Total Pageviews

Saturday 17 February 2018

Grasshoppers? That's very Generous!

As another Friday prepares to draw to a close and the majority of working folk looking forward to the coming weekend, I settle down at home after another stint in the sauna. Alex is about to bring in the dinner. Then suddenly, Ow! Ow! Arrgh!

OH, NOT AGAIN! I thought, as I tried to shut out any images within my imagination of a racing ambulance whisking her back to hospital. Yes, its another bout of sharp pain down her spine, a frequent situation which I refer to as "having a downer" - a term I coined up myself in reference to these frequent experiences. It is these downers which lies beneath our notion of "living on a knife edge" which made up part of the title of last week's blog post.

I escorted her to the sofa where she took a variety of painkillers and I encouraged her to rest. Fortunately I had a supply of those Deep Heat pads, which is a kind of jelly within a linen liner which has that propensity to radiate heat into the skin when in contact. How comforting these are for her. And the wonders of modern medical science - a jelly-like substance which can radiate heat. Imagine that. Quite a contrast to the fruit-flavoured dessert which had to be refrigerated before I could enjoy at the table during the days of boyhood. 



Yet although my beloved had received the best of attention short from a paramedic, whilst in the kitchen, my fears and anxieties turned to that of rage. Angry at God. Angry at his apparent lack of love for us. A feeling of frustration on how much more does God seems to love other, more fortunate and better educated people - especially the middle classes - as I remember on Facebook all those photos of wedding smiles and white cloth Reception tables, undergraduates lining up in front of the camera to pose in their smart hired suit and ties, snapshots of mothers cuddling their newborn and toddlers, all of them emerging onto the laptop screen as I slowly scroll downwards. Oh, it's so easy to compare our life's downers with their joyful, happy-go-lucky way of living. I am beginning to wonder whether the sceptics had a point when they say that there is an element of emotional harm emanating from these social websites. After all, as I was already reminded, people only want everyone else to see the good things in their lives, often to entice envy, and not so much of life's shadier side. Everything is so nice on the wedding day - suits, wedding dresses, bridesmaids, flowers, wedding rings, the sumptuous Reception dinner afterwards, the multi-tiered wedding cake so beautifully decorated that the pillars between each tier gives them a resemblance to the gates of Heaven.

But once the honeymoon is over, nothing appears in Facebook of the first quarrel, a sudden loss of temper, unpaid bills, dirty dishes piling up, disagreements on what to watch on TV, frustration over the bed not made up, morning bad breath, and heaven forbid - daily stresses at work eventually leading to male erectile dysfunction in bed. No, those sort of things don't appear in Facebook. They never do.

Or in the case of the mother showing off her young. Then the deep Internet silence when it comes to constant crying, refusing to eat, more food on the bib rather than in the mouth, soiled and smelly diapers, disturbed nights. Or the case of undergraduates lining up in their identical suits, white shirts and ties. Oh so very nice. So posh and all. Too bad that they rarely - if ever - do they pose in front of the camera wearing denims with holes at the knees. And I was very surprised to see such tatty garments on sale at a Primark clothes store complete with holes and loose thread. I had to smile. I wonder how my long-deceased uncle would have reacted if I had presented myself to such a smart-conscious RAF Warrant Officer dressed like that! Little wonder that Facebook is deprived of such snapshots.

Or in the case of The Daily Mail national newspaper. Especially the online version. Just about every day, unless an Earth-shaking disaster had occurred, the headline focuses on celebrity, and in particular the daily antics of Prince Harry and his fiance Meghan Markle. Generally, I have respect for both people. But with Markle, an American actress and not fully Caucasian, I would have preferred she had married Harry's older brother William. Because Prince William is third in line for the Throne, he will eventually sit there. And I would have love to have known the nation's reaction to having a black queen sitting on her throne. But too bad. Unless a disaster of catastrophic proportions overtakes Prince Charles, his son William and grandchildren George and Charlotte, Harry and Meghan will never sit on the throne. And yet the Media loves to highlight their presence as if they will take the throne tomorrow.

And whether the right-wing newspaper has a passion for the tie, I can't really be dogmatic. However, it has in the past criticised BBC News journalists and reporters for going on air without a tie, and as the paper had put it, "Standing in front of the camera with shirts open at the neck to impress their girlfriends back at home." So uncouth. So common. And so anti-British. And on the online version of The Daily Mail, there is a celebrity column on the right margin of the page. This has aroused interest when a male celebrity appears on the prompt pictured in casual open neck shirt. For all I have to do is click on the prompt, scroll down and wait expectantly. I can guarantee that a full-length photo of the celebrity dressed in suit, shirt and tie will appear lower down on the page. And sure enough, it always does. Hence my interest in the newspaper's obsession with smartness. Smartness being equal to celebrity status, Englishness in all its glory, and just one step below royalty itself. And perceived as worthy of God's greater love.

And so I live in a nation where smart dress generates respect. And more than mere respect, reverence. Especially when celebrity reaches royal status. Like the time I was having a discussion with a devout Englishman over the death of Princess Diana in 1997. His reason was that her death was necessary to prevent her from marrying a Muslim, and therefore saving our country from having an Islamic queen as Head of State. When I questioned whether Diana was in heaven or hell, the devout Englishman was offended. Of course Diana is in heaven. She is a Royal. English royalty automatically inherits eternal life with God. And I guess this must include good old Henry VIII and his rather colourful reign. 

And so our reverential respect for royalty continues to this day and will continue into the future, no matter how loudly the republicans will protest. Perhaps that is why I find history to be so interesting. And not just British history but world history going back into ancestry. I could indeed ask: What is the difference between our nation's reverence to the Queen and the reverence shown to the Egyptian Pharaoh by his subjects? I would say that his subjects had enough reverence to build a massive pyramid to house his tomb after his death. And these builders were not slaves, as previously thought. Rather, they were paid workers, with highly skilled stonemasons among them. And during the years of pyramid construction, these workers were looked after well, including provision of housing. Yet the whole project reflected the deification of their king to the point of salvation in the afterlife for both king and citizen alike.



And the same applied to the Roman emperors. When one of these kings, Augustus Caesar in 27 BC, initiated Pax Romana, a society at last free from war and military expansion, their citizens were very grateful, yet still found it difficult to worship an abstract quality, so they proceeded to deify the Emperor. By the time Emperor Nero came along, which was during Apostle Paul's ministry, honouring him as Lord in a sense of divinity was obligatory. Either that or risk the death penalty. Christian believers were given a stark choice on who is their Lord and God: Emperor Nero or Jesus Christ of Nazareth?

And so ancient history goes. Although both Egypt and Rome are credited as historical facts, it is so unfortunate that the early chapters of Genesis are relegated to that of mythology. And amazingly enough, the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is often fictionalised as well. For example, many years ago, around 1978 or 79, I read in The Sun national newspaper that Jesus of Nazareth did not die on the cross but instead fell unconscious. Believing he had died, he was taken down and placed in the tomb and its mouth sealed with a movable stone. After this, he regained consciousness and somehow managed to roll the stone from the inside of the tomb, and that despite all his injuries! Then he walked off and disappeared into some faraway country, possibly to Iraq or even Persia. And he was never seen again. And so this story was published as historic in a national newspaper. And this was the newspaper which held special honour for the great British Bulldog and imperialistic supremacy. And the six literal days of Creation? Anyone worth his salt who believes in that deserves to be ridiculed or ignored! Yet I can believe in something in addition to a literal six-day divine Creation. And that is my acceptance of the island continent of Atlantis existing before the Flood.

This began when I watched TV documentaries on sub-marine projects on our small monochrome set during my boyhood days. How I was fascinated by undersea scenery! And how divers were searching a shipwreck or working on an undersea building or repair project. And so the sea floor and its geological features and marine life became something of interest. And especially at the mid-Atlantic Ridge volcanic formation, after visiting the active crater of Mt. Etna in 1982. Since backpacking Italy and standing on the lip of an active crater, my fascination with volcanism began to grow, along with my curiosity over Atlantis, after reading about the ancient Greek philosopher Plato testifying of its past existence.

Then I could well ask: Why shouldn't Atlantis ever exist? What verifiable proof can be submitted to debunk the whole theory of its existence? And in the most convincing way? Does it pose a threat? Does it stir fear of divine judgement, just as the Flood poses a threat of divine judgement, so this Biblical catastrophe is mythologised and dismissed from history? It is something I find worth pondering.

It's thanks to Google Earth that seems to drive home the reality of this sunken island rather than to debunk it. I include this image here:


The image, although rather small here, can be examined in far greater detail and clarity on Google Earth or on Google Maps. What it shows looks like to be a vast plain crossed by a mountain range roughly resembling an archer's bow. True enough, the two tectonic plate edges meets right in the middle of the mountain range. So does the San Andreas Fault running through California, which also consists of two tectonic plates moving side by side in opposite directions from each other. I can imagine an Atlantean standing on the plain south of the mountain range, say at co-ordinates 34.28.25 degrees North and 28.57.39 degrees West. As he travels north, he will begin to see the mountain range appear above the horizon. By attempting to work out the contortion of the landscape with the help of the numeric information given by Google Earth, it looks as though the whole range has an average height of 4,450 metres approx, subject to the original height of the southern plain above sea level before the Flood.

This compares well with the height of Mt. Ararat, which is 5,137 metres high, or Mt Blanc of the European Alps, which is 4,810 metres high. According to Google Earth, the plain south of the mountain range is roughly 3,530 metres below the sea surface at its deepest point, although this varies significantly, for much of the plain is around or less than 3,000 metres below sea level. To say that the Azores Islands are the summits of the Atlantis mountain range remaining above sea level looks to be so plausible.

This seems to add verification to what the Bible says in Psalm 104:8, that the mountains rose and the valleys sank down as the Flood of Noah retreated. Even if we allow the southern plain of Atlantis sink by as much as 3,700 metres according to the Scripture, this is but an apple skin when compared to the circumference and diameter of our planet. The rising of the mountains and the sinking of the valleys are barely discernible when the surface of the Earth is seen from space. Since the Flood is debunked by modern science, it does not surprise me when the reality of Atlantis is debunked as well. Therefore I find no trouble in accepting both as historic.

So where does Atlantis and the Flood connect with Facebook images? It seems a long shot, doesn't it? It goes to show that compared to the size of our home planet, we are mere grasshoppers, according to Isaiah 40:22 and Numbers 13:33. And that is quite a generous statement. If the difference of 3,700 metres is like the thickness of an apple skin to the whole fruit when compared with the size of Earth itself, then where do we stand? Are we more like microbes? Molecules even? Or more like atoms by comparison. Really, I find it amazing how God would even notice our existence. But the reality is, not only are we created by him in his own image, but he loves us enough to send his Son as a human, to give himself as an atonement for all our sins, and to bring us into his family. If Atlantis must sink before him, and the Earth, Moon and Sun bows before him, then what significance is man made social status in relation to him?

3 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete