I should have said they preserve the magnetic polarity of the time.

Enough of this obsession with the trivialities of science - gravity waves etc., and back to the serious stuff, religion.

I'd add to David's references, the old classic James Frazer's 'The Golden Bough' (i890, many later editions). This was the first serious study of comparative religion. Among other things, Frazer explored the many religious precursors to the main themes of Christianity: the concept of a scapegoat (taking on the sins of others) and of the dying and rising god. In a way Christianity can be thought of as a religious mega-corporate takeover: buying up the ideas of many previous religions, re-packaging them for global sale and in the process putting other religions (including its own early sects) out of business.

I have also enjoyed Karen Armstrong's books on comparative religion. She was a catholic nun, but her extensive research has led her to modify her views, now seeing 'God' as a religious symbol. Perhaps one day she will wake up as an atheist.

Dear Josephus,

If you want to believe in nonsense you will believe in nonsense. It is unreasonable to believe in nonsense and condemn the Catholic Church for adding nonsense to the nonsense you believe in.

Nobody can get any answer from Kerry Packer because he is dead. Kerry Packer was never restored to life. No dead person has been restored to life. A person can be resuscitated but not restored to life.

Miracles do not happen. Natural laws are not suspended. The Catholic Church in its recent making of saints classifies unexplained remissions of disease as miracles. Improbable things happen. Miracles don’t.

My two sons have married doctors. I am sure neither of them can cite any evidence for miracles.

A miracle is more than an unlikely happening. A miracle requires a suspension of the laws of physics and chemistry. There is no evidence that that has ever happened.

What I get from you is that Protestant nonsense is acceptable, but Catholic nonsense is not acceptable. That still smells like anti-Catholic bigotry.

Dear George,

In deference to your sensibilities I have used the word, nonsense, rather than mumbojumbo or rubbish. The word, nonsense, means something that doesn’t make sense.

To the best of my knowledge there is no credible evidence that the laws of physics and chemistry have ever been violated. That is what I understand is something a miracle can do.

There is no credible evidence for the existence of supernatural beings or miracles. Neither makes sense. However, if you can suggest a more appropriate word or one less offensive to your sensibilities than nonsense I will use it.

Loudmouth,
Joseph had three sons to his first wife before taking Mary as his wife

Josephus,

Thank you, that makes more sense. Joseph was mature-aged when he married Mary, who was about eighteen, is that right ?

Joseph adopted Jesus as his own son ? Was that Jewish practice ? In Islam, adoption is supposed to be forbidden - all springing from Muhammad supposed to be the very last prophet, the Seal of the Prophets, and therefore without heir who might THEN become the 'last' prophet. He had lost five sons before puberty, according to legend, and had adopted a son; so, to avoid becoming the truly-ruly last prophet, this adopted son had to be 'removed' from history before he himself died. So Muhammad did the David thing and sent him off to a very dangerous battle, in 629, according to legend, from which he did not return.

Also according to legend, and perhaps also as another imitation of the David story, he saw his adopted son's wife Zaynab in a state of undress, fell immediately in lust with her, and therefore had his adopted son removed to a less congenial environment, after obligingly divorcing his wife and letting Muhammad marry her. He had appealed to Allah in a trance, and his wish was granted in a vision, prompting Aysha, his young (14-15 years old?) wife to remark that sometimes Allah was very quick to answer Muhammad's prayers.

All legend of course, from perhaps a hundred years later, and perhaps as no more than a justification for banning adoption. I'm still puzzling over the more likely reasons for that banning practice.

Cheers,

Joe

For those still interested in the topic of this thread: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-future-of-gravitational-wave-astronomy/?WT.mc_id=SA_WR_20160217.

Dear david f,

This is not about my “sensibilities”, otherwise I would have reacted to your (and others’) posts earlier - after all I am well aware of your position on these matters. Many of your opinions help me to enhance mine, many don’t.

I just wanted to point out to you that the use of a derogatory term - irrelevant which - nine times in such a short post speaks about your emotional rather than rational approach to the difficult subjects of biblical exegesis and philosophical interpretations of the Reality the Bible is supposed to be about. Neither I, and I presume neither you, are experts on these matters.

It does not need a display of emotions to simply claim that the Bible is just a book of fiction which does not need exegesis, and that such Reality does not exist - many do so, apparently including you.

Also, it is a difference between saying “this does not make sense to me” (as I would about many claims e.g. economists or financial marketeers make) and stating categorically that this IS nonsense.

Let me finish with the story I already told you about my physics teacher (when I was about twelve years old) who argued against Einstein’s relativity theory claiming it was against common sense. He was very convincing but when I told this to my father he did not offer counterarguments (he was not a physicist, and I am sure he did not understand Einstein either) but only said something like: many respectable physicists accept Einstein’s theory so we should not dismiss it (he might not have used the word nonsense) just because we cannot understand it hence think it goes against common sense.