on clay, moulding it and making things in order to express the Creator more fully.

I believe that Jesus was Divine, the Son of God - but then we all are to a certain extent. At 
least, we all are and some of us are more aware of this than others.

See, on the night before His arrest, Jesus took His disciples to an upper room, and when no one was willing to  would wash their feet ( a lowly task in those days, usually done by servants who were the lowest in the household) Jesus took up a bowl of water and a towel and did the job Himself , saying that He was the Leader, the one they all looked up to -yet He was willing to be their servant - and if they wanted to be like Him , and call themselves His followers, then that is how they ought to be as well.

Yes, I am a Christian. I take that bit seriously. Not so much the talking snakes and the big flood and the earth made in six days flat. But that bit about being the servant to all, the bit about being a Good Samaritan, going out and doing likewise - Yes!

And yet, I am not really sure that we can say that Jesus was crucified so that God could sacrifice Himself to Himself to appease His own anger. I mean , I know this is how some other Christians see it. And maybe it is fine to have a fifth grader's understanding of religion when you are still in the fifth grade.


 But I am an adult, and I see things a bit different now.

I believe that we all come from God, into material existence and we all return there.
But we do not return as we left, we bring back a lot more. 
I believe that we go, and return to earth many times. 


Not as a reward or punishment, but simply as a consequence of who and what we are.

So, am I God? well, I am pretty close to being one in the eyes of my dog and the Goldfish in the garden pond, but no, I am not really in the eyes of those here, I hope.

God is the Ocean , and I am just one small drop of water. God like is a forest, and some people can only see the trees. I don't know if anyone gets this, but that's how I see it as being. And God does domiracles, God shapes the world and makes it a better place - but not by magic, but by inspiring and indwelling individual people who are willing to put in the hard work. Improving yourself is the best way to improve life.

So, Theist, Deist, or Just Plain Crazy? What say you?  I cannot prove that what I say about God is true - but  I think  it is consistent with reality as I see it. But what do you say ? 

The Biblical Canon

Some time back, I wrote an article for our local church Magazine, the messenger. Sadly, I was limited for space, but here is the unamended article  I originally wrote before I had to pare it down for publication.

“All Scripture is inspired of God” reads a verse of the NT, according to one translation. Yet it’s a fact that the Bible is a compilation of 66 different books, and neither Paul nor anyone else gives a checklist of what ought to be in it. later on , though , several different people gave us a list of what was in ~their~ Bible.

Take a look at the following:

AD200 (Muratorian)   AD250 (Origen)     AD300 (Eusebius)    AD400(Carthage)

4 Gospels                            4 Gospels                 4 Gospels                     4 Gospels                                        

Acts                                      Acts                       Acts                              Acts

Paul's Epistles                       Paul's Epistles          Paul's Epistles               Paul's Epistles

James                                                                                                        Hebrews                          

1&2 John                            1Peter                      1Peter                            James

1&2 Peter                                                                                                  1&2 Peter.

Jude                                        1 John                    1 John                         1, 2, 3 John

Revelation (John)                    Rev.( John )            Rev (John)                    Jude

Revelation (Peter)                                                                                         Revelation ( John)         

Wisdom of Solomon

These lists reveal what certain people were using as a ‘New Testament’, at different times and in different places.

The Muratorian fragment, from Rome, is the earliest collection of Christian scriptures we know. Yet it contains books we don’t use in our modern Bible. It is important to realise that some may claim that the original document is incomplete, with a fragment missing , that there are  still inclusions to the canon that we don’t have today.

Origen and Eusebius were both clerics, each one used a Bible that was fairly consistent with the other – yet each one mentions several other works on a separate list. Origen mentions Hebrews and James, together with the Didache and the Shepherd Hermas, among others. Eusebius mentions the same books, expresses his doubts on some, but specifically excludes Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache from his list, and from public reading. Finally, in the Council of Carthage ( AD 400), we see a list that is exactly like our modern new Testament. Some may wonder why this is so, and what caused all these changes.

The answer lays it the fact that Christianity spread literally by word of mouth at first. Only when the Apostles were old was anything of Christ’s life written down. The letters from the Apostles to various churches and individuals were also kept, as they were a link to the early church founders.

But different people cherished different things. James and Jude were very pro Jewish – they were Jews themselves, after all!  Yet the early Church went through a phase when they wanted to be seen as different - Christians, as opposed to being just another sect of Judaism. So, for a time, James and Jude were out of favour. James kept pointing people back to Moses, and quoting the OT – whereas Christians wanted to read books that talked more about Jesus. So, for a while, James was ignored by Christians until the Early church began to feel more comfortable about the Jewishness of Jesus, their Saviour.

So, what criteria did the Church use to establish whether a book belonged in the Canon? None of the Apostles ever gave us a list; however, some of the Apostles do quote from books we consider Apocryphal today. Jude quotes from The Assumption of Moses in the passage where he talks about the Archangel Michael, and Peter quotes from a book called ‘The book of Enoch’. When we read in the Bible of Jannes and Jambres, we may wonder who these people are, for they are not mentioned in Exodus. And indeed, they are not. However, they are mentioned in an apocryphal work, obviously known in the Apostles time, but excluded from our canon.

It was down to a few things - 

1)      Was it a work of the right era - Old Testament or Apostolic in origin?

The OT had always been regarded as the bedrock of the Hebrew tradition, but these new gospels and epistles were looked at more closely. Although Luke and Mark were not Apostles themselves, their work was known from the earliest years of the church. Mark and Luke were contemporaries of Christ, so they were in. The Gospel of Thomas for example, was supposed to be written by Thomas, but quite unknown in the first 200 years after Christ. This made it suspect.

2)      Was it hallowed by usage?

If a book had been widely used by many separate Christian communities, both to explain their faith to outsiders  and for usage in worship as part of a service,  it stood in a books favour. The Coptic , or Egyptian church still clings to the Book of Enoch today , but the Western Church , drawn from many places outside Africa rejects Enoch , even though it was quoted by an Apostle, simply because the Jewish community rejected it themselves, eventually.

It is worth noting that the Jews rejected a lot of earlier work because it was in Greek – by stating that they accepted only Hebrew writings, they cut the ground from under the Christians who wanted to argue that the Gospels were inspired also. The Jews lost Tobit and an awful lot more from the Septuagint, but considered the price worth paying. The Catholic Church includes Tobit and many more in its canon. Again , we find that many Christian communities were using Luke's works to expound and explain their faith , but nobody was using the Gospel of Thomas until much later.

3)      Did it present a consistent theological perspective with the books they already had?

Unless a book could be used to support or enlarge upon the orthodox point of view, it was likely to be excluded. The gospel of Thomas  had Jesus performing miracles as a little child, and this wasn't something that the more established works mentioned, and their theology made it very unlikely to say the least - the church went with a consensus of more trusted sources and excluded Thomas and many others.

Whereas many claim that God gave us the Bible we have today, we see instead that God gave us a Church. That church, down the ages, both collected and preserved its sacred texts, gradually shaping “Scripture” as it went. Today, although the books are all collected together, it is through translation and explanation of the texts that the Church continues to shed light on the Word of God. The meanings we give it and the conclusions we draw today may yet influence future generations in their thinking.

In the beginning ...

It was 5:30 in the afternoon, and it was late September, 2010. as I stepped off of the air conditioned plane, I felt like I had just stepped into a sauna. It was 30 degrees centigrade outside, and I was in Israel, at Ben Gurion Airport.

The coach , thankfully was air conditioned, and I was going on a week long tour of the Holy land with my wife.  Mandy. She had been here before, but for me, a kid born in the North of England and raised in north London in a poor area, this was my first venture out of Europe. it was like going into another world. i was stepping back into a place that i was only familiar with via TV , maps and books. And now, here I was, about to visit the places where Abraham , Isaac and Jacob tended their sheep, where King Solomon reigned in splendour and Jesus had walked and talked with His disciples by the sea of Galilee.

Looking out of the coach window, I could see the flat land of the coastal plain. This would have been philistine territory, once, but was now part of the modern state of Israel, and we were on the road to Jerusalem, the capital city - a holy place to 3 of the great religions of the world. for not only was it ruled over by King David and visited by Jesus of Nazareth, but Mohammed, the founder of Islam also came here - and today, on the site of Solomon's temple, there stands the Dome of the Rock, the second most holy place in Islam outside of Mecca itself.

The Israelis had brought irrigation to their farms, and the are was surprisingly green, with olive groves and date palms growing in abundance. we had a guide with our party,  who explained that we were literally going ' up to Jerusalem', for the capital was built on a limestone ridge that formed the central massif of the country. Jerusalem was a few thousand feet above sea level. not only would it be cooler up there, our guide explained, but the high ground caught the warm  , moist winds that came in off the Mediterranean  and cooled them , so that seasonal rains fell on this side of the country. However, when we got to the top, we would see into the 'rain shadow' as it was called. i remembered my geography lessons, in decades previous, where this was explained. The green and pleasant landscape suddenly stopped, and we gasped in amazement at the vast , barren landscape on  the other side of the central ridge.  The bedrock itself was limestone, a relatively soft and permeable rock that easily forms caves as the water soaks in and forms underground streams - and this feature also affected the history of this ancient land, right up to modern times. This is the land where the Bible began.

"But wait",  some may say "didn't the Bible begin with the Garden of Eden, somewhere north of  modern day Iraq? Er, yes, that is where the story was set at first , and then we follow Abraham who left his home town , Ur of the Caldees and trekked down as far as Egypt before moving back up to Canaan, where his son Isaac begat Jacob and Jacob had 12 sons who eventually formed the 12 tribes of Israel. Well, that is the story. But is it true?

In actual fact, I was about to enter on a journey that was the greatest adventure of my life so far-  one that took me from my 21st century life in London  back through to the time of the Patriarchs, and then Jericho where Joshua is supposed to have fought the famous battle, then on to the age of David and Solomon, and eventually to the very places where Jesus spent his time on Earth before He met His death in Jerusalem. And as I went from place to place, a very different picture of Israel's past appeared.

For although the Bible sets out a chronology that takes us by way of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to the time of Noah and on to Adam and Eve, there is nothing in the Archaeological record to show that most of these people ever existed. Solomon , the Bible tells us, had all the surrounding  kings and potentates paying him homage and sending him tribute - but not a single entry from any palace ledger from any other place ever mentions Solomon. We have no records of a foreign princess being married off to him, no entries in any archive concerning any items being given in tribute.

It is as though Solomon never existed, and the Hebrews simply made him up, creating a glorious past for themselves with Good King Solomon as a sort of King Arthur figure, presiding over a splendid court in a golden age. Later on , we get the later prophets like Isaiah talking about invading Assyrians laying siege to Jerusalem, and then the story moves on and the Hebrews get taken into exile in Babylon. here , historians and archaeologists are a bit more helpful - they can show us the tunnel that Hezekiah the king had built to supply Jerusalem with a safe supply of water in times of trouble, and we even have a tablet on the wall in the British Museum that Sennacherib, the Assyrian emperor had made that gives us his side of the story. here at last, we find that the Bible and Secular History  are both talking about the same people and the same events.

But earlier on , we see very little of the Bible's grand tale being confirmed by secular sources or archaeological discoveries in Israel. we find mention of peoples like the Hittites and the Philistines - but when we look for signs of the Exodus, or the conquest of Canaan, and even Solomon , we seldom see what the Bible tells us. instead  we see the general outline that John Romer, a prominent archaeologist sets out in his book. it would appear that one small tribe in Canaan split off from the surrounding kingdoms and went independent, they then wrote themselves a splendid history where Yahweh, their god, promised all the land from the Euphrates to the Nile, in return for their obedience to Him .Yahweh took them out of Egypt, sent them into Canaan on a genocidal campaign against the locals, but they merely subjugated most of them instead, and that was the trouble.

Archaeologists have no trouble in spotting a Jewish settlement when they are digging in the ruins. Jewish settlements may turn up pottery, old tools and such - but no pig bones I learned. up and down the land we went over the course of many days. And over and over, it was the same old story.If the Bible said that Joshua conquered the place, the archaeologists would point out that the place appeared to be in pagan hands right up to the time of the Israelite monarchy, and then the people suddenly started eating kosher.the Real story of the Bible begins not in distant Eden, but on that small hilltop that was Josiah's stronghold.

The Law of Moses clearly set Hebrew people apart from their surrounding neighbours. even though the Hebrew religion has strains of Canaanite influence running though it, it was pointing people in a different direction - away from the pantheistic nature worship of the pagans and towards the monotheism of the Priests who ran the Temple.And the biggest lurch in that direction occurred in the reign of  Josiah, when the Temple priests found a lost book and gave it to the king to read.  we will discuss this event in the next entry of this blog. I will attempt to explain why they did this, and what makes me so sure that they faked their own history.

The Valley of Himmon

To the south of the City of Jerusalem is a valley. Many may never have heard it's name, but it looms large in our imaginations and our folklore.

It is a terrible place to be sure - with the sort of past that any self respecting place would want to forget, if places had any say in the matter.
At first, the Valley was used for Child Sacrifice in the days of Jeremiah  ( Jer 7:30- 34, also Jer 32:35.)
But Josiah decided to purge the place of idolatry, so he turned the place into the city rubbish dump.
( 2Kings 23:8-14).  By the time of Christ, the place had become the place where all sorts of offal and refuse were left to rot - and fires of sulphur were kept burning to consume the waste more speedily. The bodies of executed criminals were cast here, too, for they were deemed unworthy of a proper gave. the name changed somewhat from the Hebrew to Aramaic  - and in that tongue , it was known as ' Gehenna'.

Yet that name still eludes many, for the translators of many editions of The Bible would not use the old name, but rather a similar Saxon word that was adapted. In the original Anglo Saxon , there was Hel, the land of the dead, but many today use the word ' Hell' without knowing its exact meanings - there have been many throughout History, so lets go over them.

The Bible mentions heaven over 400 times, but hell only 13; and where it is used, it tends to be another word that is used and not the original.  Where it is found in one of Peter's Epistles,the original Greek is 'Tarturus', a place of dense darkness where wicked and fallen angels are shut away to await final judgement. Most times, though, 'Gehenna 'is the word used.

Jesus warns the people that , if they are not careful , they too may end up in Gehenna - but what would that mean to a Jewish hearer? An eternity of torment and anguish- or simply that they would be abandoned and forgotten?

For note that Christ says " Fear not those who kill the body , but cannot destroy the soul - rather fear him that can destroy body and soul in Gehenna" You see, Gehenna was a literal place of destruction - annihilation .
the Jews thought of Sheol, the land where most people went after death, as different. ( Eccles 9:5) But whereas Sheol, the Grave, was a place from whence on could hope for a resurrection in time, Gehenna held out no such hope. those sent there were thought to be forgotten by God .

And that was the worst fate a Jew could imagine. Hence the awful reputation of this valley.
If we look at the book of Revelation, we are shown another image- that of a lake of fire. Again , opinion is divided as to what this means and entails for those unfortunate enough to be cast therein.

We should note that Death itself is cast into the Lake of Fire - now , should we expect that Death is really a scythe swinging skeletal figure out of a Terry Pratchett novel, or is this merely allegorical? Is the Lake of Fire symbolic in some way - or is it really a real state that people are cast into to suffer eternal torment?
It is suggested that in the Greek the word ' to torment' also meant ' to capture' , or ' imprisonment' - so could also mean that those there were simply held powerless, and not in any concious suffering at all.

It is something I would like to be clear on , and it will be intersting what other s have to say on this.

The Tulip of Calvinism

From an article in our Church magazine , The Messenger.

The ‘Tulip’ of Calvinism -

 The Bible teaches us that salvation comes through Jesus Christ, but after the split with Roman Catholicism, Protestant Christians divided into two broad camps – the Arminians and the Calvinists.

The URC is a broad church – we do not demand that everyone agrees on absolutely every point of doctrine, and there will very likely be some members who fully support Calvin’s ideas, as well as those who totally disagree.  For the record, our Reformed tradition is Calvinist in its approach, whereas the Methodist church was founded by John Wesley, and he was an Arminian (the name derives from the Dutch theologian, Jakob Arminius, and has nothing to do with Armenia, the former Soviet state in the Caucasus Mountains).

Now, Arminius held that when it came to accepting Jesus as Saviour, mankind had total free will. That was all very well, insisted the Calvinists, but how could God be in control of everything if people were able to accept or reject God and do just as they pleased? What about God’s sovereignty?

Calvinist’s argued along five main points that are known by the acronym, ‘TULIP’

Their beliefs can be summarised as :-

Total depravity of mankind – Everyone was fallen and imperfect in God’s sight.

(see Psalm 14:2-4.)

Unconditional election – God chose to save some and not others, and God does not favour any on their own merit. ((see Acts 13:48, where this is strongly implied .  Calvin, of course, saw the implications and developed his argument on the basis that it logically followed).

Limited atonement – Only the Chosen Few are saved in Christ(Acts 20 28 says that Christ bought’ the church’ with his blood – Calvin implies that this does not include all mankind.

Irresistible grace – If God chooses someone, they are saved, no matter what.

( See Acts 16:14, in discussing Lydia’s conversion it emphasises that God opened her heart).

No one can resist God’s call when it comes.

Perseverance of the saints – True Christians never fall away no matter what.

Romans 8: 38 – 39 clearly teaches that nothing can separate ‘us’ – Paul speaks here as a believer to believers – from God.

So, this is fine if one is one of the ‘Chosen Few’ – but how can you tell if you are someone whom God has chosen? What if I feel that my faith is weak, or that I am not as good as I ought to be, or even as good a Christian as someone else who seems to be a far kinder, wiser and more Christ like person than I could ever hope to be? Does this mean I am not saved after all? And if everyone is wicked and God chooses to save some people and not others, isn’t God being a bit unfair – why does God not save everyone?

For anyone who takes their faith and their Christian life seriously, these are questions that have to be answered. But, as we  know, the Bible does not encourage us to accept anything as fact until we have seen the other side of the story. (Proverbs 18:17)

Arminians would agree that all have fallen short of God’s glory, but remind us that John the Baptist had not just one , but two righteous parents-  Luke speaks highly of both his father and mother. ( Luke 1:6) And Jesus said that the rain fell upon the righteous and the unrighteous( Matthew 5:45) –so perhaps righteousness itself is relative thing – nobody is absolutely good in the same sense that God is, but goodness is not totally lacking from people generally, according to the New Testament writers.

And are the totally wicked excluded in some way from hearing the Word of God and coming to repentance?  Well, Paul gives a long list of the sort of people that will not make it into heaven – and ends up by saying “yet that is what some of you were”. (1Cor. 6: 9-11) Clearly, people of the worst sort can change with God’s help. And Jesus said plainly that He wanted to gather the people of Jerusalem as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings – yet they didn’t want that.  (See Matthew 23:37. Luke13:34, 35). Clearly, God’s will was that these very people should be saved – yet they clearly resisted. It would seem that human Free Will is one of the forces that God gave to mankind, and that this God given power does enter the reckoning.

Now cynics may say that this simply shows that the Bible itself is contradictory and cannot be relied upon at all. But, as believers, are we all obliged to take this view? George Macdonald, a noted theologian of the 20^th century, and whose ideas greatly influenced C.S. Lewis, is someone who explored these issues in great depth.  We may also look to the teachings and traditions of the Eastern Orthodox Church to resolve this issue, for they too are our fellow believers, and have an unbroken tradition that goes back to the very beginnings of the Christian Church .

What I say next is a brief summary of my own studies in each – the Western and Eastern traditions, from a 21^st century standpoint; a possible way to reconcile Calvin‘s emphasis on the Sovereignty of God and Arminius’s insistence on ordinary mortals having Free Will.

If we imagine God being outside Time, looking down above it, as it were, we can accept that God knows what our choices are and where they will lead us. Hence God can say that he loved Jacob yet hated Esau before either one was even born. It was not that God had written a script for them , or had intended either one to turn out the way they did – but God could see the future as though it had already happened – for Him, the future is already known.

So some people, although being quite imperfect, choose to accept God’s love of their own free choice, although they know they are quite unworthy. And other people, equally free to choose, reject God. God forces nobody’s hand, so we cannot accuse God of being unfair.  

" In former times, a Prophet was called a Seer"

You have to feel sorry for any kid that gets taken away from his momma at the are of five- but when that child grows up to be someone whose job seems to be dispensing nothing but bad news, , you have to feel even sorrier for the poor little mite.

Samuel was indeed chosen by God at an early age to go tell Eli,  his priest and mentor, that God, as his Gaffer, did not approve of Eli or his sons. Oh, boy.  You would think that God was quite capable of telling Eli directly, Him being omnipotent an' all - but there you go, that's the way the story gets told.

Certain people , down through the ages have been susceptible to being ' fey' as the Scots call it. They see visions and hear voices that the rest of us are not party to. As my previous post explained, i think this is down to what the Hindus call ' Kundalini', the raising up of spiritual energies within oneself so that on may access higher wavelengths on the material plane , so to speak.

But, it is not just a Hindu thing - many Christians that I have met personally also seem to have these gifts of 'second sight', clairvoyance and clairaudience, prophecy, or whatever you want to call it.

In my time, I have done the Alpha Course, attended Spiritualist churches, and spoken to Evangelical Christians who have related stories first hand of incidents that happened to them. Most of them seemed to have some credibility  about them.

As well as Graham Kendrick and Jackie Pullinger, whom I have already mentioned in previous posts, I have also met an evangelical who gave weekend workshops on what he called ' the prophetic gift'  when he came to St Luke's in nearby Cranham. but before then , on my long return trip from Paganism to to the Christian fold, I came across Spiritualism , as a religious movement, and saw various mediums at work when I went to their meetings.

The mediums I met did not meet in a circle around a flickering candle, but stood in well lit rooms in front of rows of seats, as if at a lecture. One such lady told me that she could see a man standing behind me in military uniform. hen you think that I was born not long after two World Wars had just been fought, this did not surprise me - all my male relatives from previous generations had been called up and put on uniforms of one sort or other. So I asked her what sort of uniform she could see-  Army , Navy or Airforce? She plumped for a red tunic- and I asked if the chap was wearing medals, and if so, how many " quite a few" was her vague reply. Under detailed cross examination from me, she was not that impressive, I thought.

Another medium asked me if the name 'Joh' meant anything - well, was it 'Jo ' or ' Joe' , I wondered  - but simply said  "My mothers name".
" I have Jo here" the medium told me. "Ok, "I replied  "is it a man or a woman you have there?" i asked . He looked baffled.
" My mother is still alive and I don't know anyone among my mothers friends called 'Joe' or 'Jo' ,you see2 ii smiled.  He quickly covered his tracks and moved on.

This is what is known as ' Cold reading ',  people. Giving out a little information and letting the audience fill in the gaps, then coming back and telling them what they want to hear. " I have someone here whose name begins with A" - do the Dearly Departed forget their own names suddenly, or what ? Or they say that they see ' a little brown dog' - most dogs are some shade of brown , at a stretch. And even a Great Dane gets seen when it was a puppy.

But not all mediums were like that, I have to say. Some were capable of picking up and passing on an awful lot of really specific stuff that had people listening with open mouths. One medium said that he saw a man sitting under a dense cloud and could tell that he was deeply troubled. He then talked about the specifics without any prompting, whatever and left the man with a positive and hope filled message. Fair play to him.

Now, our Evangelical Christian who did the weekend course did mention that the Holy Spirit often used puns and wordplay among the symbols that were shown to the prophet - I am minded to recall that the Bible says "In former times, the Prophet was called ' a Seer', as it says in the Book of Samuel.

The Evangelical man told us how he once was talking to an audience, and he told a woman in the audience that  God showed him a vision of her with another woman who came to her and dropped  this heavy tyre round her neck, and he felt the weight of the tyre pressing down on her shoulders. He described this other woman , and the lady in the audience laughed, for it was her mother in law that the he had described - a Mrs Dunlop!So, the Holy Spirit, it seems, uses word play, puns and symbols to tell a story and give a message.

And so did the  more genuine Mediums from Spiritualist churches, I would point out. One man in particular stands out in my memory - Matthew Manning. I recall reading about him in my younger days- he was quite a famous psychic back in the 70s. Matthew claimed that he could channel the spirit of a doctor who died back in the 1700s. He would diagnose people's condition for them and  offer advice that was often very detailed, as well as actually lay hands on people who claimed that they experienced something miraculous.. He is an author, psychic and healer still living and working today, and  has been subjected to all kinds of scientific tests, which consistently show unusual results to say the least. personally, I don't have a problem believing in Poltegiests, ESP, or healing by touch. Many will say of Manning that he gets his powers either from God or the Devil. I believe though , that they are simply naturally occurring an a few gifted people - like we often find the ability to play music by ear or ambidextrousity sometimes. I don't question Manning's ability to do strange things like healing , but I reckon it comes from some paranormal, rather than supernatural power.

I was told  many years ago,  of a case where he told a man once that he was suffering a rare form of cancer - now the man had indeed ben diagnosed with this condition - but in fact the diagnosis was wrong .

As I said, I heard this story at a psychic healing conference I attended back in the 80's, in Dorset. and it raised a question in my mind - if this report was correct, how and why did Mr. Manning pick this information up? Could it be that all a psychic is getting is simply what is given off by people's aura?  Hence, I pass it on here, in good faith, and hope that somehow we can together find an answer.accept that I cannot find my original sources. It would be quite possible that the person who told me this was wrong - but I do recall having this conversation.

It does raise an intriguing possibility. The man thought he genuinely was suffering from cancer, so that is what Matthew Manning got -  not the full facts, as revealed later on, but the information in the mind of his sitter.So, if you know Aunty Ethel really well, then a medium or a seer may see her while looking at you,and even describe her mannerisms to you? hence , we may have proof of telepathy, but not life after death. This may well be what happened to Saul when he went to see the Witch of Endor. Saul, the insecure pessimist he was  might well have guessed what Samuel's reaction may have been , and that is what the medium picked up. And prophecy today, in an Evangelical or Spiritualist church , and coming through a person in the congregation , may well be just the Seer reading what is in the aura of the audience, and not any form of Help From On High.

One way to test this is if a psychic could reveal something that is not in the mind of any sitter present. Again , it must be something subject to independent verification. If we could come up with the name of Mr. Manning's patient, we may get a clearer idea of what actually happened. The woman who told me this didn't supply the patient's name, but as I say - the claim has been made and it ought to be investigated and either verified or discredited.

If this is true, however , it does explain why people like Graham Kendrick can get messages about songs they are writing - but could god not be giving more important messages to more important folks, do you think ? And Jackie Pullinger may well be the sort of person who can allow the flow of Chi, Prana ,  or ' Holy Spirit ' to the point where someone she has blessed by laying on of hand will be able to access other languages in the heads of people around them. Even so, we may appreciate these as natural gifts, as we appreciate and use the talents of our church organists, but lets not have them used to augment and not supplant the gift of rational thinking , which is less quirky in operation and more widely available on a practical level.