Are the laws of nature set in concrete?

Is it possible in our 'sophisticated and enlightened' 21st century to believe in a virgin birth, i.e. a miraculous birth? The issue is very important for Christianity, the only major religion that depends on miracles. Saint Paul, in his first letter to the Christians in Corinth, wrote that if Christ had not risen from the dead, both his preaching and their faith would be "useless". Many moderns disbelieve that Christ walked on water, quietened a storm, fed a multitude with just a few loaves of bread and a few fishes, and brought back to life a chap whose body had been in the early stages of decomposition.

According to atheist Richard Dawkins, the miracles Christians believe in are "blatant intrusions into scientific territory", and that every one of the abovementioned miracles amounts to "a violation of the normal running of the natural world"; "bad science", so to speak.

In 1835, David Strauss published various 'explanations' for the miracles: perhaps Jesus had a secret store of food, or people had brought their own packed lunches; perhaps there had been a platform under the water's surface when Jesus walked on it. And Lazarus? Well, he might have been in a trance. Very predictable stuff!

We know that all medical attempts to bring a dead person back to life have failed. It does not follow from the latter, though, that a dead person returning to life would constitute a violation of the 'laws of nature': miracles can be seen as actual suspensions of natural laws.

Can anyone claim with a ring of confidence that the laws of nature are immutable? Are set in concrete?

Just another pragmatist!

Australia's Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith, has referred to the Dutch film Fitna as “highly offensive’’. "Highly offensive" to whom? Surely not to those who appreciate truth. Not that one should be surprised by Smith's remark: he is just another pragmatic politician.

Inviolable dignity of each person...?

Assisted suicide will, surely, become more popular in Australia where quite a few citizens appear to reject the principle of the inviolable dignity of each person, as is manifested dramatically by the close to 100,000 abortions each year.

Is it not incongruous to hear the phrase "dying with dignity" and the word "compassion" being bandied about in a nation in which the "sanctity of human life" principle is anathema for many, and killing the unborn by violent means is routinely subsidised by the taxpayer?

Don't hold your breath...

Don't let anyone hold his/her breath in anticipation of China-induced democracy, peace and human rights in Tibet. China's intense support of the regime responsible for the murder and mayhem in Darfur, and its brutal treatment of Falun Gong adherents, 'dissidents' and others in China, should prevent us from being unrealistically hopeful.

That the Australian Government recently declared its opposition to the use of torture is a good thing, but it won't impress Beijing. However, preventing Sino Steel and other Chinese interests buying up/into Australian mining projects might do the trick.

And while readers may spare a thought and/or a prayer for the Tibetans, let us not forget the Christian minority in Iraq where, following the invasion by the Coalition of the Willing, life for Christians in Baghdad, Mosul, Kirkuk and al-Nour has become a genocidal nightmare, making the persecution of the early Christians in the Roman Empire look quite insignificant.

The problem of suffering: a universal phenomenon

The problem of suffering is uniquely important because it is a universal phenomenon. Almost everyone wonders why bad things happen to good people; some people even wonder why bad things happen at all. However, bad things do not prove that God does not exist: there are many proofs and apparent proofs of God's existence. And even if the objections raised against such proofs are successful, they refute only the arguments as invalid and inconclusive; they do not disprove the existence of God.

The fact that people everywhere do not automatically accept a world full of suffering means that we are in touch with a standard of goodness. How did that standard come into existence? Can evolution take credit for it?

Christianity hints that the meaning of the problem of suffering can be found in the words that emanated about 2,000 years ago from the mouth of that God-man, Christ, while he was suffering shockingly while nailed to a cross: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Will Oz go down the 'utilitarian' road...?

Pedophilia is not the only kind of child abuse. There are people, including physicians, who advocate the right of parents to kill unwanted newborns. The practice was very common in ancient Rome where most citizens had no qualms about exposing babies born with disabilities or some serious illness on some hill, and letting nature take its inevitable course.

The exposure of infants was so much part of that society that the Roman historian, Cornelius Tacitus, was able to describe the Jewish opposition to the practice as "sinister" and "revolting". What's new? Australians against abortion and euthanasia et cetera frequently face similar sentiments in the media when expressing their opposition.

Support for infanticide has already gained respectability among some of the medical fraternities of the Netherlands, the United States, and other western nations. Will Australia follow suit?

Non-level playing-field?

Public schools in Australia have an obligation to make sure that all children, including disruptive ones, have access to an education, claimed someone in the letters columns of The Sydney Morning Herald. Alas, might that politically-correct obligation not translate into preventing non-disruptive kids from being educated?

Explosive investments

That many banks exist for profit regardless of consequences is demonstrated dramatically by three Aussie banks and one Dutch one operating in Australia: all four have investments in the manufacture of cluster munitions. A French-based outfit which is very active in Australia has investments in landmine (!) production as well.

Obviously, mammon and morality cannot coexist.

Tibet myths... and non-myths!

The Tibet Myth by author Michael Parenti may well set some records straight about the old Tibet, but what is no myth is the depressed status of millions of Chinese workers who labour very long hours for lousy pay, receive very few holidays, work in factories and mines where worker safety is non-existent, and can be sacked at a minute's notice. Why should we assume that Tibetan workers in plants controlled by Beijing's overlords will be better off than their counterparts in China?

No myths either are the Tiananmin Square butchery, the bloody persecution of Falun Gong members, China's support of Myanmar's repressive regime and Sudan's murderous one. Nor can the present bloodletting and other human rights abuses in Tibet be described as "myths".

Roads, cars, tractors etc. no substitute for religious freedom!

Some Western visitors to Tibet have been impressed by the number of Tibet's schools, roads, cars, tractors, railways, airports et cetera - all a result of the Chinese occupation. Are they oblivious of the fact that 'man does not live by bread alone'?

It is the absence of religious freedom which has led to the latest revolt by many Tibetans. Of the around one hundred Tibetan political prisoners just before the conflict, about 75% were monks and nuns. In an effort to keep down the numbers of those who aspire to become nuns and monks, Beijing has introduced political themes into the qualifying exams required of religious novices.

China's leaders are not enamoured of religions and quasi-religions because their control cannot extend into the realm of beliefs and conscience. Tibetans did not rise up for ethnic or territorial reasons, but because of a strong desire for religious freedom which Beijing has endeavoured to thwart for several decades.

A miracle to end all miracles...?

This year, World Youth Day (WYD) will be held in Sydney, Australia. Someone was able to claim in a letter to The Sydney Morning Herald (newspaper) that closing the Harbour Bridge and two main roads one Saturday in July 2008 would "disadvantage everyone in Sydney other than Catholic youth".

Surely, that is nonsensical; unless, of course, every Sydneysider intends using the Bridge plus the two main traffic arteries on the very same day. Would that not be a miracle to end all miracles?

OK to have decided on military intervention in Iraq?

Someone commented in The Australian (newspaper) that it isn't wrong to promote military intervention in a country such as Iraq that had been suffering for 30 years because of a "genocidal maniac". Apart from the Iraq-Iran war, when hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians on both sides perished, the people of Iraq suffered immensely when the long-lasting UN-initiated Gulf Blockade was in place and was carried out mainly by the US navy, our very own Royal Australian Navy providing token assistance. The Blockade caused many thousands of deaths because of a lack of food and medicines. Concerned US citizens who tried to send food-cum-medicine parcels to Iraq were threatened with long jail terms and heavy fines.

The invasion by the Coalition obviously has not meant an end to the suffering by the Iraqis, including members of the Christian minority which had religious freedom under Saddam but has for some time been subjected to genocidal attacks by all and sundry with no protection from the West's 'liberators'; priests and bishops have been kidnapped and murdered, churches have been bombed, women have been raped, men have been tortured and killed. What was that about military intervention to eliminate Saddam-induced suffering?

Polluting for the well-off only?

Someone writing in The Age newspaper (Melbourne) wanted to change the pollution rules so that people "pay a price to pollute".

Paying for the privilege to pollute would mean, of course, that the well-off could afford to keep polluting ad nauseam, while all battlers, of necessity, would be doomed to become greenies.

Atheists

Would there be atheists if God did not exist? Put another way: doesn't the existence/presence of atheists confirm that God exists?