No notes will be posted today.
No notes will be posted today.
(These are simply raw notes and links to help participants follow and prepare for discussion of the topic.)
The likelihood of Saudi Arabia and Turkey putting ground troops into the Syrian conflict:-
Again, please note that we post the very raw material to start the discussion. Join the discussion on our Hangout on Air to discuss the topics.
Scientists from the LIGO project have just confirmed actual observation of gravitational waves, predicted 100 years ago by Einstein
This is a very valuable piece of confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity
I’ve been suggesting for some time that just south of Europe is a large area of rather under-utilised land with a LOT of sunshine, and that solar from there would solve a lot of problems. This could be the start of something good. (I deplore our reliance on oil; in particular burning it is incredibly wasteful of a resource, granted the uses of oil in, for instance, production of plastics).
Are there any worries based on this being in an Islamic country? A lot of the relevant area is unstable (Libya in particular).
Steve Kindle has posted a defence of Energion’s publishing policy following some criticism:-
My own take, developed from my time as sysop for the Christianity section on the Compuserve (later AoL) Religion Forum is that we should be able to accommodate all shades of Christian opinion, even (and perhaps especially) those which some find scandalous. Let’s face it, if I didn’t feel that we sometimes need shaking our of a rut I wouldn’t have linked Exodus 3:14 with Popeye in a blogpost today!
(This week topics were prepared by Chris Eyre.)
Not so likely Trump now, but Cruz?
I know there’s history of people’s pastors views resulting in them being given a hard time, but really?
Also, Cruz has declared himself opposed to the system he’ll have to work with and has been instrumental in stopping it working in the past. Is he a fit candidate?
Plus http://www.religionnews.com/2016/02/04/ted-cruzs-campaign-fueled-dominionist-vision-america-commentary/, and Trump’s comments about Christianity http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/266234-trump-christianity-under-siege
On the democratic side, we do not see so much mention of Christianity. Is this a good or a bad thing? Is Iowa actually a win for Bernie, and might he get the nomination?
Elgin and myself were talking about methodological as opposed to metaphysical naturalism last week, and didn’t finish; we could return to that.
Also left over was, from Henry:-
“I would also note the posts on a multiplicity of interpretations of scripture as a possible subject if you go to the logic behind it. Steve Kindle posted the ‘Yes’ and Edward Vick was rather hard on the ‘Yes’ position (his post appears tomorrow). Let me give a sample:
That there is a multitude of teachings derived from the Bible should not be taken to imply that none of them is worthy of belief and so the effort to discover which are to be accepted is not a worthy activity. It is the result of bad logic, an example of non sequitur. Does the proponent really mean to suggest that the more interpretations there are the less any are likely to be reasonable? Or, is it not rather the unwillingness to be involved in expending a great deal of effort in the quest?
I would think that would also be a useful topic, even though not so much political. Yet it has an impact on society.”
Full circle? Historically the Democrats have been the party of slavery, segregation, and the KKK. In the 1960s they changed and started accusing the Republicans of being racist for not supporting race based policies. Are these policies coming full circle?
Allan and Steve Kindle have expressed differing views about atonement theories this week.
I have been very critical of substitutionary theories, especially PSA, in the past; those I definitely think are no longer fit for purpose.