Every year I declare that I’m not going to watch the new season of MTV’s The Real World. Every year I fail…except for the Las Vegas seasons. Now, why the Las Vegas seasons? I have no idea. I loved Vegas when I went there, so that baffles me. Anyway, the latest season is in Sydney, Australia. I think the following is true: they allowed America to vote for who would make up the cast. Funny thing, America didn’t vote in any gay or bi people. MTV must have been shocked that the majority of Americans don’t think 1 out of 7 is a representative percentage. Good lord I’m talented at not getting to the point.
Okay, there is a man named Isaac on the show. He used to do acid when he was a teenager. He is off it now, but he has side effects that have stayed with him. I didn’t even know this about him until this last episode. Well something happened that got me thinking. He woke up one morning and said he saw a black bird. By “saw” he meant HE saw it and no one else could see it. He has visions occasionally which he attributes to having been on acid. He didn’t have the visions before he got into drugs. Anyway, he doesn’t talk about it because it obviously makes him look crazy. Well seeing the black bird wasn’t just a reminder of his past. He had seen a black bird before. Four times to be exact. Each time he saw the bird it was a sign that someone he knew died. So, to see the bird freaked him out. He called home and had someone call around for him. His mood changed dramatically. I don’t know if it was that day or the next, but someone from home called him and told him that his Grandpa had just died.
Now here is my question: how would an atheist explain that? The little I know about atheism teaches that there is no such thing as the spiritual world. Would it have to be chalked up as a 6th sense? Maybe that would avoid the spiritual route, but it seems that a 6th sense of knowledge would be mental. What I mean is that you would just know it. It wouldn’t require a bird flying in your mind. It wouldn’t need to communicate through signs. My way of viewing what happened to him is that the acid altered his brain in such a way that he can sometimes view parts of the spiritual world. I get that what I just wrote is pretty mystical and primitive, but there is something more to our world than just the physical. That is the part that the atheist would have a problem with.
Have you ever known something before it happened? I have, and the occasions range from the funny to weird to downright impossible. I don’t know what to think of this, but I have a funny example. Before I write it, I should preface it with this: I think this was probably just a weird coincidence.
When I was about 10 years old, I lived in Branford, Florida. After church one night, we had some people over. My mom was talking to one of the church members when she said something that I couldn’t understand. She said it in a weird way, so of course, I made fun of it by saying what I thought she said. So, I said, “Fred, the chickens are coming.” I didn’t just say it. I added an accent, and I kept repeating it over and over. Less than one week later we came home to find like 5 or 6 chickens in our yard. They hung around our yard for about a week. Never before and never since have I lived anywhere where a chicken came onto my property. I don’t know what to make of that. Like I said, it was probably just random coincidence.
For summer, I always came home from college. I tried to work every year. One year I came home and didn’t know where I wanted to work. I can’t remember which year this was. Anyway, I felt like I was being a bum by not working, so I decided I would go back to work at Southern Dunes. For whatever reason before I ever even went up there, I felt like I shouldn’t go. For some reason I felt a pull that that was not the place I should be at. I thought that that feeling didn’t make any sense, and I was just being lazy. One day I just forced myself into going up there to talk to my old bosses to see if I could work for just a couple months. It seemed like it would work out, but I needed to talk to a specific person who wasn’t there at that time. Later that night we had church. When I walked into the foyer of the church, a person standing in the foyer looked at me and said, “You shouldn’t have gone there.” I don’t remember what my response was, but I knew exactly what he/she was talking about. Now how did I know? Even more so, how did he/she know? Discernment is real. This person wasn’t psychic and neither am I. God tells us things sometimes that we could never know on our own. I think about that sometimes and wonder what the big deal was. Why was working at Southern Dunes, that summer, not a good idea? The only thing I can think of is that maybe I would have gotten into an accident. But you know, when you go down that road, you could just as easily say God could prevent the accident. I don’t know what that deal was about.
This past Sunday, my dad announced service for that night. By the end of the morning service, he said that he didn’t know why, but he felt like he shouldn’t have church that night. He doesn’t just call off church especially for no reason. The reason was “no reason” only in the sense that he didn’t understand it. The one telling him did.
I had another incident in my life where I knew something that was impossible to know. I’ve never told anyone, and I’m not about to here.
There is a spiritual world. There are things that are impossible to be known, by normal means, but can be known by the spiritual.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Time, Part 6: Chemical Time
A wise man once said, "Keep it simple stupid." I have not done that with any of my entries on "time." So, I'll try that with this one. "Chemical Time" is a made up term I'm using to describe the way humans view time differently. The question was asked, does time pass quicker for some and slower for others? The answer is yes, but this isn't due to genetics. It's due to chemical released in the brain. Let me discuss some experiments to illustrate this point.
A group of seniors were randomly stopped on the street and asked if they would participate in a science experiment. That experiment called for them to count to 60 seconds. The point of the exercise was to see how close they would come. Would they generally be go over 60 seconds or under? I think if we had to guess, we'd say that they would go over. Well, we'd be right. On average, the older crowd took too long (about 67 seconds). Now, let's flip this to the teenagers. The exact opposite was true. They counted to fast and were under 60 seconds. Why? Why did we already have a hunch how this would turn out? We know that old people drive slowly. They walk slowly. Everything tends to be slower. Is it just energy level? Could energy level be apart of the reason?
Let's look at another experiment. Ever heard of near-death experiences where time slowed down for the person? This is a difficult thing to test obviously because it requires someone being near death. An idea that was used was to place a watch-like contraption on a man's wrist and drop him from a long distance into a net. The man knows he will be fine, but the fear of falling overrides rationality. So it could work. The trick was that the contraption on his wrist would have a flashing number on it. The speed at which it flashed was so fast that it was unreadable to the human eye. The scientist wanted to see if it could be read while in mid-fall. Beforehand, the contraption was shown to the camera at its normal flash rate. I could not read it. So what was the result? The man read one of the two numbers correctly. So it "sort-of" worked. He got the first number right but missed the 2nd. I can tell you as someone who saw it beforehand, the only way to get even one number right was to guess correctly. It was simply too fast to see it. They tried it again and got the exact same result. He got a different first number right but missed the 2nd. I can't explain the miss of the 2nd number, but again, to even get one right seems to suggest that the myth of time slowing down is not actually a myth. When you're in a near-death experience, the brain releases chemicals like adrenaline which seems to slow down your ability to process information. This makes sense because in such an important moment, the ability to react quicker would result in survival more often than not.
The final experiment I want to tell you about involves some mice trained to hit a button at exactly 14-second intervals in order to receive food. The mice were trained to do this and could do so almost flawlessly. Here is the kicker. For this experiment, the trained mice were given shots of different stimulants. The first was given crack. The second was given marijuana. In humans, crack speeds up a person's actions while marijuana tends to slow them down. This is true of the mice as well. Instead of hitting the 14-second interval just like they used to, both were off. The one on crack hit the button too soon. The one on marijuana hit it too late.
What does all this suggest? The way we view time is different based upon what is going on in our heads. Time is truly relative. When you get behind a old person driving slowly, it's because his view of time and yours is different. In his mind, he is traveling as fast as you. How strange is that? What I mean is that he feels he is driving normally…so do you. I guess the good news kiddies is that you're gonna grow up fast and die slowly. That is, you become an adult quickly. Go through life normally. When you're older, time slows down for you to enjoy what you have left. At least that is the game plan. Ready…Break.
ps, This is the last planned entry I have for this series, but I guess I could come across something later.
pss, Go buy the new Angels & Airwaves cd and thank me later.
A group of seniors were randomly stopped on the street and asked if they would participate in a science experiment. That experiment called for them to count to 60 seconds. The point of the exercise was to see how close they would come. Would they generally be go over 60 seconds or under? I think if we had to guess, we'd say that they would go over. Well, we'd be right. On average, the older crowd took too long (about 67 seconds). Now, let's flip this to the teenagers. The exact opposite was true. They counted to fast and were under 60 seconds. Why? Why did we already have a hunch how this would turn out? We know that old people drive slowly. They walk slowly. Everything tends to be slower. Is it just energy level? Could energy level be apart of the reason?
Let's look at another experiment. Ever heard of near-death experiences where time slowed down for the person? This is a difficult thing to test obviously because it requires someone being near death. An idea that was used was to place a watch-like contraption on a man's wrist and drop him from a long distance into a net. The man knows he will be fine, but the fear of falling overrides rationality. So it could work. The trick was that the contraption on his wrist would have a flashing number on it. The speed at which it flashed was so fast that it was unreadable to the human eye. The scientist wanted to see if it could be read while in mid-fall. Beforehand, the contraption was shown to the camera at its normal flash rate. I could not read it. So what was the result? The man read one of the two numbers correctly. So it "sort-of" worked. He got the first number right but missed the 2nd. I can tell you as someone who saw it beforehand, the only way to get even one number right was to guess correctly. It was simply too fast to see it. They tried it again and got the exact same result. He got a different first number right but missed the 2nd. I can't explain the miss of the 2nd number, but again, to even get one right seems to suggest that the myth of time slowing down is not actually a myth. When you're in a near-death experience, the brain releases chemicals like adrenaline which seems to slow down your ability to process information. This makes sense because in such an important moment, the ability to react quicker would result in survival more often than not.
The final experiment I want to tell you about involves some mice trained to hit a button at exactly 14-second intervals in order to receive food. The mice were trained to do this and could do so almost flawlessly. Here is the kicker. For this experiment, the trained mice were given shots of different stimulants. The first was given crack. The second was given marijuana. In humans, crack speeds up a person's actions while marijuana tends to slow them down. This is true of the mice as well. Instead of hitting the 14-second interval just like they used to, both were off. The one on crack hit the button too soon. The one on marijuana hit it too late.
What does all this suggest? The way we view time is different based upon what is going on in our heads. Time is truly relative. When you get behind a old person driving slowly, it's because his view of time and yours is different. In his mind, he is traveling as fast as you. How strange is that? What I mean is that he feels he is driving normally…so do you. I guess the good news kiddies is that you're gonna grow up fast and die slowly. That is, you become an adult quickly. Go through life normally. When you're older, time slows down for you to enjoy what you have left. At least that is the game plan. Ready…Break.
ps, This is the last planned entry I have for this series, but I guess I could come across something later.
pss, Go buy the new Angels & Airwaves cd and thank me later.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Secret Crowds
I know this will likely mean nothing to most, but I want to write about another Angels & Airwaves song. I wrote a while back about a lyric from the first cd in which the line was, “I wanna have the same last dream again, the one where I wake up and I’m alive.”
Here it is (with an anecdote edited out) if you need some context:
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Alive
I was thinking about something that I thought I would tell you about. It will require a lot of setup work, so forgive me for making you read about a band. Blink-182 split up recently (I think), and one of the vocalists started a new band called "Angels and Airwaves." Well, I bought the new cd (which is absolutely, incredibly good). I read a little about the cd, and as I was listening to it, something came to mind. On the song called "The Adventure," the lyrics begin with "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." Now that makes no sense right? The context of their writing the album came to mind at this point. They were inspired by WW2. The lead singer said that he set up a dark room to put up pictures of the atrocities of WW2. This included dead bodies and burning cities. On the other end of the room, he put up pictures of space which he interpreted as hope. Like the hope of newness and discovery [and I would add now, hopeful progress]. He said that in the middle of these polar opposites is where he wanted to create. The songs would encapture the highs and lows of the very room he was in.
Okay, remember the quote I gave: "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." I immediately envisioned being a soldier at Normandy. Imagine being on that boat on the way up to the beachhead. The sounds and sights of war exploding around you. You know you're about to face all of that. You finally make it to the beach and you begin your pursuit for cover. Bullets are flying past your head right into your friends. In the horror of war, you are eventually shot. You lay there thinking about the pain, the sounds, how your friends have died, how you're about to, how you never did all the things you were supposed to do. This is my point. That soldier would give anything to be alive. But why? He wants to do all the things that he never did. I think back upon my life and worry about all the mistakes I've made. I remember the days that I was too scared to go to public school after moving to Davenport. I know that I missed out on so much. I remember how I used to be so afraid of asking girls out. What if they said no? What if they reject me? What if I meet someone else that I want to be with even more, and I've already committed myself? I loved someone and never did a thing about it. Do you ever think you should go try something adventurous, but you just don't do it? You'll have time later, right? Do you have dreams to accomplish things? Why don't you go and achieve them? How much of your life was wasted because you were too afraid? You are alive. You've been given a 2nd chance at life...you are alive. Are you making the most of it? Have you thought about calling that person? Have you considered making things right? You want to speak and be with them, yet you don't want to be the one "to call." You want to be something, yet you've done nothing to achieve that. Here is your chance. How much of your life are you guaranteed? Do you want to serve at your church in the form of preaching, teaching, singing, anything? Why isn't now the time? Fear of pain didn't save those soldiers. It won't save you. It will only hurt you. It will only hold you back. When we think we have forever, we let things go. We let our words remain hurtful with no attempt at apologies. We think time will heal those wounds. When we think we have forever, we waste our time. Would it be better to spend time with family, friends, or at your church than to waste it watching television? Would it be better to spend our time in community rather than solitude? Would it be better to show love?
To take another line from the song, "Here we go, life's waiting to begin." You've been given another chance. You wake up on that beach alive. Now what do you do?
I wrote just two more entries after this before Celeste died. I think about that when I listen to that song. She subscribed to my blog, so I believe she read it. Words are powerful. I know that little things said in a classroom are sometimes remembered for the rest of someone’s life. Celeste never said a word to me about that entry, but it could have effected her. I hope it did.
Well, I didn’t expect to go down this road. I was simply trying to setup why I was going to talk about “Secret Crowds” (another Angels & Airwaves song off their new cd). So here, I finally go:
"If I had my own world, I'd build you an empire." This is the opening line of "Secret Crowds." Immediately, that seems so "music lyric-esque." My meaning there is this: it comes across as another lyric that makes no sense. His point is this, he'd like the world to be different. What if you had the power to create a world? What would it look like? I believe God created our world, but chose to give free-will. That is where things took a dive.
The way I view the song is if God himself were singing it. I see it as what he intended for us and what we will receive in the end. I see the empire as "The Kingdom of God." The theology of the Kingdom of God is very interesting to me. I believe in a form of eschatology (study of the end times) in which the Kingdom of God (discussed in the Gospels) is already, but not yet here. It's like Jesus came to save us, but what does save us mean? Well, it has to do with the restoration of our world but this is inclusive of everything (plants, animals, humans). The lion will lay down with the lamb. Jesus brought the Kingdom of God with him. Healings are a sign of this Kingdom. Some get healed (already) but some do not (not yet). In the afterlife, we believe there will be no more sickness and death. Didn't Jesus spread that as he preached? He healed people and gave both spiritual and physical life to people. He didn't do this every where. Already here, but not yet fully realized. This is the Kingdom of God. It desires "that no man shall perish." God built us an empire. We chose this for ourselves. Salvation is about the restoration of this decision. (I just realized that I wrote all of that and I've only gotten past the first lyric.)
Here are the lyrics:
(If I had my own world)
(I'd build you an empire)
If I had my own world
I'd fill it with wealth and desire
A glorious past to admire
And voices of kids out walking dogs,
Birds, planes, trees and cars
If I had my own world
I'd love it for all that's inside it
There'd be no more wars, death or riots
There'd be no more police, packed parking lots,
Guns, bombs sounding off
If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the far lands
To spread love like violence
If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence
Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
If I had my own world
I'd show you the life that's inside it
The way that it glows when you find it
The way it survives with it's families,
Friends or it's enemies
Let's make this a new world
I swear you can go if you want to
I know that you have it within you
Inventing the first clean and usable,
God's greatest miracle
If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence
If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence
Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
Let me feel you carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
Another lyric I want to talk about is, "Watch our words spread hope like fire." It reminded me of Hebrews 12:29, "For Our God is a consuming fire." That is a reference to a verse in Deuteronomy, but I think the Deuteronomy verse references back to the burning bush. The fire consumed the bush but did not burn it up. Fire is used in a way in Christianity that I find interesting. It illustrates fervor and intensity but without destruction. It's the perfect metaphor for the song because in this new "perfect world" he is describing, fire needs to not be destructive. It has all the power it used to but for positive purposes. Hope should be infectious. Hope should spread from one to another. There are a lot of hopeless people, but it's the responsibility of the church to spread hope. Spread it with the speed, intensity, and purity of fire.
The next line I liked was, "Secret crowds rise up and gather. Hear your voices sing back louder." I interpret here, the secret crowds as the "invisible church." That is a theological term for those in the church who are actually "saved." The Protestants developed this idea because they split off from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was The Church. What the Protestants showed was that the church isn't a physical building nor a physical group of people. Joe Shmoe could walk in the building, but that doesn't make him a believer. It's the belief that makes one apart of the Church. The Greek has a couple words for church—ecclesia and koinonia. The ecclesia were the "called out ones." These are the people chosen by God to be saved. (I'm not going into Predestination or opposing views, frankly the New Testament has both views in juxtaposition). The koinonia are the group of believers who fellowship together. They share commonality. The line I quoted has both versions of the Church. It has the "secret crowds" which is the ecclesia (the people called out from among others). Then it talks about singing back louder. What is a choir? It is a group of people singing together "on the same page." So basically, I see this world that he is describing as including the Church. It's as if God wants to change this world, so he's asking his "secret crowd" or the "called out ones" to rise up and do their part. Use your words to spread the Gospel (aka good news). Remember, he wants the good news to spread like fire.
The next 2 lines go:
If I had my own world
I'd show you the life that's inside it
The way that it glows when you find it
The way it survives with it's families,
Friends or it's enemies
Let's make this a new world
I swear you can go if you want to
I know that you have it within you
Doesn't that sound like, "I have come that you might have life more abundantly"? This new life can exist with friends, families, and even in the midst of enemies. The new world God says he will create is a world in which death is gone. Peace does not know worry. He says that you can go if you want to. It's about hearing and then receiving. "I know that you have it within you."
Later he says, "Let me feel you, carry you higher. Watch our words spread hope like fire" I didn't know the line at first, so I thought he said, "Let me heal you, carry you higher." Think of Jesus healing people and then they get up and walk. They get off the dirty ground that they've been on for most if not all of their life. They stand and walk. It's "higher" physically but also spiritually. I know he doesn't actually say "heal" but my entire point is the interpretation of the song. Their lyrics lend themselves to this…this "epic" or "higher" way of thinking. Healings are apart of the Kingdom of God. God's wish is for good. Jesus' work was this restoration. It was the beginning of the Kingdom of God that will break through. Spread hope like fire.
Here it is (with an anecdote edited out) if you need some context:
Sunday, June 11, 2006
Alive
I was thinking about something that I thought I would tell you about. It will require a lot of setup work, so forgive me for making you read about a band. Blink-182 split up recently (I think), and one of the vocalists started a new band called "Angels and Airwaves." Well, I bought the new cd (which is absolutely, incredibly good). I read a little about the cd, and as I was listening to it, something came to mind. On the song called "The Adventure," the lyrics begin with "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." Now that makes no sense right? The context of their writing the album came to mind at this point. They were inspired by WW2. The lead singer said that he set up a dark room to put up pictures of the atrocities of WW2. This included dead bodies and burning cities. On the other end of the room, he put up pictures of space which he interpreted as hope. Like the hope of newness and discovery [and I would add now, hopeful progress]. He said that in the middle of these polar opposites is where he wanted to create. The songs would encapture the highs and lows of the very room he was in.
Okay, remember the quote I gave: "I want to have the same last dream again. The one where I wake up and I'm alive." I immediately envisioned being a soldier at Normandy. Imagine being on that boat on the way up to the beachhead. The sounds and sights of war exploding around you. You know you're about to face all of that. You finally make it to the beach and you begin your pursuit for cover. Bullets are flying past your head right into your friends. In the horror of war, you are eventually shot. You lay there thinking about the pain, the sounds, how your friends have died, how you're about to, how you never did all the things you were supposed to do. This is my point. That soldier would give anything to be alive. But why? He wants to do all the things that he never did. I think back upon my life and worry about all the mistakes I've made. I remember the days that I was too scared to go to public school after moving to Davenport. I know that I missed out on so much. I remember how I used to be so afraid of asking girls out. What if they said no? What if they reject me? What if I meet someone else that I want to be with even more, and I've already committed myself? I loved someone and never did a thing about it. Do you ever think you should go try something adventurous, but you just don't do it? You'll have time later, right? Do you have dreams to accomplish things? Why don't you go and achieve them? How much of your life was wasted because you were too afraid? You are alive. You've been given a 2nd chance at life...you are alive. Are you making the most of it? Have you thought about calling that person? Have you considered making things right? You want to speak and be with them, yet you don't want to be the one "to call." You want to be something, yet you've done nothing to achieve that. Here is your chance. How much of your life are you guaranteed? Do you want to serve at your church in the form of preaching, teaching, singing, anything? Why isn't now the time? Fear of pain didn't save those soldiers. It won't save you. It will only hurt you. It will only hold you back. When we think we have forever, we let things go. We let our words remain hurtful with no attempt at apologies. We think time will heal those wounds. When we think we have forever, we waste our time. Would it be better to spend time with family, friends, or at your church than to waste it watching television? Would it be better to spend our time in community rather than solitude? Would it be better to show love?
To take another line from the song, "Here we go, life's waiting to begin." You've been given another chance. You wake up on that beach alive. Now what do you do?
I wrote just two more entries after this before Celeste died. I think about that when I listen to that song. She subscribed to my blog, so I believe she read it. Words are powerful. I know that little things said in a classroom are sometimes remembered for the rest of someone’s life. Celeste never said a word to me about that entry, but it could have effected her. I hope it did.
Well, I didn’t expect to go down this road. I was simply trying to setup why I was going to talk about “Secret Crowds” (another Angels & Airwaves song off their new cd). So here, I finally go:
"If I had my own world, I'd build you an empire." This is the opening line of "Secret Crowds." Immediately, that seems so "music lyric-esque." My meaning there is this: it comes across as another lyric that makes no sense. His point is this, he'd like the world to be different. What if you had the power to create a world? What would it look like? I believe God created our world, but chose to give free-will. That is where things took a dive.
The way I view the song is if God himself were singing it. I see it as what he intended for us and what we will receive in the end. I see the empire as "The Kingdom of God." The theology of the Kingdom of God is very interesting to me. I believe in a form of eschatology (study of the end times) in which the Kingdom of God (discussed in the Gospels) is already, but not yet here. It's like Jesus came to save us, but what does save us mean? Well, it has to do with the restoration of our world but this is inclusive of everything (plants, animals, humans). The lion will lay down with the lamb. Jesus brought the Kingdom of God with him. Healings are a sign of this Kingdom. Some get healed (already) but some do not (not yet). In the afterlife, we believe there will be no more sickness and death. Didn't Jesus spread that as he preached? He healed people and gave both spiritual and physical life to people. He didn't do this every where. Already here, but not yet fully realized. This is the Kingdom of God. It desires "that no man shall perish." God built us an empire. We chose this for ourselves. Salvation is about the restoration of this decision. (I just realized that I wrote all of that and I've only gotten past the first lyric.)
Here are the lyrics:
(If I had my own world)
(I'd build you an empire)
If I had my own world
I'd fill it with wealth and desire
A glorious past to admire
And voices of kids out walking dogs,
Birds, planes, trees and cars
If I had my own world
I'd love it for all that's inside it
There'd be no more wars, death or riots
There'd be no more police, packed parking lots,
Guns, bombs sounding off
If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the far lands
To spread love like violence
If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence
Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
If I had my own world
I'd show you the life that's inside it
The way that it glows when you find it
The way it survives with it's families,
Friends or it's enemies
Let's make this a new world
I swear you can go if you want to
I know that you have it within you
Inventing the first clean and usable,
God's greatest miracle
If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence
If I had my own world
I'd build you an empire
From here to the farmlands
To spread love like violence
Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
Let me feel you carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
Let me feel you, carry you higher
Watch our words spread hope like fire
Secret crowds rise up and gather
Hear your voices sing back louder
Another lyric I want to talk about is, "Watch our words spread hope like fire." It reminded me of Hebrews 12:29, "For Our God is a consuming fire." That is a reference to a verse in Deuteronomy, but I think the Deuteronomy verse references back to the burning bush. The fire consumed the bush but did not burn it up. Fire is used in a way in Christianity that I find interesting. It illustrates fervor and intensity but without destruction. It's the perfect metaphor for the song because in this new "perfect world" he is describing, fire needs to not be destructive. It has all the power it used to but for positive purposes. Hope should be infectious. Hope should spread from one to another. There are a lot of hopeless people, but it's the responsibility of the church to spread hope. Spread it with the speed, intensity, and purity of fire.
The next line I liked was, "Secret crowds rise up and gather. Hear your voices sing back louder." I interpret here, the secret crowds as the "invisible church." That is a theological term for those in the church who are actually "saved." The Protestants developed this idea because they split off from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was The Church. What the Protestants showed was that the church isn't a physical building nor a physical group of people. Joe Shmoe could walk in the building, but that doesn't make him a believer. It's the belief that makes one apart of the Church. The Greek has a couple words for church—ecclesia and koinonia. The ecclesia were the "called out ones." These are the people chosen by God to be saved. (I'm not going into Predestination or opposing views, frankly the New Testament has both views in juxtaposition). The koinonia are the group of believers who fellowship together. They share commonality. The line I quoted has both versions of the Church. It has the "secret crowds" which is the ecclesia (the people called out from among others). Then it talks about singing back louder. What is a choir? It is a group of people singing together "on the same page." So basically, I see this world that he is describing as including the Church. It's as if God wants to change this world, so he's asking his "secret crowd" or the "called out ones" to rise up and do their part. Use your words to spread the Gospel (aka good news). Remember, he wants the good news to spread like fire.
The next 2 lines go:
If I had my own world
I'd show you the life that's inside it
The way that it glows when you find it
The way it survives with it's families,
Friends or it's enemies
Let's make this a new world
I swear you can go if you want to
I know that you have it within you
Doesn't that sound like, "I have come that you might have life more abundantly"? This new life can exist with friends, families, and even in the midst of enemies. The new world God says he will create is a world in which death is gone. Peace does not know worry. He says that you can go if you want to. It's about hearing and then receiving. "I know that you have it within you."
Later he says, "Let me feel you, carry you higher. Watch our words spread hope like fire" I didn't know the line at first, so I thought he said, "Let me heal you, carry you higher." Think of Jesus healing people and then they get up and walk. They get off the dirty ground that they've been on for most if not all of their life. They stand and walk. It's "higher" physically but also spiritually. I know he doesn't actually say "heal" but my entire point is the interpretation of the song. Their lyrics lend themselves to this…this "epic" or "higher" way of thinking. Healings are apart of the Kingdom of God. God's wish is for good. Jesus' work was this restoration. It was the beginning of the Kingdom of God that will break through. Spread hope like fire.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Time, Part 5: Mitochondria
Remember my intro where I said I was going to travel down the science route but I was likely to stumble over my words? Well, I'm sure you've noticed that already. Today I'm going to write again about something that I don't understand. Your bodies have life-giving material called mitochondria. I don't know where it comes from or even what it is. What matters is that it powers our existence. It keeps us alive. According to one of the shows that I watched regarding time, humans aren't programmed to die. That is, aging isn't written into our DNA. Aging is a result of destruction, not genetics. Your DNA doesn't read a line of code which eventually comes to the point of your death. Mitochondria continually makes new our cells. However, there is something working against this. Our daily actions continually cause damage to our bodies. What we eat is often not good for us. We brake bones or put stress on our bodies. It's the continual destruction of our bodies that outweighs the construction of mitochondria. We can't keep pace. Something is aiding this process. This something is known as "free radicals." No, not "New Radicals," the one-hit-wonder band with the song "You Get What You Give." But, thank you for bringing that up. I just downloaded it from iTunes a week ago. Great song. Anyway, free radicals are produced in our bodies just like Mitochondria. These free radicals go around destroying cells. (I don't begin to understand why they are there.) What matters is this: we know that they are there and there may be a way to reduce them. If we can find a way to cut the amount of free radicals down, then we might be able to slow down or even stop the aging process. (By the way, we're working on this in rats, and we're making progress.) Obviously, this doesn't help with accidents or war, etc. As medicine continues to understand more and more, we may be able to prolong life. From the program, it appeared that this could help even with diseases. So, I'm guessing something like cancer wouldn't be able to be a quick killer. That part, though, wasn't discussed much. The main thing they focused on was to say the "125 year" limit could become a memory due to the possibilities of blocking free radicals.
What would this mean to life? Our time on earth would change. I can't even come close to discussing all the ways that would change our lives but consider this one: How about knowing your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great Grandfather. You better remember his birthday this year or you'll get it. Anyway, what I found so interesting about the show was the amount of years it was suggested we could live. Can you guess? One thousand. Now, where have I heard that before? Think back to the Bible. Remember those stories in Genesis about how there was a time when people lived 900+ years? How do we rationalize that? Why did they live so long? Why don't we? Why does it appear people will live 1,000 years in Revelation? (I'm not going into the question of whether the 1,000 years is literal or not). I just found it interesting that the host of the show said "1,000" years and Revelation seems to say the same thing.
What would this mean to life? Our time on earth would change. I can't even come close to discussing all the ways that would change our lives but consider this one: How about knowing your great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great Grandfather. You better remember his birthday this year or you'll get it. Anyway, what I found so interesting about the show was the amount of years it was suggested we could live. Can you guess? One thousand. Now, where have I heard that before? Think back to the Bible. Remember those stories in Genesis about how there was a time when people lived 900+ years? How do we rationalize that? Why did they live so long? Why don't we? Why does it appear people will live 1,000 years in Revelation? (I'm not going into the question of whether the 1,000 years is literal or not). I just found it interesting that the host of the show said "1,000" years and Revelation seems to say the same thing.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Time, Part 4: The Double Slit Experiment
It’s been a while since I last wrote, but I just haven’t had “the time.” Oh, man that was a good one!
Okay, let me start with a correction. In a previous part, I talked about “muons” but I called them “neuons.” I also said that they were particles that came from distant locations in space. Well, actually they are particles that meet our atmosphere. In this place where space meets our atmosphere, muons are born. I still don’t understand them, but I know that they’re only supposed to last for 2/10s of a seconds. We find them on the land, so it’s the distance from the top of the atmosphere to land that is the great distance they cover in so little time.
The Double Slit Experiment
Newton gave us the 3 laws of motion that we thought were universal. However, what seemed so fundamental breaks down at the “quantum” level. The “tiny world” doesn’t have to follow the same rules as our common sense world. This is quite strange. It used to be that we thought of our world as being three-dimensional. Only recently did we begin to think of it in terms of being 4 dimensions. On the molecular level (or quantum), though, it’s thought that our world is as much as 11 dimensions (string theory). My point, for this discussion, is to illustrate that the “small” world operates much differently than ours (not to go into string theory). The quantum world is foreign. I’ve kept a video on my page for a long time which is of a science experiment that has some strange results. Now would be a good time for you to watch it. It’s called the “Double Slit Experiment.” It’s a good thing certain people aren’t reading this right now because they would be making a joke. I’ll abstain.
First of all, this is very strange. It is essentially saying that matter, on the quantum level, can exist in two places at the same time. It can de-localize. If our world is far stranger than we first thought, then some of the strange possibilities of time travel may in fact be possible. To exist in two locations at the same time is impossible right? Marty McFly. Remember him? Well, he exists as his teenage self yet also as his older self when they travel to the future. It’s just so strange to think about time travel that we just automatically say it’s impossible. We would make that same assumption regarding this experiment if it were not already seen that strange things do happen. Could a person de-localize? Could a person exist in two places “at the same time”? Think about that phrase “at the same time.” In the movies, Marty and Doc go to the future and go to Marty’s home. Old and young Marty exist in the same time period but not the same place (other 3 dimensions). That is to say, young and old Marty don’t exist in the same space-time (all 4 dimensions). They don’t both stand in the same spot. One is in one room and the other is hiding. So what the question “Could a person exist in two places at the same time?” really forgets is that time is another location that you’re leaving out when you say “places.” Of course, he can’t stand in the same spot as the other Marty as if he is entering his body. However, he could, theoretically, be in the same house and say hello to himself because he isn’t violating all 4 dimensions.
I think I’m making that complicated to follow. Think of it this way. You go to firehouse subs every weekday at noon. You stand right in front of the cashier and order exactly at noon. Can I pay the cashier at noon on a Wednesday? No, cause you’re there blocking me. Can I pay the cashier at noon on a Saturday? Yes, because I’m not violating the time dimension. Can I stand exactly where you stand every weekday and pay on a Wednesday at 11:57am? Yes, because even though I’m violating three of the dimensions you need, I’m not violating all of them (time). You need to stand in front of the cashier (3 dimensions) and pay at noon (includes the 4th dimension). When Marty goes forward in time, he violates the time dimension, but not the other 3 dimensions. So common sense only prevents all 4 from being violated simultaneously. Think about the quantum experiment. It’s like on the quantum level that a particle can exist in two locations without even traveling in time. Young and old Marty “split” in a sense in to two people because of time travel. In the experiment, there is no time travel that can explain the “split.” That is what makes it even more weird.
Bottom line: I don’t get it. If our world really is that complicated, though, how can we just assume that time travel is impossible? I get the Grandfather Paradox and problems of causality. For that reason, I don’t think it is possible. However, it could be.
Okay, let me start with a correction. In a previous part, I talked about “muons” but I called them “neuons.” I also said that they were particles that came from distant locations in space. Well, actually they are particles that meet our atmosphere. In this place where space meets our atmosphere, muons are born. I still don’t understand them, but I know that they’re only supposed to last for 2/10s of a seconds. We find them on the land, so it’s the distance from the top of the atmosphere to land that is the great distance they cover in so little time.
The Double Slit Experiment
Newton gave us the 3 laws of motion that we thought were universal. However, what seemed so fundamental breaks down at the “quantum” level. The “tiny world” doesn’t have to follow the same rules as our common sense world. This is quite strange. It used to be that we thought of our world as being three-dimensional. Only recently did we begin to think of it in terms of being 4 dimensions. On the molecular level (or quantum), though, it’s thought that our world is as much as 11 dimensions (string theory). My point, for this discussion, is to illustrate that the “small” world operates much differently than ours (not to go into string theory). The quantum world is foreign. I’ve kept a video on my page for a long time which is of a science experiment that has some strange results. Now would be a good time for you to watch it. It’s called the “Double Slit Experiment.” It’s a good thing certain people aren’t reading this right now because they would be making a joke. I’ll abstain.
First of all, this is very strange. It is essentially saying that matter, on the quantum level, can exist in two places at the same time. It can de-localize. If our world is far stranger than we first thought, then some of the strange possibilities of time travel may in fact be possible. To exist in two locations at the same time is impossible right? Marty McFly. Remember him? Well, he exists as his teenage self yet also as his older self when they travel to the future. It’s just so strange to think about time travel that we just automatically say it’s impossible. We would make that same assumption regarding this experiment if it were not already seen that strange things do happen. Could a person de-localize? Could a person exist in two places “at the same time”? Think about that phrase “at the same time.” In the movies, Marty and Doc go to the future and go to Marty’s home. Old and young Marty exist in the same time period but not the same place (other 3 dimensions). That is to say, young and old Marty don’t exist in the same space-time (all 4 dimensions). They don’t both stand in the same spot. One is in one room and the other is hiding. So what the question “Could a person exist in two places at the same time?” really forgets is that time is another location that you’re leaving out when you say “places.” Of course, he can’t stand in the same spot as the other Marty as if he is entering his body. However, he could, theoretically, be in the same house and say hello to himself because he isn’t violating all 4 dimensions.
I think I’m making that complicated to follow. Think of it this way. You go to firehouse subs every weekday at noon. You stand right in front of the cashier and order exactly at noon. Can I pay the cashier at noon on a Wednesday? No, cause you’re there blocking me. Can I pay the cashier at noon on a Saturday? Yes, because I’m not violating the time dimension. Can I stand exactly where you stand every weekday and pay on a Wednesday at 11:57am? Yes, because even though I’m violating three of the dimensions you need, I’m not violating all of them (time). You need to stand in front of the cashier (3 dimensions) and pay at noon (includes the 4th dimension). When Marty goes forward in time, he violates the time dimension, but not the other 3 dimensions. So common sense only prevents all 4 from being violated simultaneously. Think about the quantum experiment. It’s like on the quantum level that a particle can exist in two locations without even traveling in time. Young and old Marty “split” in a sense in to two people because of time travel. In the experiment, there is no time travel that can explain the “split.” That is what makes it even more weird.
Bottom line: I don’t get it. If our world really is that complicated, though, how can we just assume that time travel is impossible? I get the Grandfather Paradox and problems of causality. For that reason, I don’t think it is possible. However, it could be.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Time, Part 3: The 4th Dimension & The Grandfather Paradox
What does 3D mean? It refers to the three dimensions, but what is a dimension? Dictionary.com says it is “a property of space; extension in a given direction.” So consider this straight line:
_____________________________________________________
That line travels in a single dimension. If our whole world was just 1 dimension, then we could travel left and right and that would be it. We couldn’t pass anyone. There would be no “up” to go over the top of the other person. Okay, what is the next dimension?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Either that is the up-down dimension, or that is a bunch of I’s. You decide. The final dimension is what people really mean when they say something is 3D. The text you see now is 2D. If it could pop out at you, then it would be 3D. It’s the difference between Zelda on Nintendo and Zelda on N64. So why talk about this? Well, the next dimension is time. Objects can move along in time just like the other dimensions. Well, sort of. We can, at this point, only go in one direction with time. Have you ever heard that real estate is about location, location, location? Well, that is true, but it is true in “space-time” (which is another way of speaking about location in terms of the 4 dimensions rather than just the 3). If my family had bought some nice real estate on Bates Road in Haines City back in the year 2000, it would have taken just a few years for that investment to pay off. However, if we had bought it in 1950, it would have taken way too long to pay off. What is wrong here? The location is fine, as we know now. Well, the location would not have been fine in 1950 because location involves time, not just the other 3 dimensions. As time went by (moved), it became a good investment. “Space-time” is thinking of our world in terms of length, width, height, and time.
So if all the other dimensions can be traveled back and forth, why not time? Well, many “scientists say” (yes, I see the irony), that we theoretically can. It’s just a matter of speed. The faster an object travels, the slower time appears to go by for those observing. However, for the person going fast, time carries on as normal. You wouldn’t notice anything different, but if you could travel near the speed of light, then you would gain time (apparently to others). This begs the question, wouldn’t you still age the same? If that is true, then you may have “traveled back in time” to those around you, but it seems your “body age” would remain the same. So, you didn’t reverse time for yourself. To people on earth, you went forward in time (because now you have gray hair). To you, they went back in time (because they didn’t age like you). There is another way to time travel by using worms holes…but I don’t think we’re going there.
This whole concept of time being relative is apart of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. There are particles called (I think it is spelled this way) neuons. They don’t exist for very long. I forgot where they came from (again, I’m just a dude, not a scientist). They travel nearly at the speed of light. These neuons are so distant that they should dissipate before ever reaching the earth. So how do we know about them? We know about them because they do make it here. How is that possible? Well, they travel so fast that time, in a sense, slows down for them. Relatively, time slows for them to get here despite the fact that there shouldn’t be enough time. If time were constant, it wouldn’t work. If time were relative, then this would explain why it works. This is part of why time is not thought to be constant anymore. It is a dimension that can be traveled “left (past) or right (future).” Well, so the theory goes.
Okay, that had to be the worst explanation of the relativity of time in the history of mankind. However, when I’m in my 90’s and time travel becomes practical, I’ll just go back and rewrite it. You won’t even know that I wrote it so poorly.
While we’re on this subject, though, we should look at why there are massive problems with time travel. The major problem with traveling back in time is “causality.” This problem is often illustrated with the “Grandfather Paradox.” This states that time travel shouldn’t be possible because otherwise you could travel back in time and shoot your Grandfather before you were ever conceived. If you did this, did you do it? If you kill your Grandfather, then don’t you automatically disappear? If you disappear, then who shot your Grandfather? See the problem? Your Grandfather then, doesn’t die and then does have you. You then, in turn, do go try and kill him. The circle of impossibilities continues. This is part of why some scientists believe in “parallel universes.” These are basically every single possible world that coexists with ours but in another universe. It is what that old show “Sliders” was based on. I don’t want to go into parallel universes (nor do I believe in them). The problem of causality is so strong, that time travel is probably impossible even if the science appears to allow for it currently.
_____________________________________________________
That line travels in a single dimension. If our whole world was just 1 dimension, then we could travel left and right and that would be it. We couldn’t pass anyone. There would be no “up” to go over the top of the other person. Okay, what is the next dimension?
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Either that is the up-down dimension, or that is a bunch of I’s. You decide. The final dimension is what people really mean when they say something is 3D. The text you see now is 2D. If it could pop out at you, then it would be 3D. It’s the difference between Zelda on Nintendo and Zelda on N64. So why talk about this? Well, the next dimension is time. Objects can move along in time just like the other dimensions. Well, sort of. We can, at this point, only go in one direction with time. Have you ever heard that real estate is about location, location, location? Well, that is true, but it is true in “space-time” (which is another way of speaking about location in terms of the 4 dimensions rather than just the 3). If my family had bought some nice real estate on Bates Road in Haines City back in the year 2000, it would have taken just a few years for that investment to pay off. However, if we had bought it in 1950, it would have taken way too long to pay off. What is wrong here? The location is fine, as we know now. Well, the location would not have been fine in 1950 because location involves time, not just the other 3 dimensions. As time went by (moved), it became a good investment. “Space-time” is thinking of our world in terms of length, width, height, and time.
So if all the other dimensions can be traveled back and forth, why not time? Well, many “scientists say” (yes, I see the irony), that we theoretically can. It’s just a matter of speed. The faster an object travels, the slower time appears to go by for those observing. However, for the person going fast, time carries on as normal. You wouldn’t notice anything different, but if you could travel near the speed of light, then you would gain time (apparently to others). This begs the question, wouldn’t you still age the same? If that is true, then you may have “traveled back in time” to those around you, but it seems your “body age” would remain the same. So, you didn’t reverse time for yourself. To people on earth, you went forward in time (because now you have gray hair). To you, they went back in time (because they didn’t age like you). There is another way to time travel by using worms holes…but I don’t think we’re going there.
This whole concept of time being relative is apart of Einstein’s theory of general relativity. There are particles called (I think it is spelled this way) neuons. They don’t exist for very long. I forgot where they came from (again, I’m just a dude, not a scientist). They travel nearly at the speed of light. These neuons are so distant that they should dissipate before ever reaching the earth. So how do we know about them? We know about them because they do make it here. How is that possible? Well, they travel so fast that time, in a sense, slows down for them. Relatively, time slows for them to get here despite the fact that there shouldn’t be enough time. If time were constant, it wouldn’t work. If time were relative, then this would explain why it works. This is part of why time is not thought to be constant anymore. It is a dimension that can be traveled “left (past) or right (future).” Well, so the theory goes.
Okay, that had to be the worst explanation of the relativity of time in the history of mankind. However, when I’m in my 90’s and time travel becomes practical, I’ll just go back and rewrite it. You won’t even know that I wrote it so poorly.
While we’re on this subject, though, we should look at why there are massive problems with time travel. The major problem with traveling back in time is “causality.” This problem is often illustrated with the “Grandfather Paradox.” This states that time travel shouldn’t be possible because otherwise you could travel back in time and shoot your Grandfather before you were ever conceived. If you did this, did you do it? If you kill your Grandfather, then don’t you automatically disappear? If you disappear, then who shot your Grandfather? See the problem? Your Grandfather then, doesn’t die and then does have you. You then, in turn, do go try and kill him. The circle of impossibilities continues. This is part of why some scientists believe in “parallel universes.” These are basically every single possible world that coexists with ours but in another universe. It is what that old show “Sliders” was based on. I don’t want to go into parallel universes (nor do I believe in them). The problem of causality is so strong, that time travel is probably impossible even if the science appears to allow for it currently.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Time, Part 2: The Prime Mover
I left you with an extremely brief explanation of the Big Bang. Let’s go back. This tiny, infinitely dense item spontaneously expanded. There are three important questions. 1.What is it? 2.Where did it come from? 3.And finally, how could matter the size of the entire universe be packed into that small of an area? 1. It is the primitive universe packed into an immensely dense ball. The way it fits into this ball is intense pressure. Where this pressure comes from is unknown but may be like a black hole. In a black hole, the larger the mass, the greater the intensity of the gravitational pull. Gravity is the attraction of objects to mass (i.e. mass to mass). So infinite mass would have infinite gravity causing huge pressure on itself (or so the idea goes).
I think I sort of answered numbers one and three above but let’s consider number two. Where did this come from? Another way to ask that is, “why does this matter exist?” Science’s way to answer the question why is only Newton’s 3rd law or “cause and effect.” Cause and effect either breaks down with the origin of this atom (because where did it come from…what is it’s cause?). Some say it is the result of the last Big Bang where things expanded and then contracted back on itself leading to “our” eventual Big Bang (meaning Big Bang’s have happened before and will happen again). This answer, though, only delays the question’s answer. Where did the first atom come from to explode? Where does matter come from? Either something has always existed or things appeared out of nothing.
Something has always existed, whether its some form of mass or energy or God is debatable. Nothing + Nothing = Nothing (0+0=0). There is an idea within Christianity that teaches “creatio ex nihilo” (creation out of nothing). This says that the substance from which everything exists is out of just God’s spoken word. God didn’t cut a piece of himself off and then create (panentheism). Christianity has an answer for where the original things came from. This problem has been known for centuries. Whatever got things started has been known as “first cause” or if you believe it was a being it can be called “The Prime Mover.” Either you admit a God created things or you’re saying that things have always existed. Which is easier to say: God has always existed or matter has always existed? The choice is obvious to me.
So could “let there be…” actually be the Big Bang? Could God have chosen to create this way? I think he actually did. However, the Big Bang theory is just the current idea. Who knows if it will be “correct” in thirty years? As of right now, I think it is what God did. The fact that it took billions of years to get to where we are now is not a problem. God exists outside of time (except in the Incarnation), so it’s not like he was sitting around staring at his watch yelling, “Are we there yet?” If you think that God just created it as it is now, then how does light get to us from billions of light years away? A light year is the distance light (which travels at theoretically the fastest speed possible) travels in a year. If something is a billion light years away, then it takes a billion years to get to our eyes. So if we see it, then it had the time to get here. The only way around this, is to say well God created things in motion or mid-process. (I’ve talked about this before. It’s my idea that just like Adam was created fully-grown [meaning he didn’t experience childhood yet his body appeared to have been normal and gone through those processes], so too was the earth created. So the earth was created mid-process meaning it had oil, oceans, mountains, etc. These are all things that the earth brings about naturally, but if made “brand new” like a baby, then it wouldn’t have these things). So for scientists to say the earth is billions of years old only makes sense just like if they had examined Adam, he would have looked 20 years old (or whatever he was). So if you argue that that is also true for why light has had time to get here, then fine. But if you don’t, and you insist that everything is literally 10,000 years old and there was no “mid-process” work going on, then light shouldn’t have had time to get here from distant stars.
The universe isn’t constant. It had a beginning, and isn’t it interesting that we already knew that?
So why such a large universe then? God really only needed the sun, moon, earth, and stars. The sun was needed for light and warmth. The moon effects our tides, provides light at night by reflecting the sun’s light, and we don’t know what future benefit it will provide. The earth was needed for reasons I can’t explain, but maybe Captain Obvious could help you with that one. Finally, the stars aided navigation and provided some light at night. So, I believe the universe is as large as it is because it’s a demonstration of who God is. Just like humans tell us a lot about who God is, so to does the rest of his creation. The universe is unimaginably large. It shows us that every time we think we’ve got things figured out, we learn that God is bigger and greater than we thought. We may even get to explore the universe in the next life. After all, we’ll have the time.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Time, Part 1: Science vs Theology & The Big Bang Theory
A teacher once said, after struggling over his material, “Where should I begin?” A wise person in the room called out, “at the beginning.” That wise person’s name was Captain Obvious. So today, we shall start “at the beginning.” But there is a significance to this that must not be overlooked. There was a beginning. Theology teaches “in the beginning.” Science teaches there was a beginning to our world. In theology, it’s God’s spoken words; in science it’s the Big Bang theory.
Now, I typically take a view towards science that is much different than most conservative Christians. God created this world, so how could learning about it be bad? The typical Christian move is to view science in opposition to Christianity. It’s funny though, because these are the same people who embrace science when they find evidence “for the flood.” Now, this doesn’t mean that science is my God or that science = truth. Do you realize that that is exactly the way we view science? Think about how many sentences start with “scientists say….” Science isn’t truth; science is a method to get to truth. It’s method is empiricism (which is knowing things by the 5 senses [taste, smell, hear, see, feel]). Theology isn’t truth either. Theology systematizes our limited understanding of God, who is truth. Theology fails, but theology has no hubris. The theologian knows God is too far above us to fully be understood. We know only what he reveals. Science, though, tends to say that everything is already revealed by the discovery of the senses. In every age, scientists think that they know everything. They love to hold this knowledge over us in the “dumb public.” “Oh great scientist, please tell me EXACTLY how the world works.” Mr. Scientist might be so benevolent to us and our feeble minds if we’re lucky. After all, scientists throughout history have known everything right? Oh wait; it appears “truth” changes. It appears scientists realize they got some things wrong. If science would just admit that it is “an attempt” to understand our natural world, the people like me would leave it alone. Where it goes wrong is the prideful grasp it holds over truth. The smartest ancients thought the earth was the center of the universe (not just religious people). The Romans thought the last planet was Jupiter. Well, we found more planets. We later found out that the world was larger than just our galaxy. Hubble (whom the Hubble telescope is named after) discovered that our galaxy is just one of many. The size of our known universe was infinitely larger than we ever thought. And it was this discovery that was the root of the eventual Big Bang Theory.
The discovery of multiple galaxies was a complete shock, but not as much as what these galaxies were doing. The galaxies were not static but were moving away from each other. Now, what does this matter? Well, taking all 3 of Newton’s laws of motion into consideration shows us that if something is acted upon causing it to move, then we can measure its trajectory. If we can measure where it’s going, then we should be able to measure where it came from. The only difference is looking back rather than forward. Throw a baseball straight up into the air. It will travel up, stop, and then down. The fact that galaxies are moving away from each other seems to show that they were once close. If we go back in time, then, we would see the galaxies together just like when the hand was about to release the ball. If movement is known (train leaves Chicago at 7:00 AM headed 50 mph), then we can measure the time it would take to get to “x.” However, if it has already arrived at “x,” then we could tell when it left “y” (e.g. The train left Chicago traveling 50 mph and arrived at New York at 12PM. From that we could calculate backwards to know it left Chicago at 7 AM.)
So, if everything was once close, how close? The Big Bang Theory states that everything was infinitely close and infinitely small. Everything in the whole universe was about the size of an atom. This atom spontaneously explodes, and over time, our world formed. The lightest element like helium fused under great pressure and heat to form heavier elements like hydrogen. This process of fusion (which humans, so far, cannot replicate) is what lead to progressively heavier elements.
Now immediately, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “well where did this tiny atom come from?” This is where the writer halts to leave the reader in suspense….
Now, I typically take a view towards science that is much different than most conservative Christians. God created this world, so how could learning about it be bad? The typical Christian move is to view science in opposition to Christianity. It’s funny though, because these are the same people who embrace science when they find evidence “for the flood.” Now, this doesn’t mean that science is my God or that science = truth. Do you realize that that is exactly the way we view science? Think about how many sentences start with “scientists say….” Science isn’t truth; science is a method to get to truth. It’s method is empiricism (which is knowing things by the 5 senses [taste, smell, hear, see, feel]). Theology isn’t truth either. Theology systematizes our limited understanding of God, who is truth. Theology fails, but theology has no hubris. The theologian knows God is too far above us to fully be understood. We know only what he reveals. Science, though, tends to say that everything is already revealed by the discovery of the senses. In every age, scientists think that they know everything. They love to hold this knowledge over us in the “dumb public.” “Oh great scientist, please tell me EXACTLY how the world works.” Mr. Scientist might be so benevolent to us and our feeble minds if we’re lucky. After all, scientists throughout history have known everything right? Oh wait; it appears “truth” changes. It appears scientists realize they got some things wrong. If science would just admit that it is “an attempt” to understand our natural world, the people like me would leave it alone. Where it goes wrong is the prideful grasp it holds over truth. The smartest ancients thought the earth was the center of the universe (not just religious people). The Romans thought the last planet was Jupiter. Well, we found more planets. We later found out that the world was larger than just our galaxy. Hubble (whom the Hubble telescope is named after) discovered that our galaxy is just one of many. The size of our known universe was infinitely larger than we ever thought. And it was this discovery that was the root of the eventual Big Bang Theory.
The discovery of multiple galaxies was a complete shock, but not as much as what these galaxies were doing. The galaxies were not static but were moving away from each other. Now, what does this matter? Well, taking all 3 of Newton’s laws of motion into consideration shows us that if something is acted upon causing it to move, then we can measure its trajectory. If we can measure where it’s going, then we should be able to measure where it came from. The only difference is looking back rather than forward. Throw a baseball straight up into the air. It will travel up, stop, and then down. The fact that galaxies are moving away from each other seems to show that they were once close. If we go back in time, then, we would see the galaxies together just like when the hand was about to release the ball. If movement is known (train leaves Chicago at 7:00 AM headed 50 mph), then we can measure the time it would take to get to “x.” However, if it has already arrived at “x,” then we could tell when it left “y” (e.g. The train left Chicago traveling 50 mph and arrived at New York at 12PM. From that we could calculate backwards to know it left Chicago at 7 AM.)
So, if everything was once close, how close? The Big Bang Theory states that everything was infinitely close and infinitely small. Everything in the whole universe was about the size of an atom. This atom spontaneously explodes, and over time, our world formed. The lightest element like helium fused under great pressure and heat to form heavier elements like hydrogen. This process of fusion (which humans, so far, cannot replicate) is what lead to progressively heavier elements.
Now immediately, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking, “well where did this tiny atom come from?” This is where the writer halts to leave the reader in suspense….
Time: Introduction
I’ve decided to do a new series. Time is one of my favorite subjects. I’ve always found it interesting. I promise, there will be no crazy conspiracies in this one. At church, we’re studying a book called “Driven by Eternity.” The series has been good so far, but it’s not really what inspired me to write about time. That is about time in relation to heaven and hell. This is about time in relation to the past, our current world and theoretical possibilities. Recently, the science channel (yes, I love the science channel), had 4 hour long shows on time. I like science a lot. Anytime I watch science shows, I’m continually thinking about what they’re saying in terms of Christianity. Well, that is exactly what this series will be about. It isn’t science. It isn’t theology. It is somewhere in between. I have nothing more than a high school education regarding science, so you know…uh…I’m not an expert. What I will do is discuss some of the major problems and interesting things about time. By the way, did you know that “science” comes form Latin meaning “I know”? It is also why, based on that definition, theology used to be called “The Queen of the sciences.” Theology was supposed to be about knowing God. Isn’t that ironic?
Okay, so what in the world am I going to talk about? Okay, allow me at this point to stop worrying about grammar. Time is a dimension (the 4th). Ever wanted to know why old people drive slowly? Ever wanted to know if that old wives tell about time slowing down during a near-death experiment was true or not? Ever wonder if we could live longer than we do and why the Bible says that some people lived nearly 1,000 years? Is time travel possible? How old is the universe and the earth really? What does the Big Bang theory really say? Is time internal or external? Is it relative? Was time invented with a watch? Is time just change? If time travel were possible, wouldn’t that cause problems? Wouldn’t we already have those “time travel visitors” here? Why is Einstein known as such a brain? What is the theory of general relativity?
Now, I’m not going to answer these questions. I’m going to talk about the problems and interesting ideas/solutions. Pack your bags. This is going to be a trip.
Okay, so what in the world am I going to talk about? Okay, allow me at this point to stop worrying about grammar. Time is a dimension (the 4th). Ever wanted to know why old people drive slowly? Ever wanted to know if that old wives tell about time slowing down during a near-death experiment was true or not? Ever wonder if we could live longer than we do and why the Bible says that some people lived nearly 1,000 years? Is time travel possible? How old is the universe and the earth really? What does the Big Bang theory really say? Is time internal or external? Is it relative? Was time invented with a watch? Is time just change? If time travel were possible, wouldn’t that cause problems? Wouldn’t we already have those “time travel visitors” here? Why is Einstein known as such a brain? What is the theory of general relativity?
Now, I’m not going to answer these questions. I’m going to talk about the problems and interesting ideas/solutions. Pack your bags. This is going to be a trip.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Bridezilla
Why is it that women are completely irrational and illogical. Or maybe more accurately, why is that they hit a switch and turn into this? I was flipping the channels tonight and came across Bridezilla. The woman on there was crazy. All sense of perspective and logic had deserted her. She got angry at her fiance because he was having fun at his bachelor party and she wasn't having fun yet at her bachlerette party. Bridezilla's perspective = Her bridesmaids didn't call her! Reality = Her phone was dead. Bridezilla = They were horrible and she wasn't going to go out no matter what. Reality = She later went out and danced. Bridezilla = Her boyfriend was a jerk for not calling her to see how her day was going. Reality = He didn't call the moment her day went south and he was having fun at his party (which involved no strippers). She later gets ahold of him and of course is angry. He left his party and came over to her hotel room where she yelled about her day which, of course, was his fault. He, of course, did what every guy would do and say stuff about how simple the issue was...how ludicrous it was for her to be upset over the situation. He told her all the ways to solve the problem and continued to not understand why he was to blame.
Why is it that we see the world so differently? How can logic not matter?
This week, I heard a woman tell a story about her and her husband. She told a story about how her husband did something horrible. Of course, I listen to the story and think, that's exactly what I would have done.
I think her husband's parents were going to come over. The husband tells them this isn't a good idea because the house is a wreck. (This is the part that I would have done. If the house isn't clean, then I would just say that). However, she got EXTREMELY mad at him because he told his parents this. Why? To the husband, all he did is state a reality. All he did was present the problem to the idea and the solution (which was to go somewhere else). As the woman was telling the story, I thought, that is exactly what I would have said, but then it hit me why she was mad. She was mad because, to most women, their house is a reflection of them. So a beautiful, well decorated house is a beautiful woman, wife, and mother. To a man, it's a dirty house...nothing more. The man wasn't saying "my wife doesn't clean our house...she's a horrible wife" but you can bet that that is exactly how her female mind translated "the house isn't clean." Men don't translate what women say into "what they really mean." I think this is nearly all that women do. You don't have to decode us...we'll say what we mean. We'll always just solve the problem you're telling us about even though you don't want us to solve it. Which then, we'll think, why did you act like you needed help with the problem then? They just wanted talk to you about what happened to them. Which we then think, "who cares? Stuff happened to me all day and I just solved it. Do you want to hear about how I took out the garbage but the cans were overflowing?"
So how do people get together? Hmm...I have a feeling this blog might get me into trouble. Maybe you women should "just talk this problem out with your husbands and then solve it yourselves instead of listening to what he says.
Why is it that we see the world so differently? How can logic not matter?
This week, I heard a woman tell a story about her and her husband. She told a story about how her husband did something horrible. Of course, I listen to the story and think, that's exactly what I would have done.
I think her husband's parents were going to come over. The husband tells them this isn't a good idea because the house is a wreck. (This is the part that I would have done. If the house isn't clean, then I would just say that). However, she got EXTREMELY mad at him because he told his parents this. Why? To the husband, all he did is state a reality. All he did was present the problem to the idea and the solution (which was to go somewhere else). As the woman was telling the story, I thought, that is exactly what I would have said, but then it hit me why she was mad. She was mad because, to most women, their house is a reflection of them. So a beautiful, well decorated house is a beautiful woman, wife, and mother. To a man, it's a dirty house...nothing more. The man wasn't saying "my wife doesn't clean our house...she's a horrible wife" but you can bet that that is exactly how her female mind translated "the house isn't clean." Men don't translate what women say into "what they really mean." I think this is nearly all that women do. You don't have to decode us...we'll say what we mean. We'll always just solve the problem you're telling us about even though you don't want us to solve it. Which then, we'll think, why did you act like you needed help with the problem then? They just wanted talk to you about what happened to them. Which we then think, "who cares? Stuff happened to me all day and I just solved it. Do you want to hear about how I took out the garbage but the cans were overflowing?"
So how do people get together? Hmm...I have a feeling this blog might get me into trouble. Maybe you women should "just talk this problem out with your husbands and then solve it yourselves instead of listening to what he says.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
153
I’ve done 2 blogs on numerology. Why not go ahead and make it 3…”The Lord’s Holy Number.” Insert scary music here or maybe just the “intense chipmunk” video. Have you seen that? Youtube it. Anyway, what I’m about to talk about I’ve already discussed with a friend, so sorry friend but this is going to be repetitive…and yes I’m trying my material out on you first.
153. Simple number…I think not.
John 21:11 – “Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.”
This is the story that comes after Peter’s denials of Christ. Peter went back to his old job of being a fisherman because he had denied the Christ just like Jesus said he would. I thought it was interesting that he named the exact amount of fish he caught. Jesus told him to cast his net on the other side and what was worthless all day turned into a full net. There is a lot to be taken from the story. For instance, you could say that working on our own without guidance is futile. With God's direction, we will "see a harvest." Another way to look at it is why did he name the exact amount? Bragging fisherman? Is he trying to tell us that this was a miracle because the typical nets at that time couldn't hold that many fish (“even with so many the net was not torn”)? Does 153 stand for something? Fish is ixthus in Greek. The early Christians used IXTHUS as an "anagram" (I think that's what it's called). It's in the catacombs of Rome.
I = Iesous = Jesus (pronounced “E A soos”) Sounds a little like Spanish "Jesus."
X = Christos = Christ
Th = Theos = God
U = Uios = Son
S = Semerion = Savior
We use fish all the time to symbolize Christianity. My church's official email address is "fishermansnet@...". Anybody have a Jesus fish? Some of them come with Greek letters…the same that I listed above. Look at some strange properties of 153:
If you add 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17=153
You may remember my 6.6.06 blog which said that if you do this same thing with the numbers of a roulette wheel, you’ll end up with 666 (1 through 36). Basically 1 through 17 = 153
I found this one on my own. Ready for this:
153 x 1 = 153 which adds up to 9 (1+5+3=9)
153 x 2 = 306 which adds up to 9 (3+0+6=9)
153 x 3 = 459 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (4+5+9=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 4 = 612 which adds up to 9 (6+1+2=9)
153 x 5 = 765 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (7+6+5=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 6 = 918 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (9+1+8=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 7 = 1071 which adds up to 9 (1+0+7+1=9)
153 x 8 = 1224 which adds up to 9 (1+2+2+4=9)
153 x 9 = 1377 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (1+3+7+7=9)
153 x 10 = 1530 which adds up to 9
I’m tired of trying to see how long it will work. 10 times is pretty good. We’re pretty familiar with the fact that “9” does this (e.g. 9x2 or 9x10) but why/how does 153 work?
Oh remember when I used the above figure and stopped at 17 and how lately I’ve been talking about 9? 17 x 9 = 153
153 = 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 (This is really written as 1 cubed + 3 cubed + 5 cubed =153)
I don’t know how much of this is true and how much is wikipeidiology but check this out:
“The precision of the number of fish has long been considered peculiar, and many scholars, throughout history, have argued that 153 has some deeper significance. Jerome, for example, claimed that the Greeks had identified that there were exactly 153 species of fish in the sea (modern marine biology puts the figure as something over 29,000, though the disciples were fishing in the Sea of Tibeias, which actually is a lake)....In the time of Pythagoras, 153 was most significant for being one of the two numbers in the closest fraction known, at the time, to the true value of the square root of 3, the fraction in question being 265/153 (the difference between this and the square root of 3 is merely 0.000025......). The ratio of 153:265 was consequently known throughout the Hellenic world as the measure of the fish.
The fact that the measure of the fish was known to include 153, as one of its two numbers, and that the measure of how many fish the disciples are said to have caught is also 153, has not gone unnoticed by many scholars….”
Reference from "Catch of fish" (as of 7/9/07)
To investigate this further try:
http://www.shyamsundergupta.com/c153.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish
I don't know. Numerology is weird. I just like to think about it. You didn't happen to notice that I used exactly 153 lines to write this did you?...or did I?
153. Simple number…I think not.
John 21:11 – “Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.”
This is the story that comes after Peter’s denials of Christ. Peter went back to his old job of being a fisherman because he had denied the Christ just like Jesus said he would. I thought it was interesting that he named the exact amount of fish he caught. Jesus told him to cast his net on the other side and what was worthless all day turned into a full net. There is a lot to be taken from the story. For instance, you could say that working on our own without guidance is futile. With God's direction, we will "see a harvest." Another way to look at it is why did he name the exact amount? Bragging fisherman? Is he trying to tell us that this was a miracle because the typical nets at that time couldn't hold that many fish (“even with so many the net was not torn”)? Does 153 stand for something? Fish is ixthus in Greek. The early Christians used IXTHUS as an "anagram" (I think that's what it's called). It's in the catacombs of Rome.
I = Iesous = Jesus (pronounced “E A soos”) Sounds a little like Spanish "Jesus."
X = Christos = Christ
Th = Theos = God
U = Uios = Son
S = Semerion = Savior
We use fish all the time to symbolize Christianity. My church's official email address is "fishermansnet@...". Anybody have a Jesus fish? Some of them come with Greek letters…the same that I listed above. Look at some strange properties of 153:
If you add 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17=153
You may remember my 6.6.06 blog which said that if you do this same thing with the numbers of a roulette wheel, you’ll end up with 666 (1 through 36). Basically 1 through 17 = 153
I found this one on my own. Ready for this:
153 x 1 = 153 which adds up to 9 (1+5+3=9)
153 x 2 = 306 which adds up to 9 (3+0+6=9)
153 x 3 = 459 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (4+5+9=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 4 = 612 which adds up to 9 (6+1+2=9)
153 x 5 = 765 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (7+6+5=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 6 = 918 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (9+1+8=18 divided by 2=9)
153 x 7 = 1071 which adds up to 9 (1+0+7+1=9)
153 x 8 = 1224 which adds up to 9 (1+2+2+4=9)
153 x 9 = 1377 which adds up to 9 divided by 2 (1+3+7+7=9)
153 x 10 = 1530 which adds up to 9
I’m tired of trying to see how long it will work. 10 times is pretty good. We’re pretty familiar with the fact that “9” does this (e.g. 9x2 or 9x10) but why/how does 153 work?
Oh remember when I used the above figure and stopped at 17 and how lately I’ve been talking about 9? 17 x 9 = 153
153 = 1x1x1 + 5x5x5 + 3x3x3 (This is really written as 1 cubed + 3 cubed + 5 cubed =153)
I don’t know how much of this is true and how much is wikipeidiology but check this out:
“The precision of the number of fish has long been considered peculiar, and many scholars, throughout history, have argued that 153 has some deeper significance. Jerome, for example, claimed that the Greeks had identified that there were exactly 153 species of fish in the sea (modern marine biology puts the figure as something over 29,000, though the disciples were fishing in the Sea of Tibeias, which actually is a lake)....In the time of Pythagoras, 153 was most significant for being one of the two numbers in the closest fraction known, at the time, to the true value of the square root of 3, the fraction in question being 265/153 (the difference between this and the square root of 3 is merely 0.000025......). The ratio of 153:265 was consequently known throughout the Hellenic world as the measure of the fish.
The fact that the measure of the fish was known to include 153, as one of its two numbers, and that the measure of how many fish the disciples are said to have caught is also 153, has not gone unnoticed by many scholars….”
Reference from "Catch of fish" (as of 7/9/07)
To investigate this further try:
http://www.shyamsundergupta.com/c153.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch_of_153_fish
I don't know. Numerology is weird. I just like to think about it. You didn't happen to notice that I used exactly 153 lines to write this did you?...or did I?
Monday, July 23, 2007
Globalism, Part 15: Miracles
David Hume is famous for his writings on miracles. He presents many arguments as to why miracles don’t happen. He asks for proof based on empirical science. Most often, the only proof is eyewitness testimony. Well, he quickly dismantles the validity of eyewitnesses. Actually, he is quite right that eyewitness testimony isn’t a very strong proof. However, if you’ve known somebody their whole life and know that they were blind and now they see, isn’t that a pretty good witness? I guess, my point is that eyewitness testimony’s value could be properly evaluated in continuum format. Basically, how credible is the source? How much did the source witness both before, during, and after the event, etc.
My point in all of this is that I think our world is going to turn on David Hume. He wrote during the Enlightenment when man was “becoming” God himself. He no longer explained everything by “God.” What happened in the natural world happened because the world is orderly of its own accord. This leads to evolution and the death of God movement. I think our world, during the 21st Century, is going to return to the belief in miracles. However, it won’t be through the old system. What I think is going to happen is a synthesis of the religious miracle and the scientific. That is, science is going to discover “the way” people are healed. Ever wonder how miracles happen in other religions, cults? David Hume used this as a reason as to why miracles don’t happen. If your individual religion teaches that it is the only one to know God, and God is the one who causes miracles, then other religions shouldn’t have miracles. Basically, I believe science is genuinely going to pick up on a power. What ancient people understood has been thrown aside as “mysticism” by the scientific community. In the future, miracles will be embraced by science.
Oprah’s “The Secret.” Star Wars’ “The Force.” Pseudo-Christianity’s “Positive Confession Movement.” These are all examples of the use of a “force” to bring about miracles/positive things. All humans have access to the power of what was thought to be “supernatural.” How so? Well, the Christian viewpoint is that we have access to a God who can, via prayer, decide to suspend his natural laws for the sake of the individual and for his greater purpose. To the witch, he/she has the ability to chant a mantra and conjure up the powers of “the earth.” This is known as “black magic.” The Positive Confession Movement within our own churches is actually sorcery. To try to force God to do something based on his word is sorcery. Be careful in how you use God’s word. Don’t take a verse out of context and “speak” it out and say “God will do this or he will be a liar, and God cannot lie, so he will do.” The Devil tried this maneuver in Matthew 4:6-7. He used Scripture as a reason for Jesus to “force” God to do something.
“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Matthew 4:6-7
You aren’t God and you don’t use “rayma” words to make God do anything. He is sovereign. As far as miracles becoming scientific, that is just an idea/prediction of mine. I truly believe science and religion are going to merge in the coming years. Right now they are polar opposites. Science is all about methodology and repetition. Think about sorcery with its steps including specific chants for specific results. Sounds like the scientific method to me. Think about that passage in revelation about the beast being healed of a deadly wound and it shocks the world. Is this beast and the false prophet going to know about this “scientific truth”? I hope you realize that I’m still saying that miracles come from the supernatural. I’m just saying that they can come from God or from demonic forces. This explains how a miracle can happen outside of Christianity. I just believe that the scientific community of the 21st Century is going to pick up on this possibility, but misunderstand it as science when it is actually black magic. Think about the rise of eastern philosophies regarding wellness. Consider yoga and terms such as “aura” and “energies.” “For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.” (Matt. 24:24)
The Positive Confession Movement within Christianity teaches that prayer using the word creates the miracle. God gives us the ability, and we must “have enough faith to call it out.” Don’t you see how prayer has been converted into a “chant”? God is not to be put into a box and turned into an equation where if we do A and B we will get C. God gives by grace and sovereignty, not because you did A and B.
My point in all of this is that I think our world is going to turn on David Hume. He wrote during the Enlightenment when man was “becoming” God himself. He no longer explained everything by “God.” What happened in the natural world happened because the world is orderly of its own accord. This leads to evolution and the death of God movement. I think our world, during the 21st Century, is going to return to the belief in miracles. However, it won’t be through the old system. What I think is going to happen is a synthesis of the religious miracle and the scientific. That is, science is going to discover “the way” people are healed. Ever wonder how miracles happen in other religions, cults? David Hume used this as a reason as to why miracles don’t happen. If your individual religion teaches that it is the only one to know God, and God is the one who causes miracles, then other religions shouldn’t have miracles. Basically, I believe science is genuinely going to pick up on a power. What ancient people understood has been thrown aside as “mysticism” by the scientific community. In the future, miracles will be embraced by science.
Oprah’s “The Secret.” Star Wars’ “The Force.” Pseudo-Christianity’s “Positive Confession Movement.” These are all examples of the use of a “force” to bring about miracles/positive things. All humans have access to the power of what was thought to be “supernatural.” How so? Well, the Christian viewpoint is that we have access to a God who can, via prayer, decide to suspend his natural laws for the sake of the individual and for his greater purpose. To the witch, he/she has the ability to chant a mantra and conjure up the powers of “the earth.” This is known as “black magic.” The Positive Confession Movement within our own churches is actually sorcery. To try to force God to do something based on his word is sorcery. Be careful in how you use God’s word. Don’t take a verse out of context and “speak” it out and say “God will do this or he will be a liar, and God cannot lie, so he will do.” The Devil tried this maneuver in Matthew 4:6-7. He used Scripture as a reason for Jesus to “force” God to do something.
“If You are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “ ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” Matthew 4:6-7
You aren’t God and you don’t use “rayma” words to make God do anything. He is sovereign. As far as miracles becoming scientific, that is just an idea/prediction of mine. I truly believe science and religion are going to merge in the coming years. Right now they are polar opposites. Science is all about methodology and repetition. Think about sorcery with its steps including specific chants for specific results. Sounds like the scientific method to me. Think about that passage in revelation about the beast being healed of a deadly wound and it shocks the world. Is this beast and the false prophet going to know about this “scientific truth”? I hope you realize that I’m still saying that miracles come from the supernatural. I’m just saying that they can come from God or from demonic forces. This explains how a miracle can happen outside of Christianity. I just believe that the scientific community of the 21st Century is going to pick up on this possibility, but misunderstand it as science when it is actually black magic. Think about the rise of eastern philosophies regarding wellness. Consider yoga and terms such as “aura” and “energies.” “For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.” (Matt. 24:24)
The Positive Confession Movement within Christianity teaches that prayer using the word creates the miracle. God gives us the ability, and we must “have enough faith to call it out.” Don’t you see how prayer has been converted into a “chant”? God is not to be put into a box and turned into an equation where if we do A and B we will get C. God gives by grace and sovereignty, not because you did A and B.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Globalism, Part 14: The Georgia Guidestones
Before I get started, I’d just like to tell you that I saw something interesting on tv today. Apparently the EU “nations” are meeting this week to try to make a “European Treaty.” I didn’t know they were at war? Well, “European Treaty” is euphemism for “we couldn’t get the people to vote the way we wanted them to when we offered the EU Constitution, so let’s do what we want and give it another name—The European Treaty.” “They’ll never know…well at least they’ll never be able to vote against it.” Oh, and if you think the EU powergrab isn’t a good idea, then you’re a terrorist. Remember, resisting the NWO is like saying you hate peace. Ask the Italian President.
Good news for Americans, though. We’ve got a website for our future NAU. It’s www.spp.gov. Stop calling it the NAU though because that makes you a fanatical conspiracy theorist. The 3 governments are just uniting on issues they agree on for security and prosperity.
Time to get to the main course. Chances are very good you’ve never heard of the Georgia Guidestones. Somebody told me about them tonight, and apparently it’s real. It’s an American version of Stonehenge. Take a look at the pictures below. You’ll see that they’re quite large. An undisclosed, unknown group placed the monuments. The only person identified was R.C. Christian, but this was a false name. He also wrote a book with a little more explanation of the monuments. They chose Elbert County Georgia because of its elevation. A hole was cut out of one of the rocks so that the North Star could be seen. This is obviously in line with the occult practice of aligning the “heavens” for religious purposes.
Ready to hear what was listed on these stones?
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.
Notice that these are 10 Commandments? It’s the New Age 10 Commandments. They’re written in 8 living languages with parts in 4 dead languages. 8 + 4 = 12…hmm, 12 has no significance right?
Unbelievable. To check my sources, try Radio Liberty and TheGeorgiaGuidestones.com
Good news for Americans, though. We’ve got a website for our future NAU. It’s www.spp.gov. Stop calling it the NAU though because that makes you a fanatical conspiracy theorist. The 3 governments are just uniting on issues they agree on for security and prosperity.
Time to get to the main course. Chances are very good you’ve never heard of the Georgia Guidestones. Somebody told me about them tonight, and apparently it’s real. It’s an American version of Stonehenge. Take a look at the pictures below. You’ll see that they’re quite large. An undisclosed, unknown group placed the monuments. The only person identified was R.C. Christian, but this was a false name. He also wrote a book with a little more explanation of the monuments. They chose Elbert County Georgia because of its elevation. A hole was cut out of one of the rocks so that the North Star could be seen. This is obviously in line with the occult practice of aligning the “heavens” for religious purposes.
Ready to hear what was listed on these stones?
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.
Notice that these are 10 Commandments? It’s the New Age 10 Commandments. They’re written in 8 living languages with parts in 4 dead languages. 8 + 4 = 12…hmm, 12 has no significance right?
Unbelievable. To check my sources, try Radio Liberty and TheGeorgiaGuidestones.com
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Globalism, Part 13: The European Union
The European Union (hereafter, “the EU”) began in 1992. It started as an attempt at “fair trade.” This is an economical issue of which I am not familiar. Basically, the more “united” countries are in trade agreements, then the less things cost. That is partly due to the reduction in exportation costs. If the US and Canada agreed to not tax each other for goods crossing the border, then automatically the costs shift downward. Well, the EU moved past this economic agreement into political territory. They adopted a single currency—The Euro. They also adopted a single flag. Technically, this is the flag of the Council of Europe, but it was appropriated by the EU. Arsène Heitz designed the flag with certain symbolism in mind. The flag is composed of 12 stars. Why 12? There are more than 12 members of the EU. It was chosen as a symbol of completion, perfection, and order. The stars are aligned in a perfect circle to display unity (called the “circle of stars”). For a differing view on the "circle of stars" try this link. (The original 13 colonies of the US had a similar alignment of stars on their flag.) Heitz chose 12, also due to its symbolism. This was either the symbolism of a painting of the Virgin Mary with 12 stars above her head as a halo or it was taken from the book of Revelation. Rev 12:1-2, 5 “A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth...She gave birth to a son a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron rod scepter. And her child was snatched up to God, and to his throne” (NIV). Why does this matter? Well, I’ve heard it said that the “Europa” riding the beast is actually the “Virgin Mary.”
Europe itself is named after the Greek mythological figure "Europa." Legend says that she rode the bull form of Zeus into the ocean at which time he raped her. Sounds like what I want my continent named after! Well, a woman riding a bull...hmm where else have I heard that? Oh yeah, Revelation. In Revelation, the "harlot" rides the "beast" and this is connected with the evil Babylonian Empire. The EU even has a statue of this woman riding a beast at their parliament building in Brussels. Okay, so let's go into this "Babylon" connection. The EU built one of their parliamentary buildings in Strasbourg, France. The building was designed after the Tower of Babel of Genesis 11. There is a famous painting of the Tower of Babel, and it is this painting which allowed the EU to create a similar building. The point by the EU is that they see the Tower of Babel as a perfect symbol of unity. The Tower of Babel was built at a time when there was a single language and people were all working together. Sounds great! The problem was that the people believed they didn’t need God. They also thought that if they could build the tower high enough, they could reach heaven, and therefore reach God. It is secular humanism at its highest. It was an attempt to throw of God and become Gods ourselves. Check out the pictures below to see what I’m discussing. You’ll see a poster put out by the European Council which reads: “Europe: many tongues, one voice.” Notice on the Strasbourg building how they left the building unfinished just like the painting. They even used protrusions from the building to make it appear as if the building has scaffolding around it.
Tower of Babel Painting
Strasbourg Parliament Building
European Council Poster
German Phonecard
Brussels Parliament Statue
Stamp
Deal with this information however you want. Believe it’s just a wacko conspiracy or just harmless if you want to, but I really believe the EU is power hungry. I believe that is why the US is trying to catch up with the NAU. The EU, is way ahead of us on this path to globalism. They even tried to pass an EU constitution. 2 countries rejected it, but once this passes, that will be the end of national sovereignty in Europe. Google any of this stuff to fact check me or try these links 1 and 2.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Globalism, Part 12: Satan's Gospel + The Mormon Connection
The below was taken from ConspiracyArchive.com. I know from the title of the website that you’re probably thinking, sounds totally legit! Illegitimate websites don’t give citation. This one does. The Author is Alice Bailey (theosophy) and the rest of the citation information is listed after the quote.
“Once the key to Genesis is in our hands it is the scientific and symbolic Kabbala which unveils the secret. The Great Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the "Lord God" are identical ...
Stand in awe of him, and sin not, speak his name with trembling ... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god ...
When the Church, therefore, curses Satan, it curses the cosmic reflection of God...
In this case it is but natural ... to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind.
For it is he who was the "Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of automaton (Adam) created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was first to whisper, "In the day yea eat there of, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil" -- can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An "adversary" to Jehovah ... he still remains in esoteric truth the ever loving "Messenger"... who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality ...
Satan, or Lucifer, represents the active ... "Centrifugal Energy of the Universe" in a cosmic sense ... Fitly is he ... and his adherents ... consigned to the "sea of fire," because it is the Sun ... the fount of life in our system, where they are petrified ... and churned up to re-arrange them for another life; that Sun which, as the origin of the active principle of our Earth, is at once the Home and the Source of the Mundane Satan ..."
- The Secret Doctrine, Volume I, page 414, Vol II, pgs. 234, 235, 243, 245
Now do you see why the Lucis Trust was originally named “Lucifer Trust”? The NAM “flips the script” as they say. It turns the Devil into a positive figure. How so? It makes his work in the Garden of Eden a good thing. He brought us knowledge. Knowledge is always good. Nevermind that whole issue of the loss of experiential knowledge mankind had with God. The Fall forever damaged relationship between humanity and God. Not until the final resurrection will mankind finally be restored. Why did I drag in the Mormons into this? They believe also that the eating of the fruit was a good thing. Satan was sent for this purpose. Read the following from a prominent writer within Mormonism.
“The opportunity of winning the victor's reward by overcoming evil was explained to our parents, and they rejoiced. Adam said: 'Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.' Eve was glad and declared: 'Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."
James Talmage - The Articles of Faith, p. 62 or this link.
Orthodox (from beginning) Christianity has condemned sin. Adam and Eve’s sin was our sin. It’s called “Original Sin.” There is a lot that could be said on Original Sin, but I’ll keep it short. Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. It has permeated throughout history. It is the cause, in general, of sickness, evil both natural and moral, death, lack of understanding, etc (basically everything bad). All are born with this sinful nature, except Jesus. He avoided this (depending on which theological position you take) because of being born of the Spirit. Jesus, in a sense, was born like Adam without the overwhelming nature of sin. Both had a choice. Adam made the wrong one whereas Jesus made the right one (See Romans 5 for more on this Adam/Christ Parallel). You’re only chance of free choice (regarding sin) isn’t actually at birth but at the new birth. (This is the position of Augustine/Luther/Calvin that your free will was lost at the Fall). Even after re-birth, sin still plays a role (very much has been written on post-salvific sin, so I’m not getting in that debate). The bottom-line is this: sin is not to be celebrated. The NAM and Mormonism both do this. Mormonism sees it as a gaining of knowledge but forgets about the loss of relational knowledge. God became distant.
After posting this and re-reading it, I noticed a few more connections between the Alice Bailey quotes and Mormonism that I overlooked. Mormonism, pits Jesus and Satan as “spiritual brothers" (look under section titled “Devil, the”) of God the Father (aka to them Elohim). Go back and look at some of the quotes from Bailey. Alice Bailey uses "Elohim" and "Jehovah" rather than just saying God. Who else makes this divide? Mormons. They see "Elohim" as "God the Father" and "Jehovah" as Jesus of the Old Testament. So it is Jehovah who creates and his Adversary Satan brings in knowledge. They are partners in this world. Elohim is “God” in Hebrew, and Jehovah is the revealed “name” of God which is rendered as LORD in English. I put quotes around “name” because “Jehovah” isn’t really a name. It means “I am that I am” or “I am” or “To Be.” There is no other true God so God doesn’t need a name so that we can know which “god” we’re talking about. Humans need names so that we can know who is who. God is the only God. (Just my interpretation of the whole “I AM” situation.) Anyway, the point is that I’ve found more connections between theosophy and Mormonism.
Look at this Alice Bailey quote again:
"For it is he who was the "Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of automaton (Adam) created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was first to whisper, "In the day yea eat there of, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil" -- can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An "adversary" to Jehovah ... he still remains in esoteric truth the ever loving "Messenger"... who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality ..."
Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan both offered God Elohim a plan for salvation. Mormons teach that Jesus' plan was accepted and Satan was angry and jealous. The Fall is salvific. It is not Jesus' plan but Satan's! Satan's plan of salvation is celebrated by the NAM and Mormons! Satan is as Alice Bailey puts it, "...the ever loving 'Messenger'...." This connection is nearly unbelievable.
A note to any Mormon who reads this:
I do not wish to offend you, but I realize that the above will. However, I can only say what I believe to be true. To me, Christianity needed nothing "added" like the Book of Mormon or Mormonism in general. Judaism was different because it was always looking for the Messiah. The Messiah came in Christ, and he fulfilled Judaism in himself. He is it. There is no need for anything or anyone else. Mormonism isn't a "Reformation." It is a different religion. The Protestant Reformation, as John Calvin argues, was a Resotoration of the Apostolic Church. It tried to get back to biblical theology rather than 1,500 years of additives, councils, proclamations, and "infallible" popes who disagreed with the "infallible" pope before them.
“Once the key to Genesis is in our hands it is the scientific and symbolic Kabbala which unveils the secret. The Great Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the "Lord God" are identical ...
Stand in awe of him, and sin not, speak his name with trembling ... It is Satan who is the god of our planet and the only god ...
When the Church, therefore, curses Satan, it curses the cosmic reflection of God...
In this case it is but natural ... to view Satan, the Serpent of Genesis as the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind.
For it is he who was the "Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of automaton (Adam) created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was first to whisper, "In the day yea eat there of, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil" -- can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An "adversary" to Jehovah ... he still remains in esoteric truth the ever loving "Messenger"... who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality ...
Satan, or Lucifer, represents the active ... "Centrifugal Energy of the Universe" in a cosmic sense ... Fitly is he ... and his adherents ... consigned to the "sea of fire," because it is the Sun ... the fount of life in our system, where they are petrified ... and churned up to re-arrange them for another life; that Sun which, as the origin of the active principle of our Earth, is at once the Home and the Source of the Mundane Satan ..."
- The Secret Doctrine, Volume I, page 414, Vol II, pgs. 234, 235, 243, 245
Now do you see why the Lucis Trust was originally named “Lucifer Trust”? The NAM “flips the script” as they say. It turns the Devil into a positive figure. How so? It makes his work in the Garden of Eden a good thing. He brought us knowledge. Knowledge is always good. Nevermind that whole issue of the loss of experiential knowledge mankind had with God. The Fall forever damaged relationship between humanity and God. Not until the final resurrection will mankind finally be restored. Why did I drag in the Mormons into this? They believe also that the eating of the fruit was a good thing. Satan was sent for this purpose. Read the following from a prominent writer within Mormonism.
“The opportunity of winning the victor's reward by overcoming evil was explained to our parents, and they rejoiced. Adam said: 'Blessed be the name of God, for because of my transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the flesh I shall see God.' Eve was glad and declared: 'Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient."
James Talmage - The Articles of Faith, p. 62 or this link.
Orthodox (from beginning) Christianity has condemned sin. Adam and Eve’s sin was our sin. It’s called “Original Sin.” There is a lot that could be said on Original Sin, but I’ll keep it short. Sin entered the world through Adam and Eve. It has permeated throughout history. It is the cause, in general, of sickness, evil both natural and moral, death, lack of understanding, etc (basically everything bad). All are born with this sinful nature, except Jesus. He avoided this (depending on which theological position you take) because of being born of the Spirit. Jesus, in a sense, was born like Adam without the overwhelming nature of sin. Both had a choice. Adam made the wrong one whereas Jesus made the right one (See Romans 5 for more on this Adam/Christ Parallel). You’re only chance of free choice (regarding sin) isn’t actually at birth but at the new birth. (This is the position of Augustine/Luther/Calvin that your free will was lost at the Fall). Even after re-birth, sin still plays a role (very much has been written on post-salvific sin, so I’m not getting in that debate). The bottom-line is this: sin is not to be celebrated. The NAM and Mormonism both do this. Mormonism sees it as a gaining of knowledge but forgets about the loss of relational knowledge. God became distant.
After posting this and re-reading it, I noticed a few more connections between the Alice Bailey quotes and Mormonism that I overlooked. Mormonism, pits Jesus and Satan as “spiritual brothers" (look under section titled “Devil, the”) of God the Father (aka to them Elohim). Go back and look at some of the quotes from Bailey. Alice Bailey uses "Elohim" and "Jehovah" rather than just saying God. Who else makes this divide? Mormons. They see "Elohim" as "God the Father" and "Jehovah" as Jesus of the Old Testament. So it is Jehovah who creates and his Adversary Satan brings in knowledge. They are partners in this world. Elohim is “God” in Hebrew, and Jehovah is the revealed “name” of God which is rendered as LORD in English. I put quotes around “name” because “Jehovah” isn’t really a name. It means “I am that I am” or “I am” or “To Be.” There is no other true God so God doesn’t need a name so that we can know which “god” we’re talking about. Humans need names so that we can know who is who. God is the only God. (Just my interpretation of the whole “I AM” situation.) Anyway, the point is that I’ve found more connections between theosophy and Mormonism.
Look at this Alice Bailey quote again:
"For it is he who was the "Harbinger of Light," bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of automaton (Adam) created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was first to whisper, "In the day yea eat there of, ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil" -- can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An "adversary" to Jehovah ... he still remains in esoteric truth the ever loving "Messenger"... who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical immortality ..."
Mormonism teaches that Jesus and Satan both offered God Elohim a plan for salvation. Mormons teach that Jesus' plan was accepted and Satan was angry and jealous. The Fall is salvific. It is not Jesus' plan but Satan's! Satan's plan of salvation is celebrated by the NAM and Mormons! Satan is as Alice Bailey puts it, "...the ever loving 'Messenger'...." This connection is nearly unbelievable.
A note to any Mormon who reads this:
I do not wish to offend you, but I realize that the above will. However, I can only say what I believe to be true. To me, Christianity needed nothing "added" like the Book of Mormon or Mormonism in general. Judaism was different because it was always looking for the Messiah. The Messiah came in Christ, and he fulfilled Judaism in himself. He is it. There is no need for anything or anyone else. Mormonism isn't a "Reformation." It is a different religion. The Protestant Reformation, as John Calvin argues, was a Resotoration of the Apostolic Church. It tried to get back to biblical theology rather than 1,500 years of additives, councils, proclamations, and "infallible" popes who disagreed with the "infallible" pope before them.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Globalism, Part 11: THE GREAT INVOCATION
The broadcast I’ve discussed so much ended with the “world prayer” which is also known as “The Great Invocation.” Essentially, the Great Invocation is an inclusive “world prayer” (even for atheists). I would really rather not have it on my site, so take a look at it in an external site.
At the top of this link is “The Great Invocation.” To the right you will see a strange triangle. At the bottom of the link, you will see why the triangle matters. Not enough info on the triangles? Try this too. Anyone else pick up on the symbolism’s attempt to connect with the Trinity? The Great Invocation has been spoken at the UN as THE world prayer. Let me again quote the “New Agers” as they explain the Great Invocation. Pay careful attention to how they admit that this “prayer” will be taken in different ways. That is, to the dumb public, they will see the word “Christ” and say, “Hey a new “Lord’s Prayer.” Sounds great! The “enlightened mind” knows better, according to them. The following is from the Lucis Trust:
“DEEPER MEANING OF THE GREAT INVOCATION
The Great Invocation if given widespread distribution, can be to the new world religion what the Lord's Prayer has been to Christianity and the 23rd Psalm has been to the spiritually minded Jew. There are three approaches to this great Prayer or Invocation:
1. That of the general public.
2. That of the esotericists, or of the aspirants and the disciples of the world.
3. That of the Members of the Hierarchy.
First, the general public will regard it as a prayer to God Transcendent. They will not recognise Him yet as immanent in His creation; they will send it forth on the wings of hope -- hope for light and love and peace, for which they ceaselessly long. They will also regard it as a prayer for the enlightenment of all rulers and leaders in all groups who are handling world matters; as a prayer for the inflow of love and understanding among men, so that they may live in peace with one another; as a demand for the working out of the will of God -- a will of which they can know nothing and which ever seems to them so inscrutable and so all-inclusive that their normal reaction is patience and a willingness to refrain from questioning; as a prayer for the strengthening of human responsibility in order that the recognised evils of today -- which so distress and trouble mankind -- may be done away with and some vague source of evil may be harnessed. They will regard it finally as a prayer that some equally vague primeval condition of blissful happiness may be restored and all unhappiness and pain disappear from the earth. This is, for them, entirely good and helpful and all that is immediately possible.
Secondly, esotericists, aspirants and spiritually minded people will have a deeper and more understanding approach. To them it will convey the recognition of the world of causes and of Those Who stand subjectively behind world affairs, the spiritual Directors of our life. They stand ready to strengthen those with true vision, ready to indicate not only the reason for events in the various departments of human living, but also to make those revelations which will enable humanity to move forward out of darkness into light. With this fundamental attitude, the necessity for a widespread expression of these underlying facts will be apparent and an era of spiritual propaganda, engineered by disciples and carried forward by esotericists,will mature. This era began in 1875 when the fact of the existence of the Masters of the Wisdom was proclaimed. It has been carried forward in spite of misrepresentation, attack upon the concept, and scorn. Recognition of the substantial nature of the available evidence and the appearance of an intuitive response by occult students and many of the intelligentsia throughout the world has been helpful.
A new type of mystic is coming to be recognised; he differs from the mystics of the past by his practical interest in current world affairs and not in religious and church matters only; he is distinguished by his lack of interest in his own personal development, by his ability to see God immanent in all faiths and not just in his own particular brand of religious belief, and also by his capacity to live his life in the light of the divine Presence. All mystics have been able to do this to a greater or less degree, but the. modern mystic differs from those in the past in that he is able clearly to indicate to others the techniques of the Path; he combines both head and heart, intelligence and feeling, plus an intuitive perception, hitherto lacking. The clear light of the Spiritual Hierarchy now illumines the way of the modem mystic, and not simply the light of his own soul; this will be increasingly the case.
Thirdly, both of these groups -- the general public and the world aspirants in their varying degrees -- have among them those who stand out from the general average as possessing a deeper insight and understanding; they occupy a no-man's-land, intermediate on the one hand between the masses and the esotericists and, on the other, between the esotericists and the Members of the Hierarchy. Forget not, They also use this great Invocation and that not a day goes by that the Christ Himself does not sound it forth.
The use of this Invocation or Prayer and the rising expectancy of. the coming of the Christ hold out the greatest hope for man-kind today. Great Sons of God have ever come on humanity's demand and always will, and He for Whom all men wait today is on His way.”
As if that wasn’t enough on The Great Invocation, try it’s website http://www.thegreatinvocation.org.uk/home.htm for anything else you want to know about it. Sounds like some great reading! Under the “WHO” section, you can find out who is meant when they say “Christ” in the G.I.. Don’t miss out on this good stuff in the “HOW” section: “The true followers of Christ are all those who love their fellowmen and see no barriers among people [i.e. exclusivity of religion maybe?] for the major effect of the reappearance of the Christ will be the stimulation of the spirit of inclusiveness.” [The Great Invocation: A Mantram for the New Age and for all Humanity] You guys ready to bring the Christ forth through some triangle energy?
At the top of this link is “The Great Invocation.” To the right you will see a strange triangle. At the bottom of the link, you will see why the triangle matters. Not enough info on the triangles? Try this too. Anyone else pick up on the symbolism’s attempt to connect with the Trinity? The Great Invocation has been spoken at the UN as THE world prayer. Let me again quote the “New Agers” as they explain the Great Invocation. Pay careful attention to how they admit that this “prayer” will be taken in different ways. That is, to the dumb public, they will see the word “Christ” and say, “Hey a new “Lord’s Prayer.” Sounds great! The “enlightened mind” knows better, according to them. The following is from the Lucis Trust:
“DEEPER MEANING OF THE GREAT INVOCATION
The Great Invocation if given widespread distribution, can be to the new world religion what the Lord's Prayer has been to Christianity and the 23rd Psalm has been to the spiritually minded Jew. There are three approaches to this great Prayer or Invocation:
1. That of the general public.
2. That of the esotericists, or of the aspirants and the disciples of the world.
3. That of the Members of the Hierarchy.
First, the general public will regard it as a prayer to God Transcendent. They will not recognise Him yet as immanent in His creation; they will send it forth on the wings of hope -- hope for light and love and peace, for which they ceaselessly long. They will also regard it as a prayer for the enlightenment of all rulers and leaders in all groups who are handling world matters; as a prayer for the inflow of love and understanding among men, so that they may live in peace with one another; as a demand for the working out of the will of God -- a will of which they can know nothing and which ever seems to them so inscrutable and so all-inclusive that their normal reaction is patience and a willingness to refrain from questioning; as a prayer for the strengthening of human responsibility in order that the recognised evils of today -- which so distress and trouble mankind -- may be done away with and some vague source of evil may be harnessed. They will regard it finally as a prayer that some equally vague primeval condition of blissful happiness may be restored and all unhappiness and pain disappear from the earth. This is, for them, entirely good and helpful and all that is immediately possible.
Secondly, esotericists, aspirants and spiritually minded people will have a deeper and more understanding approach. To them it will convey the recognition of the world of causes and of Those Who stand subjectively behind world affairs, the spiritual Directors of our life. They stand ready to strengthen those with true vision, ready to indicate not only the reason for events in the various departments of human living, but also to make those revelations which will enable humanity to move forward out of darkness into light. With this fundamental attitude, the necessity for a widespread expression of these underlying facts will be apparent and an era of spiritual propaganda, engineered by disciples and carried forward by esotericists,will mature. This era began in 1875 when the fact of the existence of the Masters of the Wisdom was proclaimed. It has been carried forward in spite of misrepresentation, attack upon the concept, and scorn. Recognition of the substantial nature of the available evidence and the appearance of an intuitive response by occult students and many of the intelligentsia throughout the world has been helpful.
A new type of mystic is coming to be recognised; he differs from the mystics of the past by his practical interest in current world affairs and not in religious and church matters only; he is distinguished by his lack of interest in his own personal development, by his ability to see God immanent in all faiths and not just in his own particular brand of religious belief, and also by his capacity to live his life in the light of the divine Presence. All mystics have been able to do this to a greater or less degree, but the. modern mystic differs from those in the past in that he is able clearly to indicate to others the techniques of the Path; he combines both head and heart, intelligence and feeling, plus an intuitive perception, hitherto lacking. The clear light of the Spiritual Hierarchy now illumines the way of the modem mystic, and not simply the light of his own soul; this will be increasingly the case.
Thirdly, both of these groups -- the general public and the world aspirants in their varying degrees -- have among them those who stand out from the general average as possessing a deeper insight and understanding; they occupy a no-man's-land, intermediate on the one hand between the masses and the esotericists and, on the other, between the esotericists and the Members of the Hierarchy. Forget not, They also use this great Invocation and that not a day goes by that the Christ Himself does not sound it forth.
The use of this Invocation or Prayer and the rising expectancy of. the coming of the Christ hold out the greatest hope for man-kind today. Great Sons of God have ever come on humanity's demand and always will, and He for Whom all men wait today is on His way.”
As if that wasn’t enough on The Great Invocation, try it’s website http://www.thegreatinvocation.org.uk/home.htm for anything else you want to know about it. Sounds like some great reading! Under the “WHO” section, you can find out who is meant when they say “Christ” in the G.I.. Don’t miss out on this good stuff in the “HOW” section: “The true followers of Christ are all those who love their fellowmen and see no barriers among people [i.e. exclusivity of religion maybe?] for the major effect of the reappearance of the Christ will be the stimulation of the spirit of inclusiveness.” [The Great Invocation: A Mantram for the New Age and for all Humanity] You guys ready to bring the Christ forth through some triangle energy?
Monday, May 21, 2007
Globalism, Part 10: From The Horses Mouth
Listen to what he says in the last 40 seconds. Now, I know in our present day culture that as President the media would unceasingly attack him if he didn't answer the question the way he did, but does that change things? Does that excuse his answer?
I voted for the man, partially because of his Christian views. That is in no way orthodox Christianity. Worshiping God (i.e. "The Father") isn't good enough (even if you make the jump that "Allah is God the Father"). Why? Why don't you ask Jesus because he was the one who said that no one comes to the Father except through the Son.
"Different routes"...now where have I heard that before? Hmmm.
The great evil for the NAM is division. The Lucis Trust broadcast that I’ve mentioned several times said that The Buddha and The Christ came not to divide but to unite humanity. In fact, the title of the broadcast that I listened to was “Two Brothers: The Buddha and The Christ.” I seem to remember Jesus discussing how his message would divide families. The Great Commission brings those that believe in the message together. However, those that reject it, by default, move away from those who accept it. The two worldviews are diametrically opposed.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." - Matthew 10:34-39 NASB
For the NAM, everything can and should be solved through unity and knowledge which includes tolerance and in a sense, political correctness to avoid offense. Regarding the above passage, the broadcast said that religious people misinterpret their own religions causing division among humanity. Religions are just different paths to the same source. The “New Religion” is both truly new and truly old. It both exists as a new creation and as no religion at all. How can it be all these? It is the combination of all religions. Therefore, to the Lucis Trust, it isn’t a new religion. It is simply the understanding that all are trying to get to the same place. To the Christian, it is obviously a new religion yet simultaneously a “re-incarnation” of ancient pagan religions. The broadcast said that this point about all religions as different paths to the same location is the “light of wisdom” which is beginning to dawn (notice the theosophism in that). They defined wisdom as “…the enlightened application of knowledge through love.” They then said that this was the next step in the evolution of humanity.
I voted for the man, partially because of his Christian views. That is in no way orthodox Christianity. Worshiping God (i.e. "The Father") isn't good enough (even if you make the jump that "Allah is God the Father"). Why? Why don't you ask Jesus because he was the one who said that no one comes to the Father except through the Son.
"Different routes"...now where have I heard that before? Hmmm.
The great evil for the NAM is division. The Lucis Trust broadcast that I’ve mentioned several times said that The Buddha and The Christ came not to divide but to unite humanity. In fact, the title of the broadcast that I listened to was “Two Brothers: The Buddha and The Christ.” I seem to remember Jesus discussing how his message would divide families. The Great Commission brings those that believe in the message together. However, those that reject it, by default, move away from those who accept it. The two worldviews are diametrically opposed.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." - Matthew 10:34-39 NASB
For the NAM, everything can and should be solved through unity and knowledge which includes tolerance and in a sense, political correctness to avoid offense. Regarding the above passage, the broadcast said that religious people misinterpret their own religions causing division among humanity. Religions are just different paths to the same source. The “New Religion” is both truly new and truly old. It both exists as a new creation and as no religion at all. How can it be all these? It is the combination of all religions. Therefore, to the Lucis Trust, it isn’t a new religion. It is simply the understanding that all are trying to get to the same place. To the Christian, it is obviously a new religion yet simultaneously a “re-incarnation” of ancient pagan religions. The broadcast said that this point about all religions as different paths to the same location is the “light of wisdom” which is beginning to dawn (notice the theosophism in that). They defined wisdom as “…the enlightened application of knowledge through love.” They then said that this was the next step in the evolution of humanity.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Globalism, Part 9: The Doctrine of Evolution and Spirit Christology
THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION
You should, by now, notice the undertones of evolution. The NAM believes that evolution is the work of God pushing his creation to greater and greater heights. (Remember the quote which said the goal of theosophy was the merging of religion with science?) This is true physically but also spiritually. That means we are moving to a greater goal, and we need a greater figure than Buddha and Christ. Christ is the highest point of evolution thus far. There is a great value to this high figure being truly human. For him to be truly (or only) human makes him this worldly rather than otherworldly. He, then, can truly relate to our experience and us. This makes him a realistic example for us because he didn’t just do what was right because he was divine. He is only different in action and knowledge, not in being. Therefore, we too can ascend to this high level of knowledge and ultimately action. Great teachers such as Buddha and Christ had insight into reality, which liberated them from the constraints of this world. This is a perversion of Spirit Christology which I believe in. For Schleiermacher and the Lucis Trust, Jesus didn’t lay down his power of divinity because he was just a chosen human (not pre-existent). I think an explanation of Spirit Christology would be helpful, but it will take a lot of setup work to get my point across.
SPIRIT CHRISTOLOGY
At the risk of coming across blasphemous, Jesus isn’t pre-existent…the Son is. I know that may be hard to grasp at first (I became angry the first time I heard it, but I didn’t understand it). The Son is pre-existent, and he took on flesh as Jesus. From that moment on, The Son with a body became known as “Jesus”. This union was separated at death, and reunited at resurrection and continued at ascension (The Son is still en-fleshed as Jesus). Why does this matter? It matters because it gives an extreme value to Incarnation. The Son left the Father, came to earth, became like us to save us. Spirit Christology wishes to make sense of all this. How can Jesus by my example for the right way to live if he is god and therefore cannot sin? He can resist sin just by the power of being God, not really feeling temptation like a “real” human does. The answer to this dilemma is Spirit Christology. Philippians 2 has the famous “kenosis” passage which has been misinterpreted to say that Jesus “laid down” his divinity. God cannot become non-god philosophically. This is impossible. Jesus “laid down” the “abilities of divinity” in the sense that he chose to take on flesh which covered over his divinity. That is, he laid down omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence by choosing to take on human flesh. Some may say that God is not God without his divine abilities. To them, I ask this: Didn’t The Son unquestionably lay down omnipresence (assuming you’re not Gnostic) by becoming localized in a body? Why is it unreasonable to believe that he chose not to use all three abilities? I’ll give you the example that my professor gave me. Think of The Son as a pencil. Place some chewed gum over the head of the pencil. The gum is incarnation or flesh. The gum over the pencil made it so that it could not write (function) like it was supposed to. In the same way, The Son had all the abilities of divinity of before, but he could not use them based on his choice to take on flesh (the gum in the analogy).
Okay, I know where your mind has gone already. You’re thinking, well doesn’t that mean that the present day Jesus shouldn’t be able to use divine powers too? The answer is no because of the resurrection. The Son/Jesus was resurrected with a new, heavenly body. Remember how we walked through walls and appeared and disappeared? It’s frightening how well this theological concept solved all these issues. I know this was a bit complex, but read it a couple times…it will sink in. If you have the time, go back and read “The Schleiermacher Connection.” His whole point with the non-divinity of Jesus is that Jesus has to be a true example. He doesn’t know how to make Jesus a real example for us without stripping him of divinity. Think about it? If God says, nope I’m not going to do that evil thing, BIG DEAL! Of course he didn’t do it; he can resist! I can’t, so don’t blame me! Well, Jesus is the answer to why we are to blame. Jesus says no to temptation because of the Spirit. Jesus was open to God through the Spirit. Jesus’ apparent divine powers on earth were actually the Spirit working through him. When Jesus heals, he does so through the Spirit. See the connection to us? We work through the Spirit as well. We can avoid sin through the close relationship of the Spirit. We can know God intimately through the Spirit. Think about how Jesus didn’t start his ministry of good works both physically and spiritually until he was baptized (and the Spirit came upon him). Just as the Spirit gave discernment to Jesus to know what others were thinking, so to does he give discernment in our time. Ever had a prophet/Evangelist tell you something that you knew they could not know? It was the Spirit that gave them that message. This belief that Jesus has to be a regular human to be our example is a strong push of the anti-Christ/New Age Movement. They use simple logic to say he HAS to be just a human. Well, Spirit Christology satisfies that concern without forfeiting Jesus’ divinity while enhancing the value of the Incarnation.
You should, by now, notice the undertones of evolution. The NAM believes that evolution is the work of God pushing his creation to greater and greater heights. (Remember the quote which said the goal of theosophy was the merging of religion with science?) This is true physically but also spiritually. That means we are moving to a greater goal, and we need a greater figure than Buddha and Christ. Christ is the highest point of evolution thus far. There is a great value to this high figure being truly human. For him to be truly (or only) human makes him this worldly rather than otherworldly. He, then, can truly relate to our experience and us. This makes him a realistic example for us because he didn’t just do what was right because he was divine. He is only different in action and knowledge, not in being. Therefore, we too can ascend to this high level of knowledge and ultimately action. Great teachers such as Buddha and Christ had insight into reality, which liberated them from the constraints of this world. This is a perversion of Spirit Christology which I believe in. For Schleiermacher and the Lucis Trust, Jesus didn’t lay down his power of divinity because he was just a chosen human (not pre-existent). I think an explanation of Spirit Christology would be helpful, but it will take a lot of setup work to get my point across.
SPIRIT CHRISTOLOGY
At the risk of coming across blasphemous, Jesus isn’t pre-existent…the Son is. I know that may be hard to grasp at first (I became angry the first time I heard it, but I didn’t understand it). The Son is pre-existent, and he took on flesh as Jesus. From that moment on, The Son with a body became known as “Jesus”. This union was separated at death, and reunited at resurrection and continued at ascension (The Son is still en-fleshed as Jesus). Why does this matter? It matters because it gives an extreme value to Incarnation. The Son left the Father, came to earth, became like us to save us. Spirit Christology wishes to make sense of all this. How can Jesus by my example for the right way to live if he is god and therefore cannot sin? He can resist sin just by the power of being God, not really feeling temptation like a “real” human does. The answer to this dilemma is Spirit Christology. Philippians 2 has the famous “kenosis” passage which has been misinterpreted to say that Jesus “laid down” his divinity. God cannot become non-god philosophically. This is impossible. Jesus “laid down” the “abilities of divinity” in the sense that he chose to take on flesh which covered over his divinity. That is, he laid down omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence by choosing to take on human flesh. Some may say that God is not God without his divine abilities. To them, I ask this: Didn’t The Son unquestionably lay down omnipresence (assuming you’re not Gnostic) by becoming localized in a body? Why is it unreasonable to believe that he chose not to use all three abilities? I’ll give you the example that my professor gave me. Think of The Son as a pencil. Place some chewed gum over the head of the pencil. The gum is incarnation or flesh. The gum over the pencil made it so that it could not write (function) like it was supposed to. In the same way, The Son had all the abilities of divinity of before, but he could not use them based on his choice to take on flesh (the gum in the analogy).
Okay, I know where your mind has gone already. You’re thinking, well doesn’t that mean that the present day Jesus shouldn’t be able to use divine powers too? The answer is no because of the resurrection. The Son/Jesus was resurrected with a new, heavenly body. Remember how we walked through walls and appeared and disappeared? It’s frightening how well this theological concept solved all these issues. I know this was a bit complex, but read it a couple times…it will sink in. If you have the time, go back and read “The Schleiermacher Connection.” His whole point with the non-divinity of Jesus is that Jesus has to be a true example. He doesn’t know how to make Jesus a real example for us without stripping him of divinity. Think about it? If God says, nope I’m not going to do that evil thing, BIG DEAL! Of course he didn’t do it; he can resist! I can’t, so don’t blame me! Well, Jesus is the answer to why we are to blame. Jesus says no to temptation because of the Spirit. Jesus was open to God through the Spirit. Jesus’ apparent divine powers on earth were actually the Spirit working through him. When Jesus heals, he does so through the Spirit. See the connection to us? We work through the Spirit as well. We can avoid sin through the close relationship of the Spirit. We can know God intimately through the Spirit. Think about how Jesus didn’t start his ministry of good works both physically and spiritually until he was baptized (and the Spirit came upon him). Just as the Spirit gave discernment to Jesus to know what others were thinking, so to does he give discernment in our time. Ever had a prophet/Evangelist tell you something that you knew they could not know? It was the Spirit that gave them that message. This belief that Jesus has to be a regular human to be our example is a strong push of the anti-Christ/New Age Movement. They use simple logic to say he HAS to be just a human. Well, Spirit Christology satisfies that concern without forfeiting Jesus’ divinity while enhancing the value of the Incarnation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)