I was trawling Youtube to find a version of the Advent hymn "O Comfort My People" when I came across this beautiful rendition of "Bi Iosa Am Chroise"which uses the same tune.
Lyrics:
Bí, Íosa, im chroíse i gcuimhne gach uair,
Bí, Íosa, im chroíse le haithrí go luath
Bí, Íosa, im chroíse le cumann go buan
ó, a íosa 'Dhé dhílis, ná scar Thusa uaim.
[ Missing from this rendition:
Gan íosa mo smaointe ní thaithníonn liom féin,
Gan íosa mo scríbhinn ná foghar mo bhéil,
Gan íosa mo ghníomhartha ní maith insan tsaol,
ó, a íosa 'Dhé dhílis, bí romham is am dhéidh.
Sé íosa mo ríse, mo chara 's mo ghrá,
Sé íosa mo dhídean ar pheaca 's ar bhás,
Sé íosa mo aoibhneas, mo scáthán do ghnáth,
A's, a íosa, 'Dhé dhilis, ná scar uaim go bráth.
]
Bí, a íosa, go síoraí im chroí is im bhéal,
Bí, a íosa, go síoraí im thuigse mar an gcéann',
Bí, a íosa, go síoraí im mheabhair mar léann,
ó, a íiosa, 'Dhé dhílis, ná fág mé liom féin.
Rough translation:
Be, Jesus, in my heart in memory every hour,
Be, Jesus, in my heart with speedy repentance,
Be, Jesus, in my heart with everlasting fellowship
O, Jesus, true/faithful God, don't depart from me
[ Missing from this rendition:
Without Jesus my thoughts don't illuminate me,
Without Jesus my scripture doesn't sound from my mouth
Without Jesus my deeds do no good in life
O Jesus, faithful God, be before me and after/behind me.
Jesus is my king, my friend and my love
Jesus is my shelter from sin and death
Jesus is my delight, my constant mirror
Ah Jesus, faithful God, never part from me.
]
Be, Jesus, eternally in my heart and in my mouth
Be, Jesus, eternally in my understanding and my head,
Be, Jesus, eternally in my mind and my learning,
O Jesus, faithful God, don't leave me alone.
Sunday 1 December 2013
First Sunday of Advent
My favourite Advent hymn, "O Comfort My People" written by the Cistercian, Fr Chrysogonus Waddell. The tune the traditional Irish melody "Bi Iosa Am Chroise" with words taken from Isaiah 40:1-2.4.9
O comfort my people
and calm all their fear,
and tell them the time of
salvation draws near
O tell them I come
to remove all their shame
Then they will forever
give praise to my name.
Proclaim to the cities
of Juda my word:
that gentle yet strong is
the hand of the Lord.
I rescue the captives,
my people defend
and bring them to justice
and joy without end.
All mountains and hill shall
become as a plain
for vanished are mourning
and hunger and pain.
And never again shall
these war against you.
Behold I come quickly
to make all things new.
Words (c) Chrysogonus Waddell and Mount St. Joseph's Abbey Harmoney (c) McCromman Publishing Co. Ltd.,
Here is a version with the lyrics included.
O comfort my people
and calm all their fear,
and tell them the time of
salvation draws near
O tell them I come
to remove all their shame
Then they will forever
give praise to my name.
Proclaim to the cities
of Juda my word:
that gentle yet strong is
the hand of the Lord.
I rescue the captives,
my people defend
and bring them to justice
and joy without end.
All mountains and hill shall
become as a plain
for vanished are mourning
and hunger and pain.
And never again shall
these war against you.
Behold I come quickly
to make all things new.
Words (c) Chrysogonus Waddell and Mount St. Joseph's Abbey Harmoney (c) McCromman Publishing Co. Ltd.,
Here is a version with the lyrics included.
Saturday 30 November 2013
Busy Month
Well, it's been a busy month but it has seen some interesting stuff out there within my blogosphere light-cone.
The Maverick Philosopher has had an entertaining series of posts on the difference between fictional and impossible entities. Much of the technical discussion eluded me but I did like the characterisation of fictional as incomplete although I am not completely convinced by his critique of the "story operator".
Mike Flynn has also had a lot of fun in a series of posts on the Christian origins of the Scientific Revolution. He also brought to wider attention the fact that much of the US think that zombies would run their country better than the current Federal Government.
Over at Ed Feser's blog, there was a very interesting discussion about the AT conception of the soul and how it purports to avoid the interaction problem. This was particularly useful because it quoted Bill Vallicella articulating what I think is the most difficult thing to understand about the Thomistic line of reasoning, namely how it is that a form can interact with matter, and by interact he means as an efficient cause rather than a formal or final cause. I'm still not sure I understand the reply but I suspect that that is due to my poor understanding of the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics.
Brandon Watson at Siris echoes what I'm sure a lot of us are feeling when he takes Disney to task for its crass revisionism in the case of "Maleficent". Aside from the lamentably bad premise on which the new film appears to be based, the witlessness of this situation reminds me of the recent TV advert in which a CGI Audrey Hepburn, dazzling in her youth and vitality, rises from a scene in the film "Roman Holiday"... to appear in a chocolate commercial. I seem to recall something similar happened in the last episode of Bablyon 5, and that didn't turn out well either. The members of the Hepburn estate, moneygrabbing philistines that they are, apparently see nothing wrong with it but to me the commercial is a shibboleth which divides those who have an aesthetic sense from those who don't.
Crude, over at Crude Ideas, continues to fight the good fight against the Cult of Gnu. One of the best thing for those of limited intelligence like me is the sight of clever people discussing substantive issues on Faith, Science and Philosophy, e.g. on Feser's blog, but I must also confess to enjoying seeing fish shot in a barrel, and no-one does this better than Crude. I look forward to his new website.
Heuristics from the Citadel Library continues to provide more "beam me up, Scotty" moments and documents that there is nothing new under the sun.
And finally, a hilarious story about Richard Dawkins from Shadow to Light.
The Maverick Philosopher has had an entertaining series of posts on the difference between fictional and impossible entities. Much of the technical discussion eluded me but I did like the characterisation of fictional as incomplete although I am not completely convinced by his critique of the "story operator".
Mike Flynn has also had a lot of fun in a series of posts on the Christian origins of the Scientific Revolution. He also brought to wider attention the fact that much of the US think that zombies would run their country better than the current Federal Government.
Over at Ed Feser's blog, there was a very interesting discussion about the AT conception of the soul and how it purports to avoid the interaction problem. This was particularly useful because it quoted Bill Vallicella articulating what I think is the most difficult thing to understand about the Thomistic line of reasoning, namely how it is that a form can interact with matter, and by interact he means as an efficient cause rather than a formal or final cause. I'm still not sure I understand the reply but I suspect that that is due to my poor understanding of the Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics.
Brandon Watson at Siris echoes what I'm sure a lot of us are feeling when he takes Disney to task for its crass revisionism in the case of "Maleficent". Aside from the lamentably bad premise on which the new film appears to be based, the witlessness of this situation reminds me of the recent TV advert in which a CGI Audrey Hepburn, dazzling in her youth and vitality, rises from a scene in the film "Roman Holiday"... to appear in a chocolate commercial. I seem to recall something similar happened in the last episode of Bablyon 5, and that didn't turn out well either. The members of the Hepburn estate, moneygrabbing philistines that they are, apparently see nothing wrong with it but to me the commercial is a shibboleth which divides those who have an aesthetic sense from those who don't.
Crude, over at Crude Ideas, continues to fight the good fight against the Cult of Gnu. One of the best thing for those of limited intelligence like me is the sight of clever people discussing substantive issues on Faith, Science and Philosophy, e.g. on Feser's blog, but I must also confess to enjoying seeing fish shot in a barrel, and no-one does this better than Crude. I look forward to his new website.
Heuristics from the Citadel Library continues to provide more "beam me up, Scotty" moments and documents that there is nothing new under the sun.
And finally, a hilarious story about Richard Dawkins from Shadow to Light.
Sunday 24 November 2013
Friday 25 October 2013
David Berlinki and the excesses of Darwinism
From Mike Flynn's Blog, an amusing deconstruction of Darwinism by mathematician, David Berlinski.
Batman and the Joker
This has already done the rounds but there was a Quora question (yes, I know, but just occasionally there is something good there that is not written by Tim O'Neill) on why Batman doesn't just kill the Joker. Cue Mr Jesse Richards with what must be the definitive answer to this:
"Because the Joker wins if Batman kills him. That's what the Joker wants. Everything he does is to taunt Batman into killing him. In fact, the interesting part of their relationship, the real conflict of each story, is not to see if Batman will stop him (he will), but to watch Batman struggle with not killing him, because anyone other than Batman would of course kill him. This self-control is Batman's superpower.
The Joker and Batman are each trying to prove a point to society - and really to us, the readers. The Joker wants Batman to kill him because he perfectly embodies chaos and anarchy, and wants to prove a point to everyone that people are basically more chaotic than orderly. This is why he is so scary: we are worried he may be right. If the Joker is right, then civilization is a ruse and we are all truly monsters inside. If the Joker can prove that Batman - the most orderly and logical and self-controlled of all of us - is a monster inside, then we are all monsters inside, and that is terrifying. The Joker is terrifying because we fear that we are like him deep down - that he is us. Batman is what we (any average person) could be at our absolute best, and the Joker is what we could be at our absolute worst. The Joker's claim is that we are all terrible deep down, and it is only the law and our misplaced sense of justice that keeps us in line. Since Batman isn't confined by the law, he is a perfect test case to try to get him to "break". The Joker wants Batman to kill a person, any person, but knows that the only person Batman might ever even remotely consider killing would have to be a terrible monster, so is willing to do this himself and sacrifice himself to prove this macabre point. Batman needs to prove that it is not just laws that keep us in line, but basic human decency and our natural instinct NOT to kill. If Batman can prove this, then others will be inspired by his example (the citizens of Gotham, but again, also the readers), just as we are all inspired every day to keep civilization running smoothly and not descend into violence, anarchy, and chaos. This ability to be decent in the face of the horrors and temptations present all around us is humanity's superpower, the superpower of each of us. The struggle of Batman and the Joker is the internal struggle of each of us. But we are inspired by Batman's example, not the Joker's, because Batman always wins the argument, because he has not killed the Joker."
"Because the Joker wins if Batman kills him. That's what the Joker wants. Everything he does is to taunt Batman into killing him. In fact, the interesting part of their relationship, the real conflict of each story, is not to see if Batman will stop him (he will), but to watch Batman struggle with not killing him, because anyone other than Batman would of course kill him. This self-control is Batman's superpower.
The Joker and Batman are each trying to prove a point to society - and really to us, the readers. The Joker wants Batman to kill him because he perfectly embodies chaos and anarchy, and wants to prove a point to everyone that people are basically more chaotic than orderly. This is why he is so scary: we are worried he may be right. If the Joker is right, then civilization is a ruse and we are all truly monsters inside. If the Joker can prove that Batman - the most orderly and logical and self-controlled of all of us - is a monster inside, then we are all monsters inside, and that is terrifying. The Joker is terrifying because we fear that we are like him deep down - that he is us. Batman is what we (any average person) could be at our absolute best, and the Joker is what we could be at our absolute worst. The Joker's claim is that we are all terrible deep down, and it is only the law and our misplaced sense of justice that keeps us in line. Since Batman isn't confined by the law, he is a perfect test case to try to get him to "break". The Joker wants Batman to kill a person, any person, but knows that the only person Batman might ever even remotely consider killing would have to be a terrible monster, so is willing to do this himself and sacrifice himself to prove this macabre point. Batman needs to prove that it is not just laws that keep us in line, but basic human decency and our natural instinct NOT to kill. If Batman can prove this, then others will be inspired by his example (the citizens of Gotham, but again, also the readers), just as we are all inspired every day to keep civilization running smoothly and not descend into violence, anarchy, and chaos. This ability to be decent in the face of the horrors and temptations present all around us is humanity's superpower, the superpower of each of us. The struggle of Batman and the Joker is the internal struggle of each of us. But we are inspired by Batman's example, not the Joker's, because Batman always wins the argument, because he has not killed the Joker."
Tuesday 22 October 2013
James Chastek on "The Bad News"
James Chastek has salutary post on the desire for a realised eschatology on earth. The Good News is not tempered by the "Bad News" but it does provide a backdrop for its interpretation and can often be forgotten when it does not immediately make its presence felt.
"This bad news is so awful that the Apostle’s hadn’t learned to accept it even after they came to accept the Resurrection. Literally, the last thing the Apostles ask Christ before the ascension is when he will return to set up his Messianic kingdom in Israel. One wonders if the correct answer to the question would have sent some of the Apostles running, since Christ would have had to say that he would not return for over twenty centuries, that Israel would continue under Roman domination for as long as Rome existed, that the last tribes would be scattered and see Jerusalem left in ruins, and that their descendants would see the temple of an alien religion standing on the temple mount for over a thousand years."
It is worth remembering the historical realities of continuing persecution, injustice and oppression that afflict the people of the Gospel, and indeed those who have not heard it or reject it.
I am reminded of the quote by J.R.R. Tolkien:
“I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
"This bad news is so awful that the Apostle’s hadn’t learned to accept it even after they came to accept the Resurrection. Literally, the last thing the Apostles ask Christ before the ascension is when he will return to set up his Messianic kingdom in Israel. One wonders if the correct answer to the question would have sent some of the Apostles running, since Christ would have had to say that he would not return for over twenty centuries, that Israel would continue under Roman domination for as long as Rome existed, that the last tribes would be scattered and see Jerusalem left in ruins, and that their descendants would see the temple of an alien religion standing on the temple mount for over a thousand years."
It is worth remembering the historical realities of continuing persecution, injustice and oppression that afflict the people of the Gospel, and indeed those who have not heard it or reject it.
I am reminded of the quote by J.R.R. Tolkien:
“I am a Christian, and indeed a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect ‘history’ to be anything but a ‘long defeat’ — though it contains (and in a legend may contain more clearly and movingly) some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
Wednesday 16 October 2013
Twinning Announcement
Following the decision by the Isle of Skye to twin with the fictitious, virtual isles of Skylands, I have decided to hereby twin my house with the Reunited Kingdom of Gondor and Arnor. I have sent off relevant documentation to King Elessar Telcontar and expect to hear back in due course.
Saturday 5 October 2013
James Chastek on Methodical Naturalism vs Naturalism
A very nice post by James Chastek at his Just Thomism blog.
I never understood why the following was not blindingly obvious, but it clearly isn't.
"If, for example, you wanted to study and learn Euclid’s Elements you have to be “methodologically Euclidian” but this in no way commits you to Euclidianism, i.e. the claim that Lobachevsky’s or Reimann’s geometries were false; if you want to explain classical physics then you have to be “methologically Newtonian”, even if you think that Newtonianism is false."
I never understood why the following was not blindingly obvious, but it clearly isn't.
"If, for example, you wanted to study and learn Euclid’s Elements you have to be “methodologically Euclidian” but this in no way commits you to Euclidianism, i.e. the claim that Lobachevsky’s or Reimann’s geometries were false; if you want to explain classical physics then you have to be “methologically Newtonian”, even if you think that Newtonianism is false."
When the Zombie Apocalypse Meme starts to get a little bit worrying...
Perhaps it's gone a bit far at this point.
The Best Dr Who Quote
House: "Fear me, I've killed hundred of timelords"
The Dr: "Fear me, I've killed all of them"
From one of my favourite episode - "The Doctor's Wife" which was scripted by Neil Gaiman.
Monday 23 September 2013
Mike Flynn's Great Ptolemaic Smackdown Series
Fertility Statistics
While we are talking about statistics, what do you suppose is the source for data on women's fertility? Data coming from the last 30 years? 50 years? 100 years?
This BBC Radio 4 radio programme says that the data comes from 1680 - 1810!
It has an interesting discussion about why this is the case but it does make you wonder about the validity of statistics that are generally used in public discourse. There is also a discussion about rape statistics in developing countries and a not-very-convincing defence of the figures by some UN researcher.
This BBC Radio 4 radio programme says that the data comes from 1680 - 1810!
It has an interesting discussion about why this is the case but it does make you wonder about the validity of statistics that are generally used in public discourse. There is also a discussion about rape statistics in developing countries and a not-very-convincing defence of the figures by some UN researcher.
Maths/Stats and Politics
This report came via Mark Guzdial's Computer Science Education blog but is crying out for comment from some statisticians like the Statistician to the Stars, Dr Briggs, or Mike Flynn.
The study, reported in Mother Jones magazine (not exactly the name one would associate with unbiased reporting, I know), purports to show that strong political views affected statistical reasoning ability:
"The study, by Yale law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues, has an ingenious design. At the outset, 1,111 study participants were asked about their political views and also asked a series of questions designed to gauge their "numeracy," that is, their mathematical reasoning ability. Participants were then asked to solve a fairly difficult problem that involved interpreting the results of a (fake) scientific study. But here was the trick: While the fake study data that they were supposed to assess remained the same, sometimes the study was described as measuring the effectiveness of a "new cream for treating skin rashes." But in other cases, the study was described as involving the effectiveness of "a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns in public."
The result? Survey respondents performed wildly differently on what was in essence the same basic problem, simply depending upon whether they had been told that it involved guns or whether they had been told that it involved a new skin cream. What's more, it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more—not less—susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability."
Who would have thunk it!
The study, reported in Mother Jones magazine (not exactly the name one would associate with unbiased reporting, I know), purports to show that strong political views affected statistical reasoning ability:
"The study, by Yale law professor Dan Kahan and his colleagues, has an ingenious design. At the outset, 1,111 study participants were asked about their political views and also asked a series of questions designed to gauge their "numeracy," that is, their mathematical reasoning ability. Participants were then asked to solve a fairly difficult problem that involved interpreting the results of a (fake) scientific study. But here was the trick: While the fake study data that they were supposed to assess remained the same, sometimes the study was described as measuring the effectiveness of a "new cream for treating skin rashes." But in other cases, the study was described as involving the effectiveness of "a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns in public."
The result? Survey respondents performed wildly differently on what was in essence the same basic problem, simply depending upon whether they had been told that it involved guns or whether they had been told that it involved a new skin cream. What's more, it turns out that highly numerate liberals and conservatives were even more—not less—susceptible to letting politics skew their reasoning than were those with less mathematical ability."
Who would have thunk it!
Saturday 10 August 2013
Thursday 8 August 2013
Practical Advice for the Forthcoming Zombie Apocalypse
I'm not really a big fan of Quora. While there are some sources of information that I have been very impressed with, e.g. Tim O'Neill, it seems to me that most of posts are simply excuses for sub-Reddit grade sophomoronic students to pose as experts.
However, occasionally one does run across a nugget, and I did come across this post which seems very knowledgeable on the practical matters of taking on zombies.
However, occasionally one does run across a nugget, and I did come across this post which seems very knowledgeable on the practical matters of taking on zombies.
The Dangers of Enforcing an Academic Integrity Policy
This report from the Daily Telegraph via Mike Flynn's blog
Riot after Chinese teachers try to stop pupils cheating.
Riot after Chinese teachers try to stop pupils cheating.
Saturday 3 August 2013
Ought - Is
After the apocalyptic excitement of the past few days, I thought I would try to do something a bit more serious and compile some references on the ought - is distinction. Since Brandon Watson seems to be the go-to guy for this in the blogs that I read, I thought I would start with his blog, Siris.
- Reading Hume on Ought and Is
- Epistemic Ought and Can
- Hume on Ought and Is, Part I: Background
- Hume on Ought and Is, Part II: The Argument
- Hume on Ought and Is, Part III: Conclusions
- Arnhart on Hume on Ought and Is
- On Ought and Is: Preliminary Detour
- On Ought and Is, II
- Is - Ought Muddles
- Blackford and Is/Ought
- Three Oughts
- Ought and Is
- On Hart's Kantian (?) Argument
- Is, Ought, Can
I'm sure I've missed some but that will keep me going for a while.
Friday 2 August 2013
And then a Funny Thing Happened....
Hat-tip to Daniel for the photos and videos.
The new office has become infested with flies:
and so have the desks
and the lights
but the best thing is the set of videos
Clearly there is only one explanation.
“This is what the LORD says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you do not let my people go, I will send swarms of flies upon you and your officials, on your people and into your houses. The houses of the Egyptians will be full of flies, and even the ground where they are.”
— Exodus 8:20–21
This is not going to end well!
The new office has become infested with flies:
and so have the desks
but the best thing is the set of videos
Clearly there is only one explanation.
“This is what the LORD says: Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you do not let my people go, I will send swarms of flies upon you and your officials, on your people and into your houses. The houses of the Egyptians will be full of flies, and even the ground where they are.”
— Exodus 8:20–21
This is not going to end well!
Oh Brave New University that has such laminated furniture in it!
So from my old office, I have now moved into my new university call-centre-themed accommodation.
This is my new "workspace". The paper on the monitor finishes by saying "You will find a copy of the current evacuation plan attached to this welcome note".
This is it now I've made it all homely.
For storage, I get this:
and that's about it.
This is my new "workspace". The paper on the monitor finishes by saying "You will find a copy of the current evacuation plan attached to this welcome note".
This is it now I've made it all homely.
For storage, I get this:
Monday 29 July 2013
Portuguese Toilet Roll
I'm not entirely sure what to make of this.
As you can see, it features Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Maxwell's Equations and the Schrodinger Equation.
Clearly the Portuguese have a different approach to mathematical physics education than we do here in the U.K.
As you can see, it features Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, Maxwell's Equations and the Schrodinger Equation.
Clearly the Portuguese have a different approach to mathematical physics education than we do here in the U.K.
Sunday 16 June 2013
Summer's Here!
Exam Boards are over. There's a short window between now and the Resits. The sun is out. The days are long.
I'm obviously showing my age but this is one of those songs to which I can't help smiling.
I'm obviously showing my age but this is one of those songs to which I can't help smiling.
Saturday 1 June 2013
Friday 31 May 2013
Sometimes it just gets too weird
Cheese-maker warned against supplying Gloucester cheese-rolling
Apparently it went off okay though.
Kenny Rackers, 27, travelled more than 4,000 miles from Colorado Springs to a steep hill in Gloucestershire to take part in the world-famous event.
"I came over specially for this and I did what I had to do to win," he said afterwards.
"It feels great, I trained a long time for this and got hurt on the hill practising. I came three days early and I took a bad spill, but I came to win and that's what I did.
"I came 3,000 or 4,000 miles just for this race. I put it on my bucket list and today it was to win and that's what I did."
The fourth men's race was won by Tomoaki Tanaka, 39, from Japan, who dressed as a ninja to race down the hill.
Wednesday 15 May 2013
The Dangers of Aggregation
What's wrong with this Visualisation?
Look at the top level geographical presentation (i.e. all of the USA).
Pretty shocking!
Now drill down by increasing the resolution, looking say at the quite big patch of "most hate" tweets just west of Wyoming.
The dangers of aggregation!
One could also look at the U.S. East Coast for a similar effect.
Look at the top level geographical presentation (i.e. all of the USA).
Pretty shocking!
Now drill down by increasing the resolution, looking say at the quite big patch of "most hate" tweets just west of Wyoming.
The dangers of aggregation!
One could also look at the U.S. East Coast for a similar effect.
Brief Round-Up
Lots of interesting stuff around at the moment...
- Over at Mike Flynn's blog, a very nice post which ties together bats, birds, linguistic evolution, the philosophy of chemistry and dinosaurs.
- Over at Siris, Brandon Watson has an interesting post about edutainment. Given the current trend for "gamification" of educational resources in HE and the fact that research is fairly consistent in, at least, casting doubt on the fact that students always actually recognise when they have learnt something, this is something that should concern most educators.
- At The Renaissance Mathematicus, Thony Christie looks at Galileo's Theory of Tides and draws lessons for today's scientists.
Monday 13 May 2013
Sunday 12 May 2013
Glacial Activity in North America
I seem to recall an old science fiction story about the return of the glaciers. Anyway, this from Mike Flynn's blog...
Yes, I know this is not really glaciation (in any shape or form).
Yes, I know this is not really glaciation (in any shape or form).
Friday 10 May 2013
Endeavour
I was always a big fan of "Morse", the TV series based on Colin Dexter's books rather than the books themselves, and I enjoy the reruns on TV when they appear. The characterisation and the partnership between John Thaw, who played Morse and Kevin Whately, who played Lewis, had a touching realism about it and, based as they were on the novels, you rarely felt that you got shortchanged by the script. Indeed, there are some episodes that are immensely good. My favourite, "Masonic Mysteries"which also starred Ian McDiarmid, with it's Magic Flute motif is a fantastic story and "The Day of the Devil" was genuinely disturbing, but there are others that come to mind: "Twilight of the Gods" with John Geilguid, and "Death is now my Neighbour" in which Richard Briers captured a little of the essence of evil in his portrayal of the retiring Master of Morse's old college.
This was in contrast to the sequel series, "Lewis", which while having many of the right elements never came up to the mark and continually disappointed due mainly to the superficial writing and very, very poor scripts. Kevin Whately reprising the Lewis role and Lawrence Fox, playing Hathaway, did their best with substandard material but after the first half a dozen episodes, you knew that, whatever the merits of their on-screen partnership, the denouement would be a disappointment.
Now we have "Endeavour", a prequel series in which Shaun Evans takes up the mantle of the detective (constable at this time), under the watchful eye of DI Fred Thursday played by Roger Allam. The first set of episodes written by Russell Lewis had none of the gaping plot holes that afflict the Lewis episodes and the performances by Evans as Morse and Allam as Thursday are thoroughly believable and strike just the right note. It's not yet the Thaw/Whately partnership but there's real promise and, after the last episode of Series 1, I for one have an emotional investment in the characters. Hopefully, series 2 is on its way.
This was in contrast to the sequel series, "Lewis", which while having many of the right elements never came up to the mark and continually disappointed due mainly to the superficial writing and very, very poor scripts. Kevin Whately reprising the Lewis role and Lawrence Fox, playing Hathaway, did their best with substandard material but after the first half a dozen episodes, you knew that, whatever the merits of their on-screen partnership, the denouement would be a disappointment.
Now we have "Endeavour", a prequel series in which Shaun Evans takes up the mantle of the detective (constable at this time), under the watchful eye of DI Fred Thursday played by Roger Allam. The first set of episodes written by Russell Lewis had none of the gaping plot holes that afflict the Lewis episodes and the performances by Evans as Morse and Allam as Thursday are thoroughly believable and strike just the right note. It's not yet the Thaw/Whately partnership but there's real promise and, after the last episode of Series 1, I for one have an emotional investment in the characters. Hopefully, series 2 is on its way.
Another Conspiracy
I don't know what it is about commenters in the blogs I read but the weird ones seem to be be acting a little bit too amenable lately. First there was James Chastek in his blog talking about Science (TM) and Religion, and this guy shows up in the combox and promptly exhibits almost all of the bizarre raving new atheist tropes at which point we were treated to a rousing dismemberment of his arguments by the likes of Brandon Watson and Crude. Now, in his blog, Ed Feser has written a post on Conspiracy Theories and, right on cue, we have another commenter who appears and exhibits all of the tropes associated with that particular subculture. And we are again treated to another thorough takedown by the likes of Mr Watson and other members of the AT crowd.
Two examples in as many weeks? On the Internet, where factual accuracy and considered argument are at their apogee?
A coincidence, I don't think so... something's definitely going on here!
However, it has to be said, pace my attempt to identify the latest manifestation of the global lizard space-alien conspiracy, we do cut to the chase fairly quickly. In response to the inevitable Conspiracy Theorist challenge: "Why don't you want to conduct such an investigation now?"
Brandon Watson replies:
"Because it's a waste of time and money clearly motivated by an attempt of people to find closure, whether for 9/11 itself or its aftermath, on the basis of speculative hypotheses and just-so stories rather than actual evidence; because its founding assumptions require us to believe that a government that repeatedly bungles much less elaborate projects somehow managed to be utterly successful here, with no means or mechanism in sight for it to do so, despite the fact that we are talking about something that occurred in one of the busiest buildings in the world; because nobody is in fact risking anything, much less reputation and livelihood, on the kind of speculation involved here and the supposedly 'compelling' arguments turn out to be purely speculative frameworks very tenuously linked to evidence here and there; because anyone who has ever actually looked at disaster reports knows that the supposed inconsistencies and contradictions show no signs of being anything other than the ordinary kind of confusion any significant disaster causes; and because when you actually look at the claims of 9/11 truthers, one finds a consistent pattern of exaggeration deviating from the actual evidence in a clearly identifiable direction."
which to me seems to sum up the best response nicely.
There's also a reference to an old but good xkcd cartoon that says something similar.
The thread is ongoing and the person in question is still digging his hole deeper and deeper. I suspect he won't stop as the situation is similar to that of the first commenter on the Just Thomism blog: there is too much emotional investment in the proponent's truth claim that no amount of reasoned argument will shift his position.
Two examples in as many weeks? On the Internet, where factual accuracy and considered argument are at their apogee?
A coincidence, I don't think so... something's definitely going on here!
However, it has to be said, pace my attempt to identify the latest manifestation of the global lizard space-alien conspiracy, we do cut to the chase fairly quickly. In response to the inevitable Conspiracy Theorist challenge: "Why don't you want to conduct such an investigation now?"
Brandon Watson replies:
"Because it's a waste of time and money clearly motivated by an attempt of people to find closure, whether for 9/11 itself or its aftermath, on the basis of speculative hypotheses and just-so stories rather than actual evidence; because its founding assumptions require us to believe that a government that repeatedly bungles much less elaborate projects somehow managed to be utterly successful here, with no means or mechanism in sight for it to do so, despite the fact that we are talking about something that occurred in one of the busiest buildings in the world; because nobody is in fact risking anything, much less reputation and livelihood, on the kind of speculation involved here and the supposedly 'compelling' arguments turn out to be purely speculative frameworks very tenuously linked to evidence here and there; because anyone who has ever actually looked at disaster reports knows that the supposed inconsistencies and contradictions show no signs of being anything other than the ordinary kind of confusion any significant disaster causes; and because when you actually look at the claims of 9/11 truthers, one finds a consistent pattern of exaggeration deviating from the actual evidence in a clearly identifiable direction."
which to me seems to sum up the best response nicely.
There's also a reference to an old but good xkcd cartoon that says something similar.
The thread is ongoing and the person in question is still digging his hole deeper and deeper. I suspect he won't stop as the situation is similar to that of the first commenter on the Just Thomism blog: there is too much emotional investment in the proponent's truth claim that no amount of reasoned argument will shift his position.
Monday 6 May 2013
Jack's Entrance
After Notting Hill, I was thinking of single scenes that stand head an shoulders above the rest of the film. Now me and my kids quite like the first couple of Pirates of the Caribbean films so, with due respect to the critic Mark Kermode who I regard highly, I wouldn't put this in the same godforsaken class as Notting Hill, but I do think that Captain Jack's entrance is one of the best. I'm tempted to add the fight scene in the waterwheel in the second film but that relies a lot on the action whereas this one just requires Johnny Depp and immediately tells you all you need to know about the character.
The Age of the Hollow Men
Mike Flynn has a wonderful post on the "Passing of the Age of Reason".
It requires no commentary from me but it is interesting to note the difference in the presentation of argument between the scholastic method and most of the debate that takes place nowadays. The former required that you clearly counter the strongest objections first whereas the latter seems to take a perverse delight in the wilful misrepresentation of opposing views.
It requires no commentary from me but it is interesting to note the difference in the presentation of argument between the scholastic method and most of the debate that takes place nowadays. The former required that you clearly counter the strongest objections first whereas the latter seems to take a perverse delight in the wilful misrepresentation of opposing views.
Notting Hill
I think that, almost without exception, the work of Richard Curtis is complete garbage - the exceptions being the second series of Blackadder, and this one scene from the film Notting Hill. I would defy anybody to come up with one redeeming feature in any of the films apart from this one and don't get me started on the Vicar of Dibley! Even the much vaunted last Blackadder scene in series 4 is really just calculated sentimentality but, most of all, I hate the film Notting Hill with a vengeance. The film surely ranks as one of the most execrable instances of cinema in existence. I used to live near Notting Hill (the Ladbroke Grove end not the Gate end) and I think I can safely say that, even at the time of release, it didn't represent any kind of landscape that most of its residents would recognise. Having said that, amid the dross (and the scene where the characters contest to appear the most unfortunate is about as bad as you can get) there is this one scene in which Hugh Grant walks down Portobello Road from season to season that is absolutely stunning. Nowhere near enough to compensate for the whole thing but it certainly deserved to be in a better film.
And the Bill Withers track is perfect, of course.
And the Bill Withers track is perfect, of course.
Thursday 2 May 2013
Tuesday 30 April 2013
Saudade
I've just come across the Portuguese word "Saudade". The Wikipedia entry states that:
"It describes a deep emotional state of nostalgic longing for an absent something or someone that one loves. Moreover, it often carries a repressed knowledge that the object of longing will never return."
Apparently it is no precise translation but it also appears that many languages have a similar concept, perhaps the closest being the Welsh term "Hiraeth".
An echo a time before the Fall, maybe.
"It describes a deep emotional state of nostalgic longing for an absent something or someone that one loves. Moreover, it often carries a repressed knowledge that the object of longing will never return."
Apparently it is no precise translation but it also appears that many languages have a similar concept, perhaps the closest being the Welsh term "Hiraeth".
An echo a time before the Fall, maybe.
Monday 29 April 2013
Facts Don't Dispel Belief in Creation Myths...
James Chastek's post on Science and Creation Myths on his ever interesting Just Thomism blog has been picked up by some of the big guns in the philosophy of science and religion blogs that I read (for example, Mike Flynn has a nice response here). Something quite interesting happened in the comments of the original article: we were treated to a number of rather scientifically-questionable assertions by one overreaching commentator (... population genetics has proved the story of Adam and Eve to be false, original sin, etc, etc, etc) which is the standard, if mathematically illiterate, response of certain so-called gnu-atheists, as well as the usual disclaimer that scientism is a straw-man because no-one holds those views. This was followed by a very entertaining take-down of these views by one of Ed Feser's regularly commentators, a (Mr?) Crude.
Basically, it is a call-out of atheistic psychological projection and I can't do better than to quote some of it:
What to say...in the subsequent posts, our new atheist friend retreats to an implicit fideism characterised by a refusal to engage with the arguments or withdraw statements which are shown to be false. I presume this is what geologists get when they talk to Young Earth Creationists. There's a curious symmetry about it. In any case, the rest of the commentary follows exactly the progression presicted by Crude who also gives a nice summary of the situation here.
Basically, it is a call-out of atheistic psychological projection and I can't do better than to quote some of it:
"Now, here’s where things really get interesting. Everything I just told you absolutely undercuts one myth – the one you’re propagating. It does so demonstrably, and it’s not even an exhaustive list of why you’re wrong. No, population genetics does not undercut a literal, historical fall. Not of Adam and Eve, and not generally. No, there are a variety of reasons that you’re utterly wrong about your claims on this topic, and a variety of ways to maintain a real and literal fall given our scientific knowledge.
But I have a prediction: You will not sacrifice your myth.
It’s too important to you, and really, that importance is just one facet of the scientism you claim does not exist, and is not actually a problem. You need, absolutely need, science to have put a stake through the heart of this religious claim – or, at the very least, it has to be capable of doing it in principle (preferably ‘any year now!’). Because if it doesn’t – if science really is not just limited, but limited in such a way that makes it incapable of giving you the intellectual certainty (and with it, authority) you desperately want it to… well, what a tremendous disappointment that would be. It’s so disappointing, that it’s an understanding that simply cannot be accepted."
This seems to me to be the underlying motivation for a lot of the new atheist rant about religion.
Saturday 27 April 2013
Creation Myths
Over at Just Thomism, James Chastek has a nice post on scientific creation myth - in the sense of the stories that scientists tell themselves about the creation of the discipline and how it has apparently finally put paid to religious mythology as a source of truth. As he points out:
"Science in the popular imagination is idealized (science cannot explain everything or solve all our problems now, but just give it time!); and only its successes are seen as integral to it (i.e. vaccinations, space travel, and computers are seen as the direct and proper work of science while Hiroshima, Tuskegee, Mustard gas, scientific eugenics and sterilization programs, Josef Mengele, climate change, industrial pollution, etc. are never seen as the necessary products of “science”). IOW, this is obviously not a scientific view of science but one that makes it into an exalted, inerrant messiah that will set everything right if we only give it our total devotion. Ultimately, it’s not that we want to destroy creation myths with science but that we want to replace an ancient creation myth with a modern one."
This seems to me to be spot on. Anyone familiar with the history of the Galileo controversy cannot fail to appreciate how powerful the scientific creation myth has now become. despite being pretty much completely rejected by both historians and philosophers of science, it is nevertheless deeply embedded in the subconscious of almost all working scientists despite clear and historically compelling arguments to the contrary. (See the comments to this post on Geocentrism and the Galileo Affair by Thony Christie at The Renaissance Mathematicus for a hilarious example of this.)
"Science in the popular imagination is idealized (science cannot explain everything or solve all our problems now, but just give it time!); and only its successes are seen as integral to it (i.e. vaccinations, space travel, and computers are seen as the direct and proper work of science while Hiroshima, Tuskegee, Mustard gas, scientific eugenics and sterilization programs, Josef Mengele, climate change, industrial pollution, etc. are never seen as the necessary products of “science”). IOW, this is obviously not a scientific view of science but one that makes it into an exalted, inerrant messiah that will set everything right if we only give it our total devotion. Ultimately, it’s not that we want to destroy creation myths with science but that we want to replace an ancient creation myth with a modern one."
This seems to me to be spot on. Anyone familiar with the history of the Galileo controversy cannot fail to appreciate how powerful the scientific creation myth has now become. despite being pretty much completely rejected by both historians and philosophers of science, it is nevertheless deeply embedded in the subconscious of almost all working scientists despite clear and historically compelling arguments to the contrary. (See the comments to this post on Geocentrism and the Galileo Affair by Thony Christie at The Renaissance Mathematicus for a hilarious example of this.)
Saturday 13 April 2013
From Random Polygon to Ellipse
Here is a fascinating and quite unexpected result from Shape Analysis.
I came across it at Matthen's blog which is great resource for visualising simple but intriguing mathematical results.
"Draw some random points on a piece of paper and join them up to make a random polygon. Find all the midpoints and connect them up to give a new shape, and repeat. The resulting shape will get smaller and smaller, and will tend towards an ellipse".
The visualisation is here and the paper demonstrating the result is here.
I came across it at Matthen's blog which is great resource for visualising simple but intriguing mathematical results.
"Draw some random points on a piece of paper and join them up to make a random polygon. Find all the midpoints and connect them up to give a new shape, and repeat. The resulting shape will get smaller and smaller, and will tend towards an ellipse".
The visualisation is here and the paper demonstrating the result is here.
Friday 12 April 2013
Fr Emil Kapaun
Thursday 11 April 2013
Sunshine on Leith
With all due respect to Liverpool and Celtic, there's only one winner when it comes to football anthems and that is Hibs' rendition of "Sunshine on Leith" by the Proclaimers.
This is them at their CIS Cup victory in 2007 against Kilmarnock. I'm not a Hibs fan but it makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.
I remember that the BBC coverage of the event stopped the player interviews to listen to the crowd singing. The sound is better but you don't get the feeling of being in the crowd that the video clip has.
The Proclaimers' version is here.
It's a beautiful song and I want it sung at my funeral.
This is them at their CIS Cup victory in 2007 against Kilmarnock. I'm not a Hibs fan but it makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand up.
I remember that the BBC coverage of the event stopped the player interviews to listen to the crowd singing. The sound is better but you don't get the feeling of being in the crowd that the video clip has.
The Proclaimers' version is here.
It's a beautiful song and I want it sung at my funeral.
Saturday 6 April 2013
Adam an' Ev'ing It
Over the week, I re-read Mike Flynn's Essay on Monogenism.
I have to say that I have never entirely understood the difficulty here. I know that the Maverick Philosopher, who also wrote about this topic, would demure from the assertion, but there is clearly much to agree with in Chesterton's view that original sin is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.
I was partly thinking of this as I read that Iain Banks or (Iain M. Banks if you prefer) had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. I don't mean to speak ill of the dying and I quite like some of his science fiction although I think his "ordinary" fiction, e.g. The Crow Road or The Wasp Factory, is pretty poor. I do, however, recall a quote from an interview he once gave in which he courageously defended his decision to make the terrorists in one of his books Christians rather than, say, Muslims
"I thought [Christianity] was a great religion for terrorists. You can do anything as long as you confess, in Catholicism anyway. And together with the idea of 'original sin', Christianity seems to have a better set-up for terrorism than Islam. It would have been too easy to do Islamic terrorism".
To which the appropriate response is "Yeah, ... right!"
Our Chatterati are sooo brave and never take the easy way out... except when they need to do some research to actually find out what Catholics believe before informing us of said beliefs.
I have to say that I have never entirely understood the difficulty here. I know that the Maverick Philosopher, who also wrote about this topic, would demure from the assertion, but there is clearly much to agree with in Chesterton's view that original sin is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.
I was partly thinking of this as I read that Iain Banks or (Iain M. Banks if you prefer) had been diagnosed with terminal cancer. I don't mean to speak ill of the dying and I quite like some of his science fiction although I think his "ordinary" fiction, e.g. The Crow Road or The Wasp Factory, is pretty poor. I do, however, recall a quote from an interview he once gave in which he courageously defended his decision to make the terrorists in one of his books Christians rather than, say, Muslims
"I thought [Christianity] was a great religion for terrorists. You can do anything as long as you confess, in Catholicism anyway. And together with the idea of 'original sin', Christianity seems to have a better set-up for terrorism than Islam. It would have been too easy to do Islamic terrorism".
To which the appropriate response is "Yeah, ... right!"
Our Chatterati are sooo brave and never take the easy way out... except when they need to do some research to actually find out what Catholics believe before informing us of said beliefs.
Sunday 31 March 2013
Saturday 30 March 2013
This is my friend...
For Easter Saturday
This seems to me to be the perfect Holy Saturday hymn.
All we can do is tell the story of our friend "in Whose sweet praise, I all my days could gladly spend".
This seems to me to be the perfect Holy Saturday hymn.
All we can do is tell the story of our friend "in Whose sweet praise, I all my days could gladly spend".
Friday 29 March 2013
Aure Entuluva
For Good Friday
There seems to be two reasonable responses of the Christian to the events of Good Friday. The first is an echoing of Christ's utterance of the Psalm 22 which acknowledges the sense of being overwhelmed by evil but holds steadfastly to the hope that something better will arise from it. "Day will come.. again!" Ultimately, psalm 22 is a psalm of triumph.
The second is the response of that of Psalm 50 (51) said with the knowledge that, ultimately, it is we who are the oppressors; we are the ones who cause the others to cry out "Day will come again".
Miserere mei, Deus
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
Dele iniquitatem meam
Amplius lava me ab iniquitate mea
Et a peccato meo munda me
Quoniam iniquitatem meam ego cognosco
Et peccatum meum contra me est semper
Tibi soli peccavi
Et malum coram te feci
Ut iustificeris in sermonibus tuis
Et vincas cum iudicaris
Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum
Et in peccatis concepit me mater mea
Ecce enim veritatem dilexisti incerta
Et occulta sapientiae tuae manifestasti mihi
Asparges me hysopo et mundabor
Lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor
Auditui meo dabis gaudium
Et laetitiam exultabunt ossa humiliata
Averte faciem tuam a peccatis meis
Et omnes iniquitates meas dele
Cor mundum crea in me Deus
Et spiritum rectum innova in visceribus meis
Ne proicias me a facie tua
Et spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me
Redde mihi laetitiam salutaris tui
Et spiritu principali confirma me
Docebo iniquos vias tuas
Et impii ad te convertentur
Libera me de sanguinibus
Deus, Deus salutis meae
Exultabit lingua mea iustitiam tuam
Domine labia mea aperies
Et os meum adnuntiabit laudem tuam
Quoniam si voluisses sacrificium dedissem utique
Holocaustis non delectaberis
Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus
Cor contritum et humiliatum
Deus non spernet
Benigne fac Domine in bona voluntate tua Sion
Et aedificentur muri Hierusalem
Tunc acceptabis sacrificium iustitiae
oblationes et holocausta
Tunc inponent super altare tuum vitulos.
Secundum magnam misericordiam tuam
Et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum
Dele iniquitatem meam
Amplius lava me ab iniquitate mea
Et a peccato meo munda me
Quoniam iniquitatem meam ego cognosco
Et peccatum meum contra me est semper
Tibi soli peccavi
Et malum coram te feci
Ut iustificeris in sermonibus tuis
Et vincas cum iudicaris
Ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum
Et in peccatis concepit me mater mea
Ecce enim veritatem dilexisti incerta
Et occulta sapientiae tuae manifestasti mihi
Asparges me hysopo et mundabor
Lavabis me et super nivem dealbabor
Auditui meo dabis gaudium
Et laetitiam exultabunt ossa humiliata
Averte faciem tuam a peccatis meis
Et omnes iniquitates meas dele
Cor mundum crea in me Deus
Et spiritum rectum innova in visceribus meis
Ne proicias me a facie tua
Et spiritum sanctum tuum ne auferas a me
Redde mihi laetitiam salutaris tui
Et spiritu principali confirma me
Docebo iniquos vias tuas
Et impii ad te convertentur
Libera me de sanguinibus
Deus, Deus salutis meae
Exultabit lingua mea iustitiam tuam
Domine labia mea aperies
Et os meum adnuntiabit laudem tuam
Quoniam si voluisses sacrificium dedissem utique
Holocaustis non delectaberis
Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus
Cor contritum et humiliatum
Deus non spernet
Benigne fac Domine in bona voluntate tua Sion
Et aedificentur muri Hierusalem
Tunc acceptabis sacrificium iustitiae
oblationes et holocausta
Tunc inponent super altare tuum vitulos.
Saturday 23 March 2013
That's My King
For Palm Sunday, a fantastic version of the famous sermon "Seven Way King" (aka That's My King) as spoken by Dr. S.M. Lockridge set to footage from the movie "The Passion of the Christ".
A fuller version of the text is given below (taken from here)
A fuller version of the text is given below (taken from here)
The Bible says my King is a seven-way King:
He's the King of the Jews - that's a racial King.
He's the King of Israel - that's a national King.
He's the King of Righteousness.
He's the King of the Ages.
He's the King of Heaven.
He's the King of Glory.
He's the King of kings and He's the Lord of lords.
That's my King.
Well, I wonder do you know Him.
David said, "The heavens declare the glory of God and
the firmament showeth His handiwork."
My King is a sovereign King - no means of measure can define
His limitless love.
No farseeing telescope can bring into visibility the
coastline of His shoreless supply.
No barrier can hinder Him from pouring out His blessings.
He's enduringly strong.
He's entirely sincere.
He's eternally steadfast.
He's immortally graceful.
He's imperially powerful.
He's impartially merciful.
Do you know Him?
He's the greatest phenomenon that has ever crossed the
horizon of this world.
He's God's Son.
He's the sinner's Saviour.
He's the centrepiece of civilisation.
He stands in the solitude of himself.
He's august and He's unique.
He's unparalleled, He's unprecedented.
He is the loftiest idea in literature.
He's the highest personality in philosophy.
He is the supreme problem in higher criticism.
He's the fundamental doctrine of true theology.
He is the core and the necessity for spiritual religion.
He's the miracle of the age, He's... yes He is.
He's the superlative of everything good that you choose to
call Him.
He's the only one qualified to be an all-sufficient Saviour.
I wonder if you know him today?
He supplies strength for the weak.
He's available for the tempted and the tried.
He sympathises and He saves.
He strengthens and sustains.
He guards and He guides.
He heals the sick.
He cleansed the lepers.
He forgives sinners.
He discharges debtors.
He delivers the captive.
He defends the feeble.
He blesses the young.
He serves the unfortunate.
He regards the aged.
He rewards the diligent.
And He beautifies the meek.
I wonder if you know Him? Well, my King---
He is the key, He's the key to knowledge.
He's the wellspring of wisdom.
He's the doorway of deliverance.
He's the pathway of peace.
He's the roadway of righteousness.
He's the highway of holiness.
He's the gateway of glory.
Do you know Him?
Well, His office is manifold.
His promise is sure.
His life is matchless.
His goodness is limitless.
His mercy is everlasting.
His love never changes.
His Word is enough.
His grace is sufficient.
His reign is righteous and
His yoke is easy and
His burden is light.
I wish I could describe Him to you.
But He's indes... Wooah, yeaaah! yeaahh,
He's indescribable - yes He is ! He's God.
He's, He's indescribable, yes, He's indescribable.
He's incomprehensible.
He's invincible.
He's irresistible.
Well, you can't get Him out of your mind,
You get Him off of your hand,
You can't outlive Him, and you can't live without Him.
Well, the Pharisees couldn't stand Him, but they found out
they couldn't stop Him.
Pilate couldn't find any fault in Him.
The witnesses couldn't get their testimonies to agree.
Herod couldn't kill Him.
Death couldn't handle Him and the grave couldn't hold Him.
Yeah !
THAT'S MY KING !
THAT'S MY KING ! YEAH !
And Thine is the Kingdom the power and the glory forever and
ever and ever and ever.
How long is that ?
And ever and ever.
And when you get through all the forevers, then
Amen !
GOOD GOD ALMIGHTY ! AMEN ! AMEN !
Dr. S. M.. Lockridge
Friday 22 March 2013
Some Maths Tricks - Calculating Square Roots
I love these types of "calculating-tricks", i.e. simple procedures for calculating arithmetic operations on numbers. This one is a good one and its fun to try to see out why it works.
A full explanation can be found here.
A full explanation can be found here.
Thursday 21 March 2013
Tuesday 19 March 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)