Recently, I listened to an interview with Jerry Coyne, who is a prominent professor of Biology. He was being interviewed about the subject of evolution and the interviewer asked him to answer 10 misunderstandings people have about Evolution. I'm not a scientist, nor do I claim to be an expert on the subject. But, to understand Evolution and to be able to accept it you don't have to have complete knowledge of the subject, nor do you have to have all the answers; it's really that simple . Yet, I believe we struggle with it because it is counterintuitive, due to the incomprehensible amount of time it took to evolve in to what human's are today.
As a conservative Bible believing Christian, I was taught that evolution was wrong and it was an expression of man's attempt to be his own god. I agreed, based on Romans 1:18-23. I was also convinced that it was in direct conflict with Original Sin, which is the basis for the atonement of Jesus (Romans 5). If there is no Adam and Eve to originate from, then where does sin come from? However, I no longer believe that evolution is in contradiction to Christianity or faith in God. But, that is a discussion for another post.
Here are the ten misconceptions that Coyne answered in his interview. The answers are a combination of my thoughts and Coyne's answers:
1. Evolution is only a Theory. The term, "theory" in science refers to a framework and a concept that is open to continued input. It does not mean that it is an issue of faith or that it is in question. In science gravity is a "theory" and so is bacteria. No one questions the reality of gravity or bacteria. Evolution is a well established concept just like gravity. It works and is the basis for modern medicine and biology. It is well established as factual, though not completely understood. But neither is gravity or bacteria.
2. Evolution is not observable and therefore not scientific. It is observable and testable. We are transitional forms, but change within our species is not so noticeable because we live long lives. But, in fruit flies, bacteria, and insects, whose life span is very brief, evolution is very noticeable. These creatures adapt to their environments though mutations and natural selection which changes DNA in subsequent generations. And, it is not just microevolution, but macroevolution. It is observable in DNA codes, which can be traced back to previous species. So, technically, you don't have to observe it in a creature historically, or see fossilized transitional forms. All that is needed is tracing DNA back to previous life forms.
3. Dating methods are not trustworthy. Yes they are... Google it for yourself. But, what about the clams that were tested and found to be 20,000 years old? Therefore, it is argued, dating methods must be unreliable! The answer to this anomaly is that clams and snails ingest carbon off rocks that are 20,000 years old, or how ever many years the carbon has been on the rocks. Plus, testing processes are getting better all the time with new technology.
4. Mutations are not beneficial. Mutations are "one-offs" in the DNA code. Whether beneficial or not, they will either adapt to their surroundings, die off, or get turned off. If the mutation works to help a living organism, then the mutation will pass on. That new characteristic in the code will become normative for it's off spring.
5. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics cannot support evolution. This is the idea of entropy. Everything is wearing down, deteriorating, winding down, etc. This is true, but energy was introduced to this planet in the form of the Sun's heat, mixed with water and other elements that have allowed life to generate and evolve. It does not effect evolution presently. Some day the Sun will burn out or die and then this world as we know it will end. But, until then life is drawing from a mix of energy sources.
6. There are no transitional forms. Yes there are. There are many forms. There are primate skulls and some skeletal remains that indicate progressive change in primates. There is clear progression of at least one primate species to human, just as Darwin predicted before bones were even found in Africa. There will never be a half man, half ape creature, as Creationists often caricaturize with fabricated cartoon pictures. Evolution does not work that way, because it is a slow and progressive change. There are many other transitional forms found that you can look up on line. Of course, there are still other primates because they took a different track on the tree of life than humans.
7. The eye is too complex to have evolved. I can't explain here in any detail, but it has been shown how eyes developed. While it is complex, it is easy to see how it could happen over time, starting with light sensitive skin. Those creatures that could identify shapes to begin with had an advantage and so the rest of the creatures that could not see anything died off and creatures that could see became dominant and it developed in a progressive fashion from there. Lots of good explanations for this in the literature.
8. There is no proof that life evolved from nothing. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life. Evolution is the study of the progress of life. Evolution does not concern itself with origin of life, but only with the origin of species. No one knows how life began, but many scientists think that they will be able to create life in a lab within the next 50 years. To date, all efforts have failed. So, perhaps this is where God can be interjected into the equation. Even if a natural explanation is found, God can still be seen as the author and sustainer of life.
9. Morals cannot come from evolution. Animals have the capacity for altruism (Ie. Read, "The Emotional Lives Of Animals") and that characteristic was selected in creatures for communal survival. Thus, many animals have a form of altruism or care for their own due to it's survival requirement. As humans we have refined this in to morals.
10. Evolution is chance and chance cannot make life as we know it today. It is too complex. This is one of the greatest caricatures of Evolution. What I hear from skeptics goes something like this, "believing in evolution is the same as believing that it is possible for all the separate parts of a 747 whipping together in a whirlwind to form a jet plane by chance." The critical claim being that it takes more faith to believe evolution can result in humans than to believe in creation. First of all, in evolution we are talking about an organic process. Second, it does not happen suddenly, but over a very long process of one thing building on another. Third, it is partly random chance and partly natural selection. Chance is when DNA mutates, which would be expected. It's organic, so it will have glitches and changes in the code on a regular basis as the code is passed on from one generation to the next. But, if those changes or glitches are advantageous to the environment in which that being exists, then it will become a normal feature of that being's DNA code (natural selection) and will become part of the DNA in successive living beings. The fact is, humans have a huge quantity of DNA code that is mutated and then "turned off" due to natural selection. It "didn't make the cut," so to speak. The vestiges of characteristics are there, but not working, since they were selected by nature not to continue on. This is partly how scientists know we are related to other creatures with similar DNA. We can trace our DNA back to previous species.
Conclusion
Evolution is not a faith, but it is hard to accept. Though it is complex, like nature, it is a simple organic process. Personally, I don't see that it is in contradiction to faith in God, though it would be in conflict with a literal understanding of the Bible. One possible solution for those who believe in an inerrant and infallible Bible is that evolution of humans can be seen leading up to Adam and Eve as the beginning of human life. It would require that part of the story is figurative, however.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Monday, July 30, 2012
Book Review: "Bold Endeavors: How Our Government Built America, and Why It Must Rebuild Now"
I don't have the time to do justice to a full review of this book. I'm just taking a few minutes to comment on this well written book on the hot subject of whether or not governement should be in the business of business. Indeed, it is a "white hot" debate.
Many people today would have us believe that governement should not have a role in American life, except for law, order and protection. But here is a book written by a true blue free enterprise capitalist, Felix Rohatyn, who is a strong advocate for government's involvement in America's business. In fact, his thesis is that our government built this country and it is the reason we have excelled among the nations of the world.
This is actually a history book describing how the government made us the great country we are by giving our nation the following: The Louisiana Purchase, The Erie Canal, The Transcontinental Railroad, The Land Grant Colleges, The Homestead Act, The Panama Canal, The Rural Electrification Administration, The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, The G.I. Bill, and The Interstate Highway System. Rohatyn devotes a chapter to each of these government "intrusions" in to the life of Americans and how they added great wealth to the people of America.
Rothatyn's fear is that we have forgotten these facts of history and our selfishness and lack of visionary leadership has squelched the collective resolution of this country to continue to be great among the nations.
In each chapter, he shows how great the opposition was to these individual government programs in the time in which they were being pushed to the front lines of American economics. In each case, people and politicians complained that these programs would bankrupt us, disturb our already fragile economy, or that they would be intrusions on American freedom. They were not very popular at the time. There was every reason given to "not" follow through on these programs.
It took courage and vision for America's leaders to make each of these programs a reality. In each case, America prospered due to the implimentation, visionary leadership and financing of these programs.
As one case in point, the Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of our country, giving us the potential for expansion and ownership of great natural resources. We had to take out loans with fat cat banks from Europe that we would be indebted to for many years. People thought that Jefferson gave our nation away in this purchase and that he broke the constitution doing it. But in fact, we paid our debt and not only did we increase the value of our country through property, we increased our integrity among the great nations of Europe because we faithfully paid our debt.
Rothatyn writes each chapter as a rising crescendo to say in his last chapter, American government must once again take the lead. He identifies the greatest challenge of our generation to be the crumbling and outdated infrastructure of our nation. He advocates that a government commission should be established by the federal government to put forth a vision, plan and financial means to rebuild our country from the inside out. It will take many trillions, but if well orchestrated it will save us from the doom of many illnesses.
Read the book. See for yourself. Make your own conclusions. But, by all means, read the book.
Many people today would have us believe that governement should not have a role in American life, except for law, order and protection. But here is a book written by a true blue free enterprise capitalist, Felix Rohatyn, who is a strong advocate for government's involvement in America's business. In fact, his thesis is that our government built this country and it is the reason we have excelled among the nations of the world.
This is actually a history book describing how the government made us the great country we are by giving our nation the following: The Louisiana Purchase, The Erie Canal, The Transcontinental Railroad, The Land Grant Colleges, The Homestead Act, The Panama Canal, The Rural Electrification Administration, The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, The G.I. Bill, and The Interstate Highway System. Rohatyn devotes a chapter to each of these government "intrusions" in to the life of Americans and how they added great wealth to the people of America.
Rothatyn's fear is that we have forgotten these facts of history and our selfishness and lack of visionary leadership has squelched the collective resolution of this country to continue to be great among the nations.
In each chapter, he shows how great the opposition was to these individual government programs in the time in which they were being pushed to the front lines of American economics. In each case, people and politicians complained that these programs would bankrupt us, disturb our already fragile economy, or that they would be intrusions on American freedom. They were not very popular at the time. There was every reason given to "not" follow through on these programs.
It took courage and vision for America's leaders to make each of these programs a reality. In each case, America prospered due to the implimentation, visionary leadership and financing of these programs.
As one case in point, the Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of our country, giving us the potential for expansion and ownership of great natural resources. We had to take out loans with fat cat banks from Europe that we would be indebted to for many years. People thought that Jefferson gave our nation away in this purchase and that he broke the constitution doing it. But in fact, we paid our debt and not only did we increase the value of our country through property, we increased our integrity among the great nations of Europe because we faithfully paid our debt.
Rothatyn writes each chapter as a rising crescendo to say in his last chapter, American government must once again take the lead. He identifies the greatest challenge of our generation to be the crumbling and outdated infrastructure of our nation. He advocates that a government commission should be established by the federal government to put forth a vision, plan and financial means to rebuild our country from the inside out. It will take many trillions, but if well orchestrated it will save us from the doom of many illnesses.
Read the book. See for yourself. Make your own conclusions. But, by all means, read the book.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
OUR NEW BUSINESS!
We have started a new business called, Staub Construction Services LLC. We do all kinds of remodeling, but with a specialization in hardwood flooring installation, finishing, and refinishing. Check out our new web site at: www.staubconstructionservices.com
Sunday, January 30, 2011
The Spirit of John Muir
We all have heroes of the past that we admire for their exploits, writings and works. Recently, I was talking with a friend about our heroes of the past and how they influenced us. At one point he shook his head and said, "all my best friends are dead!" Of course it was rhetorical hyperbole referring to some of his heroes of the past. It got me thinking about who my dead best friends are. I'd have to say the greatest of them all was John Muir. By anyone's estimation he was special in his time and has become a great inspiration to many and certainly to me; especially for his spiritual view of nature. Here are some of my thoughts about Muir's spiritual views on nature:
Muir was a prolific nature writer
Muir was raised by a devout Bible believing father. Young John was trained to work hard on his father's Wisconsin farm, as well as in his Bible lessons. But, John did not swallow the Bible whole, as his father desired for him. Rather, John took the atmosphere of the Bible and left behind its stories and theology. He had a love for God, which he learned about first from the Bible and then through nature. He ferreted out of the Bible what made sense to him about God and he left the rest behind.
He never developed an appreciation for organized religion of any kind. Nature and the mountains were his temple, the place where he went to meet with God. He once wrote, "Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul. " And, "Keep close to Nature's heart...and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean." And, "Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn." The language of his writings remind me of the expressions of a Biblical prophet or an evangelist, evidence that he kept the atmosphere of the Bible. Indeed, Muir was a prophet and an evangelist, but of the wilderness rather than the Bible. Since Muir rejected the theology of the Bible I am more in line with the nature theology of another dead friend, Martin Luther, who said, "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars." But, it is not clear to me that Muir ever rejected Christ along with his rejection of religion and the Bible.
There are many who have misunderstood Muir. He was not a pantheist, as nature pantheists prefer to interpret Muir's writings. No, from his writings we can at least see that he believed in a transcendent God who created the world. He believed that natural forces set in place by God created the glaciers, mountains and trees. God was at work in nature and you could see and experience God through what we call, nature.
He wasn't a theologian, nor a philosopher, but a naturalist. We can't go to his writings to get a clear theological treatment of God in nature anymore than we can go to the writings of Mother Theresa to learn about the Trinity.
Muir was a mountain mystic who painted nature with the brush of his words. In his writings he went beyond his naturalism to create word paintings that inspire us to look deeper in to nature than it's mere physical features and function. He illustrates God's work in and through nature, so that we might better partake of God's majesty and power. As a mountain mystic he exhorted us to see nature as he saw it, a sacrament of God. This is the spirit of John Muir.
Muir was a prolific nature writerMuir was raised by a devout Bible believing father. Young John was trained to work hard on his father's Wisconsin farm, as well as in his Bible lessons. But, John did not swallow the Bible whole, as his father desired for him. Rather, John took the atmosphere of the Bible and left behind its stories and theology. He had a love for God, which he learned about first from the Bible and then through nature. He ferreted out of the Bible what made sense to him about God and he left the rest behind.
He never developed an appreciation for organized religion of any kind. Nature and the mountains were his temple, the place where he went to meet with God. He once wrote, "Everybody needs beauty as well as bread, places to play in and pray in, where nature may heal and give strength to body and soul. " And, "Keep close to Nature's heart...and break clear away, once in awhile, and climb a mountain or spend a week in the woods. Wash your spirit clean." And, "Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn." The language of his writings remind me of the expressions of a Biblical prophet or an evangelist, evidence that he kept the atmosphere of the Bible. Indeed, Muir was a prophet and an evangelist, but of the wilderness rather than the Bible. Since Muir rejected the theology of the Bible I am more in line with the nature theology of another dead friend, Martin Luther, who said, "God writes the gospel not in the Bible alone, but on trees and flowers and clouds and stars." But, it is not clear to me that Muir ever rejected Christ along with his rejection of religion and the Bible.
There are many who have misunderstood Muir. He was not a pantheist, as nature pantheists prefer to interpret Muir's writings. No, from his writings we can at least see that he believed in a transcendent God who created the world. He believed that natural forces set in place by God created the glaciers, mountains and trees. God was at work in nature and you could see and experience God through what we call, nature.
He wasn't a theologian, nor a philosopher, but a naturalist. We can't go to his writings to get a clear theological treatment of God in nature anymore than we can go to the writings of Mother Theresa to learn about the Trinity.
Muir was a mountain mystic who painted nature with the brush of his words. In his writings he went beyond his naturalism to create word paintings that inspire us to look deeper in to nature than it's mere physical features and function. He illustrates God's work in and through nature, so that we might better partake of God's majesty and power. As a mountain mystic he exhorted us to see nature as he saw it, a sacrament of God. This is the spirit of John Muir.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Top Ten Cheers for the Bible
I read a blog post at Lady Atheist entitled, "Top Ten Grievances Against The Bible." You can read it here. I would like to respond point by point to that post with my, "Top Ten Cheers for the Bible." Here I go:
1. The Bible has stood the test of time as the authority for God's people because it is remarkably accurate historically and has displayed an amazing unanimity between its authors. The transmission of the Old Testament text by the Masorites and the New Testament text by early copyists is a testament to the divine guidance of this holy book. No other ancient documents can boast such amazing success in its transmission. The copyist errors, and there are many, amount to nothing significant. 99% of them are spelling or word omission/misplacement. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a wonderful testimony to the faithful transmission of the Old Testament.
2. The Bible is remarkably consistent with itself. From cover to cover there is one message, God wants to redeem the world and the Bible displays his plan to do so. When I hear people speak of its inconsistencies and contradictions I find that they either have not studied the texts or they are projecting a bias against the text. In other words, they prefer to see contradiction rather than finding the natural harmonization. The two creation stories are only written with a different perspective in mind without being in conflict at all. the four gospels and the two genealogies of Jesus are not in conflict once you see why they were written and who the audience is that the writer is addressing.
3. The Bible's presentation of God is majestic and awe inspiring. He is worthy of worship, respect and adoration. It is wonderful to have such a God to worship and admire, because as humans we need and want such a God. A great God lifts humanity up in greatness. Sure, He's tough and at times wrathful. But, the same degree to which God hates sin and judges those who are unrepentant, he is amazingly loving, kind and forgiving. In the atonement of Christ we find both the fullness of God's wrath toward sin and his love for mankind. Both are startling.
Sure, we don't want to be on the side of His wrath. It's awful. But, we do want to partake of the amazing graciousness and kindness of God found in Christ's sacrificial death. There is nothing comparable to the love of God in Christ. Nothing!
I find that people who despise the Biblical God by citing certain texts that show his, so called "brutality," are only declaring a distorted picture of Him, because they do not see the composite picture of God that the whole Bible presents.
4. The Bible presents miracles that amazed the most skeptical people and substantiated the claims of Christ. I don't buy the argument that people in Biblical times were so steeped in superstition that we cannot trust their claims to have seen real miracles. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke, was a physician and had a scientific mind. Just read his introduction! Of all the disciples Thomas was a hold out and doubted that Jesus was resurrected, but Jesus came to him and convinced him with evidence (I can identify with Thomas). According to Paul, 500 people claimed to have seen the risen Christ. People who were widely known to have been dead, such as Lazarus in John 11, were raised from the dead. The writers of these events, contrary to the claim that they were "superstitious," went out of there way to show that these miraculous events were substantiated by "eyewitness" observation. This is impirical evidence which is scientific, not superstitious.
Why don't we see these kind of miracles today? The best answer is that they happened at a time when it was important to establish the claims of Christ and the Apostles. Once the Bible was completed miracles disappeared. I call it a, "phasing out." The early church fathers did not claim miracles and they didn't seem to have a problem that they stopped. That's just history!
So, why weren't the miracles and resurrection of Jesus corroborated outside of the Bible? You don't find much in the secular historical record and that is a fact, as well. There might have been a lot of literature written about Jesus and the activities of the Apostles in secular writings, but they were lost to us. When Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70AD all literature in the city was destroyed along with the buildings. It's a theory, but I think it's reasonable to think that a lot of "secular" literature about early Christianity went up in smoke with Jerusalem.
5. The Bible is a reliable revelation of God's will for mankind. People malign the Bible as a divinely inspired book. After all, wasn't it written by men who wrote with different motivations, ideas, and from different perspectives? So, how can it be a book from God? I simply see that God used these differences to communicate what he wanted. People wrote from their perspective, in their language, within their cultures, and with their own intentions as they understood God. However, all that they wrote was all superintended by God so that what they wrote was God's word. God's normal modus operandi in the Bible is to work though people. Why is this so unbelievable? We are not robots, but free agents who are used by God. Also, those who want to reject the Bible as a revelation of God will often speak of people in Biblical times as superstitious, psychotic, or schizophrenic to account for miracles, dreams, and voices from God. But, that is purely an argument from silence.
6. The Bible is not contradicted by science, but substantiated by science! I'm not saying it's a science book, it's not intended to provide all knowledge of all things. It's a book intended to communicate God's will, period! However, as an example, Archeologists have successfully used the Bible to find ancient cities buried under thousands of years of dirt; cities that were once thought to be mythological.
It is often pointed out that the Bible reinforces unscientific ideas, such as the Bible referring to the sun rising and setting, rather than accurately communicating that the earth revolves around the sun. True, but the Bible is often written in phenomenological language, so it speaks of nature as humans experience it; not as it is scientifically. Nothing wrong with that, we still speak and write this way in our "scientific" times.
What about evolution? The Bible speaks of man as a creation by fiat, not evolution. As a matter of fact we don't know any more about the origin of man by evolutionary process than we do about the creation by fiat - scientifically, that is! Both the evolutionist and the creationist have to take the origin of man by faith. While the scientific method has displayed the possibility of evolution within species, it has not proven the origin of man by evolution.
7. In Jesus the Bible provides a solution to the problem that we humans have always agonized over. It's in all the great literature of ancient and modern history. Because of the short life we live, the suffering we experience, and calamitous world we live in, we naturally crave a hero to rescue us from this misery. The Bible displays Jesus as a dying and rising savior who rescues us from our plight. But, it's been well established that there were a number of ancient hero gods much like Jesus of the Bible, such as Mithra. but, to me, this does not destroy my faith by proving that Jesus was a copy or just another mythical hero. On the contrary. First of all, if there is a Satan, and I believe there is, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that he would counterfeit Jesus with other similar identities? Satan is not going to try to thwart Christianity with something totally opposite, but he's smart, so he uses counterfeit tactics. Also, it might be just as reasonable to understand these saviors previous to Jesus as simply foreshadows of the real thing to come, Jesus. Furthermore, these other characters were not historical figures, as was Jesus, who is rooted in history. And furthermore, the whole Bible, from cover to cover, ties itself to Jesus the Messiah and his heroic sacrifice for mankind on the cross. There isn't any story comparable in history. In other words, I am saying that all others are either counterfeits or foreshadows of the reality in Jesus.
8. The Bible gives hope of redemption to the worst offenders. The Bible records the conversion to Christianity of a Jewish Rabbi in training, who at one time was helping to execute Christians. Then, the Bible contains more New Testament books written by this man for the good of the Church than any other person. His name was Paul. Contrary to the growing popular belief that Paul never believed in a historical Jesus, Paul met Jesus and spoke more about his historical crucifixion than any other New Testament writer! Read Paul's letters for yourself, folks. Don't suck down the disinformation being spread around the internet about Paul. It's irresponsible.
Also, in Paul's books to the Romans and Galatians we have a tour de force presentation of the great doctrine of grace, of which we would know precious little without his exposition of this doctrine in these books.
This is the kind of God that I like, a God that would forgive a repentant murderer of Christians and then make him the greatest defender and proponent of Christianity in the New Testament. Paul has become the premiere example of salvation by grace to billions of Christians. The God of the Bible loves to take worthless, degenerate, obnoxious, prideful, morally ugly people, and then bring them to a repentance that changes both them and the world around them.
9. The Bible contains perhaps the most beloved book by Christians, the Gospel of John. It is so loved because of it's clear message of Christ's nature as God and his atoning death for us on the cross. This book smashes to pieces the popular liberal orientation that Jesus was just a great moral teacher, or an apocalyptic prophet, or the messiah who came to be the king of the Jews. The Gospel of John presents Jesus as God Himself breaking in to this sin sick world to lay down his life for mankind. John's Gospel is indeed, "The Good News!"
10. The Bible provides a needed moral compass for humanity. The 10 commandments were not just for Christians or Jews, but all humanity. Without the 10 commandments and the absolute moral standards communicated in the Bible we would be living in a sea of anarchy driven by what ever conflicting standards people choose to live by. The Bible's ethics, despite what atheists claim, is the basis for our modern jurisprudence.
In the last several years atheists against Christianity have been loudly charging that the God of the Bible is a brutal and capricious ogre. It seems to have become part of the Atheist's Gospel. It is claimed that He orders the executions of men, women and children, sanctions child sacrifice, and is blood thirsty. I almost have to keep from laughing when I hear of these charges, because these charges are caricatures of God, like one of those twisted cartoon sketches comedic artists draw of us at the fair. All of our features are distorted to make us look exaggerated. That's what is being done with God in this case.
God never sanctioned or condoned child sacrifice. The story of Jephtha supposedly sacrificing his daughter, recorded in Judges, is misunderstood. God explicitly commanded His people not to practice such sacrifices. In context there are other explanations of what happened. As for the "blood thisty" charge against God, I think it's misunderstood. It's not the blood itself that is important, but that the blood represents life. Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for us, not his blood. Christians were never told to drink blood. The drinking of the blood of Jesus was symbolic and never to be taken literally. I guess one has to appreciate figurative language to understand this. As for the killing of the men, women and children in the book of Joshua, it was in fact commanded by God. How's that for not beating around the bush? But, just to put things in perspective let me add two things: 1) God was purging evil from the land to make way for God's people who were to be holy. They were to be a light of holiness and goodness and well being to the nations around them. Once in the land they were called upon by God to care for those around them by taking in and helping the "strangers" in the land, not killing all of them off but welcoming them. 2) The greater truth in this story is that every one of us ought to be condemned and snuffed out just like the Amalakites. The only reason God hasn't plowed all of us under is that he is gracious and long suffering with us. We ought to be glad we have any kind of peace, love and happiness in our lives, for by his standards we don't deserve it. We can either be angry at God for doing such a "brutal thing," or we can stand in awe of his justice and be amazed that he is so gracious with us to provide a path of acceptance and forgiveness.
I can go on and on with each of these top 10 cheers for the Bible, but I would rather answer questions or handle criticisms if you have any.
1. The Bible has stood the test of time as the authority for God's people because it is remarkably accurate historically and has displayed an amazing unanimity between its authors. The transmission of the Old Testament text by the Masorites and the New Testament text by early copyists is a testament to the divine guidance of this holy book. No other ancient documents can boast such amazing success in its transmission. The copyist errors, and there are many, amount to nothing significant. 99% of them are spelling or word omission/misplacement. The Dead Sea Scrolls were a wonderful testimony to the faithful transmission of the Old Testament.2. The Bible is remarkably consistent with itself. From cover to cover there is one message, God wants to redeem the world and the Bible displays his plan to do so. When I hear people speak of its inconsistencies and contradictions I find that they either have not studied the texts or they are projecting a bias against the text. In other words, they prefer to see contradiction rather than finding the natural harmonization. The two creation stories are only written with a different perspective in mind without being in conflict at all. the four gospels and the two genealogies of Jesus are not in conflict once you see why they were written and who the audience is that the writer is addressing.
3. The Bible's presentation of God is majestic and awe inspiring. He is worthy of worship, respect and adoration. It is wonderful to have such a God to worship and admire, because as humans we need and want such a God. A great God lifts humanity up in greatness. Sure, He's tough and at times wrathful. But, the same degree to which God hates sin and judges those who are unrepentant, he is amazingly loving, kind and forgiving. In the atonement of Christ we find both the fullness of God's wrath toward sin and his love for mankind. Both are startling.
Sure, we don't want to be on the side of His wrath. It's awful. But, we do want to partake of the amazing graciousness and kindness of God found in Christ's sacrificial death. There is nothing comparable to the love of God in Christ. Nothing!
I find that people who despise the Biblical God by citing certain texts that show his, so called "brutality," are only declaring a distorted picture of Him, because they do not see the composite picture of God that the whole Bible presents.
4. The Bible presents miracles that amazed the most skeptical people and substantiated the claims of Christ. I don't buy the argument that people in Biblical times were so steeped in superstition that we cannot trust their claims to have seen real miracles. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke, was a physician and had a scientific mind. Just read his introduction! Of all the disciples Thomas was a hold out and doubted that Jesus was resurrected, but Jesus came to him and convinced him with evidence (I can identify with Thomas). According to Paul, 500 people claimed to have seen the risen Christ. People who were widely known to have been dead, such as Lazarus in John 11, were raised from the dead. The writers of these events, contrary to the claim that they were "superstitious," went out of there way to show that these miraculous events were substantiated by "eyewitness" observation. This is impirical evidence which is scientific, not superstitious.
Why don't we see these kind of miracles today? The best answer is that they happened at a time when it was important to establish the claims of Christ and the Apostles. Once the Bible was completed miracles disappeared. I call it a, "phasing out." The early church fathers did not claim miracles and they didn't seem to have a problem that they stopped. That's just history!
So, why weren't the miracles and resurrection of Jesus corroborated outside of the Bible? You don't find much in the secular historical record and that is a fact, as well. There might have been a lot of literature written about Jesus and the activities of the Apostles in secular writings, but they were lost to us. When Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70AD all literature in the city was destroyed along with the buildings. It's a theory, but I think it's reasonable to think that a lot of "secular" literature about early Christianity went up in smoke with Jerusalem.
5. The Bible is a reliable revelation of God's will for mankind. People malign the Bible as a divinely inspired book. After all, wasn't it written by men who wrote with different motivations, ideas, and from different perspectives? So, how can it be a book from God? I simply see that God used these differences to communicate what he wanted. People wrote from their perspective, in their language, within their cultures, and with their own intentions as they understood God. However, all that they wrote was all superintended by God so that what they wrote was God's word. God's normal modus operandi in the Bible is to work though people. Why is this so unbelievable? We are not robots, but free agents who are used by God. Also, those who want to reject the Bible as a revelation of God will often speak of people in Biblical times as superstitious, psychotic, or schizophrenic to account for miracles, dreams, and voices from God. But, that is purely an argument from silence.
6. The Bible is not contradicted by science, but substantiated by science! I'm not saying it's a science book, it's not intended to provide all knowledge of all things. It's a book intended to communicate God's will, period! However, as an example, Archeologists have successfully used the Bible to find ancient cities buried under thousands of years of dirt; cities that were once thought to be mythological.
It is often pointed out that the Bible reinforces unscientific ideas, such as the Bible referring to the sun rising and setting, rather than accurately communicating that the earth revolves around the sun. True, but the Bible is often written in phenomenological language, so it speaks of nature as humans experience it; not as it is scientifically. Nothing wrong with that, we still speak and write this way in our "scientific" times.
What about evolution? The Bible speaks of man as a creation by fiat, not evolution. As a matter of fact we don't know any more about the origin of man by evolutionary process than we do about the creation by fiat - scientifically, that is! Both the evolutionist and the creationist have to take the origin of man by faith. While the scientific method has displayed the possibility of evolution within species, it has not proven the origin of man by evolution.
7. In Jesus the Bible provides a solution to the problem that we humans have always agonized over. It's in all the great literature of ancient and modern history. Because of the short life we live, the suffering we experience, and calamitous world we live in, we naturally crave a hero to rescue us from this misery. The Bible displays Jesus as a dying and rising savior who rescues us from our plight. But, it's been well established that there were a number of ancient hero gods much like Jesus of the Bible, such as Mithra. but, to me, this does not destroy my faith by proving that Jesus was a copy or just another mythical hero. On the contrary. First of all, if there is a Satan, and I believe there is, wouldn't it be reasonable to think that he would counterfeit Jesus with other similar identities? Satan is not going to try to thwart Christianity with something totally opposite, but he's smart, so he uses counterfeit tactics. Also, it might be just as reasonable to understand these saviors previous to Jesus as simply foreshadows of the real thing to come, Jesus. Furthermore, these other characters were not historical figures, as was Jesus, who is rooted in history. And furthermore, the whole Bible, from cover to cover, ties itself to Jesus the Messiah and his heroic sacrifice for mankind on the cross. There isn't any story comparable in history. In other words, I am saying that all others are either counterfeits or foreshadows of the reality in Jesus.
8. The Bible gives hope of redemption to the worst offenders. The Bible records the conversion to Christianity of a Jewish Rabbi in training, who at one time was helping to execute Christians. Then, the Bible contains more New Testament books written by this man for the good of the Church than any other person. His name was Paul. Contrary to the growing popular belief that Paul never believed in a historical Jesus, Paul met Jesus and spoke more about his historical crucifixion than any other New Testament writer! Read Paul's letters for yourself, folks. Don't suck down the disinformation being spread around the internet about Paul. It's irresponsible.
Also, in Paul's books to the Romans and Galatians we have a tour de force presentation of the great doctrine of grace, of which we would know precious little without his exposition of this doctrine in these books.
This is the kind of God that I like, a God that would forgive a repentant murderer of Christians and then make him the greatest defender and proponent of Christianity in the New Testament. Paul has become the premiere example of salvation by grace to billions of Christians. The God of the Bible loves to take worthless, degenerate, obnoxious, prideful, morally ugly people, and then bring them to a repentance that changes both them and the world around them.
9. The Bible contains perhaps the most beloved book by Christians, the Gospel of John. It is so loved because of it's clear message of Christ's nature as God and his atoning death for us on the cross. This book smashes to pieces the popular liberal orientation that Jesus was just a great moral teacher, or an apocalyptic prophet, or the messiah who came to be the king of the Jews. The Gospel of John presents Jesus as God Himself breaking in to this sin sick world to lay down his life for mankind. John's Gospel is indeed, "The Good News!"
10. The Bible provides a needed moral compass for humanity. The 10 commandments were not just for Christians or Jews, but all humanity. Without the 10 commandments and the absolute moral standards communicated in the Bible we would be living in a sea of anarchy driven by what ever conflicting standards people choose to live by. The Bible's ethics, despite what atheists claim, is the basis for our modern jurisprudence.
In the last several years atheists against Christianity have been loudly charging that the God of the Bible is a brutal and capricious ogre. It seems to have become part of the Atheist's Gospel. It is claimed that He orders the executions of men, women and children, sanctions child sacrifice, and is blood thirsty. I almost have to keep from laughing when I hear of these charges, because these charges are caricatures of God, like one of those twisted cartoon sketches comedic artists draw of us at the fair. All of our features are distorted to make us look exaggerated. That's what is being done with God in this case.
God never sanctioned or condoned child sacrifice. The story of Jephtha supposedly sacrificing his daughter, recorded in Judges, is misunderstood. God explicitly commanded His people not to practice such sacrifices. In context there are other explanations of what happened. As for the "blood thisty" charge against God, I think it's misunderstood. It's not the blood itself that is important, but that the blood represents life. Jesus gave his life as a sacrifice for us, not his blood. Christians were never told to drink blood. The drinking of the blood of Jesus was symbolic and never to be taken literally. I guess one has to appreciate figurative language to understand this. As for the killing of the men, women and children in the book of Joshua, it was in fact commanded by God. How's that for not beating around the bush? But, just to put things in perspective let me add two things: 1) God was purging evil from the land to make way for God's people who were to be holy. They were to be a light of holiness and goodness and well being to the nations around them. Once in the land they were called upon by God to care for those around them by taking in and helping the "strangers" in the land, not killing all of them off but welcoming them. 2) The greater truth in this story is that every one of us ought to be condemned and snuffed out just like the Amalakites. The only reason God hasn't plowed all of us under is that he is gracious and long suffering with us. We ought to be glad we have any kind of peace, love and happiness in our lives, for by his standards we don't deserve it. We can either be angry at God for doing such a "brutal thing," or we can stand in awe of his justice and be amazed that he is so gracious with us to provide a path of acceptance and forgiveness.
I can go on and on with each of these top 10 cheers for the Bible, but I would rather answer questions or handle criticisms if you have any.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
The Pursuit of Virtue Over Happiness
I listened to a great pod cast by Psychologist Jordan Peterson on, "The Necessity of Virtue." You can listen to it on line for free at, Big Ideas Podcasts. You can access it here. This is a lecture that everyone will appreciate who is interested in understanding and solving our most basic human problem, suffering.
Peterson's point is that our modern pursuit of happiness is an invalid goal for life, because life is inherently about suffering. We might experience happiness, but only at unique and special times in our lives. We all get sick, suffer emotional and metaphysical troubles, and eventually die. There is no utopian life or magic button to press that can provide happiness as a sustained experience in life.
He explains that all the great world religions and timeless cultural stories teach us that suffering is endemic to life. Buddhism defines life itself as suffering. Judaism and Christianity teach that the fall of Adam and Eve brought suffering to us as a constancy, rather than an intermittent or exceptional experience.
In light of this fact we ought to pursue virtue, which can give us a sustained sense of fulfillment, or overarching satisfaction about life, in the face of suffering. Trying to transcend our own suffering by pursuing happiness as a goal for life will only lead to self loathing, despair, and anxiety. Then, as a consequence of this personal "hell" of despair, one digresses so easily in to doing evil.
He sites Nazi Germany as evidence that normal people can slip in to evil by not accepting life as it is. During the 20s and 30s in Germany, when life was hard and national pride had been crushed by the first world war, the German people chose to live as deluded cowards by not accepting their own suffering as part and parcel of life.
Could this very problem be a factor in the genesis of Jared Loughner's act of evil in Tuscon? It has been observed time and again, "There is a thin veneer of civility in all humans."
What Peterson means by virtue is living a life of authentic goodness. To live such a life one must accept suffering as the price for life and transcend its despair by getting outside of self- consciousness and seeking to live truthfully in the context of the suffering life.
When one accepts that life "will be" a hard knock then there is no need to fool ourselves and others by trying to be something we are not, or cannot be. It is to accept ourselves as limited, finite, and vulnerable beings. Once we accept life as it is then we will be less prone to doing evil because we are finding fulfillment in being authentic and less self-absorbed.
As a Christian I appreciate Dr. Peterson's, accurate, honest, and realistic portrayal of life. It also happens to be very Biblical. It is the reason I became a Christian in the first place. Christianity has a satisfactory explanation for why life is the way it is and Peterson expounds it accurately.
However, while I think Peterson accurately identifies the problem, he offers an incomplete solution. It seems to me that Peterson can only go so far as to encourage us to "fool" reality. In his concept of pursuing virtue over happiness he is teaching Existentialism 101. Watch a Woody Allen movie, such as Hannah and Her Sisters, and you will get an entertaining picture of man's problem of suffering and the Existentialists solution, which amounts to masking it. One can cover over personal and social problems with Peterson's solution, but the problem is still there and the destination of death is ever present. So, who are you really fooling?
Without taking anything away from Peterson, I would add that we accept our lot in life as suffering beings and after realizing it's stinging truth, accept the life saver that God offers us. The life saver is Jesus Christ, who suffered, died and was resurrected to provide a way for us to escape the ultimate destiny of this life; death.
True Virtue is to live our lives with the life saver in mind. In this way we not only transcend suffering, but also its culmination of death.
Peterson's point is that our modern pursuit of happiness is an invalid goal for life, because life is inherently about suffering. We might experience happiness, but only at unique and special times in our lives. We all get sick, suffer emotional and metaphysical troubles, and eventually die. There is no utopian life or magic button to press that can provide happiness as a sustained experience in life.
He explains that all the great world religions and timeless cultural stories teach us that suffering is endemic to life. Buddhism defines life itself as suffering. Judaism and Christianity teach that the fall of Adam and Eve brought suffering to us as a constancy, rather than an intermittent or exceptional experience.
In light of this fact we ought to pursue virtue, which can give us a sustained sense of fulfillment, or overarching satisfaction about life, in the face of suffering. Trying to transcend our own suffering by pursuing happiness as a goal for life will only lead to self loathing, despair, and anxiety. Then, as a consequence of this personal "hell" of despair, one digresses so easily in to doing evil.
He sites Nazi Germany as evidence that normal people can slip in to evil by not accepting life as it is. During the 20s and 30s in Germany, when life was hard and national pride had been crushed by the first world war, the German people chose to live as deluded cowards by not accepting their own suffering as part and parcel of life.
Could this very problem be a factor in the genesis of Jared Loughner's act of evil in Tuscon? It has been observed time and again, "There is a thin veneer of civility in all humans."
What Peterson means by virtue is living a life of authentic goodness. To live such a life one must accept suffering as the price for life and transcend its despair by getting outside of self- consciousness and seeking to live truthfully in the context of the suffering life.
When one accepts that life "will be" a hard knock then there is no need to fool ourselves and others by trying to be something we are not, or cannot be. It is to accept ourselves as limited, finite, and vulnerable beings. Once we accept life as it is then we will be less prone to doing evil because we are finding fulfillment in being authentic and less self-absorbed.
As a Christian I appreciate Dr. Peterson's, accurate, honest, and realistic portrayal of life. It also happens to be very Biblical. It is the reason I became a Christian in the first place. Christianity has a satisfactory explanation for why life is the way it is and Peterson expounds it accurately.
However, while I think Peterson accurately identifies the problem, he offers an incomplete solution. It seems to me that Peterson can only go so far as to encourage us to "fool" reality. In his concept of pursuing virtue over happiness he is teaching Existentialism 101. Watch a Woody Allen movie, such as Hannah and Her Sisters, and you will get an entertaining picture of man's problem of suffering and the Existentialists solution, which amounts to masking it. One can cover over personal and social problems with Peterson's solution, but the problem is still there and the destination of death is ever present. So, who are you really fooling?
Without taking anything away from Peterson, I would add that we accept our lot in life as suffering beings and after realizing it's stinging truth, accept the life saver that God offers us. The life saver is Jesus Christ, who suffered, died and was resurrected to provide a way for us to escape the ultimate destiny of this life; death.
True Virtue is to live our lives with the life saver in mind. In this way we not only transcend suffering, but also its culmination of death.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
He is There and He is not Silent
Many years ago I read a book by Francis Schaffer entitled, "He is There and He is not Silent." It is a philosophical treatment of the existence of God. Schaffer's argument is that God is real and he reveals himself to us in a variety of ways. However, he may not reveal himself as we would like.
I for one like evidence and I like tangible truth. Perhaps that's why I so much enjoy nature, science, and wilderness. In the natural world we see the results of God's creative power, as if he were a painter and the earth was His canvas.
The Scriptures tell us that God reveals himself in two basic ways: In The Scriptures and in creation. We distinguish between these two forms of revelation by referring to creation as God's General Revelation of Himself and the Scriptures as God's Special Revelation of Himself. Creation is a visible and tangible expression of God, but it cannot specifically tell us things about God and his will. The Scriptures do that for us. Psalm 19 is the great passage in the Scriptures that teach us this.
Is it any wonder that Christians tend to have a great appreciation for nature and wilderness education? When we head out in to the woods and mountains it's as if God were calling out to the Christian, "here I am, my beloved!"
When Job struggled with the issue of suffering he asked, as we all do in times of suffering, "God, where are you? Why will you not talk to me and explain to me why this is happening to me?!" God's answer to Job was, "Job, look at my creation! Look at what I have made!" God proceeded to give Job a tour de force of the greatness of His creation and it quelled Job's thirst to understand and know God. After that experience with God and his creation, Job found peace and restoration.
It was John Muir, the mountain mystic, who said, "let us go to the mountains and receive their glad tidings!" Indeed, when I want to experience the power, greatness, and majesty of my God, that's where I go.
I for one like evidence and I like tangible truth. Perhaps that's why I so much enjoy nature, science, and wilderness. In the natural world we see the results of God's creative power, as if he were a painter and the earth was His canvas.
The Scriptures tell us that God reveals himself in two basic ways: In The Scriptures and in creation. We distinguish between these two forms of revelation by referring to creation as God's General Revelation of Himself and the Scriptures as God's Special Revelation of Himself. Creation is a visible and tangible expression of God, but it cannot specifically tell us things about God and his will. The Scriptures do that for us. Psalm 19 is the great passage in the Scriptures that teach us this.
Is it any wonder that Christians tend to have a great appreciation for nature and wilderness education? When we head out in to the woods and mountains it's as if God were calling out to the Christian, "here I am, my beloved!"
When Job struggled with the issue of suffering he asked, as we all do in times of suffering, "God, where are you? Why will you not talk to me and explain to me why this is happening to me?!" God's answer to Job was, "Job, look at my creation! Look at what I have made!" God proceeded to give Job a tour de force of the greatness of His creation and it quelled Job's thirst to understand and know God. After that experience with God and his creation, Job found peace and restoration.
It was John Muir, the mountain mystic, who said, "let us go to the mountains and receive their glad tidings!" Indeed, when I want to experience the power, greatness, and majesty of my God, that's where I go.
Friday, January 7, 2011
True Grit or True Disgrace?
I went with Pam to see True Grit last night. The only movie I've wanted to go see at the theater for a couple of years. We both were disappointed!
I love Jeff Bridges, so I was expecting a great performance from him as the updated, Rooster Cogburn. All I can say is, "Jeff, I saw John Wayne in the original True Grit, and you're no John Wayne." Sorry my friend. It's not Jeff's fault, John Wayne gave his greatest performance in True Grit and he was great in most any movie he made. Also, he had the disadvantage of working with the weird and wacky Cohen brothers; the directors of this film.
In fact, performances in the place of Glen Campbell, Kim Darby, Strother Martin, Robert Duvall, and Dennis Hopper just didn't cut it. Plus, the whole story lacked the character and emotion of the original. For instance, the subtle and endearing father-daughter relationship between Mattie and Rooster was missing the entire film, even at the end when he rescued her. We never had a chance to see the relationship developed.
The True Rooster Cogburn, John Wayne
I think the Cohen brothers were focused on quirky details more than story development and character development.
The following scenes were characteristic of the poor quality of this film: Rooster Cogburn's "marbles in the mouth" responses in court (Bridges seemed tortured the entire film, trying to talk and act like Rooster. I had to focus to keep my attention on that scene), The dead man hanging from the tree scene with the Indian and old doc trading the body (what???), Rooster's drunken shooting scene with Matt Damon (how dumb and poorly conceived), Ned Pepper's teeth and ashen face (his rotten teeth and face were so weird and unnatural that it made him look like a zombie and not a real person), and the "fright night" snakes in the pit scene with Mattie. What a distracted film.
I blame the Cohen brothers for this remake atrocity! Now that this classic original film has been sullied with this dud will someone please come to the rescue with a proper remake.
I Loved the scenery, though.
I love Jeff Bridges, so I was expecting a great performance from him as the updated, Rooster Cogburn. All I can say is, "Jeff, I saw John Wayne in the original True Grit, and you're no John Wayne." Sorry my friend. It's not Jeff's fault, John Wayne gave his greatest performance in True Grit and he was great in most any movie he made. Also, he had the disadvantage of working with the weird and wacky Cohen brothers; the directors of this film.
In fact, performances in the place of Glen Campbell, Kim Darby, Strother Martin, Robert Duvall, and Dennis Hopper just didn't cut it. Plus, the whole story lacked the character and emotion of the original. For instance, the subtle and endearing father-daughter relationship between Mattie and Rooster was missing the entire film, even at the end when he rescued her. We never had a chance to see the relationship developed.
The True Rooster Cogburn, John WayneI think the Cohen brothers were focused on quirky details more than story development and character development.
The following scenes were characteristic of the poor quality of this film: Rooster Cogburn's "marbles in the mouth" responses in court (Bridges seemed tortured the entire film, trying to talk and act like Rooster. I had to focus to keep my attention on that scene), The dead man hanging from the tree scene with the Indian and old doc trading the body (what???), Rooster's drunken shooting scene with Matt Damon (how dumb and poorly conceived), Ned Pepper's teeth and ashen face (his rotten teeth and face were so weird and unnatural that it made him look like a zombie and not a real person), and the "fright night" snakes in the pit scene with Mattie. What a distracted film.
I blame the Cohen brothers for this remake atrocity! Now that this classic original film has been sullied with this dud will someone please come to the rescue with a proper remake.
I Loved the scenery, though.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Visit To Highline Llama Ranch In Wyoming
Last week Pam and I visited the Highline Trail Llama Ranch in Boulder Wyoming, owned and operated by Al and Sondra Ellis. Al Ellis asked me to consider joining his staff at the ranch to work and guide llama trips into the spectacular mountains of western Wyoming. This was to be a visit Pam and I would take to help us come to a decision.
Al and Sondra's Home on The Ranch
The Ellis Log Home Ready for Christmas
It was a difficult trip to make in the dead of winter and so we succumbed to the icy road conditions not long after we passed Baker City on I84. We hit a patch of snow covered ice and spun our truck around, first hitting the outside guard rail and then the inside median. A lot of damage to the front end, but we were not hurt and we were able to drive on to Ontario without any trouble. We stayed the night in Ontario and the next day, which was Sunday, we were able to find a Firestone tire company in Boise that was open. We left our truck with them for repairs that would enable us to get back to Portland. But, in the mean time we needed to rent a car to get to Wyoming. The only car rental we were able to find on a Sunday was at the Boise airport, so we rented a car and were able to continue onto Wyoming. The weather improved that day, but under the circumstances we drove it slow. We arrived at the Highline Trail Ranch at 10PM Sunday night and had an enjoyable time with Al and Sondra before we hit the sake at around midnight. Al and Sondra were the consummate hosts the entire week we stayed with them; great conversation and amazing food. 
Damage to Our Truck on the Way to Wyoming
I worked with Al on the ranch from Monday through Thursday with the goal of determining if this was the life I wanted to live for my next career. As I worked with his staff, Karen and Cathy, I learned as much as I could about the superior pack llamas that he was breeding. I don’t know of anyone else in the country that has incorporated the breeding goals which Al adopted in to his breeding program.
Pam, Al and Sondra at one of the Employee Cabins
Cathy and Karen Feeding the Boys
Joe, Al and Cathy Feeding the Boys in the Field
Joe Weighing the Llamas. They Get on the Scale One at a Time Just By Calling Their Name!
The Boys Coming in From the Field to Eat
Al is breeding what is called in the llama community, the “Classic Ccara Llama.” These llamas are specifically bred for working, which is what the word, “Ccara” means. Most Ccara llama breeders, like Al, use these llamas for trail packing and in Al’s case, packing in to the high mountains of Wyoming for multi day expeditions.
Spock, Al's Best Sire, Weighing in at Over 400 lbs.
The basic features of Classical Ccara llamas are as follows: Long and muscular legs, Muscular chest, Double coat of wool (a dense under coat and thin top coat, which is useful for working in both heat and cold), Short wool on the neck, Athletic ability, Strength for carrying heavy loads, and Endurance.
Most people in the llama breeding community use llamas for their wool and for showing in competitions. They are not as concerned with the working abilities of the animal. In fact, many Ccara llama breeders are disturbed that show competitions actually discourage the Ccara features of llamas, because judges are only looking for conformation that is suitable for beauty and not working ability. It would be like comparing Miss America with G.I. Jane. Which show girl would you want to carry your gear for 8 hours on mountains trails? Classic Ccara’s aren’t necessarily the prettiest llamas, but they are the toughest. It is believed that the Classical Ccara llama has been lost to us after Pizzaro came in to Peru in the 1500s and destroyed the great llama culture of the Inca’s. Al’s life goal is to restore these grand animals to their original working function. His llama ranch is a testament to his goals. He now has 200 Ccara llamas and he’s putting his ranch into a trust that will preserve his breeding goals after he is long gone.
Joe With a Yearling. As Large As My Four Year Old Sire, Apollo.
When I got in to llamas I soon learned about the difference between Classical Ccara Llamas and their woolly siblings. From the inception of my llama program I too have been working toward purchasing and breeding Classical Ccara llamas, but I must say that in my limited experience I haven’t seen the kind of llamas Al is breeding. At least the llamas I see in the Portland, Oregon vicinity. I would compare his llamas to the Budweiser Clydesdale horses and the ones I know in my region and experience to the normal run of the mill horse. For instance, his llamas are all between 400 and 500 pounds whereas mine are about 300 pounds. Are his better? Do they perform better? Do they have more stamina? That is a question I have yet to answer and my experience in the years to follow will help answer these questions. I have been a strength and conditioning coach for over 20 years and I have learned with humans that size does not always translate into superior performance. I’ll find out.
Six Month Olds Being Weighed. As Large As Some of My Yearlings.
We came away from Highline Llama Ranch greatly impressed, but we could not conclude that we would be compatible with the lifestyle. For now we are staying in Portland, but with a much better understanding and appreciation for the Classical Ccara Llama.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
My Llama Pilgrimage: Part II
I’ve had a lot of different reactions from friends, acquaintances, and co-workers about my llama ownership. Some people express curiosity, some fascination, and some even make fun of me. In any case, I find that people always want to know more about what I’m doing with these curious creatures. How did you get in to llamas? What are they like? How many do you have? And, on and on the questions go. I already gave the history of how I started with llamas, but there is more. Besides the fact that I was hooked on them as pack animals, I found out that these animals suit my “style” as a person. I am a busy person with other interests and responsibilities in life besides llamas. I don’t need an animal that is high maintenance and hard to train. Llamas fit that requirement. In addition, I admire them for their strength, athleticism, intelligence, quiet disposition, and noble beauty. I think the characterization of “beauty” is where many people depart with me. A lot of people think they look funky or goofy. One friend laughs at me because to him all llamas are like the one featured in the movie, “Napoleon Dynamite.” That llama was caricaturized as a weird and crazed llama.
After my first pack trip with Pam I knew that I had to get more llamas to expand my packing abilities. I purchased a few more pack sets and went back to Sherri to see if she had any more llamas to sell. She worked up a deal with me to buy three llamas that she thought would be perfect for my interests. So, my next purchase was Angel, Cher, and Fancy Pants.
2010 Summer Packers: Apollo, Rainy, and Cher. These three provided a lot of joy for Pam and I on two pack trips this summer. The rest of the llamas were too pregnant or too young!
To this day, I think this was my best purchase. At first, though, it didn’t feel that way. None of these llamas had been trained and they were already ten years old. I have found that it is harder to train an older llama; I think we humans are the same!
The first day I met Cher at Sherri’s ranch I approached her with a saddle in my hands, intending to easily put it on her, but instead of cooperating with me she spit in my face, which only made me more determined to saddle her. When I finally got the saddle on her, but before I could get it secured, she bolted away and drug the partially secured saddle with her all the way back to her barn, about a quarter mile away. I never want to lose a fight with a llama, so I patiently brought her back to tie her up at the original location and after a while she settled down enough to accept the saddle. Cher is a nervous llama by nature, but with a few pack sessions she became my best packer. In fact, over the years she has been a great pack llama leader and has trained all my other llamas in bridge, log and water crossings. She’s tall and a hard packer with a gentle spirit. I later found out that she is a descendant of the great pack llama, Poncho Villa, who is highly thought of in breeder circles. I wish I could breed her, but she has never accepted any male I’ve tried to breed to her. Her sister, Angel, was a descent packer, but her body conformation kept her from performing as well as Cher.
Cher was our first great packer and at 16 years old she still the best and trains the youngsters. She will always have a special place in my heart.
The third llama in this purchase was Fancy Pants. She was hard to handle at first because she was so nervous, but I was far more interested in using her to begin my breeding program than trying to make her a packer. I figured the best and most cost effective way to build a pack team was to breed your own llamas. She is the best athlete that I have, but I never have been able to take her on a pack trip until this past year. I’ve tried to keep her pregnant and producing babies; that’s how highly I think of her body conformation and abilities. She has produced three beautiful llamas since I purchased her; Columbus, Aspen and Summit.
This is Fancy Pants on the Left and her one year old daughter Aspen on the right. Aspen will be a fine breeder and packer.
This is Fancy Pants with her most recent cria, Summit. Summit is now 6 months old and I have not seen better body conformation in a llama!
Columbus was Fancy’s first cria and our first cria! I bred her with one of Sherri’s studs, Canadian Mountain Man; a llama with an eager but gentle disposition, which is exactly what you want in a packer. Columbus was actually born on Columbus Day, so Pam appropriately named her. He quickly became our pride and pleasure. He was a beautiful llama with wonderful wool coloring and the most gentle disposition I have seen in any llama. He would right up to Pam and rub up against her, seeking her attention.
But, at six months something bad happened. About the time Columbus came of age to be weaned, at six months, I purchased a male stud by the name of Apollo. Apollo was two years old and was a fine llama in the lineage of the famous pack stud, Black Thunder. Pack Llama breeders often speak of Black Thunder with glowing expressions. Apollo had just come from a herd of 5 or 6 males who had all been fighting with each other, which is what llamas do, since they are always jostling for a position within the herd. So, when Apollo and Columbus were joined together it was a terrible match. A little six month old with a near full grown two year old! Apollo chased Columbus all over the field repeatedly tackling him. After a week together I came out to the field and found Columbus hiding in a black berry thicket, shivering. I gathered him up in my arms and took him to an isolation pen so that I could feed him and care for him. From that day on Columbus’ health declined rapidly. Within a week he died. At that time I wasn’t sure what had happened to him, but my first deduction was that it was a parasite problem. At the vet’s instructions I took him in for a necropsy when he died. After the Vet was done he came out to the waiting room and told me that he had never seen such a bad case of twisted gut before. Twisted gut is where the intestines of the animal get tied so that the animal cannot digest food. Apollo had chased him down and tumbled him over one too many times. I later found out that you don’t put a two year old male with a six month old male. The two year old is still going through his terrible twos and you are asking for trouble when putting a two year old with a young llama. Well, I got trouble, and the worst kind. Pam was so disappointed, because she bonded with little Columbus more than any of the other llamas. I felt terrible for not knowing this basic principle of herd management and from that experience I became more determined to better understand these creatures and how to manage them.
Our First Cria, Columbus. Born on Columbus Day he was a very special llama to Pam. We miss him!
A few months later I figured that I had to increase my breeding female stock, so I purchased another female from the Joyful Llama Ranch, operated by Joyce O’Hollaran. Her name is Kissy and I found her to be an aggressive packer, though a bit temperamental. One time I had Kissy leading a pack train of llamas on a trip in to the Indian Heaven Wilderness and she got in to a conflict with Cher. She abruptly stopped on the trail and plopped down, as though she were a spoiled two year old child. I couldn’t budge her, so I disconnected her and took all the other llamas around her and went up the trail while she stubbornly laid there. She spat at each llama as they passed her on the trail, as if to say to the them, “I'm trying to teach Joe that I'm the herd boss!” Normally, she is just fine.
This is Glacier at one year, born to Kissy just a few days before Aspen. She is a beautiful llama with a lot of potential as a packer and breeder.
Between Kissy and Fancy Pants I felt that I had two fine breeding females. Apollo wasn’t ready to breed at that time he came in to the herd, due to his age and inexperience, so I put one of Joyce’s other breeding studs, Quartz, with the two girls. A year later I had two babies (Cria, as they are called by llama breeders) born to the Fancy Pants and Kissy. Fancy birthed Aspen and Kissy birthed Glacier. At the time of this writing these two females are a year and a half old and they are as big and as fine as any pack llamas I have ever seen. I intend to use them as breeders, but they are already looking to be fine packers, as well. I learned from Joyce O’Holloran to get the females pregnant in the spring, pack with the pregnant females during the Summer, and then birth their Cria in the next spring. So, that’s the philosophy I am following.
At the time of this writing I have a total of 13 llamas and most of them are yet to be proven. They are young and full of potential. In due time I will be able to saddle them up and wander off in to the sunset as far and wide as one desires.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
My Llama Packing Pilgrimage: Part I
When I decided to purchase my first llama five years ago it was the beginning of a whole new world for me. It wasn’t something I fell in to, or a sudden knee jerk interest, as it was with the genesis of a few other interests I have taken up over the course of my life. I had a long time fascination with these exotic, woolly and majestic creatures.
My interest in llamas began early in my adult life after hearing about hikers using them as mountain pack animals. At that time I was an avid backpacker, but having been raised a city boy on a minister's salary I could not envision owning or keeping llamas. I considered them an impractical luxury I could not afford, so they remained in the curiosity box of my mind for many years.
Then, five years ago a friend of mine and I were backpacking in the rugged wilderness of Hells Canyon. I was carrying a heavy pack and I began experiencing pain in my left hip not long after we began the long and grinding climb up to Freeze Out Pass. That night, while we were camping on the rim of the canyon, for no particular reason that I can recall, I started sharing with him my interest in llamas and their use as pack animals. He happened to own a 32 acre farm not far from where I lived in my Portland Suburb, and he said to me with an excitement that surprised me, “let’s buy some llamas and put them on my property. They can carry your gear for you and it would take the stress off your hip.” I never expected that kind of interest from Matthew, because he is not an animal person. He loves the world of machinery and technology with little patience for any kind of animals.
As we talked it out over the camp fire that night we concluded that it would be a win/win situation for us to own llamas. I would take care for the animals on his property and he would get a property tax deferral for keeping and using animals on his property. I would pay him a small fee for his tax purposes. He wouldn’t have to do anything. The plan materialized that fast! Suddenly, what I thought was out of reach for me was now within sight. I was going to be a llama owner and packer!
When we got back to Portland I called the first llama ranch I could find on the internet, Hidden Oaks Llama Ranch, owned by Sherri Talmon. We purchased three llamas from Sherri; one owned by me, one by my friend Matthew, and one by his step father, Mike who also lived on the property. We didn’t have much money to spend, so Sherri sold us some inexpensive rescue llamas. These llamas were abused or neglected by their previous owners, so that they needed to be “rescued” from the poor conditions in which they were being managed. Sherri was not in to packing with llamas, but her focus was on the woolly type of llama that makes a good show animal at county fairs. Although she was solely into showing llamas she knew enough about pack llamas to direct us toward what she called the, “light wool” llamas, which she knew packers like to use. I now refer to them by their proper title, “Classic Llamas.” Classic Llamas are a breed of llama that have light wool on there necks, long legs, muscular but sleek bodies, and cat like athletic ability.
The Llama I picked out was a gelding named, Mr. Smokey and Matthew’s llama was a female named, Rainy. Juliet was the third llama, who was picked by Matthew’s step father, Mike. Juliet was not right for packing due to her small stature and blocky body type. But, Mike liked the way she looked and chose her on that basis. As Matthew and I had planned over the camp fire a month before, I took responsibility to care for all three of them, but I would also have the benefit of using all of them for packing if I chose to.
My first llama, Mr. Smokey
I started out by purchasing only one saddle and pannier set, mostly because they are spendy. Pack equipment doesn’t come cheap, even used on Craigslist. Also, I was experimenting and you never want to go in to something whole hog when you are in the experimental phase. I was totally in the dark about training and llama packing techniques, yet I had a couple of things going for me, enthusiasm and access to internet information. Although in retrospect, both served to make me able, but dangerous. If I had to do it over I would never start out the way I did, but at the time I was floundering in darkness. In those early days I wish I had personal access to people who were experienced packers and knew what to look for in a llama, how to train them, and what kind of equipment to use. The internet information on llama packing is quite sparse and there is no substitute for a mentor or teacher.
Equipped with my one pack set and a slightly trained Rainy, my wife Pam and I went on our first llama pack trip to Duffy Lake, just below Three Fingered Jack in the Central Cascades. I didn’t take Mr. Smokey on this trip for one simple and practical reason, Rainy was easier to handle. I had no idea that it was unorthodox to pack with only one llama. Llamas are very social creatures and function far better in a pair or in a group. They need each other… they feed off of each other.
Our first llama pack trip to Duffy Lake with Rainy
The trail to Duffy Lake was only a three mile hike, which I found on the internet listed as a good llama training pack trip. After we packed her up and snapped the trail head pictures we were starting out on our first pack trip as pleased as two dancing dervishes. But, shortly after starting up the trail our dancing turned to disappointment. We didn’t get 200 yards before Rainy laid down on the trail. Pam was leading her and I was up ahead taking pictures of her and Rainy coming up the trail. As I watched her stop and drop to the ground I remember looking at her with a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. I did not know this could happen, but then, I had never been llama packing before, either. I think Rainy laid down on the trail at least six times on the way up that day. In the five years of my packing experience I haven’t found anything more frustrating on a pack trip than to have your llama lie down on the trail, so that was a tough experience to endure. They can be stubborn and, as some llama handlers like to say, they are masters of passive resistance.
It wasn't her fault that she laid down on the trail; I take all the blame. I made two mistakes on that inaugural pack trip besides bringing her without a companion: I didn’t properly prepare her in training and I over loaded her. Llamas can technically carry a third of their body weight and she weighed about 300 pounds. I must have had all of a hundred pounds on her, but this was her first pack trip and as I was about to learn, you don’t do that to a llama who hasn’t packed before. That was probably the longest three miles I ever hiked in my life, as well as the most exhausting. Try getting a stubborn llama to stand up they don’t want to. For a few hours I felt like a Sumo wrestler, pushing, circling, butting, pulling, and lifting his opponent.
Then, in addition to that frustration, when we were only a quarter of a mile from our destination, we came to a bridge crossing where she abruptly stopped at the wood bridge deck. Here was yet another gap in her preparation; bridge crossing. Llamas are fearful animals by nature, which is one of their defense mechanisms. They don’t like to cross bridges because it’s scary for them and they need to learn through patient training that bridges are not a threat to them. I never trained her to cross a bridge before that trip. It never crossed my mind that bridge training was needed. Of course, I tried the gentle and patient approach of trying to coax her across the bridge, but that didn’t compliment my disposition at the time, given the Sumo matches I had with her earlier. It wasn’t long before I was pushing and Pam was pulling. Once the inertia was broken and she got her feet on the bridge she slowly crossed, but not without cautiously looking down from one side of the bridge to the other, as if she were a tight rope walker unsure of himself. But, how do you tell a llama that it’s less scary not to look down?
Mercifully we arrived at our campsite without any more obstacles and we gave Rainy a well deserved rest. Despite the trail obstacles, we had a great time on that first pack trip. I learned more about packing with llamas from that singular trip than any other time in the next five years, even if it was learning the hard way. After that trip I started preparing Rainy and other llamas much more rigorously, which included going up hills. She never became the barn storming llama that I wanted her to be and through training other llamas I learned that some are not strong packers by nature and some are. Just like humans, some have it and some don't. Rainy has always had a tendency to be lazy or slow, but she didn't lay down on the trail again and bridges became a walk in the park.
After arriving at the lake my frustration from the hike up gave way to a satisfied thankfulness to have her. For the first time in my backpacking experience we had creature comforts with us that we could never have carried by ourselves. That night we enjoyed a gourmet dinner with a glass of wine seated in chairs at the foot of our camp fire; all of which was carried by our mysterious and peacefully friend guarding our tent for the night. Instead of being dissuaded by the day's experience I was hooked on llama packing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)