I saw this on youtube and thought you might like to see it.
First of all, John 3:16. Secondly, we're "adopted" as sons and daughters. The first-born of many is a qualitative statement as much as it is and quantitative. That means he isn't just another random human who opened the way and now serves no purpose but par excellence model (Schleiermacher).
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Supernatural Operation
The human brain is the most complex thing on this planet. Atheists and theists fight over what the brain is. Is the "soul" just the brain's "consciousness"? Mystery is often attributed to the supernatural. The less people know about science, the more they attribute to the gods. So, this concept is often then used to disprove religion. For instance, there is an argument that near-death experiences which tell of a mysterious "white light" are proof of the after-life. Some scientific evidence seems to show that these may be due to a lack of oxygen. This lack of oxygen causes the brain to reduce it's activity to it's innermost parts (which also happen to be the more primitive parts of the brain). So the "white light" is simply the result of the brain closing down to the simplest state in order to still run. Okay, so should we chalk this up to another win for atheists? There's just one problem with this. On the same program where I heard all these things I'm discussing, there was a man who told a story that fits with this situation. He said that he had an "out-of-body" experience while being operated on. He said that he hovered over his body while it was being operated on. Okay, so you're probably thinking that he's crazy. Well, he remembers some things about the surgery that would seem impossible to know unless somehow his consciousness was able to exit his body.
First let me provide some facts to counteract a probable skeptical argument. He was put under sedation. Besides this, his eyes were taped close with bandages. Besides that, a medical sheet was placed from his neck up vertically about 2 or 3 feet. So even if he woke up and some how could see through his bandages, he still would have only seen a sheet and not his body or the doctors. Also, he did not know any of the surgeons or nurses working on him. Okay, so let's look at what he said.
He said while hovering over his body, he could look down at himself and see what was going on. It was like his body was in one place but his consciousness was in another. I guess sort of like you are right now aware of where your toes are, but your consciousness isn't in your toes. So, here is the part that lends credibility to his story. He said that the doctor did some really strange things. He said it looked like his doctor was flapping his arms like he was pretending to be a chicken while barking out orders. Crazy...yes. Well, amazingly, this is exactly what the doctor said happened. Now why would a doctor do that? He said that while his part of the operation isn't going on, he likes to keep his hands sterile by tucking them under his body near his armpits. He points with his elbows to direct the other surgeons/nurses. This requires him to twist to the left and right back and forth to use both his left and right elbow to point. So what was a very strange thing to say actually happened. If someone were to make up a story about an out-of-body experience, they would lie about things which make sense to them. They would discuss it the way they think it would play out. They would not accuse the doctor of looking and acting like a chicken.
So we're left with this: did he actually know the doctor despite both claiming they didn't know each other? If so, then what is the motive? There is no money involved in this. The only other easy option is that he saw the doctor do this with his own physical eyes, but again, I've already shown why that was a near impossibility. So the third option, that I can think of, is that this actually happened. This man's consciousness actually somehow exited his body and then re-entered his body. What does this do to the thought of an after-life? Is it really that ludicrous? Empiricism is not truth. It's a method to arrive at truth. Therefore, it is insufficient in some cases (e.g. this one). This doesn't prove the Christian God, or even a God at all. If it happened like the witness said, then it certainly seems like an after-life is much more likely than current science would allow. And that, in turn, effects the possibility of a God. If death doesn't kill consciousness, then religion was right all along.
First let me provide some facts to counteract a probable skeptical argument. He was put under sedation. Besides this, his eyes were taped close with bandages. Besides that, a medical sheet was placed from his neck up vertically about 2 or 3 feet. So even if he woke up and some how could see through his bandages, he still would have only seen a sheet and not his body or the doctors. Also, he did not know any of the surgeons or nurses working on him. Okay, so let's look at what he said.
He said while hovering over his body, he could look down at himself and see what was going on. It was like his body was in one place but his consciousness was in another. I guess sort of like you are right now aware of where your toes are, but your consciousness isn't in your toes. So, here is the part that lends credibility to his story. He said that the doctor did some really strange things. He said it looked like his doctor was flapping his arms like he was pretending to be a chicken while barking out orders. Crazy...yes. Well, amazingly, this is exactly what the doctor said happened. Now why would a doctor do that? He said that while his part of the operation isn't going on, he likes to keep his hands sterile by tucking them under his body near his armpits. He points with his elbows to direct the other surgeons/nurses. This requires him to twist to the left and right back and forth to use both his left and right elbow to point. So what was a very strange thing to say actually happened. If someone were to make up a story about an out-of-body experience, they would lie about things which make sense to them. They would discuss it the way they think it would play out. They would not accuse the doctor of looking and acting like a chicken.
So we're left with this: did he actually know the doctor despite both claiming they didn't know each other? If so, then what is the motive? There is no money involved in this. The only other easy option is that he saw the doctor do this with his own physical eyes, but again, I've already shown why that was a near impossibility. So the third option, that I can think of, is that this actually happened. This man's consciousness actually somehow exited his body and then re-entered his body. What does this do to the thought of an after-life? Is it really that ludicrous? Empiricism is not truth. It's a method to arrive at truth. Therefore, it is insufficient in some cases (e.g. this one). This doesn't prove the Christian God, or even a God at all. If it happened like the witness said, then it certainly seems like an after-life is much more likely than current science would allow. And that, in turn, effects the possibility of a God. If death doesn't kill consciousness, then religion was right all along.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Watch The Offering Plate: A Response
The following is a comment I left on a blog on myspace. Two of the current top 10 blog posts on myspace are from atheists. Atheism has a strong following on the internet sort of like Ron Paul had. Neither carry over with much veracity. Atheism is pride taken to the extreme. It's for the elites with their post-graduate degrees and their high horses. It's for those who love themselves, their own works, and their own minds so blindly that they can't see how simple the message of Jesus is. How true he is. How good he is.
Okay here is the link. And below is my response/comment. Obviously, you're going to have to read the blog first for my post to make sense.
Your question is fine, but it reveals a lack of basic ecclesiastical theology. Theology teaches that Christians are the "hands" of God. Remember Jesus' last words before the Ascension: "Go and make disciples." He taught his disciples how to live, and then asked them to teach others. Passing the offering plate is the means to receive the finances. You're asking why don't they just pray to get the money they need? They do pray. Then, they do get what they need to receive the money. What you're expecting is a God who acts directly without the need of humans. That, then, is a God who wouldn't need us at all. That is a God who wouldn't need or want to engage with us. Wouldn't want us to improve as human beings. That is a God who is a genie in a bottle. A God who WE control. A God who must snap to because we asked to. God, of course as you suggest, doesn't have to have our money. It's not a question of need as if that which is perfect lacks anything. It's the choice to work through humans. That is over-arching principle in Christianity that atheists either miss or claim is another sign that God doesn't exist. That's faith. Read the Gospels for yourself and see that this person "Jesus" has CHOSEN to work with us, through us, and for us.
Okay here is the link. And below is my response/comment. Obviously, you're going to have to read the blog first for my post to make sense.
Your question is fine, but it reveals a lack of basic ecclesiastical theology. Theology teaches that Christians are the "hands" of God. Remember Jesus' last words before the Ascension: "Go and make disciples." He taught his disciples how to live, and then asked them to teach others. Passing the offering plate is the means to receive the finances. You're asking why don't they just pray to get the money they need? They do pray. Then, they do get what they need to receive the money. What you're expecting is a God who acts directly without the need of humans. That, then, is a God who wouldn't need us at all. That is a God who wouldn't need or want to engage with us. Wouldn't want us to improve as human beings. That is a God who is a genie in a bottle. A God who WE control. A God who must snap to because we asked to. God, of course as you suggest, doesn't have to have our money. It's not a question of need as if that which is perfect lacks anything. It's the choice to work through humans. That is over-arching principle in Christianity that atheists either miss or claim is another sign that God doesn't exist. That's faith. Read the Gospels for yourself and see that this person "Jesus" has CHOSEN to work with us, through us, and for us.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Rob Bell Response
This is a response to a blog I read at "The Bench Stone." Click this link to read it first, but if you do, then you're in for a lot of reading with his and mine combined (you are now warned). Of course, if you don't read his first, then mine won't make sense. Oh well, I guess you suck it up or x it out. Your choice.
Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.
The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.
Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.
I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.
Let me start with this: this is not a shot at you. It’s an attempt to defend Bell based on who his audience is. As someone with a degree in theology, I’m well aware of his “loose” theology at times, but I take into consideration who his audience is.
The reason Bell doesn’t hit on substitutionary atonement is because of his audience. Remember, the vast majority of people who will hear something from Bell will be people watching a Nooma video. Who are the Noomas aimed at? Their purpose is to get the Gospel out to where people are (“the churched” and the “unchurched” alike) in a format that fits our world. That means it needs to be quick and to the direct point facing the person. That is why Noomas are short. People are supposed to pass them around especially when a certain subject in the video may fit with a situation a person is going through. Regarding the book, he is trying to get Christians to use a different method than in the past. It's a postmodern method that believes the life of the Christian says more about the need to convert than the Christians's words themselves. Substitutionary atonement is by its very philology something unrelatable to the masses. I guarantee you half the people in a church wouldn’t even know what it means because it’s theology. Theology proper isn’t taught in most Evangelical churches. What Bell is trying to get across is the simplified gospel. It’s the Gospel for those who are either unfamiliar with it or young in their walk. Did Jesus walk up to people he didn’t know and say hey I’m going to go die a martyrs death for your sin? No, he demonstrated the cross. He showed people the way to live. The atonement justified and validated everything he did before that. In the forgiving of the woman about to be stoned, he made a statement about sin. It was like a crediting of forgiveness to the woman and the cross was the actual payment. People who are unchurched cannot see why a person dying has any relation to them. Plenty of people were executed by the Romans via a cross. What makes Jesus any different? You’re point that the Gospel is the Cross/Substitutionary Atonement is ineffective. Imagine if Jesus did nothing his whole time on earth and then went to the Cross. What meaning would that have for us? We know Jesus both by the Cross and his work before that. He didn’t just come to forgive sins and make a way to heaven but make a way to live here on earth. He showed us his love on the Cross but showed us his love in his daily deeds on earth. Bell is trying to convey a Gospel that is relatable to all. It’s the old motto “get them in the door and then change them.” It’s a philosophy that the Gospel will work on people but not unless it is heard. Starting with high theology like substitutionary atonement makes no sense to someone who doesn’t even believe in sin. The life of Jesus shows us what sin is. We see the opposite of sin in everything he did and the picture becomes more clear how our daily decisions begin to pile up leading us down paths we would have been better off not to have traveled.
Regarding your point about conversion, it is tied in with the whole argument I gave above. It’s his philosophy that in a postmodern world, the life of Jesus is what proves Christianity true. The life of Jesus shows us that we need to change our lives but this is by focusing on the solution and not the problem (metanoia). I haven’t read his book, but from seeing most of the Noomas and hearing a lot of his sermons, I would assume by his point that the church needs to stop focusing on conversion that he would mean focus on discipleship. I probably shouldn’t even argue a point here because I haven’t read the reference (and context) you used, but I think his focus is to live out Christianity thereby using your life as a way to convert others. People want a person to be genuine with them. So many people try to convert people before ever caring about them. It’s just an extra notch in their belt of works. Discipleship post-conversion is the proof of actually caring about someone. Jesus preached occasionally but he also just lived in community with people. He went to places the religious authorities thought he shouldn’t have been at. This is an example of living out the Gospel to the lost. I, though, do believe the church needs to be focused on conversion, but with the perspective that caring has to be first. And it can’t be just a caring about the person in a “got them out of hell” sense which is so empty. Bell and I both believe in the relational method to conversion (I believe he believes in an informal/life conversion method rather than the “repeat these words and come to church tomorrow” method). I believe he truly believes more people convert because of the truth lived out rather than the truth yelled out or even spoken in a disingenuous manner.
I like your reference to Fosdick, but the virgin birth in and of itself doesn’t save. See, again, Bell is interested in the practical living out of Christianity and not high theology. I’m with you though, that the virgin birth is technically essential, but it wasn’t something that Jesus went around trying prove before he forgave people. It’s essential because only God can save and by Jesus being born of Mary and the Holy Spirit, this was achieved. But you don’t walk up to the unchurched and say Jesus was born of a virgin so now you can be saved. Again, it all comes back to who his audience is. Readers of the book are probably Christian already (whereas Nooma contains both types). For those reading the book, he is trying get them to understand that facts don’t save. The fact that Jesus was born of a virgin (which we can’t prove but only believe by faith) does little to effect someone believing in Jesus/salvation. It’s the postmodern conversion method of living out the faith is the best method to convert. We can’t continue to use and insist upon conversion methods of the modern world when we’re not in it anymore.
Friday, June 6, 2008
The Problem of Evil
Ever since I learned about the problem of evil as a theology student it has plagued me. They call it the “heart of atheism.” Specifically, the death camps of WW2 have been used to “prove” or illustrate that there can be no God. Quickly, let me go over the problem of evil for those who aren’t familiar with it (technically). I write technically because you are familiar with it whether you know the technical term or not.
P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”
P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).
The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.
One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.
Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.
So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.
I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.
P stands for “proposition.” C stands for “conclusion.”
P1- God is perfectly good.
P2- God is all-powerful.
P3- Evil exists both morally (e.g. rape) and naturally (e.g. hurricanes)
C1- God is either not powerful enough to prevent evil or isn’t good enough.
C2- God must, therefore, not exist, at least as defined (all-powerful and perfectly good).
The typical defense to this is a simple “free will” argument. That is, evil exists because God allows free choice. There is a huge problem with this. Let me use a story to explain. A couple tries to have a child for years. After three years of trying and both parents being in their mid thirties, the couple finally conceive. It’s a girl. They couldn’t be happier. They go through all the milestones of raising the child as she ages to three years old. At three, they start to notice some problems with her and take her to the doctor. There they find out a nightmare. They find out the child has a rare form of cancer and that she only has a few months left. The couple happens to be Evangelical Christians, and they turn to prayer. Nevertheless, the child dies despite genuine belief in the power of both prayer and healing. This is an example of a perfectly good God and perfectly powerful God not stepping in despite the ability to do so. To the atheist, it is proof that your prayers are just whispered words. Now consider the free will defense above. How does free will come into play in this situation? There was no free will bad choice by the child. This evil didn’t happen because the little girl was just getting what she deserved by her sin. The free will argument, while possibly strong for most situations, is fundamentally weak because it isn’t comprehensive. It doesn’t work in every situation which is like having its legs cut down and expecting it to stand.
One answer I thought of recently was “The Great Commission.” That is, if you want good to happen to you and those around you, then do something about your world. If you want to feel safe, then do something in the community to help people. Do something to stop the crime before it’s even a desire. I don’t know this for a fact but I assume that most home burglaries are due to the need for drug money. How about we don’t support films that make drugs out to be fun or funny? How many “teen movies” have drugs that make them out to be just recreational fun? Where is the reality in that? In real life, what do we do to make things better? The Gospel makes things better. It isn’t first and foremost about heaven and the afterlife. It’s about this life. It is supposed to effect the way we live here. The person who lives by the Gospel doesn’t steal from another. S/he doesn’t rape. That isn’t to say a person who is in the environment of a church won’t do those things, but it is to say they’re less likely. People can hear and not act, but those who continually don’t hear have no reason to not act in those manners. This is a difficult thing to implement outside of the church. The basic argument of this method is: “How can we expect God to prevent evil around us if we ourselves don’t try?” At the very least, we need to be partners in this endeavor.
Now, let’s consider the scenario I gave above, about the little girl with cancer, under the prism of the “The Great Commission Theodicy” (theodicy, here, means an active way to explain the problem of evil.) The only thing that could have been done is research into cancer. There are too many problems and diseases in this world for us to address everything as individuals. We can’t foresee what will happen to us and what we should invest our time and effort in. So, this “Great Commission” model fails just like the free will defense because it, too, cannot address every problem of evil.
So here we are without an answer. This past Wednesday night, I went to church. This subject came up, but not with it’s technical term. Someone gave the answer that makes my blood boil. It was “well God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” That makes me so angry because, on the surface, it’s so stupid. It is essentially saying that we go through terrible things so that we can help someone else who goes through terrible things. I thought to myself, “HELLO! How about neither one of us go through this, Einstein.” That is exactly the argument of the atheist. But that is when it hit me. Community. Community. That is something the atheist would always miss. The foundation of practical Christianity may be the salvific work of Christ, but the foundation of high Christian theology is the Trinity. The Trinity is God himself in community. The Trinity is God the Father sending God the Son to the cross. It isn’t above pain and suffering, but there the three dwelled to the point the Father had to look away. Pain, despair, destruction, these are not above the divine. They, therefore, are not above us. People were right all along when they used the argument that “God allows us to go through things so that we can minister to others.” On its surface, it appears to be ludicrous but that is only because it was seen without the eyes of the triune God. Essentially, God is saying to us, “That is how important community is to me. That is how important inter-relationships are.” The “free will” defense is too far removed. It makes things out to be random. The little girl just happened to get cancer because of pure possibility and will live or die by pure possibility. The Great Commission model, on its own, says “well you should have been giving your money to research before this happened.” The Community model says, it’s time to turn to God, church, and family. Do you see what it does? It automatically connects us. Sure God could have prevented your disaster and a stranger’s disaster, but the same is true of Jesus. The Father could have said, “Not my son.” But he cared enough to take us into his fold. We can try to use this same method of connectivity. Remember, that is how important community is to God. And all of a sudden, the “Great Commission model” finds a home. It comes in after the connection (common crisis) to minister. So its Achilles heal that it couldn’t guess what would happen in the future is now irrelevant. It doesn’t predict; it reacts.
I don’t pretend that this solves everything. I do say, though, that it makes sense of some things that have been used for a long time. It provides a way for suffering and purpose to coexist without being ludicrous. If suffering and purpose can't coexist, then the cross is a sham. This is why the cross is always necessary in the discussion of the problem of evil.
Friday, March 28, 2008
God: Chapter 6 (Reality)
While I was trying to think of ideas for our new church website, I thought about godtube.com. I decided to check it out to see if maybe I should either embed a video on our site or provide a link over. I came across a video that looked like it might be a candidate. The production quality was pretty good. It was filmed in black and white, used an interesting but non-distracting song, and some video effects (e.g. slow motion). Anyway, the video shows a guy in front of a building realizing he is out of money. Simultaneously, this broke man sees a teen walk into the building with a backpack on. He follows him in and waits for him to go into the stairwell. When they meet, he pulls his gun and shoots the boy taking his pack. This is where the video turned to crap. The shooter runs out of the front of the building and sits on the bench that he was at before entering the building. So first of all, he feels no strong need to get out of the area apparently. That doesn’t even compare to what happens next. The guy digs into the bag to find what he has just stolen. He pulls out a Bible. He doesn’t just look past it; he opens it up and starts reading it. Apparently he knew to turn to the New Testament. Of course, he goes from shooter to convert in less than 20 seconds. At this point, he runs back into the building to help the person he just shot. And this is the state of Christian media. Disconnection from reality serves no one. Would this happen? Where is the honesty? In real life, the man would have not hung around. He would not have grabbed the Bible and turned to Matthew 5. I get the point. I get the message. I get the hope of the message. But its disconnect with reality leaves a void. I can’t listen to a Christian message that lives in an ivory tower. I can’t be moved by something that I can’t relate to. Why can’t Christian art, in terms of music, photography, and video, be real? I can only think of a few examples (e.g. Nooma, Switchfoot). Is that why Nooma is so popular? Are Christians starved for a message that lives in our actual context…that faces our real problems with real solutions? Do we want something other than a solution in a book which is covered in dust. Are unbelievers open to a message in a different format?
In the latest Nooma video, 019 Open, the message is real. It’s especially real for me. “God answered my prayer” shouldn’t be equated with “God said yes.” The reality is that people pray and people die. People pray and “God shows up.” Well, if God showed up for you, does that mean God abandoned me? The reality is that we don’t like to talk about those times. When the answer is no response, we don’t promote that in the church. When Lazarus dies in the Bible, Jesus is called upon (John 11). The distance from where he was and where Lazarus was located was no more than a two day trip. Jesus doesn’t show up until the 4th day. Why? The prayer came wholeheartedly. Why did he leave them in the dark for 2 extra days? In Matthew 9, Jesus goes the moment the father asks to save his daughter. As soon as Jesus saw the dead man and the wailing mother of Luke 7, he spoke life back into the son. In Lazarus’ case, there is silence for 2 days. The hint is found here: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." The point of the wait was to stretch the faith. It was to increase the miracle. In the Jewish culture, a person wasn’t technically considered dead until the 3rd day (practically, though, they were). This meant that the person still had a chance of coming back because the spirit hovered over the body until the 3rd day, in their minds. By waiting till this 4th day, Lazarus’ coming back was a miracle. He didn’t just come back into his body from hovering over top. He truly came back from the dead.
So this is why I don’t like the vast majority of Christian media. It lives in another world. It pretends as if we’re already in heaven. It always has a smile on its face. It has a hard time being honest. It tells us that if God "didn't," then you must have not had enough faith. It pretends as if conversion is just a matter of handing someone a Bible. It tells people to convert or burn as if this other world we’re speaking of is in any way relatable to people who don’t even believe it exists! Maybe another Christian T-shirt will do the trick. Christian media also tends to not be original. The first video I saw when I went to God-Tube was “Umbrella - Christ Mix.” This is a rip off of Rihanna’s “Umbrella.” Where is our originality? Don’t we have a relevant message that has the ability to think proactively rather than reactively to our culture? Can’t we shape culture rather than rip it off? I think the problem is that we’ve relegated God to the physical church building. Whatever happens inside a church “is” Christian. Whatever happens outside of it is secular. Real life, then, is secular. Real life isn’t Christian. Real life is getting together to play basketball. It’s getting together to go to a concert. It’s “family fun day.” It’s learning something on tv or from a book and sharing it. That is the Christian’s life. It’s real life experience taken in through the lens of the truth. God is the author of this world. He made it possible and we’ve been given the ability to create more. Our concept of what “Christian” is is too narrow. It’s just whatever can be said, listened to, and watched in a church. A while back, Amy Grant, put out a cd that didn’t say “God” in every song and suddenly she lost her salvation. Suddenly, she “sold out.” That was the reaction. When you understand what God as creator means and our connection with each other inside this creation, then there is no such thing as secular. Everything in creation is either used for God’s glory or not. After all, Everything is Spiritual.
In the latest Nooma video, 019 Open, the message is real. It’s especially real for me. “God answered my prayer” shouldn’t be equated with “God said yes.” The reality is that people pray and people die. People pray and “God shows up.” Well, if God showed up for you, does that mean God abandoned me? The reality is that we don’t like to talk about those times. When the answer is no response, we don’t promote that in the church. When Lazarus dies in the Bible, Jesus is called upon (John 11). The distance from where he was and where Lazarus was located was no more than a two day trip. Jesus doesn’t show up until the 4th day. Why? The prayer came wholeheartedly. Why did he leave them in the dark for 2 extra days? In Matthew 9, Jesus goes the moment the father asks to save his daughter. As soon as Jesus saw the dead man and the wailing mother of Luke 7, he spoke life back into the son. In Lazarus’ case, there is silence for 2 days. The hint is found here: "This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it." The point of the wait was to stretch the faith. It was to increase the miracle. In the Jewish culture, a person wasn’t technically considered dead until the 3rd day (practically, though, they were). This meant that the person still had a chance of coming back because the spirit hovered over the body until the 3rd day, in their minds. By waiting till this 4th day, Lazarus’ coming back was a miracle. He didn’t just come back into his body from hovering over top. He truly came back from the dead.
So this is why I don’t like the vast majority of Christian media. It lives in another world. It pretends as if we’re already in heaven. It always has a smile on its face. It has a hard time being honest. It tells us that if God "didn't," then you must have not had enough faith. It pretends as if conversion is just a matter of handing someone a Bible. It tells people to convert or burn as if this other world we’re speaking of is in any way relatable to people who don’t even believe it exists! Maybe another Christian T-shirt will do the trick. Christian media also tends to not be original. The first video I saw when I went to God-Tube was “Umbrella - Christ Mix.” This is a rip off of Rihanna’s “Umbrella.” Where is our originality? Don’t we have a relevant message that has the ability to think proactively rather than reactively to our culture? Can’t we shape culture rather than rip it off? I think the problem is that we’ve relegated God to the physical church building. Whatever happens inside a church “is” Christian. Whatever happens outside of it is secular. Real life, then, is secular. Real life isn’t Christian. Real life is getting together to play basketball. It’s getting together to go to a concert. It’s “family fun day.” It’s learning something on tv or from a book and sharing it. That is the Christian’s life. It’s real life experience taken in through the lens of the truth. God is the author of this world. He made it possible and we’ve been given the ability to create more. Our concept of what “Christian” is is too narrow. It’s just whatever can be said, listened to, and watched in a church. A while back, Amy Grant, put out a cd that didn’t say “God” in every song and suddenly she lost her salvation. Suddenly, she “sold out.” That was the reaction. When you understand what God as creator means and our connection with each other inside this creation, then there is no such thing as secular. Everything in creation is either used for God’s glory or not. After all, Everything is Spiritual.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
God: Chapter 5: (God of Healing)
The following is an archeological possibility. That means that I don’t know if the interpretation I’m about to take is valid or not because the interpretation is based on this place actually being the place described in John. Obviously as you will see, I think it fits rather well.
In John 5, Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of “Bethesda.” Archaeologists have found a set of baths in the vicinity of where John describes this event. He says this pool is near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. 50 meters south of the Sheep Gate, one will find 2 Roman baths, some smaller and rougher pools, and a temple. The baths were designed like the typical Roman baths were. The “rougher” pools resemble caves. They’re sort of cut out of the rock but with no attempt to use right angles forming a square or rectangle like the other more “polished” baths. Now, I did mention a temple here. The temple was to Asclepius. Before I mention what kind of God he was, let me first mention his daughters: Hygieia, Meditrina (the serpent-bearer), Panacea, Aceso, Iaso, and Aglaea. Hygieia? Do I need to go into that one? Meditrina? That certainly sounds like “medicine.” Also, think about the imagery surrounding medicine that we see so often—the serpent curled around the staff. That also harkens back to Moses. Well, Asclepius was a Greek God. But, the Romans adopted the Greek gods. Asclepius was the God of healing or medicine. Is this a coincidence that Jesus heals a man here? Now, think of the story. It has this strange mythical view that if the waters stir, the first one in will be healed. I used to wonder about that. It seems to come from nowhere in Jewish history. It seemed to be pure mythology that was being propagated by the Jews there. Clearly though, it turns out that this was a myth of the Greeks and Romans, which they in turn had taught the people. Those who were sick with diseases or disabilities were disallowed the “nice” Roman baths. However, they were allowed in the “rougher” pool I described earlier. This was the “Jewish” twist to the pagan ritual. However, going in at night wasn’t out of the ordinary. And so as the myth went, if they could get in first, they would be healed. Asclepius would heal them. Jesus comes along and sees this. He heals a paralytic with Asclepius’ temple in the background. Who is the healer now? Who is the one who delivered the man? The Greco-Roman God failed him for 38 years. Jesus didn’t heal everyone there…just this man. Yet the point is still made. The Gods of this world promise yet can’t deliver. As powerful as the Roman Empire was, their gods were made up. They were powerless.
Back to our boy Asclepius. The myth surrounding him was that he could raise the dead using the blood of the Gorgons (Medusa was a Gorgon). So, Asclepius could use blood to raise the dead. Two things were said of Asclepius that made other “gods” angry. One said that he resurrected people in exchange for money. Another said that he healed people making them immortal. This made the god of the underworld angry because he had rightful possession of the dead. Think about these two scenarios in the light of Jesus. Jesus offers resurrection at a price but a price he paid. It is free to you and I. In Peter’s epistle, according to interpretation, Jesus may have “descended into hell.” He “took the keys of the grave” away from Satan. Satan no longer had power over death. The Resurrection is the great conquering of life over death. It is the “ultimate” healing.
As if this story couldn’t get more interesting, there are 12 signs of the zodiac according to popular tradition. In reality, there are 13 signs. One is missing from our modern tradition. This is the sign “Ophiuchus.” “Ophiuchus” is Asclepius after he was murdered by Zeus. (Anyone else enjoy the irony of the resurrecting God who can’t resurrect himself)? Zeus places him in the sky because he realized the importance Asclepius had to men. The name change was to Ophiuchus which meant “serpent-bearer.” This, obviously, fit in with his character, so therefore the name wasn’t random. Ophiuchus is the largest of all the zodiac constellations. I first heard about it a while ago when I was reading about the “New Age Movement.” A lost zodiac sign where a god is known as the “serpent-bearer” sounds pretty insignificant right? Hmm…the new agers wouldn’t lash onto the serpent god who heals mankind would they? The symbol of the serpent doesn’t just convey “healing” but also knowledge. Even in the Bible, the serpent tempts Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. To the Mormons, the serpent is good because he brings about knowledge. 
To many other religions, the serpent or dragon (flying serpent) symbolize truth. (2012 in the Chinese calendar is the year of the Dragon. This being mentioned here only makes sense if you’re familiar with the rumors surrounding 2012.)
So we’ve traveled a long distance from just “another of Jesus’ healings.” If the archeological site was the actual location John was referring to, then many of the early readers would have known the significance of the location. They would have realized the parallel of Jesus as healer vs. Asclepius. Jesus as leader of the Kingdom of God vs. Rome as the Kingdom of this world. Even today, some grab onto this “healing” figure to bring out the hidden knowledge that will save us. That is the Bible for you, a few seemingly insignificant words about a location carry a ton of importance which we miss.
In John 5, Jesus heals the paralytic by the pool of “Bethesda.” Archaeologists have found a set of baths in the vicinity of where John describes this event. He says this pool is near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem. 50 meters south of the Sheep Gate, one will find 2 Roman baths, some smaller and rougher pools, and a temple. The baths were designed like the typical Roman baths were. The “rougher” pools resemble caves. They’re sort of cut out of the rock but with no attempt to use right angles forming a square or rectangle like the other more “polished” baths. Now, I did mention a temple here. The temple was to Asclepius. Before I mention what kind of God he was, let me first mention his daughters: Hygieia, Meditrina (the serpent-bearer), Panacea, Aceso, Iaso, and Aglaea. Hygieia? Do I need to go into that one? Meditrina? That certainly sounds like “medicine.” Also, think about the imagery surrounding medicine that we see so often—the serpent curled around the staff. That also harkens back to Moses. Well, Asclepius was a Greek God. But, the Romans adopted the Greek gods. Asclepius was the God of healing or medicine. Is this a coincidence that Jesus heals a man here? Now, think of the story. It has this strange mythical view that if the waters stir, the first one in will be healed. I used to wonder about that. It seems to come from nowhere in Jewish history. It seemed to be pure mythology that was being propagated by the Jews there. Clearly though, it turns out that this was a myth of the Greeks and Romans, which they in turn had taught the people. Those who were sick with diseases or disabilities were disallowed the “nice” Roman baths. However, they were allowed in the “rougher” pool I described earlier. This was the “Jewish” twist to the pagan ritual. However, going in at night wasn’t out of the ordinary. And so as the myth went, if they could get in first, they would be healed. Asclepius would heal them. Jesus comes along and sees this. He heals a paralytic with Asclepius’ temple in the background. Who is the healer now? Who is the one who delivered the man? The Greco-Roman God failed him for 38 years. Jesus didn’t heal everyone there…just this man. Yet the point is still made. The Gods of this world promise yet can’t deliver. As powerful as the Roman Empire was, their gods were made up. They were powerless.
Back to our boy Asclepius. The myth surrounding him was that he could raise the dead using the blood of the Gorgons (Medusa was a Gorgon). So, Asclepius could use blood to raise the dead. Two things were said of Asclepius that made other “gods” angry. One said that he resurrected people in exchange for money. Another said that he healed people making them immortal. This made the god of the underworld angry because he had rightful possession of the dead. Think about these two scenarios in the light of Jesus. Jesus offers resurrection at a price but a price he paid. It is free to you and I. In Peter’s epistle, according to interpretation, Jesus may have “descended into hell.” He “took the keys of the grave” away from Satan. Satan no longer had power over death. The Resurrection is the great conquering of life over death. It is the “ultimate” healing.
As if this story couldn’t get more interesting, there are 12 signs of the zodiac according to popular tradition. In reality, there are 13 signs. One is missing from our modern tradition. This is the sign “Ophiuchus.” “Ophiuchus” is Asclepius after he was murdered by Zeus. (Anyone else enjoy the irony of the resurrecting God who can’t resurrect himself)? Zeus places him in the sky because he realized the importance Asclepius had to men. The name change was to Ophiuchus which meant “serpent-bearer.” This, obviously, fit in with his character, so therefore the name wasn’t random. Ophiuchus is the largest of all the zodiac constellations. I first heard about it a while ago when I was reading about the “New Age Movement.” A lost zodiac sign where a god is known as the “serpent-bearer” sounds pretty insignificant right? Hmm…the new agers wouldn’t lash onto the serpent god who heals mankind would they? The symbol of the serpent doesn’t just convey “healing” but also knowledge. Even in the Bible, the serpent tempts Eve with the knowledge of good and evil. To the Mormons, the serpent is good because he brings about knowledge. 
To many other religions, the serpent or dragon (flying serpent) symbolize truth. (2012 in the Chinese calendar is the year of the Dragon. This being mentioned here only makes sense if you’re familiar with the rumors surrounding 2012.)So we’ve traveled a long distance from just “another of Jesus’ healings.” If the archeological site was the actual location John was referring to, then many of the early readers would have known the significance of the location. They would have realized the parallel of Jesus as healer vs. Asclepius. Jesus as leader of the Kingdom of God vs. Rome as the Kingdom of this world. Even today, some grab onto this “healing” figure to bring out the hidden knowledge that will save us. That is the Bible for you, a few seemingly insignificant words about a location carry a ton of importance which we miss.
Monday, March 10, 2008
God: Chapter 4 (The Lost Letter)
“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.” (1st Corinthians 5:9, The Net Bible). The “first” letter to the Corinthians mentions a previous letter to the Corinthians. We don’t have it. Why? Was it not inspired? More importantly, what would we do if we found it and could authenticate it? Certainly the Church isn’t unified enough to agree, but some would add it to their Bible. I suppose most wouldn’t. But why? The argument would be that it wasn’t inspired because if it was, then we would have had it from the beginning. So that is an argument against it based on time. Well, suppose humanity goes on for another 20,000 years. What is 2,000 years in that time frame? So then does eschatology effect our view of Inspiration? 
Think about Corinth. Paul wrote them a letter that isn’t in the Bible. Paul wrote them a letter that we can’t read. Imagine Paul wrote your home church a letter and no one else has it. Is that a good thing or a bad thing. Paul doesn’t just shoot the breeze or puff the ego. His modus operandi is to tell you all the things you’re doing wrong. What would your “Lost Letter” look like? What would it say?
I can’t help but think about this in the context of “prophecy.” I am Pentecostal, so I still believe in the gifts of the Spirit. One of these is the gift of prophecy. Our local church has an Evangelist who comes to speak every few years. She gives “words” in three ways. 1. With the microphone for the whole church to hear and anyone who listens to the tape later on [local church + global church]. 2. With no microphone but all those close enough can hear [local church alone]. 3. With no microphone via whisper into your ear [only you]. The books of the New Testament fit into scenario one. This “lost letter” fits in with scenario 2 (and sort of 3 if you think of the “smallness” of a single church in the history of THE Church). It was the private letter. It was the personal letter. It was for their ears alone unless of course it is found and authenticated. So what do we do with it then? Does this change the way we look at it? A personal letter/personal word should only be made public by the volition of the original receiver. I don’t think Paul’s letter was “personal” in the sense that he was against their making it public. He not only mentions it, but he also says what it was about. It seems to only be personal by wirkungsgeschichte (sort of the history of effects/interpretation). That is, it seems to be anachronistic to say it was a personal letter. I still relate it to the prophecy/private word I wrote of above via the Evangelist because that is the way history has effected the letter. However, this “personal” nature would be no reason to disqualify the book from the canonical question since it is invalid to call it personal the moment it is discovered. So we’re left where we began. What would we do? Would we add it? What if it had no “controversial” doctrine? How much would that help for it to be added? Again, I think it wouldn’t be added, but it certainly would sell. I’d like the book rights to that deal. This should really challenge the way we look at Scripture unlike the bogus “Gospel of Judas.”
Think about Corinth. Paul wrote them a letter that isn’t in the Bible. Paul wrote them a letter that we can’t read. Imagine Paul wrote your home church a letter and no one else has it. Is that a good thing or a bad thing. Paul doesn’t just shoot the breeze or puff the ego. His modus operandi is to tell you all the things you’re doing wrong. What would your “Lost Letter” look like? What would it say?
I can’t help but think about this in the context of “prophecy.” I am Pentecostal, so I still believe in the gifts of the Spirit. One of these is the gift of prophecy. Our local church has an Evangelist who comes to speak every few years. She gives “words” in three ways. 1. With the microphone for the whole church to hear and anyone who listens to the tape later on [local church + global church]. 2. With no microphone but all those close enough can hear [local church alone]. 3. With no microphone via whisper into your ear [only you]. The books of the New Testament fit into scenario one. This “lost letter” fits in with scenario 2 (and sort of 3 if you think of the “smallness” of a single church in the history of THE Church). It was the private letter. It was the personal letter. It was for their ears alone unless of course it is found and authenticated. So what do we do with it then? Does this change the way we look at it? A personal letter/personal word should only be made public by the volition of the original receiver. I don’t think Paul’s letter was “personal” in the sense that he was against their making it public. He not only mentions it, but he also says what it was about. It seems to only be personal by wirkungsgeschichte (sort of the history of effects/interpretation). That is, it seems to be anachronistic to say it was a personal letter. I still relate it to the prophecy/private word I wrote of above via the Evangelist because that is the way history has effected the letter. However, this “personal” nature would be no reason to disqualify the book from the canonical question since it is invalid to call it personal the moment it is discovered. So we’re left where we began. What would we do? Would we add it? What if it had no “controversial” doctrine? How much would that help for it to be added? Again, I think it wouldn’t be added, but it certainly would sell. I’d like the book rights to that deal. This should really challenge the way we look at Scripture unlike the bogus “Gospel of Judas.”
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
God: Chapter 3 (The Nooma Revolution)
Recently, I’ve really gotten into a Christian video series known as “Nooma.” A pastor in Michigan named Rob Bell is continually producing this series. He is the anti-typical pastor…young and non-suited. Enter on stage left the criticism. As a person who spent five years of his life academically studying theology, I realize Bell’s theology is “off.” I realize he isn’t spouting the typical view of God. I realize his Christology is of the type known as “low-Christology.” That is, he tends to focus on the human side of Jesus. The reality of our Tradition is that Jesus is 100% human and 100% divine. That is the “official view,” but it isn’t what you hear in church. What you get in church is this “lofty, otherworldly” figure. You get the divine. To talk about him as a human is borderline heresy. It’s liberalism. That’s where the church is wrong. We make him out to be a distant divinity. We make him the untouchable, exterior figure that does some good stuff for us and then waits on us to get to heaven. Jesus didn’t just come to “get us to heaven.” He wanted to show us heaven. This life isn’t just a “waiting period.” It doesn’t just believe a fact about Jesus so that we don’t burn for eternity. Christianity is more than a belief…it’s a lifestyle. It’s a worldview. It’s a way of living that says there is more. Relationship with the divine is both possible and necessary. Jesus is our example. A real example. He is what we should be and do NOW. With the help of the Spirit, Jesus carried out the work of the Father. This is, in theological language, called “Spirit Christology.” When I learned what that was in grad school, it revolutionized my way of thinking about Jesus. It made Jesus human. He was a baby that cried like the rest of us. He had his “dirty diapers.” He fell. He dropped things. He cried. He learned. He was truly tempted. He resisted through the power of the Spirit. He knew what others were thinking through the Spirit. He healed by the power of the Spirit. In essence, Jesus was divine, but we know he laid down the power of his divinity to truly be human. Let’s let him be this. Let’s use his relationship with the Spirit to see how we too can be more. When we deny what Paul says (Philippian 2) about the “emptying of himself,” we deny what he did. Jesus did what he did as a human. He did it through the power of the Spirit. So this is what the “high-Chrisologists” and the “low-Chrisologists” don’t get. Jesus was both. High Christology, on it’s own, makes Jesus such a divine being that he wasn’t really like us, and therefore, he couldn’t be a true example for us. Low Christology makes him such a human that he couldn’t really do what only the divine could do—save us. So the missing link is Spirit Christology. With his relationship with the Spirit (which we can have as well), Jesus could truly be a human that saves us.
But what is he “saving” us from? This is what the Nooma series wants to show us. It isn’t just “hell” as we so often make it about. “Hell” is literally an “otherworldly” concept. It doesn’t make sense in our modern world. It just seems like such a mythical view of eternity. I’m not saying it’s untrue; I’m just saying that it isn’t something that motivates the modern person. The atheist doesn’t believe hell exists so he laughs at you when you try to convince him that he needs to convert to avoid hell. Nooma shows us that Christianity isn’t just about the afterlife but the present one as well. This life is what motivates us. I want to be a Christian even if it isn’t true. I want whatever way I live my life to be the best way to live my life regardless of if there is another life to come. People today are so focused on this life that speaking about the unknown next life is literally irrelevant to them. Rob Bell gets this. He thinks, as do I, that Jesus’ life shows us a better way to live in this world. Loving your neighbor doesn’t just yield a reward in the afterlife. It does here. Forgiveness shows her profit here. Fear isn’t the motivator it once was. When people don’t like this focus on the here and now, they don’t just misunderstand Spirit Christology. They don’t understand “The Kingdom of God.” Jesus came to initiate heaven on earth. The miracles he performed were “proleptic.” That is, they were an early glimpse of what is to come. Already do we have the Kingdom in Jesus, but not yet is it fully realized. We still have poverty, death, sickness, war, etc. Jesus came to the poor, raised the dead, healed the sick, and taught us to turn the other cheek. Jesus is the bridge to the divine, not just divinity itself. Our world isn’t perfect, so the kingdom hasn’t been perfected. Yet we’ve been given the blueprint.
Most people that have seen some of the Nooma series say that their favorite video is “08 Dust” (myself included).
This is the story about Jesus’ calling of the disciples. In the video, Bell discusses the Jewish system of education. Students were taught to memorize the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament). Those that achieved this and were talented were allowed to continue on to learn the rest of the Old Testament. Those that didn’t make the cut were supposed to learn the family trade. The ones who continued then learned the rest of the Old Testament to only be told whether or not they could continue on learning from their Rabbi. Were they good enough? Were they talented enough to become “like” their Rabbi (which means teacher)? Only the best of the best could do this. So now, consider this in light of the calling of the disciples. The disciples were out fishing. So that means they hadn’t made the cut. They weren’t the best of the best, yet a Rabbi came along and said “follow me.” The Rabbi chose them where they had previously been rejected. They weren’t good enough to serve God, but now a Rabbi tells them they are. Now a Rabbi says you can do what I do. “I can make you good enough.” When Jesus walks on the water, Peter says “Lord, if it be you, call me.” Jesus says for him to come and Peter does. Peter knows that if the Rabbi does it, and the Rabbi says “come,” then he must be able to do it this as well. And Peter does. He does walk on water until he doubts himself, or in reality, he doubts his call. The call came from Jesus/his Rabbi, therefore, he can. Rob Bell says that Peter doubts himself instead of doubting Jesus (because Jesus isn’t sinking). People attack Bell here because they say that faith is in God, not one’s self. What they don’t get it is that faith in one’s self is faith in God. Why? Because we are called. We are not called by man. We aren’t good enough for man (e.g. the Rabbi’s rejected them). We are “good enough” for God. Jesus teaches us that calling = equipping. If we are called or asked to do something, then we can by virtue of who called us. We deny God when we deny his calling on ourselves. “High-Christology” people, always want to stress the greatness of God, so they do this by belittling man’s role in anything in religion. They do this out of a pure heart, but they just don’t get it. We are the hands of God not because he can’t accomplish his goals without us but because he chose this. The triune God chose to die on the cross when he didn’t have to do this to save us. We know from philosophy that whatever God does in action, he can do in word (consider creation…“Let there be…”). So the death on a cross was a choice which carried a visible meaning to us. God chose to create by voice but to save creation by action. He chose the cross and then said “go make disciples of all nations.” So who saves? Clearly Jesus does, but he chose the church to spread the message. He chose humans to do the work. The message is both of the afterlife and the current life. He doesn’t just heal in heaven. He doesn’t just release from addiction in the next life. He doesn’t just love in the next life. He doesn’t just restore in the next life. The Kingdom of God theology teaches us that heaven has invaded earth now.
The Nooma series has a video called “Bullhorn.”
This is about a man who wants to spread the Gospel by yelling at people to “save” them. Is Christianity just about avoiding burning? Is it more than that? That is what the Nooma series is. What is this life about? The essence of Christianity is not hell.
This is my 2nd favorite Nooma video. “Rhythm” It will say in 2 minutes what has taken me this whole time. (By the way, I love this song.)
Nooma
But what is he “saving” us from? This is what the Nooma series wants to show us. It isn’t just “hell” as we so often make it about. “Hell” is literally an “otherworldly” concept. It doesn’t make sense in our modern world. It just seems like such a mythical view of eternity. I’m not saying it’s untrue; I’m just saying that it isn’t something that motivates the modern person. The atheist doesn’t believe hell exists so he laughs at you when you try to convince him that he needs to convert to avoid hell. Nooma shows us that Christianity isn’t just about the afterlife but the present one as well. This life is what motivates us. I want to be a Christian even if it isn’t true. I want whatever way I live my life to be the best way to live my life regardless of if there is another life to come. People today are so focused on this life that speaking about the unknown next life is literally irrelevant to them. Rob Bell gets this. He thinks, as do I, that Jesus’ life shows us a better way to live in this world. Loving your neighbor doesn’t just yield a reward in the afterlife. It does here. Forgiveness shows her profit here. Fear isn’t the motivator it once was. When people don’t like this focus on the here and now, they don’t just misunderstand Spirit Christology. They don’t understand “The Kingdom of God.” Jesus came to initiate heaven on earth. The miracles he performed were “proleptic.” That is, they were an early glimpse of what is to come. Already do we have the Kingdom in Jesus, but not yet is it fully realized. We still have poverty, death, sickness, war, etc. Jesus came to the poor, raised the dead, healed the sick, and taught us to turn the other cheek. Jesus is the bridge to the divine, not just divinity itself. Our world isn’t perfect, so the kingdom hasn’t been perfected. Yet we’ve been given the blueprint.
Most people that have seen some of the Nooma series say that their favorite video is “08 Dust” (myself included).
This is the story about Jesus’ calling of the disciples. In the video, Bell discusses the Jewish system of education. Students were taught to memorize the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament). Those that achieved this and were talented were allowed to continue on to learn the rest of the Old Testament. Those that didn’t make the cut were supposed to learn the family trade. The ones who continued then learned the rest of the Old Testament to only be told whether or not they could continue on learning from their Rabbi. Were they good enough? Were they talented enough to become “like” their Rabbi (which means teacher)? Only the best of the best could do this. So now, consider this in light of the calling of the disciples. The disciples were out fishing. So that means they hadn’t made the cut. They weren’t the best of the best, yet a Rabbi came along and said “follow me.” The Rabbi chose them where they had previously been rejected. They weren’t good enough to serve God, but now a Rabbi tells them they are. Now a Rabbi says you can do what I do. “I can make you good enough.” When Jesus walks on the water, Peter says “Lord, if it be you, call me.” Jesus says for him to come and Peter does. Peter knows that if the Rabbi does it, and the Rabbi says “come,” then he must be able to do it this as well. And Peter does. He does walk on water until he doubts himself, or in reality, he doubts his call. The call came from Jesus/his Rabbi, therefore, he can. Rob Bell says that Peter doubts himself instead of doubting Jesus (because Jesus isn’t sinking). People attack Bell here because they say that faith is in God, not one’s self. What they don’t get it is that faith in one’s self is faith in God. Why? Because we are called. We are not called by man. We aren’t good enough for man (e.g. the Rabbi’s rejected them). We are “good enough” for God. Jesus teaches us that calling = equipping. If we are called or asked to do something, then we can by virtue of who called us. We deny God when we deny his calling on ourselves. “High-Christology” people, always want to stress the greatness of God, so they do this by belittling man’s role in anything in religion. They do this out of a pure heart, but they just don’t get it. We are the hands of God not because he can’t accomplish his goals without us but because he chose this. The triune God chose to die on the cross when he didn’t have to do this to save us. We know from philosophy that whatever God does in action, he can do in word (consider creation…“Let there be…”). So the death on a cross was a choice which carried a visible meaning to us. God chose to create by voice but to save creation by action. He chose the cross and then said “go make disciples of all nations.” So who saves? Clearly Jesus does, but he chose the church to spread the message. He chose humans to do the work. The message is both of the afterlife and the current life. He doesn’t just heal in heaven. He doesn’t just release from addiction in the next life. He doesn’t just love in the next life. He doesn’t just restore in the next life. The Kingdom of God theology teaches us that heaven has invaded earth now.
The Nooma series has a video called “Bullhorn.”
This is about a man who wants to spread the Gospel by yelling at people to “save” them. Is Christianity just about avoiding burning? Is it more than that? That is what the Nooma series is. What is this life about? The essence of Christianity is not hell.
This is my 2nd favorite Nooma video. “Rhythm” It will say in 2 minutes what has taken me this whole time. (By the way, I love this song.)
Nooma
Friday, February 22, 2008
God: Chapter 2 (1+1+1=1)
When I led a session on the Trinity, I asked the class to draw the Trinity. The result of this request was looks of bewilderment and to this day it is brought up. I don’t really understand why. The reality was that the objective was achieved the moment I asked the task of them. #1. It showed the complexity of the issue. #2. It revealed misunderstandings about the Trinity. It’s funny, but it’s hard to draw or talk about the Trinity without conveying a heresy. How do you draw singularity and plurality at the same time?
Why not tri-theism? Why don’t we just bite the bullet and admit we’re tri-theists? Remember the last chapter where I discussed why monotheism is superior to polytheism? There is no such thing as polytheism. If God exists as we think of him, then he must be a single essence.
What does this matter? Why does God being 1 essence and 3 persons matter? Dr. Cross says that the Trinity is a model for the church. He bases his entire systematic theology on this concept. God exists in community. I’m sure you’ve heard of the “body of believers.” What if God himself were a mini “body of believers.” The Father is the sender. The Son is the sent one. The Spirit is the relationship between the two. The Spirit acts as informer and comforter. So to, for humans, does the Spirit act as informer (e.g. Spirit of Truth) and comforter (e.g. Paraclete meaning “called alongside of”). Some have described it like this: The Father is the fullness of the Godhead invisible, the Son is the fullness of the Godhead visible, and the Spirit is the fullness of the Godhead to the believer.
Some in the early church didn’t think there was a “Trinity.” In reality, it’s not like before Jesus’ ascension he said, “Now you guys need to believe that My Father, the Spirit that is coming and I are all in this conglomeration called a ‘Trinity.’” The Trinity matters because the denial of the Trinity is the denial of who Jesus was. Can someone be saved and not believe in the Trinity? Yes. Why do I say that so confidently? I say that because people don’t know what the Trinity is even now, yet they know Jesus as “savior.” Jesus’ mission was to save, not convince us of his ontology (being). Why it matters is because philosophically, a human cannot save us. A human cannot remove our sins. A human cannot do what only a divine being can do. Therefore, for us to be saved, Jesus must be divine. Those who attempt to rob Jesus of his divinity attempt to rob us of our salvation. So, it must be true that Jesus is divine for us to be saved, but it doesn’t require our intellectual understanding of this. It isn’t intellectual assent alone that saves us “for even the demons believe.” Jeremy Taylor shows us that it begins with this but matures itself leaving the residue of works. Mature faith reveals the Trinity. It exists in community. It overflows in a loving relationship. It expands from the individual to the community to the society (as does the Trinity). It makes disciples of all nations. It doesn’t say “the three of us are enough.” It expands because it desires to.
One final note, John Calvin burned a man at the stake for a heresy of the Trinity (Servetus). You might not want to believe that God was the Father, then the Son, and now is the Spirit (Sabellianism). I used to be completely baffled as to why people burned others at the stake. I was especially perplexed for John Calvin to do it as a Protestant who understood how many early Reformers were burned at the stake. It hit me one day why they did this with no problem of morality. Besides the fact that they believed the condemned’s actions were severely dangerous to the community, they believed this person was going to burn in hell forever. If the person is going to do this forever, what is a few more minutes? It served to be a deterrent of that belief system. So the justification was to prevent others from following that “wrong” path. They could see where it would lead not only on earth but in eternity. It was an “object lesson.”
Why not tri-theism? Why don’t we just bite the bullet and admit we’re tri-theists? Remember the last chapter where I discussed why monotheism is superior to polytheism? There is no such thing as polytheism. If God exists as we think of him, then he must be a single essence.
What does this matter? Why does God being 1 essence and 3 persons matter? Dr. Cross says that the Trinity is a model for the church. He bases his entire systematic theology on this concept. God exists in community. I’m sure you’ve heard of the “body of believers.” What if God himself were a mini “body of believers.” The Father is the sender. The Son is the sent one. The Spirit is the relationship between the two. The Spirit acts as informer and comforter. So to, for humans, does the Spirit act as informer (e.g. Spirit of Truth) and comforter (e.g. Paraclete meaning “called alongside of”). Some have described it like this: The Father is the fullness of the Godhead invisible, the Son is the fullness of the Godhead visible, and the Spirit is the fullness of the Godhead to the believer.
Some in the early church didn’t think there was a “Trinity.” In reality, it’s not like before Jesus’ ascension he said, “Now you guys need to believe that My Father, the Spirit that is coming and I are all in this conglomeration called a ‘Trinity.’” The Trinity matters because the denial of the Trinity is the denial of who Jesus was. Can someone be saved and not believe in the Trinity? Yes. Why do I say that so confidently? I say that because people don’t know what the Trinity is even now, yet they know Jesus as “savior.” Jesus’ mission was to save, not convince us of his ontology (being). Why it matters is because philosophically, a human cannot save us. A human cannot remove our sins. A human cannot do what only a divine being can do. Therefore, for us to be saved, Jesus must be divine. Those who attempt to rob Jesus of his divinity attempt to rob us of our salvation. So, it must be true that Jesus is divine for us to be saved, but it doesn’t require our intellectual understanding of this. It isn’t intellectual assent alone that saves us “for even the demons believe.” Jeremy Taylor shows us that it begins with this but matures itself leaving the residue of works. Mature faith reveals the Trinity. It exists in community. It overflows in a loving relationship. It expands from the individual to the community to the society (as does the Trinity). It makes disciples of all nations. It doesn’t say “the three of us are enough.” It expands because it desires to.
One final note, John Calvin burned a man at the stake for a heresy of the Trinity (Servetus). You might not want to believe that God was the Father, then the Son, and now is the Spirit (Sabellianism). I used to be completely baffled as to why people burned others at the stake. I was especially perplexed for John Calvin to do it as a Protestant who understood how many early Reformers were burned at the stake. It hit me one day why they did this with no problem of morality. Besides the fact that they believed the condemned’s actions were severely dangerous to the community, they believed this person was going to burn in hell forever. If the person is going to do this forever, what is a few more minutes? It served to be a deterrent of that belief system. So the justification was to prevent others from following that “wrong” path. They could see where it would lead not only on earth but in eternity. It was an “object lesson.”
Sunday, February 17, 2008
God: Chapter 1 (“The Logos”)
“In the beginning was the Word….” What if I started a book out with “In the beginning was the word”? It wouldn’t be read with the understanding of what it meant. That is, we read that line and start theologizing it. The first readers didn’t have a capital “Word” which symbolized “Jesus.” So did it mean John was saying that in the beginning was a literal word? That seems pretty crazy. Maybe this “word” was “alphabet.” Maybe this “word” was “supercalifragisexpialidocious.” No, probably not. The reality is the original reader knew “word” (logos) to be a symbolic word. It was used in philosophy to convey a sense of intangibility and otherworldliness. So what is this word? What is it trying to represent? Before we get there, we should know first that this English translation falls short of it’s Greek equivalent. In Greek there is no “the” in the line “In the beginning….” So let’s write it in English without the article. “In beginning was the word.” What is John trying to say? Well, we still don’t know what “word” is so all we know is that John is trying to convey that there was no specific beginning. The article “the,” if it were there, would be called a “definitive article.” It would the type of “the” which tries to send the “message of specifics.” Let’s say you and I co-own a dog, and I said “THE dog” jumped over the creek. You would know which dog I’m referring to. So if “the” were there, it would mean John would probably be saying this “word was” when time began. This word “was” when Genesis 1:1 happened. So “the beginning” referred to here is not Creation. In fact, the writer seems to be suggesting there was no time period when this “word” is mentioned. Time seems to be irrelevant in this word…almost existing outside of it. So what kind of thing is being referred to here if it can exist outside of time? I suppose we’re left with only a supernatural being. So this word is already exposed as a supernatural being by the lack of a single tiny word “the.”
You didn’t think this was enough material on the first third of that verse did you? We haven’t even looked at “was.” This word points to a past. Now remember the philosophical use of “logos”? It meant the logos was an “intangible thing” or an “otherworldly thing.” So this logos was. In verse 14, the logos “became flesh.” “Was” is no longer used. “To become” (egeneto) is used. So it doesn’t say this word “was” flesh but this word “became” flesh. The intangible became tangible. The otherworldly invaded this world. The immaterial became material. The timeless entered time.
“…And the word was with God….” Wait wait wait. We just learned this logos was supernatural. So how can there be 2 gods? If this logos isn’t God himself than he must just be a supernatural being like an angel. My other question is what does “with God” mean. Does it mean equality? Does it mean they’re buds who like to hang out? Why did John say in the first part of this sentence that the logos was there in the timeless beginning? How could this supernatural being be there when time didn’t exist? That would mean it wasn’t created. We already know that which isn’t created is God itself (via philosophy). This is getting complicated because we have a timeless being (1st third of John 1:1) that we learn is in some way separate from “God” (2nd third of John 1:1). Nothing is co-equal with God so what is going on here?
Well, let’s look at the Greek. The “with” is not the usual word that is translated as “with” (e.g. meta). The word used (pros) is usually translated as “to” which refers to a direct relationship. Like, “I give this “to you.” That wouldn’t make any sense in English though, so it isn’t written “…and the word was to God….” The reason it is translated as “with,” besides the fact that “to” wouldn’t make sense, is that “with” is what it is trying to convey. This word and God are distinguishable yet inter-related. The two have a relationship of intense closeness, yet by the very fact there is a relationship, the two are not the same. We say in our “Christian thought” that “two become one” in marriage. The two have such close relationship that they are united in various ways yet the very fact that they can be united makes them separate. So apparently we have 2 gods. Well, that is until we read the final third of the verse.
“…and the word was God.” So now we have a separate God but the same God. What is going on? John grew up monotheistic so we know he likely is not trying to suggest there are two gods. Maybe he is trying to say this is God manifest now. That Old Testament God was the past and this is the new experience of God. This is known as Sabellianism or technically that God is one person experienced as The Father first, then the Son/Word, then the Spirit. It also happens to be a heresy which John’s words are actually fighting against. Kai theos en ho logos. “…And God was the word.” This is how it is written in Greek, but it isn’t the order in which it is written in English. This is because we write the subject first. How do we know which is the subject: God or the logos? The article tells us this. The “the” (in the Greek above “ho”) tells us that the logos is the subject of the sentence and since we, unlike the Greeks, usually put the subject first, it must be written “…and the word was God.” We know from “and the word was with God…” that this logos is not the same person as God. So why here is John walking the line with Sabellianism (that the word is God)?
John is trying to avoid another misunderstanding which became very popular in the early church called Arianism (not Nazi Aryanism). This heresy taught that Jesus was a created being. A god-like being created to save humanity and could be worshipped because of his closeness with God and his work. To the Arians, he was of a “similar” “substance” as God. Why the quotes? Ever heard the phrase “it doesn’t make one iota’s difference”? Actually, you may not have, but my dad uses it all the time. In Greek, “similar” and “same” are separated by “one iota.” This one little letter is the difference in whether Jesus is actually God (uncreated being) or similar to God (created being). There is a significant problem with the idea that a created being can be a God. It’s really simple. Polytheistic cultures like the Greeks and Romans had multiple gods who controlled things. Mars was the God of war. So you offered Mars a sacrifice before going to war. I believe Neptune was the God of the sea. There were gods of love, peace, fertility, life, healing, death, harvests, marriage, etc. If there really is a god or gods then this/these god/gods should have certain characteristics. (This is a philosophical way of proving the superiority of monotheism over other theistic beliefs). “God is that which nothing greater can be conceived” (paraphrase of Anselm). God then is ultimate good, ultimate power, ultimate knowledge, and unlimited in by space-time (aka God personifies goodness, is omnipotent, is omniscient, and is omnipresent). If God is all-powerful, then he is the God of war and the god of fertility (because he can cause fertility). This same God controls the seas (e.g. Jesus walks on the water). This same God can heal (since he created us in the first place). The monotheistic God encompasses all the gods of the Romans into a single God who can do everything those gods can do, and more. Which is God: “Mars, God of war” or “God.” Which is God: a god who can do a single task or a god who can do every task? It’s simple philosophy that shows us that monotheism is far superior to polytheism.
So, Jesus could not be created by God because that then makes him a sub-god, which we know from the philosophy above, is no God at all. “…And the word was God” conveys that this logos is God himself. We know from “was with God,” though, that he is not the same person. So we have multiplicity of persons in the Godhead. The exact Greek that was used appears to be very intentional. It’s walking the tightrope of heresies to convey a new theology of God based on the new revelation of his Son. Keep John’s purpose in mind because we have to look at the “Jehovah’s Witness” translation of John 1 now.
Jehovah’s Witness theology translates the final third of John 1:1 as, “the logos was a god.” Why and how? Well, it isn’t because they’re evil and don’t any understanding of the Greek. It’s because they have too little understanding of the Greek. Technically, what was done is okay. What I mean is, if the Greek article comes before a noun, then typically it is definitive (THE, like I talked about earlier). It points to a specific person. If there is not definitive article, then an “a” can be supplied in English to show generality/plurality. So the lack of an article can and often does allow for the adding of “a.” So why is it incorrect to use it here?
If the article were before both nouns (God & Jesus) [would look like this “ho theos en ho logos” or “the God was the word”], then John would be saying that Jesus and God (Old Testament concept of “God”) were the same “person.” Basic Christian theology teaches a trinity of persons yet one substance. There is no single person in the godhead. Jesus is not all of the trinity. Jesus is not all of the Godhead. He is one of the three persons. If John had used an article before both nouns, this also would allow for the interchangeability of subject and direct object. Basically, “the God was the word” and “the word was God” would both be appropriate translations. This helps one see how John had a purpose in not using the second article. It prevents this interchangeability. We know later from v.14 that “the word became flesh.” The Father did not. “God” did not (“God,” here would mean the Old Testament concept of God which I contend means “Father”).
Some have suggested that the lack of the article before “God” conveys “divine essence” more so than personhood. Remember, the trinity (GOD) is both 3 persons and 1 essence. Consider that with this: Greek often uses word order to convey emphasis. The first word in a clause is the most important (“theos en ho logos” “God was the word”). That means “God” or “divine essence” as we just learned, is the emphasis. The logos WAS divine is the meaning. Furthermore, if the Jehovah’s Witnesses are right with “a God,” then how would John construct the sentence to fit the traditional interpretation? In other words, how would he write it if he wanted to write it the way that “the rest of us” interpret it? Here is how: the way he did. He could only write it that they way it was. Two articles = the heresy of Sabellianism. Zero articles = no subject and therefore, it wouldn’t even be a sentence. It would be like me trying to write a sentence without a subject. It had to be written the way it was.
So, in the context, it does not make much sense to translate it “a God” despite being technically possible. For one, we’ve already seen that there can be no such thing as a lesser God. There is either one God or no God but multiple gods is an impossibility. Also, it would require John to drop his monotheistic roots which simply didn’t happen with Jews. They were drilled from the time they could understand words (Deut. 6:4) “The LORD Our God is ONE.” Thirdly, the JW’s translation is the result of “sophomore syndrome.” That is, they have a little bit of knowledge but only enough to use it foolishly (soph- meaning “wisdom” + mor- meaning “fool”). The JW”s don’t name who their translators are and the ones that have come out have been revealed to have no more than two years of Greek education. I, myself, had two years of Greek, and I can tell you that I could only handle the easiest book of the New Testament (I John). For example, after my first year of Greek, we finally got to look at actual passages from the New Testament. I was excited at the prospect because of how much time and effort I had devoted to it. So the teacher told us to translate Luke 1:1-4 and come back the next day. That sounds like no big deal because it’s only four verses but four verses is easily over an hour of work. So, when we came back the next day, the teacher tallied up how many new words (meaning we hadn’t learn these yet in our vocabulary from the first year) were in these four verses. I believe it was around 15 and one of the words was 16 letters long. None of us could actual do the sentences because we didn’t know the words we were supposed to be translating. So if we couldn’t translate four verses, how could they translate the entire New Testament?
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Knowing the Unknowable
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.
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 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
