Why I Converted To Eastern Orthodoxy : Author Frank Schaeffer

Frank Schaeffer Author of  "Dancing Alone" and his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-CJhPlmznA

Father Thomas Hopko "Abolition of Man" part VI

Part VI:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZIg0myKo6Q

Father Thomas Hopko "Abolition of Man" part V

Part V:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVy_GlREPXI

Father Thomas Hopko "Abolition of Man" part IV

Part IV:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvupyyIiHbY

Father Thomas Hopko "Abolition of Man" part III

Part III:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWk3s2WEIps

Father Thomas Hopko "The Abolition of Man" part II

Part II:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFrKZuK_5bk

Father Thomas Hopko "Abolition of Man" part I

Part I :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ru7f2WH8oWM


thanks to Father Thomas Hopko and C.S. Lewis

Why Is There No Official Orthodox Position on the Issue of Evolution and Origins?

Good question here!


Q & A: Why Is There No Official Orthodox Position on the Issue of Evolution and Origins?

I received the following important question in an email recently for which I have been given permission to reprint, along with my answer, below:

Question:

I am having difficulties with a particular issue; the issue of understanding Evolution and its place in the Eastern Orthodox church today.

I am a "cradle" Orthodox and so my experience, through the Orthodox church, on this topic has been that "Christ is not a decendant of monkeys/apes". I have been taught to be loyal to these matters and I have always considered it disrespectful to even want to consider Christ as an ape. Infact, Elder Paisios has boldly stated that it is "blasphemous" to think in this way (this comment can be found in his Epistles). I place much trust in these Saints and Elders of our church, since I have also experienced their divine wisdom first hand and so this is the line of thinking I have comfortably adopted without questioning it using man's rational mind.

What I have come to understand is that our modern day Church is infact divided on this matter. There are two groups, those who are compatabilist or those who are incompatabilist (cf. OrthodoxWiki for an explanation of terms).

Not dwelling on Patristics (since I am not a theologian), I can think of a modern day example of Father Seraphim Rose who holds the position of an incompatablist (ie. he does not support the idea that Christ is a decendant of a monkey).

My dilemma is, and what is eating me I suppose, why does the administrative Orthodox church not hold a position on this matter when it is clear that many of our Saints do? Is there "room for everyone on this matter" (as a new convert boldly stated to me) when only one group can be right. In Orthodoxy (or even philosophy) there can only ever be One Truth so both groups can not be right and, like I mentioned I prefer to place my trust in divine revelation than man made proofs.

I understand from Scripture that, being challenged by the Pharisees as to whether he is from the devil or from God, that Christ announces that a house divided can not stand ... so then, why is our Orthodox church allowing itself to be divided on this topic please?

Further, for someone like myself, who places a huge trust and emphasis on the enlightened words of not just ordinary Orthodox but amazing saints like Elder Porfyrios ... am I sinning for standing up and defending Christ's image? I have been called an ideologist (which I am not).

I hope I make some sense, once upon a time the Church had no answers with regards to the Arian controversy and was divided. Then God revealed through miraculous means that their could only be "one truth" (on that matter) through miraculous means ... This topic for me IS a modern day controversy and though some people think - what does it have to do with salvation, I wonder how important it is to defend the "Tree of Life" from the "Tree of Death" (Darwinism and its variations).

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Answer:

I completely agree with your evaluation of this topic. It is true the Orthodox Church has no "official" position on this topic, but the reason for this is because the topic is within the realm of science and not theology. Scientific theories are adopted one day and dropped the next based on the evidence, and if the Church was to take a position on the topic it could lead to the same danger that condemned someone like Copernicus or Galileo in the West for disagreeing with an official position of the Church on a scientific matter. In the Orthodox Church, we have avoided such controversies and have always adapted with the scientific theories of the day. Both science and theology are in the business of teaching truth and its conclusions can never contradict one another. The former is based on the evidence while the second on revelation. The former deals with the creation while the latter deals with the Creator.

However, science is one thing and philosophy is another. The problem with modern science is that it has as its foundations not mere science but in fact a certain philosophical worldview. This is what Darwinism is precisely - it is a philosophical worldview through which scientific evidence is understood. The danger in using science like this is that it creates a story, or even myths if you will, that are not based on evidence but on mere conjecture and imagination. So if the Church were to take a position, I would encourage it to condemn the use of philosophical presuppositions when evaluating scientific evidence.

Unfortunately very few, if any, Orthodox theologians are studying this topic to be able to even write about it. The reason I make some posts on it in my weblog is because I do want Orthodox to be more aware of these issues. It is one of many topics I plan to tackle more formally, God willing. I feel very passionately about it because when I was in 9th grade I followed the logical conclusions of my High School Biology class and ended up being an atheist. When I finally came back to Faith I vowed that I would study the depths of this topic and unmask it, which I have been and will.

Regarding the theory of Evolution, I should mention that the great majority of Orthodox scholars believe in Theistic Evolution. In their fear of opposing the science of the day, they have in turn subjected our theology to the interpretations and conjectures of scientists by doing this. And as I mentioned earlier, what they are in fact doing is intermingling Orthodox theology with Darwinian philosophy - not science. This is very grievous to me, and as you mentioned, it is not the view supported by the Saints. St. Nektarios actually wrote a book on Darwinian Evolution and he is one of the first Christians to offer a critique on this topic in the early 20th century. I recommend also the booklet Biological Evolutionism by Dr Constantine Cavarnos, a former Harvard professor of Philosophy, who also evaluates Darwinian theory as a philosophy which contradicts Orthodoxy and lacks any scientific support.

Though I am sympathetic to Creationism, I would prefer not to be called a Creationist either. Creationism in some ways does also what Darwinism does, but instead of a philosphy, Creationism mixes theology with science. Thus this also limits both theology and science. It is also too literalistic when it comes to Scriptural interpretations and such exegetical methods are not adopted or endorsed by the Church Fathers in the strict sense. Creationism is basically a reaction against Darwinism and a product of Fundamentalist Protestantism.

If I were to put my support anywhere, though on a somewhat limited scale, it would be the Intelligent Design movement. Though very misunderstood by its critics and by Orthodox theologians like Metropolitan John Zizioulas who critiques it, it actually does not stray from Scriptural and Patristic interpretations of how we can evaluate our origins (it was actually the type of science adopted by the Church Fathers). It also does not take a theological position of any sort. What people don't realize is that before Darwinism, the scientific method was primarily one of Intelligent Design. It basically attributes the irreducible complexity of the universe to a designer, whoever that designer is. It does not make use of Scripture or any sort of revelation, since science should not draw upon any sources of revelation or even philosophy. Darwin actually set out to prove ID was wrong after the death of his daughter made him angry against God and caused him to become a skeptic. Darwinism thus became a critique of ID. Since the 1990's ID has been making a major comeback since the evidence in fact supports the theory of irreducible complexity, most notably at the cellular level. The Darwinist arguments these days are merely rhetorical.

So yes, when it comes to scientific issues, we are as fish swimming upstream as far as guidance from the Church comes these days. But if we separate science from both philosophy and theology, as well as separate theology from both science and philosophy, we can honestly evaluate where the evidence lies. What is most important is that the truths of Orthodoxy can never be compromised by true and honest science.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

Thanks to John Sanidopoulos:

 

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/11/q-why-is-there-no-official-orthodox.html

 

 

Q & A: Young Earth or Old Earth Creationism: A Question of Origins

Q & A: Young Earth or Old Earth Creationism: A Question of Origins

Question:

John,

You have alluded to young earth ideas in your blog. So how do you respond to articles like this which claim the recent discovery that the Amazon River is 11 million years old?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/amazonriverdatedto11millionyearsold

I'm familiar with Ken Ham. But I tend to be a little embarrassed by the young earth Christians. Perhaps that is really a problem with me.

Answer:

Just to clarify, I never said I was a young earth creationist. I never said I was an old earth creationist either. I would venture to say that I am a supporter of the Intelligent Design movement, but the movement does not take a position on the age of anything (most personal opinions of ID supporters lean towards old earth).

My opinion on the matter of origins, from an objectively scientific view point, is that it lies in mystery. I don't think science has the means to tell us how old man is, how old life is, how old the earth is, or even how old the universe is. Estimations could be made based on certain data, but it is all conjecture. Even the age of the Amazon (see link above) is based on speculation according to data, but the data these scientists analyzed is set according to a model of how things should have been or might have been and not necessarily how they were. I'm not denying the Amazon is 11 million years old, but I'm pretty sure there is no objective proof that it is. I don't think we will ever know in fact, because in order for data like that to be objective we have to know every detail of what was going on in that specific area every single day over the past 11 million years. No technology can possibly provide that information except a time machine (which we yet do not have). You can recreate it on a computer, but how do you know your recreation is objective? How do you know you havn't missed some very important information in your analysis? In the end, it all is just very silly and pointless.

Even an honest scientist will tell you that there really is no such thing as absolutes with the scientific method, especially if it cannot be observed at the present moment (like a sunrise, or gravitation, or weather conditions). Even a scientific fact is fallible and is open to scrutiny. A scientific fact is merely assumed to be true, and can be refuted at any point. This quote from Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould illustrates the issue nicely:

"Moreover, 'fact' doesn't mean 'absolute certainty'; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical world. ...In science 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
Thus the great flaw of science is that it ultimately cannot provide absolute truth. Scientists who claim absolute truth on a matter, especially if it cannot be presently observed, are simply quacks. Their science has become a religion and their opinions are their god.

Religious people can be just as dogmatic on this subject. Faith, however, does not give us the right to be absolutists. Absolutes for people of faith can only come through direct revelation. And only direct revelation can truly answer the ultimate questions. As far as a direct revelation on the age of the universe, or the earth, or man, it has never been revealed. Scripture certainly does not provide an objective answer because Scripture is not a direct revelation of God. As Fr. John Romanides has stated:

"Is there a single Church Father who identifies Holy Scripture with the experience of theosis itself? No, there is not one, because God's revelation to mankind is the experience of theosis. In fact, since revelation is the experience of theosis, an experience that transcends all expressions and concepts, the identification of Holy Scripture with revelation is, in terms of dogmatic theology, pure heresy."Since no single person has had a direct revelation of the actual age of the universe and the exact method of its origins, maybe we can know something about the original condition of the universe from the revelations of the Prophets, Apostles and Saints.

In fact, Patristic consensus holds that the universe in the beginning was very different than what it is today to the point where origins cannot possibly be studied objectively from a materialistic scientific point of view. St. Symeon the New Theologian summarizes the Patristic teaching that "the whole world had been brought into being by God as one thing, as a kind of paradise, at once incorruptible yet material and perceptible". This observation of St. Symeon echoes Wisdom of Solomon (1:13, 14): "God did not make death, neither does He take delight in the destruction of living things. God created all things that they might have their being; and the generations of the world were for preservation, and there is no poison of destruction in them". St. Symeon goes on to explain that before the original creation was "changed over to corruption" it did not "bear perishable fruits and...sprout thorns and thistles" (cf. Gen. 3:18), but had a different "law of nature". Regarding the original state of creation, St. Symeon further illustrates how both man and all living things were in a state of incorruption. St. John the Damascene says that before the transgression of Adam and Eve "there was neither rain nor tempest on the earth". St. Gregory of Sinai says Paradise had been "made between corruption and incorruption". St. Theophilus teaches that animals were not venomous before the fall. He with many Fathers also taught that beasts did not evoke fear in man in the prelapsarian world, but rather submitted to him. And of course, carnivory did not exist in the original creation.

Ultimately, from what we can judge by Scriptural and Patristic testimony, because the prelapsarian world - its vegetation, animals, and climate - were incorrupt, then we can safely conclude that the world before the fall is unknowable in its corrupt state by our corrupt minds. St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, a 19th century Church Father, gives remarkable detail concerning this matter:

"The earth - created, adorned, blessed by God - did not have any deficiencies. It was overflowing with refinement. 'God saw,' after the completion of the whole creation of the world, 'everything that He had made: and, behold, it was very good' (Gen. 1:31). Now the earth is presented to our eyes in a completely different look. We do not know her condition in holy virginity; we know her in the condition of corruption and accursedness, we know her already sentenced to burning; she was created for eternity. The God-inspired writer of Genesis says the earth in its original condition did not have need of tilling (Gen. 2:5): it brought forth by itself grains and other nourishing grasses, vegetables and fruits overabundantly and of superb worth. There were no harmful growths on it; plants were not subjected either to decay or to diseases; both decay and diseases, and the weeds themselves appeared after the alteration of the earth following the fall of man, as one ought to conclude from the words of God to Adam as he was being exiled from Paradise: 'Thorns and thistles shall it [the ground] bring forth to thee" (Gen. 3:18). According to its creation, there was on it only the splendid, only the wholesome, there was only that which was suitable for the immortal and blessed life of its inhabitants. Changes in the weather did not exist: it was continually the same - the most clear and favorable. There were no rains. A spring came forth from the earth and watered its face (Gen. 2:5,6). The beasts and other animals lived in perfect harmony among themselves, nourishing themselves on plant life (Gen. 1:30)."A similar observation is made by St. Barsanuphios of Optina Monastery in Russia. Once, when standing before a window at night, he pointed to the moon and said to his disciple (the future Elder Nikon):

"Look - what a picture!... This is left to us as a consolation. It's no wonder that the Prophet David said: 'Thou hast gladdened me, O Lord, by Thy works' (Ps. 91:3). 'Thou hast gladdened me,' he says, although this is only a hint of that wonderous beauty, incomprehensible to human thought, which was originally created. We don't know what kind of moon there was then, what kind of sun, what kind of light.... All of this changed after the fall."
If someone tells me they are a young earther, Im perfectly fine with it. If someone tells me they are an old earther, I feel the same exact way as if they are a young earther. No one truly knows the age and origins of these things, and I only weary of those who claim to know - whether they base their conclusions on Science or Scripture.

It sort of reminds me of something Dr. Norman Geisler once told me: "Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays Im a young earther; Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays Im an old earther. Sunday I just focus on the Lord." That has basically become my motto on this subject.

*Patristic quotes taken from The Orthodox Word, "Created in Incorruption: The Orthodox Patristic Understanding of Man and the Cosmos in Their Original, Fallen, and Redeemed States", by Hieromonk Damascene; Vol. 44, No. 1-2, Jan.-Apr. 2008.

 

thanks to John Sanidopoulos:

 

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/07/q-young-earth-or-old-earth-creationism.html

 

 

Quote by C.S. Lewis - Friendship

 

In each of my friends there is something that only some other friend can fully bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activity; I want other lights than my own to show all his facets. Now that Charles is dead, I shall never again see Ronald’s reaction to a specifically Caroline joke. Far from having more of Ronald, having him “to myself” now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald. Hence true friendship is the least jealous of loves. Two friends delight to be joined by a third, and three by a fourth, if only the newcomer is qualified to become a real friend …. Of course the scarcity of kindred souls--- not to mention practical considerations about the size of rooms and the audibility of voices--- set the limits to the enlargement of the circle; but within those limits we possess each friend not less but more as the number of those with whom we share him increases.

 

 

Source:

 

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis the Gift of Friendship

Colin Duriez, HiddenSpring 2003, Pg. 80

Quote by Friedrich Nietzsche

"Equality is a lie concocted by inferior people who arrange themselves in herds to overpower those who are naturally superior to them. The morality of 'equal rights' is a herd morality, and because it opposes the cultivation of superior individuals, it leads to the corruption of the human species"


Friedrich Nietzsche
1844 –  1900

Quote by Geroge MacDonald

“To love righteousness is to make it grow, not to avenge it. Throughout his life on earth, Jesus resisted every impulse to work more rapidly for a lower good.”
― George MacDonald

source
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/118388-to-love-righteousness-is-to-make-it-grow-not-to

Quote by Marshall McLuhan

Man becomes, as it were, the sex organs of the machine world, as the bee of the plant world, enabling it to fecundate and to evolve ever new forms. The machine world reciprocates man's love by expediting his wishes and desires, namely, in providing him with wealth. (p.56)

Understanding Media 1964

Marshall McLuhan (21 July 1911 – 31 December 1980)

Father Thomas Hopko about Christianity and Armageddon

thanks to youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz6DK7IRh0A

Informall fallacy: Non-sequitur

From the Latin, "it does not follow"

Examples and Observations:

·         "Non sequiturs are most obvious when absurd. For instance, from the facts that most cats like milk and some cats have tails I could not derive the conclusion that David Hume was the greatest British philosopher. That would be a complete non sequitur that borders on the surreal, whether or not its conclusion is true. Non sequiturs are often advertised by the spurious use of 'so' and 'therefore' . . ., but the context of a statement can also suggest that it is a conclusion derived from what has gone before even when there is no such word used to indicate it.

"Any formal fallacy will have a non sequitur as its conclusion, though most of these non sequiturs will be less obvious than the one above."
(Nigel Warburton, Thinking from A to Z. Routledge, 1996)

 

·         "The difference between the post hoc and the non sequitur fallacies is that, whereas the post hoc fallacy is due to lack of a causal connection, in the non sequitur fallacy, the error is due to lack of a logical connection."
(Mabel Lewis Sahakian, Ideas of the Great Philosophers. Barnes & Noble, 1993)

 

·         Ralph Wiggum: Martin Luther King had a dream. Dreams are where Elmo and Toy Story had a party and I was invited. Yay! My turn is over!
Principal Skinner: One of your best, Ralphie.
("The Color Yellow," The Simpsons, 2010)

 

·         "A non sequitur is any pretended jump in logic that doesn't work cleanly, perhaps because of unfounded premises, unmentioned complicating factors, or alternative explanations, such as 'This war is righteous because we are French!' or 'You will do what I say because you are my wife!'"
(Steve Hindes, Think for Yourself. Fulcrum, 2005)

 

·         Ralph Wiggum: Um, Miss Hoover? There's a dog in the vent.
Miss Hoover: Ralph, remember the time you said Snagglepuss was outside?
Ralph Wiggum: He was going to the bathroom.
("Sweet Seymour Skinner's Song," The Simpsons)

 

·         "Warming was caused by sunspots, or fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, or volcanic eruptions. Therefore it cannot be caused by mankind. The 'therefore' is the giveaway, the delicious non sequitur: just because Earth has warmed for one or another reason in the past is no reason why it cannot warm for a completely different reason in the future."
(John Llewellyn, "In a Confusing Climate." The Observer, Sep. 2, 2007)

Pronunciation: non SEK-wi-terr

thanks to:

http://grammar.about.com/od/mo/g/nonseqterm.htm

 

Affirming the Consequent

Definition:

Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
B
Therefore, A

Examples:

1. If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.)
2. If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.

Proof:

Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion could be false. In general, show that B might be a consequence of something other than A. For example, the fish deaths might be caused by pesticide run-off, and not the mill.

References

Barker: 69, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 24, Copi and Cohen: 241

Denying the Antecedent

Definition:
Any argument of the following form is invalid:
If A then B
Not A
Therefore, Not B
Examples:

1. if you get hit by a car when you are six then you will die young. But you were not hit by a car when you were six. Thus you will not die young. (Of course, you could be hit by a train at age seven, in which case you still die young.)
2. If I am in Calgary then I am in Alberta. I am not in Calgary, thus, I am not in Alberta.
Proof:

Show that even though the premises are true, the conclusion may be false. In particular, show that the consequence B may occur even though A does not occur.
References

Barker: 69, Cedarblom and Paulsen: 26, Copi and Cohen: 241

Inconsistency

Definition:
The author asserts more than one proposition such that the propositions cannot all be true. In such a case, the propositions may be contradictories or they may be contraries.
Examples:

1. Montreal is about 200 km from Ottawa, while Toronto is 400 km from Ottawa. Toronto is closer to Ottawa than Montreal.
2. John is taller than Jake, and Jake is taller than Fred, while Fred is taller than John.
Proof:

Assume that one of the statements is true, and then use it as a premise to show that one of the other statements is false.
References

Barker: 157

thanks to:

http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/incon.htm



Missing the Point (Ignoration Elenchi)

An argument in defense of one conclusion instead proves a difference conclusion


1. Crimes of embezzlement have risen and theft of property the has risen dramatically. It follows therefore: that we should institute the dealth penalty as soon as possible.

(The premise may be true and we may agree with it, but it does not follow that the death penalty must be instituted because there are clearly better options on the table that can be legislated)

2. We should support the new housing bill for cheaper housing. We can't continue to see people living in the streets; homes should be cheaper for all.

(We can agree that people should not live on the streets and that homes should be for affordable, but we may not agree about the housing bill. It could have other caveats that are not related or have nothing to do with people living in the streets)

3. We should support affirmative action. White folks have run the country for too long to remember. They run most of government and private business today. You can't deny that this type of discrimination has existed and continues to exists.

(It is true that there is discrimination, but that affirmative action is the solution is that will end that discrimination is not true)



thanks to:

www.Hebrew4christians.com

























 

 

 

 

 

Part II Michael Ramsden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHHQDD1nnuU&feature=relmfu

Answering the Tough Questions Part I with Michael Ramsden

Interesting lecture from a funny man part I


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQFzpiTc6j8&feature=related

"People are not logical problems waiting to be solved."

Michael Ramsden

Genesis, the Bible and the Scientific consensus

Do we have a common ground between the Bible and current scientific consensus? My answer is that we most definitely do, not from a fundamental viewpoint of Genesis, but from a mystical and at the same time logical point of view. Taking scripture in a literal sense and making words walk on all fours is the issue. If viewed in the mythical-style and non-fiction sense, we see a tale that is true as wrapped at times with a mythical like narration of order from smaller species to larger, of the creation of time and space, light elements and heavier elements, disorder to order or night to day. We have historical elements of kings, kingdoms, peoples and wars and poetry of the heart melting out from the pages. We see proverbial messages of wisdom and a return to grace. One common theme rings out from Old Testament to New Testament. And this is the ultimate salvation of a corrupt world under one condition essential to it. This is not a Myth as other myths like Adonis or Balder, but a myth-like tale that is true of which all the other myths of men flow into and get their impetus and inspiration. It is the anti-type or the anti-shadow to these types and shadows of men. It is in these shadows that we get moral tales and hope of restoration. And it is in the anti-type, that we get the real meaning of all the others, the real essence. These shadows point to the reality. They give us a clue of things from our imaginations. As all men strive and long for a common goal and all men create stories of heroes and dragons to exalt themselves of this hope, this inner need for restored order, under the one condition that can give it: God becomes man!

 

 

special thanks to the imagination of Tolkien, the Philologist, the writer and poet and thanks to the theology, writing and mythical imagination of C.S. Lewis, to Hank Hanegraaff of the Bible answer man and the reason for the hope that we have and finally to Father Thomas Hopko, Orthodox Priest and gentleman.

 

Kyrie Eleison

glory to Christ

 

 

 

How big was Noah's Ark?

The Ratio of Noah's Ark was 30.5.3. Multiply this by 10 and you have 300 cubits long x 50 Cubits wide x 30 cubits tall. 1.5 feet per cubit makes for a cargo boat of 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet tall. It could hold the capacity of around 520 to 522 railroad box cars and about 1,390,000 cubic feet of space. One railroad box car could hold about 240 sheep sized animals. Multiply 520 box cars by 240 and we get 124,800 or more sheep sixed animals. Let's say we store:


3,700 Mammals
8,600 Birds
6,300 Reptiles
2,500 Amphibians

21,100 total animals
x 2 = 42,200 animals

Baby animals are smaller than grown animals and would need less space than their larger sized parents.

Animals in hibernation mode need less man-hours and less food and water to exist.

Assuming the seas where not as salinized makes the flood water drinkable. So water would not have been an issue, especially with fresh water raining down for many days.


Ancient other sources of a flood:

Greeks
Mayans
Summarians
Hittites
Old Babylonians  1635 B>C> (Epic of Atrahasis)
Epic of Gilgamesh

thanks to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4f00OXdj6U

Quote by Shirin Ebadi

The idea of cultural relativism is nothing but an excuse to violate human rights.
Shirin Ebadi

thanks to

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/s/shirinebad183800.html#VlIU1jmz77KewlZg.99

Quote by James Madison

In his manuscripts on the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Madison wrote:

Christ's Divinity appears by St. John, chapter xx, 2: 'And Thomas answered and said unto Him, my Lord and my God!' Resurrection testified to and witnessed by the Apostles, Acts iv, 33: 'And with great power gave the Apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.'
 

thanks to:

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/madison.html

Quote by James Madison

We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We've staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." [1778 James Madison to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

thanks to:

http://www.seekfind.net/JamesMadison.html

Quote by James Madison

"Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it." James Madison, referring to the establishment of tax-supported denominations in Religion and Politics in the Early Republic: Jasper Adams and the Church-State Debate, Daniel L. Dreisbach, ed. (Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky, 1996), p. 117.

thanks to:

http://www.seekfind.net/JamesMadison.html

Quote by James Madison

A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven. [Letter by Madison to William Bradford [urging him to make sure of his own salvation] November 9, 1772]

Thanks to:

http://www.seekfind.net/JamesMadison.html

Quote by James Madison

It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other." James Madison

thanks to:


http://www.seekfind.net/JamesMadison.html

Quote by James Madison

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.


thanks to:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html

Quote by George Macdonald

Commemoration of Mellitus, First Bishop of London, 624 Sad, indeed, would the whole matter be if the Bible had told us everything God meant us to believe. But herein is the Bible greatly wronged. It nowhere lays claim to be regarded as the Word, the Way, the Truth. The Bible leads us to Jesus, the inexhaustible, the ever-unfolding Revelation of God. It is Christ "in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge", not the Bible, save as leading to Him.

George Macdonald

1824-1905

Quote by Ravi Zacharias ~ Voltaire

Voltaire said about the Bible in 100 years the Bible will be a forgotten book. Voltaire is dead and gone; his house now belongs to the French Bible Society... The Bible seems to rise up to outlive its pall-bearers.

source quote 49 minute mark:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDfJsYgGZMU

Informal Fallacy: Argumentum ad Verecundiam (Appeal to authority)

I. Argumentum ad Verecundiam: (argument from authority) the fallacy of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his special field. Anyone can give opinions or advice; the fallacy only occurs when the reason for assenting to the conclusion is based on following the recommendation or advice of an improper authority.
	A. Occasionally, this argument is called the "argument from prestige" and is based on the belief that prestigious people cannot be wrong. In these cases, the fallacy is probably best termed the "snob appeal" variety of the ad populum.
	B. Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the ad verecundiam and the ad populum when the authority cited is a group with high status.
		This example from a popular logic text can be identified as either an ad verecundiam or an ad populum: "Those who say that astrology is not reliable are mistaken. The wisest men of history have all been interested in astrology, and kings and queens of all ages have guided the affairs of nations by it."1
	C. The informal structure generally has the basic pattern:
		Authority on subject x, L says accept statement p. p is outside the scope of or not germane to the subject x. p is true.
	C. For example:
		Linus Pauling as the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes, one for chemistry, the other for peace stated his taking of Vitamin C delayed the onset of cancer by twenty years. (Winning a Nobel Prize in chemistry and for peace does not imply expertise in the medical science of the diagnosis and treatment of malignant neoplasms.) Therefore, vitamin C is effective in the treatment of cancer.
	E. Many advertising campaigns are built on this fallacy. Popular sports figures, musicians, or actors endorse products of which they have no special expertise and, in this context, this fact is offered as a mistaken reason we should use those products. Even so, occasionally a movie star, for example, might also be an appropriate authority in another subject. For example, Ronald Regan can be relevantly quoted as a political authority or Paul Newman can be quoted as a race car driver. Their reasoning in those respective fields would not ordinarily be open to the charge of an ad verecundiam fallacy.
	F. Note also that an ad verecundiam inductive argument (i.e., an argument whose conclusion is claimed to follow not with certainty but with probability) is not necessarily a fallacy even if the relevant or appropriate authority in the field is mistaken.
		For example, in 1948, readers of Science News were invited to buy a fluffy dish towel made from 80 percent cotton and 20 percent asbestos from "Things of Science," an experiment of the month program provided by Science Service.1 Concluding that the towel would be safe and useful would not have been an ad verecundiam fallacy even though the authority in this case, the Science News program, was being relied upon. The authority was relevant but simply mistaken.
II. Examples of the ad verecundiam fallacy:
		A. The brilliant William Jenkins, the recent Nobel Prize winner in physics, states uncategorically that the flu virus will be controlled in essentially all of its forms in the next two decades. The opinion of such a noted scientist cannot be disregarded.
		B. The United States policy toward mainland China in the 1980's was surely mistaken because Shirley McLaine, the well-known actress, emphasized at the time she had grave misgivings about it.
III. Uses of the ad verecundiam.
	A. Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, should have direct bearing on the argument at hand—especially if we have no better evidence to base a conclusion securer grounds.
	B. To qualify as an authority, the individual must be generally recognized by peers in the same field by peers who either hold a similar view or recognize the cogency of the point of view being expresses. (Examine, for yourself, why this condition of citing what many authorities in a field believe is not an instance of the ad populum fallacy.) thanks to source: http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html

Informal fallacy: Argumentum ad Baculum (Appeal to fear of force)

Argumentum ad Baculum (fear of force): the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.

1. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement with the purported conclusion of the argument.
2. The ad baculum contains implicitly or explicitly a threat. Behind this threat is often the idea that in the end, "Might makes right." Threats, per se, however, are not fallacies because they involve behavior, not arguments.
3. Often the informal structure of argumentum ad baculum is as follows.

Person L says accept argument A or event x will happen. Event x is bad, dangerous, or threatening. Therefore, argument A is a good argument.

II. Examples of ad baculum fallacies:

---

Chairman of the Board: "All those opposed to my arguments for the opening of a new department, signify by saying, 'I resign.'"

---

The Department of Transportation needs to reconsider the speed limit proposals on interstate highways for the simple reason that if they do not, their departmental budget for DOT will be cut by 25%.

---

I'm sure you can support the proposal to diversify into the fast food industry because if I receive any opposition on this initiative, I will personally see that you are transferred to the janitorial division of this corporation..

---

The basis of an ad baculum is the story of Giordano Bruno. Bruno (1548-1600) envisioned a multitude of solar systems in limitless space and believed in the astronomical hypothesis of Copernicus. The Church threatened his life unless he changed his views. Bruno refused to be convinced by the ad baculum as so was burned at the stake in 1600).

---

On October 10, 1971, Secretary of State William P. Rogers cautioned foreign ministers that Congress might force the United States reduce its financial contributions to the United Nations if Nationalist China is expelled. As a logical argument, Rogers caution is fallacious; as a political maneuver no argument is being adduced.

---

III. Since many threats involve emotional responses, they can be much like the ad populum fallacy. The appeal to the fear of not being accepted as part of a group can often be analyzed as either the ad baculum or the ad populum.

IV. Non-fallacious examples of the ad baculum: the appeal is not irrelevant when the threat or the force is directly relevant to the conclusion or is, itself, the subject of the argument.

1. Greenpeace argued that the large underground nuclear tests at Amchitka Island off Alaska in the early 1970's had the possible results of earthquakes, tsunamis, and radiation. Hence, these environmentalists opposed testing. The threat is logically connected with the argument because of the probability of these consequences is not decisional (or prescriptive) but causal--hence, no fallacy occurs.
2. Physical or emotional threats in the nature of directive discourse or commands are not arguments and so are not fallacies. E.g., "Study hard or your grades will fall."</LI

Source:

 

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/force.html

 

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE PERSON OF GANDHI THE INDIAN?

Saint Nikolai Velimirovich and Mahatma Gandhi

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE PERSON OF GANDHI THE INDIAN?

A Letter of St. Nikolai Velimirovich to British Noble "Charles B."

As a man of faith, you are troubled by the thought — what will Providence do with Gandhi? And what is the meaning of the appearance of this strange person among the statesmen and politicians of our time?

A warning from God. That is surely the meaning of the leader of the great Indian nation. Through that person, Providence is showing politicians and the statesmen of the world, even Christian ones, that there are other methods in politics than skill, wiliness and violence. Gandhi’s political method is very simple and obvious: he does not require anything except the man who cries out and the God Who hearkens. Against weapons, ammunition and army, Gandhi places FASTING; against skill, wiliness and violence, PRAYER; and against political quarrel, SILENCE. How puny and pathetic that looks in the eyes of modern men, right? In modern political textbooks, these three methods are not even mentioned in footnotes. Fasting, prayer and silence! There is hardly a statesman in Europe or America who would not ironically see these three secrets of the Indian statesmen as three dry twigs pointed on the battlefield against a heap of steel, lead, fire and poison. However, Gandhi succeeds with these three “spells” of his; he succeeds to the astonishment of the whole world. And whether they want to or not, political lawmakers in England and other countries will have to add a chapter into their textbooks: “Fasting, Prayer and Silence as Powerful Weapons in Politics.” Imagine, would it not be to the fortune of all mankind if these methods of the unbaptized Gandhi replaced the methods of the baptized Machiavelli in political science?

But it is not the Indian’s method in itself that is such a surprise to the world, as it is the person using the method. The method is Christian, as old as the Christian faith, and yet new in this day and age. The example of fasting, prayer and silence was shown by Christ to His Disciples. They handed it down to the Church, along with their whole example, and the Church hands it to the faithful from generation to generation until this day. Fasting is a sacrifice, silence is inward examination of oneself, prayer is crying out to God. Those are the three sources of great spiritual power which make man victorious in battle and excellent in life. Is there a man who cannot arm himself with these weapons? And which crude force in this world can defeat these weapons? Of course, these three things do not include all of the Christian faith, but are only a part of its rules, its supernatural mysteries. Sadly, in our time, among Christians, many of these principles are disregarded, and many wonder-working mysteries are forgotten. People have started thinking that one wins only by using steel, that the hailing clouds are dispersed only by cannons, that diseases are cured only by pills, and that everything in the world can be explained simply through electricity. Spiritual and moral energies are looked upon almost as working magic. I think that this is the reason why ever-active Providence has chosen Gandhi, an unbaptized man, to serve as a warning to the baptized, especially those baptized people who pile up one misfortune on another upon themselves and their peoples by using ruthless and harsh means. The Gospel also tells us that Providence sometimes uses such warnings for the good of the people. Your Grace will immediately realize that I am alluding to the Roman captain from Capernaum (Matt. ch. 8). On the one hand, you see the Elders of Israel who, as chosen monotheists of the time, boasted of their faith, meanwhile rejecting Christ, and, on the other hand, you see the despised Roman pagan who came to Christ with great faith and humility, asking Him to heal his servant. And when Jesus heard it, He was astonished and said to those who followed Him, “Truly I say to you, not even in Israel have I found faith like this.” The Christian world is the new, baptized Israel. Listen! Is Christ not telling the same words today to the consciences of the Christian Elders by pointing to today’s captain of India?

Peace and health from the Lord to you.

 

thanks to John Sanidopoulos:

 

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/07/saint-nikolai-velimirovich-and-mahatma.html

Source: Missionary Letters of Saint Nikolai Velimirovich: Letters 1-100, trans. Hierodeacon Serafim (Baltic), Vol. VI in A Treasury of Serbian Orthodox Spirituality (Grayslake, IL: New Gracanica Monastery, 2008), pp. 171-173.

 

Quote by Ravi Zacharias

You can't have love without freedom.

Ravi Zacharias

source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDfJsYgGZMU

Quote by George Macdonald

"I do not write for children, but for the childlike, whether of five, or fifty, or seventy-five."

George Macdonald of Aberdeenshire, Scotland.
(1824-1905)

Choose one of the two

If you could choose only one of two:

 

To be feared

To be loved

 

Which of these would you choose?

We can make people fear us but we cannot make them love us.

Which would you choose if you had to choose one?

Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam where feared.

Gandhi, Confucius, Socrates, St. Paul, St. Peter where loved.

All of the men above died… eventually… and in different ways. Some died in their beds naturally, were assassinated, committed suicide, and others were murdered.

Two of the Three or is there more?

Money

I love my Job

Happiness

 

If you could only choose two of the three above, which would you choose?

 

Do we only get two choices? Or have some of us had all three for a brief or longer than a brief time?

I think that, realistically, there are people that have had all three; but that it does not last is something we can agree on, no?

 

The philosopher Gautama said that life is impermanent. The second law of thermodynamics agrees as it states that things go from order to disorder, slow heat loss.

It is Jesus Christ who said that:

Matthew 24:35

New King James Version (NKJV)

³⁵ Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

 

So there is impermanence in material creation as it is now, but not in the whole sense. This is great news and a joy for all. We have various myths in societies that as G.K. Chesterton said:

"If you happen to read fairy tales, you will observe that one idea runs from one end of them to the other--the idea that peace and happiness can only exist on some condition. This idea, which is the core of ethics, is the core of the nursery-tales."

The New Testament and the Old are where myth, fairy tale comes together. The myth and the truth merge. The story tells us that peace and happiness can exist under one condition, and not the many conditions that man creates himself in hope that it will work; but, exactly the one condition that will solve all the issues of the world once and for all. Christ becomes incarnate, lives in the world and saves it to Himself by the power of God. This beautiful narrative that reads like myth and truth at the same time combines the mythologies of old and the truth of reason and fact into one. The Incarnation is the meeting point of all our tales of old; it is where morality, poetry, life, law and philosophy meet at the center of the cross. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis both new and cultivated this in their stories, they weaved allegory, symbolism and eternal truths into one narration. Something had to completely die for there to be peace in the world forever. Tolkien had his dragon Smaug and the evil, mostly bodiless enemy or eye, Sauron and those who followed. C.S. Lewis had is White Witch that brought cold and ruin into the endless sunny fields of Narnia.

We find incompleteness in the world because we are made for another world as C.S. Lewis said. Tolkien and Lewis both discussed these things for many hours in the Inlkings. Their stories remain as Christ inspired stories of the hope of permanence once evil is removed forever. This is the beauty of myth and the moral of the myth; this is the transcendent beauty of the Divine Being who comes to earth to rescue creation, to rescue man from the pit of spiritual death and restore all, body and soul. Christianity is the culmination of all myths completed and absorbed into one final answer for evil and death and impermanence. Here the river of myth both flows into and from the One and True Myth, the Great Sea of Life.  The Way of Lao Tzu is completed and seen in Christ, the way, the truth and the life. The Logos of Heraclitus of Ephesus is manifest in Jesus Christ as the Word (Logos) of God.

So if we only have two of the three in this life: Love of Job and, or as the Greeks would say philia (love as a friend) happiness… I’d say we are ahead of the game. In eternity, the job of knowing God will be unquenchable, shareable to all, forever. Happiness will be ever-growing, and money will be something of the old and now obsolete.

 

Kyrie Elaison

Glory to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit

Quote by C.S. Lewis ~ gazing at absolute goodness

“Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again.”

--- C.S. Lewis


source of quote:


http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/10/cosmic-horror-vs-holy-terror-christians.html

The Monsters Among Us

 

October 30, 2012

Science Daily

With Halloween approaching, people turn their attention to the spooky and the scary, reveling in stories and images of ghosts, ghouls and witches for the holiday. However, while some monstrous characters only come out to play in October; others enjoy attention year round.

For example, in recent years, vampire media has gained popularity, from Stephanie Meyer's "Twilight" series of books and films to HBO's "True Blood," which finished its fifth season this summer. Zombies have recently seen a resurgence in popularity as well, evidenced by new takes on the genre, such as Zach Synder's 2004 remake of "Dawn of the Dead," Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" and Edgar Wright's "Shaun of the Dead." Zombies have even shambled onto the television screen with AMC's "The Walking Dead."

Hollywood is quick to cash in on what's popular, but why do themes gain popularity in the first place? Does the prevalence of a certain monster reflect what's going on in our society today?

"I would argue that monsters in literature, in general, are almost always indicative of things we fear in a sort of collective sense," says Cajsa Baldini, a senior lecturer in the English Department of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences.

Baldini is well-versed in classic monsters and their cultural significance. She teaches a course on 19th century fiction, which covers monstrous tales such as Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and "The Island of Doctor Moreau" by H.G. Wells. Both novels are steeped in themes of technology out of control and the ethical implications of science.

"Jurassic Park" is a great example of the "technology out of control" trope. It's a modern-day Frankenstein story, says principal lecturer Paul Cook, who teaches and writes science fiction in the English Department.

In the original "Frankenstein," after Victor Frankenstein creates his monster, he abandons it to be persecuted and ostracized. Once the monster understands what his creator did to him, he seeks out the doctor.

"I think that's what it's about -- to be confronted with our creations," says Baldini of the novel. "What responsibilities do we have to what we create? It essentially posits the question, do scientists have ethical responsibilities, or is the only responsibility towards further discovery? And I think that's the reason we read that novel today."

Baldini points to Ridley Scott's "Blade Runner," in which one man hunts down rogue human-looking androids, as a more modern interpretation of these ideas.

"The android turns around and says: 'Hey, I know you built in a flaw in me, I'm going to die, I need to know when' -- a question most of us ask, as does Victor Frankenstein in Shelley's novel," says Baldini.

Just as 19th century fiction reflected common fears and anxieties, science fiction in the 1950s served the same purpose. Films such as "The Day the Earth Stood Still" or "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" reflected Americans' fear of communism.

"Science fiction of the 50s not only reflected the culture, but criticized it as well," says Cook.

Cook believes that some monsters in fiction are simply manifestations of the worst parts of us, or a trait that is out of control.

"When ideas get out of control, you get monsters," says Cook. "Monsters, as an archetype, are simply a reflection of some aspect of our human nature greatly magnified to the level of destruction. That is where you get the werewolf, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, or the Hulk -- something that's inside of us that comes out."

Baldini thinks that the theme of the embattled force within us points to humanity's desire to rise above the forces of nature.

"I think the werewolf is more of a psychological monster," she says. "Like any monster, it has to be reflective of us to be interesting. I think it's about the animal within, the aspects of us we think we've grown away from or that we don't want to acknowledge we ever had. We're not in control of nature, even if we like to think we are. Just look at an Ebola outbreak, or tsunamis. We think we can control nature, but we don't. We're subject to it like any other species on Earth."

While some monsters are reflections of humanity's struggle with internal, natural forces, others, such as the vampire, express a fear of external influences. Baldini's course explores the first appearance of the modern vampire, in the 1819 novella "The Vampyre" by John Polidori.

"Today, it's almost ridiculous because it's so stereotypical -- it's about a vampire that's aristocratic and evil, but he's also strangely mesmerizing and attractive to people. But of course, everyone who associates with him ends badly," says Baldini of Polidori's story.

Even though not all modern interpretations of vampires pose them as aristocrats, Baldini sees these creatures as always being the elite.

"If you look at Polidori and Stoker's vampires, they are aristocratic and evil," says Baldini. "They are themselves special and set apart -- not everyone can be them. And also whoever they seek out as their victim, even though it's violent and it's deadly, there's a sense of being the elect -- vampires don't just go for anyone. I think this is part of the attraction, the erotic appeal of the vampire."

Baldini cites that attraction to the elite nature of the vampire as part of their popularity in the 1980s, when Anne Rice's novels and films like "The Lost Boys" portrayed vampires as evil but also glamorous and cool.

"That was the time period of glam and the early yuppies and Gordon Gekko saying 'greed is good.' It was okay to be selfish, to prioritize number one, to strive toward an elite status," says Baldini.

Popular vampires today still have that elitism and admiration, but they are also tragic figures.

"It's okay to want to be elite to the point were we start valorizing such characters, such as Edward Cullen," says Baldini. "It's actually a good thing to want to be like them and to be elected by them, and now there's a humility trope in there too."

While vampires represent the upper crust, a monster that is anything but has recently become incredibly popular: the zombie.

"The zombie is the underdog of the monsters, sort of the underachiever of monsters as well," Baldini says of the stumbling, rotting creatures. "You don't have to do much to become a zombie. You're bitten by one and you become one. There's minimal grooming involved. It's the blue-collar monster."

And being a zombie is cool today. Hundreds, sometimes thousands of people turn out for zombie walks, or zombie pub crawls. Hordes of people dress up as the living dead and shuffle through cities across the world, sometimes to promote a cause, give to charity or just for fun. But what does the popularity of zombies say about society today?

"We're looking at a monster that's a collective body that consumes everything," says Baldini. "That's western culture, that's what we are. We have over-consumed throughout the 1990s. We over-borrowed on credit, we took all the equity out of our homes and then some, we consumed indiscriminately, we didn't think, because like zombies, we don't think. We just followed the herd in consumption. I don't think people sit around and think about this, but I think on some level, the zombie is relatable in this particular time in history."

As Baldini points out, the cultural significance of monsters probably isn't something most people consider on a conscious level. But that doesn't make the themes embedded in monster stories any less important.

"We all recognize certain monstrosity in life itself, and so when we recognize it in a very old text like 'Dracula' or 'The Vampyre,' we can accept ourselves more. This is not new, it's not just me. It's there, and it's worth acknowledging," says Baldini.

"I think it's most interesting in the way it serves to critique society in a way that seems perhaps innocuous -- 'Oh, it's just horror' -- but which in fact is incredibly subversive and critical," she adds.

 

 

Thanks to John Sanidopoulos

 

source:

 

http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2012/11/the-monsters-among-us.html