'He adds that both respond to "hidden-ness" or mystery in the same way:'

As do I respond to the hidden-ness of the female breast, and the mystery of a woman's secret sexual desires.

Praise the Lord!

OUG,

Would it surprise you to know that I agree with you as to the meaning of Brother Guy's words. I appreciate that he believes God created it and that science is helping him to understand how it works.

Houellie,

I agree also with the fascination and lure of the unknown and the mysterious...

It has been reminiscent of the finale of The Amazing Race… 30 days, 300 posts, 190 A4 pages, 67,000 words…

All of which I have reread, thought about and tried to understand more fully, before responding.

After editing down three much, much longer versions, this is what is left:

In five posts in which I addressed you, one under god, I used the word lying once. This is the complete paragraph: "The only places I have seen science misrepresented so are on creationist-inspired websites. They are lying."

I used the word 'lie' once. This is the sentence: "It's because I know you would NOT lie or deceive that I'm trying to help with scientific accuracy, where necessary."

Of course, this last belief is an overstatement – since I can never have any way to prove such a claim – but at the time, it was an honestly held belief based on how you spoke about those you accused of lying.

"I SIMPLY WANT YOU TO STATE HERE
what you began here..by saying HERE..that i lie"
Didn't. Haven't. Won't.

>> To all. Was just about to post the above when I noticed a days worth of comments since I was last able to check in here…
Poirot/Trav, g'day… back in Christian Special Service Mission days (that would be of course before I was an atheist). I remember one of the teachers drawing two intersecting circles as a Venn diagram – one representing the tangible realm, the other the intangible and the intersection representing wisdom and enlightenment. In its simple way I like how it allows for some common ground, regardless of where your point of view starts.

Houellebecq, now you've made me wonder whether that's all that was being drawn with those two circles

So wisdom and enlightenment lie in the cleavage?
cool.

There is a difference though, Trav, between translation and interpretation.

>>The passage is open to interpretation, but there are bigger issues to consider regardless of which interpretation you decide on.<<

I was pointing out the very specific use of "ophthe", in all of Paul's references to Jesus "appearing". Unless you have a quibble with the translation itself, there can be little leeway in the interpretation, can there. Paul was reporting an experience, a vision, an apparition. Not flesh-and-blood.

>>The big picture is the historical evidence that Christians were dying for their belief in the divinity of Jesus, and that many different individuals believed this to be the case within a relatively short time.<<

Martyrdom has been a feature of many religions, and survives to this day in the form of Islamic suicide bombers, or self-immolation by Hindus and Buddhists. Of itself it demonstrates nothing except for the emotional power that religion itself exerts.

>>The “key elements” of the various accounts do agree.<<

Not really. They differ in exactly the ways you would expect an oral legend to differ - in the detail. Once again, consider the legend of Robin Hood, and the difference of detail between Howard Pyle's "The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood", and the Robin Hood portrayed by Russell Crowe. The "key elements" may agree, but the context suggests a large dose of fictionalization too.

>>There are indeed different emphasis and theological points being made<<

And that's a problem too, don't you think? Each "interpretation" is dragged into the service of one theological pattern or another. With a little more historical definition, this would not be necessary, and might just prevent a lot of strife.

Wm Treveor,

The shape you are describing is called the "vesica" or "Mandorla".
In his book, "Harmony", Prince Charles notes of the joining of two circles that:
"...Where they overlap, you would then see a third shape. This is the progress that Pythagoras was describing - from the unity of Oneness we get the duality of Two and thus the first real number, the third relating figure.
Pythagoras and Plato both considered this elliptical, rugby-ball shape to be significant because it contains all the most important geometric properties that make up the grammar of the natural world....In very ancient traditions the shape was associated with the goddess Venus, symbolising the female organs of birth - the doorway or window between two worlds. In Ancient Egypt it was turned on its side to form the great eye of Horus. In the Judaic tradition it has always been used to describe Noah's Ark - the Ark of the covenant, being the very symbol of the wisdom of the world. The vesica is found woven into the fabric of Buddhist architecture and Christian symbols. Christ is very often found depicted within a vesica; the floor plans of many churches and cathedrals are laid out within its structure...."