The little donkey

From my journal, Monday, April 18, 2011:

It was Palm Sunday. Our pastor was preaching about the Triumphal Entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. As usual I was doing (at least) two things with his words. I was standing them up against the plumbline of Scripture. And I was trying to translate them into pictures so I could see what he was talking about.

He was using the account from “Dr. Luke.” I was surprised that our pastor believes just as my non-Christian brother does that Jesus arranged the details of the Entry–and by extension His death and resurrection. In fact he used my brother’s word “staged” at least three times. (Well, in one case he said, “The donkey and the parade appear to be staged.”)
He said, “He’s critiquing the Roman imperial power with a pre-arranged parade mocking that power. He presents himself as Messiah not on a warhorse but on a donkey.”

Our pastor said part of Christ’s satirical response to Rome was his assembling his disciples, whom he admitted included more than the Twelve by that point, to meet and greet him at the gate of the city. But his description of them made them sound pathetic, like a handful of misfits–the few, the poor, the rabble.

I wanted to shout (with all due respect), “It wasn’t like that at all. The Bible says ‘The whole city was stirred!’ By that time most of Jerusalem believed: ‘The common people heard Him gladly.’ They followed Him everywhere, so thick a crowd He couldn’t heal them all, mobbing Him so he had no time to eat and rest. So many believed–at least 5,000 men, plus women and children, including two executive elders of the religious establishment–that the leaders who hadn’t joined them were scared of them. The Pharisees even said, “The whole world has gone after him!” They couldn’t get through the crowds to arrest him secretly and they didn’t dare criticize his forerunner John.”

In my mind I backed up to Jesus’ instructions to his men to go get the donkey. Our pastor downplayed it, said Jesus had pre-arranged that, too, working it out ahead of time with the donkey’s owner: ‘When a couple of my guys come tomorrow and ask for it. . .” To me, it made Jesus sound shady, like a pretender to the throne trying to dupe people into believing he’s the rightful king.

But the text denies it. Why, when the disciples came to untie the donkey, would the owner have asked what they were doing if he had already been prepped about the event?

Our pastor downplayed the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 too. I kept silently willing him to bring it up, the glorious point, focus, center of the entire day–maybe the entire Bible:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion!
   Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
   triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
   on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Finally when he did mention it, it was almost in passing.
But in my mind’s eye and ear I was there and neither his sermon nor any other I’ve ever heard has captured the scene:
Jesus didn’t manipulate, orchestrate or choreograph, micromanage. He didn’t hire actors and artificially “pre-arrange” a parade in His own honor. He didn’t have to. Events were falling into place naturally. He didn’t have to do anything but wait, watch, recognize–“It’s not time. It’s not My time. Wait for it–IT’S TIME!

The little donkey was in place, right where its owner had tied it of his own free will, all unknowing that this was THE donkey, the one designed and destined before the foundation of the world to fulfill prophecy and play one of the most important roles in all history.

Jesus Christ tells his men, the men who respect and love Him, who think, who hope, He is the One–Jesus tells them, “Go down this street, turn the corner. This is what you’ll see, this is what you are to say. Bring the donkey to Me.”

“BRING THE DONKEY TO ME!” It sends thrills up my spine. Even fishermen must have known what that meant, must have begun to put it all together. This must be– He must be going to– That means He IS–

And when the owner says, “Why are you untying my donkey?” (“Hey, what are you doing? That’s mine!”) and the men repeat the words they have been given, “The Lord needs him!”– WOW! HALLELUJAH CHORUS!

The donkey man didn’t have to ask, “Uh, which lord is that?” His jaw dropped, he just stared after them breathing, “It’s HIM! It’s TIME! MY OWN LITTLE DONKEY IS GOING TO CARRY THE MESSIAH INTO JERUSALEM TO SET UP HIS KINGDOM! HE HAS SELECTED MY DONKEY, OF ALL THE DONKEYS IN HISTORY, FOR THAT SUPREME HONOR! WOW!” (or the equivalent of “Wow!” in Aramaic.)

It was not about following a script to make something happen–except a script written before time began. It was about Jesus just living, being Himself and seeing history come together, all the pieces fitting into place, bringing about the fullness of time. Marveling Himself as it all unfolded.

The fullness of time for His birth. The fullness of time for the revelation of who He is, presenting Himself to Israel as her long-expected Savior and Deliverer. Just like the fullness of time for the end of the age which we are seeing falling into place all around us.

Of course our pastor didn’t say any of this. What he did say sounded thin to me. He said Jesus was “intentionally getting ready to fulfill Zechariah’s prophecy.” Yes, but He didn’t have to race around behind the scenes painting sets and arranging furniture. (If he had to do that to make people think He was the Messiah, it must have been difficult to arrange his own birth in Bethlehem under the Roman occupation of Israel in the days of Herod.)

No, it was flowing into place. He didn’t have to tell a man, “Tie your donkey over there at such-and-such a time.” He knew that man (and that little donkey!) intimately because He had created them. He knew where that colt would be.

If He predestined events, it was in eternity past. Every atom, every cell, so that not a jot or tittle was out of place or out of control. It is all, ALL, in His will. Ultimately His permissive will works together with our free will to accomplish His overarching sovereign will and purposes.

It could not be otherwise, if He is God. If a single minute “deviation” is not under His control, it would effect huge changes which would require a Plan B. And Jesus Christ has never had to, never will have to, scratch His head in surprise and bewilderment and come up with a Plan B.

P.S.(2018): As you can imagine, Jerry and I don’t attend that church any more.

Posted in animals, Bible study, biography, celebrations, celebrities, Easter, emotions, faith, Fulfillment of prophecy, God, human interest anecdotes, Important Occasions, Intelligent design, Israel, Jesus Christ, My brother Tim, Palm Sunday | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

To the glory of God: A hummingbird’s tongue


Posted in birds, God, Intelligent design, Miracles, nature, pictures, video | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

To the glory of God: Starling Murmurations

More amazing evidences of God at

See also


Posted in Beauty, nature, science, video | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Pulsars and whales singing their Creator’s praise

CORRECTION: A friend points out these sub-titles are not Spanish! He’s right! I just assumed they were when I saw them on YouTube. But I ran the phrases written on the screen below through Google Translate, asking it to “detect the language” and got–Romanian! The translation is: He is involved with a greater symphony than our wildest dreams–“ Isn’t that amazing? (both the technology at our fingertips to be able to instantly find this out and the fact that somehow this truth looks more stunning coming out of another language.)


I love this! Some mornings I go to YouTube and click on it so I can join the stars and whales in my devotions. I may have posted the video before so I thought I’d post the version with Spanish sub-titles this time.

“It’s staggering when we begin to realize that all creation is singing the praises of the One who fashioned and formed the universe. Yet, singing stars and earth’s ovation cannot drown God’s desire to hear your voice. In the midst of a miraculous and immense symphony of praise,

God is still mindful of you, going to extraordinary lengths to give you life and breath through His Son. But, why would God pay such a high price to bring us to life again?

“Could it be that we are prized above all creation…that we are loved by the God who made the heavens and the earth? Such stunning grace awakens our hearts in extravagant worship as we take our place in His symphony and join the chorus, on both the best of days and through the darkest nights.”  Louie Giglio

Besides being on YouTube, Louie’s full message is called “Symphony (I Lift My Hands)” and can be ordered with lots of other great DVDs and books from Passion Resources.

Posted in animals, astronomy, Bible study, creation, DVDs, God, Heaven, Intelligent design, Joy, music, nature, video | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Socrates in the City: Science and God (Part 2 of 2)

    • A tidbit from Dr. Lennox to whet your appetite for Part 2:

“The ‘god’ explanation is not even in the same category as the ‘scientific’ explanation… You can very easily see why Hawking and Dawkins are completely wrong in suggesting that God is the same kind of explanation and therefore in competition with a scientific explanation.

“Very simple illustration: Why is the water boiling? Well, it’s boiling because you’ve got heat energy from a gas flame being conducted through the bottom of a good Irish copper kettle and agitating the molecules of water.

“Is it? It’s boiling because I want a cup of tea! Now, people snigger at that and rightly so because they see I’m being foolish. The explanation in terms of heat energy, the scientific explanation, doesn’t compete with the personal explanation of my desire for a cup of tea.

“Both are correct. It’s as if they’re saying that because I can explain this in terms of heat equations and physics, John Lennox doesn’t exist…

“God no more competes with science as explanation of the universe than Henry Ford competes with the law of internal combustion as an explanation for the motor car engine. Anyone can understand that. We are used, in life, to having multi-level explanations… The irony of the kettle boiling thing is, people have been drinking and enjoying tea for thousands of years before they understood about heat equations. It’s the personal, the agent explanation that is usually the more important.”


  • John Lennox (born 1945): Oxford mathematician, philosopher of science and pastoral adviser. His works include the mathematical The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups and the religion-oriented God’s Undertaker – Has Science buried God? He has also debated religion with Richard Dawkins.
  • Interviewed by Eric Metaxas (born 1963) American author, speaker, and radio host. He is known for three biographies, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery about William Wilberforce [2013] and Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy about Dietrich Bonhoeffer [2011]. “Martin Luther: The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World” about Martin Luther [2017].  Metaxas is the founder and host of the NYC-based event series, “Socrates in the City: Conversations on the Examined Life” and the host of the nationally syndicated radio program, The Eric Metaxas Show [1]
Posted in video | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Socrates in the City: Science and God (with John Lennox, Oxford)

A tidbit from Dr. Lennox to whet your appetite:

Lennox: One night at dinner at Oxford I found myself sitting beside a very eminent biochemist and unfortunately he asked me what I did. I said “I’m a pure mathematician” and he said “How dreadfully boring.” I saw this was going to be a bit of a social disaster. So I said, “Don’t worry about that. I know my subject is quite unsociable and complicated so I try to make up for that by being interested in the big questions.”

“What big questions?”

“Well, like the status of the universe. Is it created or not?”

He said, “Stop. Listen, I’m an atheist, I’m a reductionist and we have nothing to talk about and we’re going to have a miserable dinner.”

Well, that was a challenge for an Irishman. So I looked at him with a great grin–because I grin, you know, when I’m panicking. I said, “No, we’re going to have a marvelously interesting evening. I’m fascinated by reductionism. I know of at least three kinds. Which kind are you? … You are an ontological reductionist. You believe everything can be reduced to physics and chemistry.”

“Exactly. And that’s why we have nothing to talk about.”

“Why don’t we do an experiment?” I picked up the menu. He said, “What’s the problem  with the menu? ‘Roast chicken.'”

“That’s the problem. For you, not for me. R-O-A-S-T.  Those are marks on paper.”

“Yes, they are. But they say ‘roast chicken.'”

“How do you know?”

“I’ve learned English.”

“You’ve learned English and you’ve given those marks a meaning–and you’re a reductionist. Everything is physics and chemistry.  Explain to me how those marks convey the idea of ‘roast chicken’ and just use the material of the paper and the ink.”

Dead silence.

After a minute or so he said, “It cannot be done.  John–” now he’s getting friendly, but it was devastating for a man of his eminence, “I have been going to my laboratory for forty years thinking that could be done!” He saw through it like that, like a flash. “You must have a mind.”

He got it.

  • John Lennox (born 1945): Oxford mathematician, philosopher of science and pastoral adviser. His works include the mathematical The Theory of Infinite Soluble Groups and the religion-oriented God’s Undertaker – Has Science buried God? He has also debated religion with Richard Dawkins.
  • Interviewed by Eric Metaxas (born 1963) American author, speaker, and radio host. He is known for three biographies, Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery about William Wilberforce [2013] and Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy about Dietrich Bonhoeffer [2011]. “Martin Luther: The Man Who Rediscovered God and Changed the World” about Martin Luther [2017].  Metaxas is the founder and host of the NYC-based event series, “Socrates in the City: Conversations on the Examined Life” and the host of the nationally syndicated radio program, The Eric Metaxas Show [1]


Posted in faith, fun, God, Great quotes fromfamous people, human interest anecdotes, Humor, Intelligent design, interesting people, science, video | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

God and scientists: Darwin, Einstein and Sagan

The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.” –Charles Darwin, the founder of evolutionary biology, as cited in his book Descent of Man.

Was Darwin himself one of them? Apparently not, though he was strongly drawn to believe on the basis of the physical evidence, the “impossibility that the universe arose through chance.”
Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882)
(Credit Imagno via Getty Images)

It may be surprising to see the English naturalist and geologist, Charles Darwin on this list, given his contributions to evolutionary theory but the scientist did believe in God and believed there could be a relationship between faith and science, saying “I have never denied the existence of God. I think the theory of evolution is fully compatible with faith in God. I think the greatest argument for the existence in God is the impossibility of demonstrating and understanding that the immense universe, sublime above all measure, and man were the result of chance.”

On the question of God, Darwin admitted in letters to friends that his feelings often fluctuated. He had a hard time believing that an omnipotent God would have created a world filled with so much suffering. But at the same time, he wasn’t content to conclude that this “wonderful universe” was the result of “brute force.” If pressed for a label, he wrote that the term “agnostic” would fit him best.

In an 1873 letter to Dutch writer Nicolaas Dirk Doedes, Darwin wrote:

“I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to be that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man’s intellect; but man can do his duty.”

“Another source of conviction in the existence of God, connected with the reason and not with the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist.”

Charles Darwin, as quoted in his autobiography which he entitled Recollections of the Development of my Mind and Character, 1876


How about Einstein? Many atheists claim he was an atheist. Many Christians claim that he became a Christian. Apparently he was neither. He, too, was strongly swayed by the evidence, but never committed himself to believe God could be known personally.

Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

(Science Source via Getty Images)

Albert Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy. Founder of modern physics and Nobel laureate, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. Einstein was born into a secular Jewish family:

“As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene . . . . No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrase-mongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.” as cited in “What Life Means to Einstein,” The Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929.

As an adult, he tried to avoid religious labels, rejecting “the idea of a personal God as a childlike one” in the 40s but at the same time separating himself from “fanatical atheists” whom he believed were unable to hear “the music of the spheres.”

Here are statements (in chronological order) which he made on the subject of God:

1905: “I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”

1921:”Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.” —Remark made during Einstein’s first visit to Princeton University (April 1921) as quoted in Einstein (1973) by R. W. Clark, Ch. 14. “God is slick, but he ain’t mean” is a variant translation of this (1946) Unsourced variant: “God is subtle but he is not malicious.”

Here’s what Einstein said in an interview in G. S. Viereck’s book Glimpses of the Great, 1930, in response to a question about whether or not he believed in God: “Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.”

1930: It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological
concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will
or goal outside the human sphere…. Science has been charged with
undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man’s ethical behavior
should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and
needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor
way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward
after death. — Albert Einstein, “Religion and Science,” New York Times Magazine, 9
November 1930

1932: “The most beautiful and deepest experience a man can have is the sense of the mysterious.  It is the underlying principle of religion as well as of all serious endeavour in art and science.  He who never had this experience seems to me, if not dead, then at least blind. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense I am religious.  To me it suffices to wonder at these secrets and to attempt humbly to grasp with my mind a mere image of the lofty structure of all there is.” Einstein’s “Credo”

1936: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”

In An Ideal of Service to Our Fellow Man, a 1954 essay for NPR, Einstein wrote: “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the Mysterious — the knowledge of the existence of something unfathomable to us, the manifestation of the most profound reason coupled with the most brilliant beauty. I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, or who has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with the awareness of — and glimpse into — the marvelous construction of the existing world together with the steadfast determination to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature. This is the basics of cosmic religiosity, and it appears to me that the most important function of art and science is to awaken this feeling among the receptive and keep it alive.”

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” –Einstein’s essay “Science and religion,” 1954.

1954: It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a
lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. — Albert Einstein, 1954, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press

1954: I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. (Ibid)

It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the universe which we can dimly perceive and to try humbly to comprehend even an infinitesimal part of the intelligence manifested in Nature.”

1955: I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his
creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own — a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. — Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955, quoted from James A Haught, “Breaking the Last Taboo” (1996)

1971: “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” Quoted in Clark, Ronald W. (1971). Einstein: The Life and Times. New York: World Publishing Company.

1996: Like Spinoza, Einstein was a strict determinist who believed that human behavior was completely determined by causal laws. For that reason, he refused the chance aspect of quantum theory, famously telling Niels Bohr: “God does not play dice with the universe.”[80] 

1997: “The more I study science, the more I believe in God.” (The Wall Street Journal, Dec 24, 1997, article by Jim Holt, “Science Resurrects God.”)

2001:I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of
what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.” –Einstein, following his wife’s advice in responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein of the International Synagogue in New York, who had sent Einstein a cablegram bluntly demanding “Do you believe in God?” Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J Stenger, Has Science Found God? (draft: 2001), chapter 3.

2002: “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who – in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ – cannot hear the music of the spheres.”Einstein (from E. Salaman, “A Talk With Einstein,” The Listener54 (1955), pp. 370-371, quoted in Jammer, p. 123).

2000-2008 He clarified that “I am not an atheist”,[4] preferring to call himself an agnostic,[5] or a “religious nonbeliever.”[3] Einstein also stated he did not believe in life after death, adding “one life is enough for me.”[6] (Quoted in Wikipedia)

Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996)


Carl Sagan was an American astronomer, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, and author, best known for his work as a science popularizer and communicator. His best known scientific contribution is research on extraterrestrial life. He rejected the label of “atheist” because he was open to the possibility that science would perhaps one day find compelling evidence to prove God. Nevertheless, he thought that the likelihood of that happening was very small. Instead, Sagan talked about “spirituality“ as something that happens within the realm of material world, when humans encounter nature and are filled with awe.

  • To Robert Pope, of Windsor, Ontario, Oct. 2, 1996

    I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?”

    To Stephen Jay Gould, Dec. 18, 1989, after a newspaper editorial referred to Sagan and Gould as “dogmatic” on the question of whether there is a God:

    “Do you understand how – assuming either of us ever did say ‘The universe can be explained without postulating God’ – this could be understood as dogmatic? I often talk about the ‘God hypothesis’ as something I’d be fully willing to accept if there were compelling evidence; unfortunately, there is nothing approaching compelling evidence. That attitude, it seems to me, is undogmatic.”

    In his book, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Sagan writes: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.”

    SUMMARY: All three men above rejected the label “atheist.” Darwin settled on belief in “a First Cause having an intelligent mind,” and called himself a Theist.  Einstein called himself an agnostic, a “religious unbeliever.” Sagan considered himself an agnostic.

    Einstein and Sagan were both drawn by a sense of awe at the universe–feeling “elation and humility” at the “intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life” (Sagan), and “unbounded admiration for the structure of the world,” “a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws,” “harmony in the cosmos” and “the mystery of conscious life perpetuating itself through all eternity.” (Einstein).

    But Sagan’s “soaring feeling” and “sense of elation” was a shallow one. It did not lead him to seek its Source; he thought God a possibility but a slim one and saw “nothing approaching compelling evidence” for a [Judeo-Christian-Islamic] god” [or apparently any other]. Technically an agnostic, he was an atheist in the sense that he did not believe in God, though not in the sense that he believed God’s non-existence could be proved.

    Einstein, with Sagan’s same sense of awe and humility, which they both called “spirituality,” was constantly aware that behind all that he admired was a “a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” a “mysterious force that sways the constellations,” which we only “dimly perceive” as being “too vast for our limited minds,” “a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly.” 

    Note that into the mid-1930s, when he had stopped using the word “God” and most personal pronouns–He, His–to refer to God and had publicly rejected the idea of a personal God, Einstein still wrote of  “a something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly.” Perhaps he had trouble getting away from the innate sense that the design he saw in the universe must be the result of intelligence or personality–

    –Like Francis Crick’s strange appeal to fellow scientists to ignore the evidence: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”

    Einstein’s view of God, which certainly accords with the Biblical view, was that this Source is very real but so immense, so complex, that the term “God” as he had been led to understand it was impossibly inadequate.

    Yet he rejected the possibility that this same Transcendent Cause might also be Immanent, intimately concerned with His creation, a personal Being caring about human justice and morality, noting the death of a sparrow and the most private tear.

    He had not heard or at least did did not consider the possibility of that God, so great that we cannot begin to know Him, making Himself known to us.

    Nature can only show us “His invisible attributes: His eternal power and divine nature.”* But Who is this God? What is He like? For that, nature is not sufficient. We cannot figure that out by human reason and the evidence around us.

    To make Himself known to us, God revealed Himself in a human being. “Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.”  “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity dwells in bodily form.”

    In Jesus, God came and inhabited His world, the Word who “became flesh and dwelt among us.”  Jesus alone could truthfully say, “He who has seen me has seen the Father. I and the Father are one.”


    *Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,  because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.  For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
    Romans 1:18-20;  Colossians 1:15; Colossians 2:9; John 1:1-18; John 14:9; John 10:30


Posted in creation, evolution, Great quotes fromfamous people, Intelligent design, Jesus Christ, nature, pictures | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment