I had an heretical thought the other day (heretical from the Pro-Life standpoint). The Bible claims in Lev. 17:11ff that "the life of a creature is in the blood".
Could that imply that a fertilized human cell does not become a living being until a blood cell forms in the growing embryo?
On the one hand, I'm well aware that from the moment of conception, nothing new is added to the growing embryo except nutrition.
On the other hand, sometimes in the early stages of embryonic development, the cell mass can divide and become identical twins (or triplets, etc). So, is the single fertilized egg one individual, or several?
If what makes a person a person is a human spirit, then:
1. there were two (or more) human spirits in the original single fertilized cell,
or
2. the spirit is being divided when the cell is divided into multiples
or
3. a second (or third, etc) spirit is being added to the newly-cleaved second (or third, etc) individual(s)
or
4. the spirit does not enter the embryo until sometime after differentiation begins.
If, on the other hand, what makes a person a person is the blood, then a fertilized egg is not a person until later in the developmental process.
I see two significant conclusions in such a case:
1) Very early abortions (within hours, not days) would not be murder.
2) Embryonic stem-cell research would not be murder.
I believe we should err on the side of caution, and on the side of Life, and not jump to these conclusions; my logic might be faulty, and the data is certainly sketchy.
It's of note that the embryo ceases to be divisible into twins long before the first blood cell develops. This seems a fatal objection to my idea above, and is further reason why we should err on the side of caution and treat a fertilized human cell as a person from conception onward.
Another consideration is that a person can be clinically dead while still having blood circulated by machines. Does that circulating blood keep the body alive without a human inhabiting it? If so, then the blood is not the determining factor of a person's life. Or perhaps the human is still in the body, and we just can't perceive that person any longer.
In short, I have no answers. But I found the thought interesting.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Christians Can't Have Secular Jobs
Rob Bell, on page 85 of his book "Velvet Elvis", makes the observation that
... it is impossible for a Christian to have a secular job. If you follow Jesus and you are doing what you do in his name, then it is no longer secular work; it's sacred.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
The Old Law is not the same as the Old Testament
Last night as I was leaving campus I bemoaned to myself how I didn't want to go to church, but it actually turned out to be a good thing, I think.
It seemed to me that the class instructor was confusing the Mosaic Covenant with the Old Testament in toto. I was able to speak up and point out that the collection of books we refer to as the "Old Testament" is not equivalent to the "old covenant". I had tried making this point some months earlier, but I don't think anyone "got it" then. My comment spurred some conversation, and this time I got the impression that people got it. The teacher said he was going to have to do some research on it.
So late last night I put together a few notes and sent them to him to help start his research:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kent West
Some Biblical covenants are between God and the Earth, such as when he stipulates that the Earth will never be flooded again.
Some covenants are between God and vegetation, such as when he stipulates grass to reproduce after its own kind.
There are covenants between God and nations, God and individuals, God and himself (Gen 1:26), God and Satan (Job 1), man and man, etc etc etc. A covenant that would make for a great 5-minute Wednesday evening topic, me thinks, in our porn-infested world, is the one that Job made with his eyes.
The covenant that God made with Adam and Eve, and with land-dwelling animals, to eat vegetation but not meat, was not only for them, but also for their descendants. After the Flood, when most parties to that agreement had perished, God established a new covenant with both humans and animals which morphed, modified, replaced that first covenant; the new covenant allowed eating of meat. There were also other stipulations to the covenant, including the rainbow:
Note that if God is to be believed about the rainbow, this covenant is still in effect. It has not been nailed to the Cross.
There are quite a lot of other covenants, but I'll stop with just one more, the covenant God made with Abram.
Paul, in Galatians 3:17 writes, "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."
Here he makes a distinction between the covenant God made with Abram, and the covenant God made 430 years later with Moses. He also makes it clear that the Mosaic covenant did not nullify the Abrahamic covenant. He continues on to make the point that we are no longer under the Mosaic "tutor" (vs 24-25), but that we have become heirs according to the Abrahamic covenant (v 29).
Just as the original vegetarian-friendly covenant was morphed into or replaced by another carnivorian-friendly covenant, the Abrahamic covenant was morphed into the New Covenant of Jesus.
The point is that the Mosaic Covenant is not equal to the Old Testament; it is only a sub-part, although a dominant sub-part. So it is not correct to say that the "Old Testament" has been done away with; it's only the Mosaic Law portion of the OT that has been done away with. Other portions still stand, either in their original form (the Rainbow covenant) or in modified form.
At least that's how I understand things. But if I've learned anything in the past few years, it's that I'm a lot more ignorant of the things of God than when I was a teenager and had all the answers.
It seemed to me that the class instructor was confusing the Mosaic Covenant with the Old Testament in toto. I was able to speak up and point out that the collection of books we refer to as the "Old Testament" is not equivalent to the "old covenant". I had tried making this point some months earlier, but I don't think anyone "got it" then. My comment spurred some conversation, and this time I got the impression that people got it. The teacher said he was going to have to do some research on it.
So late last night I put together a few notes and sent them to him to help start his research:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kent West
Some Biblical covenants are between God and the Earth, such as when he stipulates that the Earth will never be flooded again.
Some covenants are between God and vegetation, such as when he stipulates grass to reproduce after its own kind.
There are covenants between God and nations, God and individuals, God and himself (Gen 1:26), God and Satan (Job 1), man and man, etc etc etc. A covenant that would make for a great 5-minute Wednesday evening topic, me thinks, in our porn-infested world, is the one that Job made with his eyes.
The covenant that God made with Adam and Eve, and with land-dwelling animals, to eat vegetation but not meat, was not only for them, but also for their descendants. After the Flood, when most parties to that agreement had perished, God established a new covenant with both humans and animals which morphed, modified, replaced that first covenant; the new covenant allowed eating of meat. There were also other stipulations to the covenant, including the rainbow:
And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; .... And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. -- Gen 9:9ff
Note that if God is to be believed about the rainbow, this covenant is still in effect. It has not been nailed to the Cross.
There are quite a lot of other covenants, but I'll stop with just one more, the covenant God made with Abram.
Paul, in Galatians 3:17 writes, "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."
Here he makes a distinction between the covenant God made with Abram, and the covenant God made 430 years later with Moses. He also makes it clear that the Mosaic covenant did not nullify the Abrahamic covenant. He continues on to make the point that we are no longer under the Mosaic "tutor" (vs 24-25), but that we have become heirs according to the Abrahamic covenant (v 29).
Just as the original vegetarian-friendly covenant was morphed into or replaced by another carnivorian-friendly covenant, the Abrahamic covenant was morphed into the New Covenant of Jesus.
The point is that the Mosaic Covenant is not equal to the Old Testament; it is only a sub-part, although a dominant sub-part. So it is not correct to say that the "Old Testament" has been done away with; it's only the Mosaic Law portion of the OT that has been done away with. Other portions still stand, either in their original form (the Rainbow covenant) or in modified form.
At least that's how I understand things. But if I've learned anything in the past few years, it's that I'm a lot more ignorant of the things of God than when I was a teenager and had all the answers.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis"
There's some good discussion on Rob Bell's book , "Velvet Elvis" over at http://groups.google.com/group/smashingbrickworld/topics
I'm glad to have found this discussion; it's helping me to "cope" with Bell's writing style.
===
Another couple of interesting items from Bell's book:
He says that the first three miracles recorded in the book of John were direct swipes at the three major gods of Asia Minor: Dionysus, who turns water to wine; Asclepius, who is the god of healing; and Demeter, who is the goddess of bread.
He also says that the reference in Timothy to women being saved in childbirth was a reference to the goddess having a shrine in Timothy's home town of Ephesus, Artemis, who saved women from dying in childbirth. With half the child-bearing women dying, Artemis is essentially labeled a fraud in comparison to Jesus.
When I originally read these snippets, I found them intriguing; now after having found the discussion mentioned above, I find myself less accepting of Bell's claims. Still, they are interesting claims.
I'm glad to have found this discussion; it's helping me to "cope" with Bell's writing style.
===
Another couple of interesting items from Bell's book:
He says that the first three miracles recorded in the book of John were direct swipes at the three major gods of Asia Minor: Dionysus, who turns water to wine; Asclepius, who is the god of healing; and Demeter, who is the goddess of bread.
He also says that the reference in Timothy to women being saved in childbirth was a reference to the goddess having a shrine in Timothy's home town of Ephesus, Artemis, who saved women from dying in childbirth. With half the child-bearing women dying, Artemis is essentially labeled a fraud in comparison to Jesus.
When I originally read these snippets, I found them intriguing; now after having found the discussion mentioned above, I find myself less accepting of Bell's claims. Still, they are interesting claims.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Why Gambling is Wrong
So what if I bet my friend a coffee that I can make three trash-can baskets in a roll? The price of a coffee is not going to hurt anyone.
So what if I put a dollar down for a lottery ticket? Who's it going to hurt?
In both cases, it won't really hurt anyone. But what's the motivation?
The only way I can win is for you to lose. Therefore, my motivation (assuming I want to win) is for you to lose.
Hardly the epitome of the Golden Rule, now, is it?
He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.
-- Jesus, Luke 16:10
So what if I put a dollar down for a lottery ticket? Who's it going to hurt?
In both cases, it won't really hurt anyone. But what's the motivation?
The only way I can win is for you to lose. Therefore, my motivation (assuming I want to win) is for you to lose.
Hardly the epitome of the Golden Rule, now, is it?
He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.
-- Jesus, Luke 16:10
Armed Christians
The preacher made a good point today, I think.
Some Christians believe that we should not take up / carry weapons for self-defense, but Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, asked the group if they had any swords. They found two, and he said that was enough.
He wasn't going out to start a war, or even as an army, or he would have wanted all of them armed; but he did have enough weapons in the group to act as a deterrent to attack from ne'er-do-wells.
I don't know exactly what his intention was in asking for swords (self-defense, object-lesson of some sort, or what), but he obviously didn't have a problem with his followers walking around armed. He did however point out that an attitude anxious to use a weapon will likely lead to death.
Some Christians believe that we should not take up / carry weapons for self-defense, but Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, asked the group if they had any swords. They found two, and he said that was enough.
He wasn't going out to start a war, or even as an army, or he would have wanted all of them armed; but he did have enough weapons in the group to act as a deterrent to attack from ne'er-do-wells.
I don't know exactly what his intention was in asking for swords (self-defense, object-lesson of some sort, or what), but he obviously didn't have a problem with his followers walking around armed. He did however point out that an attitude anxious to use a weapon will likely lead to death.
How Are the Goats?
Dad's goats are having kids left and right; over the past month he's had two sets of triplets, and two sets of twins. The latest set of twins, born today, I'm afraid may not survive. Her mama was pretty young to be having babies, and isn't letting them nurse. Dad and I went out tonight to put Mama and the twins in the barn by themselves, out of the wind and sort of out of the cold. Babies just weren't finding Mama's milk, so Dad mixed up a milk concoction and injected a little into the babies' mouths to whet their appetite, and then sprayed the rest on the Mama's teats. I had to straddle Mama to prevent her from running off while the babies hunted down dinner; they found a working spigot (although barely; the other one seems dry), but by the time we had let Mama loose and had gotten out of the area, the oldest twin was still interested, but the youngest, spindliest, weakest, was off in a corner by itself. As are all things, their survival is in God's hands.
Jesus the Diaper-Changer
While at Easter we tend to think of the suffering and/or risen Jesus, and at Christmas of the Baby Jesus, we seldom think of him as diaper-changing Jesus. Yet he was the first of Mary's children, and he had both brothers and sisters – Matt 13:54-56 – and I'm confident that he fulfilled the role any older sibling would fill: babysitting, feeding, playing with, singing to, bathing his younger siblings, and yes, changing their diapers. While on Earth, He was one of Us.
It Snowed!
Easter weekend, it snowed all day Saturday. It didn't stick very well. Still, it's fairly rare for it to snow here, and even rarer for it to snow in April (although this is twice in the past five years or so that it's done so).
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Why Modern Psychology Fails
From Matthew 12:43ff.
You can go see your psychiatriast every day for years and clean out your demons, but unless you get filled up with a good spirit, you'll just wind up worse off than before.
A non-Christian approach to psychology/psychiatry is worse than no approach at all.
You can go see your psychiatriast every day for years and clean out your demons, but unless you get filled up with a good spirit, you'll just wind up worse off than before.
A non-Christian approach to psychology/psychiatry is worse than no approach at all.
Judgment to Come for the Already-Dead
In reading Matthew 12:41ff, it struck me that Jesus made it clear that the long-dead inhabitants of the long-dead city of Ninevah would one day experience a judgment.
In other words, dead people don't stay dead.
The second thing I noticed from this passage is that in the Great Day of Judgment, we are just as likely to give testimony for or against others as others are to testify for or against us.
I'd hate to be Hitler on that day.
In other words, dead people don't stay dead.
The second thing I noticed from this passage is that in the Great Day of Judgment, we are just as likely to give testimony for or against others as others are to testify for or against us.
I'd hate to be Hitler on that day.
Proof of God
In Matthew 12:38ff, the Pharisees asked Jesus for proof of God's working in him. Jesus responded by saying that the only real proof would be his death, burial, and resurrection.
I reckon that holds true for today also; if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then his teachings are irrelevant. But if he was raised from the dead, then he is who he said he is.
This seems to me to be the crux of conversion of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists.
Was Jesus physically brought back to life after being executed? That is the question. (And I believe the answer to be "Yes".)
I reckon that holds true for today also; if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then his teachings are irrelevant. But if he was raised from the dead, then he is who he said he is.
This seems to me to be the crux of conversion of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists.
Was Jesus physically brought back to life after being executed? That is the question. (And I believe the answer to be "Yes".)
A House Divided
The middle section of Matthew chapter 12 records a discourse by Jesus when he has been accused of tossing out demons by the power of Satan.
Jesus' response is basically that a house divided against itself can not stand, implying that Satan would not undo his own work in order to make people think he's good.
In order to toss out demons, the exorcist must be more powerful than the one controlling the demons:
I have seen a few indications that at least some of these "healings" actually take place. I've seen many other indications that some of these "healings" are emotionally-driven through psychosomatic mechanisms. (I've never seen evidence of a physical healing, such as the sudden eradication of cancer, or the replacement of a missing limb, or the reversal of aging, etc. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I'm highly suspicious.)
The point is, even if it's a psychosomatic healing, has not the strong man been tied up?
And if the strong man has been tied up, who are we to declare this activity to be of the devil?
That seems to me to have been Jesus' point.
It scares me that so many in my church brotherhood "know" all the answers, and judge outsiders as being stubborn or intellectually lazy or lacking a love of the Truth. "We" have the Truth because "we" love the Truth; other religious groups are lost and going to hell because they don't love the Truth enough to think and believe like "we" do.
And yet Jesus says to look at their fruit - are those groups nicer than "we" are? Are they more God-minded than "we"? Do they do more to eradicate poverty and drug-use in society than "we" do?
Suffice it to say that I would hate to be judged by my brethren on that Great Day -- I'm neither good enough nor doctrinally pure enough in their eyes to pass muster. And part of that is apparently because I don't "love the Truth" enough to have found it as they've found it. (And that's true -- I've just this past year seen a darkness in my deepest parts that I wasn't really aware of -- I'm not the Truth Seeker I thought I was; I'm the Me Seeker, selfish to the core, sinful to the point of being blind to my own sin and to my own self-deception of thinking I'm a Truth Seeker when I'm really not.)
Jesus' response is basically that a house divided against itself can not stand, implying that Satan would not undo his own work in order to make people think he's good.
In order to toss out demons, the exorcist must be more powerful than the one controlling the demons:
How in the world do you think it's possible in broad daylight to enter the house of an awake, able-bodied man and walk off with his possessions unless you tie him up first?Many in my church culture see the "holy roller" activity, speaking in tongues, casting out of demons, etc, of some church groups and denounce it as "christian in name only but actually of the devil". However, if -- and you'll notice that "if" is italicized -- if people actually change during these exorcisms from alcoholics to former alcoholics, or from wife-beaters into wife-nurturers, or from asthmatics to free-breathers, has not the strong man been tied up?
I have seen a few indications that at least some of these "healings" actually take place. I've seen many other indications that some of these "healings" are emotionally-driven through psychosomatic mechanisms. (I've never seen evidence of a physical healing, such as the sudden eradication of cancer, or the replacement of a missing limb, or the reversal of aging, etc. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I'm highly suspicious.)
The point is, even if it's a psychosomatic healing, has not the strong man been tied up?
And if the strong man has been tied up, who are we to declare this activity to be of the devil?
That seems to me to have been Jesus' point.
It scares me that so many in my church brotherhood "know" all the answers, and judge outsiders as being stubborn or intellectually lazy or lacking a love of the Truth. "We" have the Truth because "we" love the Truth; other religious groups are lost and going to hell because they don't love the Truth enough to think and believe like "we" do.
And yet Jesus says to look at their fruit - are those groups nicer than "we" are? Are they more God-minded than "we"? Do they do more to eradicate poverty and drug-use in society than "we" do?
Suffice it to say that I would hate to be judged by my brethren on that Great Day -- I'm neither good enough nor doctrinally pure enough in their eyes to pass muster. And part of that is apparently because I don't "love the Truth" enough to have found it as they've found it. (And that's true -- I've just this past year seen a darkness in my deepest parts that I wasn't really aware of -- I'm not the Truth Seeker I thought I was; I'm the Me Seeker, selfish to the core, sinful to the point of being blind to my own sin and to my own self-deception of thinking I'm a Truth Seeker when I'm really not.)
I Don't Get It
In Matthew 12, the Pharisees accuse the disciples of Jesus of breaking the Sabbath rules. Jesus responds by pointing out times in the Tanahk (Old Testament) when people broke the "Law" and were not held guilty for it.
Yet the Pharisees could have (and maybe did, just without a record of it) responded by mentioning other cases in which people broke the "Law" and were punished severely for it, even to the point of death -- the cases of Uzziah and of Nadab and Abihu come quickly to my mind.
So, can we break the law when the situation requires, or not? Or perhaps it's only the Son of Man (Jesus, presumably) that can get away with breaking the law?
I'm clueless -- I don't get it.
Yet the Pharisees could have (and maybe did, just without a record of it) responded by mentioning other cases in which people broke the "Law" and were punished severely for it, even to the point of death -- the cases of Uzziah and of Nadab and Abihu come quickly to my mind.
So, can we break the law when the situation requires, or not? Or perhaps it's only the Son of Man (Jesus, presumably) that can get away with breaking the law?
I'm clueless -- I don't get it.
Blessed are the Unsophisticated
One of Jesus' prayers, from Matthew 11:25ff:
Thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth. You've concealed your ways from sophisticates and know-it-alls, but spelled them out clearly to ordinary people. Yes, Father, that's the way you like to work.Yikes! I had no idea I was a sophisticate, so it must be that I'm a know-it-all, because I sure don't understand the ways of God.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
The Message of Jesus
I like the way The Message renders Matthew 4:23ff:
From there [Jesus] went all over Galilee. He used synagogues for meeting places and taught people the truth of God. God's kingdom was his theme—that beginning right now they were under God's government, a good government!We are now under God's government. Live like it.
Brothers
Matthew records in chapter 4 that the first four of the inner core of Jesus' disciples were two sets of brothers. Interesting, I think.
Concerning the recruitment of Simon Peter and Andrew, Matthew makes it sound like Jesus just walked up to them on the beach and said, "Follow me", and they did. But Luke fleshes out the story a bit, and adds the details that Jesus actually spent a bit of time with them first, having borrowed their services as "roadies", using their boat as a stage from which to preach, separated from the crowds by a few meters of water. After his preaching, he stayed on the boat while they went out to sea, and it was during this fishing expedition that events occurred that led to Peter's and Andrew's decision to follow Jesus.
Concerning the recruitment of Simon Peter and Andrew, Matthew makes it sound like Jesus just walked up to them on the beach and said, "Follow me", and they did. But Luke fleshes out the story a bit, and adds the details that Jesus actually spent a bit of time with them first, having borrowed their services as "roadies", using their boat as a stage from which to preach, separated from the crowds by a few meters of water. After his preaching, he stayed on the boat while they went out to sea, and it was during this fishing expedition that events occurred that led to Peter's and Andrew's decision to follow Jesus.
Call U-Haul
In reading Matthew 4 last night, I realized for the first time that when Jesus began his ministry, he did not keep his home in his hometown of Nazareth. Immediately after the arrest of John the Baptist, Jesus went home to Nazareth, and then moved from there to Capernaum.
I've always read this as part of his itinerant wanderings, but no; it was an actual move of his homeplace. Capernaum is now his hometown.
And Isaiah had prophesied that the suburbs of Capernaum would be blessed by a Light coming into their neighborhood.
I've always read this as part of his itinerant wanderings, but no; it was an actual move of his homeplace. Capernaum is now his hometown.
And Isaiah had prophesied that the suburbs of Capernaum would be blessed by a Light coming into their neighborhood.
The Message Highlights Again
You've read my blog before about the wonderful reading Bible that is The Message. It's not a Bible I'd trust for accuracy in study, but just for reading, it's great.
In reading Matthew 4 last night, it served to highlight something I've never noticed before in other translations.
When Jesus was tempted the three times by Satan, each time he responded by quoting scripture found in Deuteronomy. He did not quote from three different Tanahk ("Old Testament") passages, but only from Deuteronomy.
I have no idea if that has any significance whatsoever, but I did find it very interesting.
In reading Matthew 4 last night, it served to highlight something I've never noticed before in other translations.
When Jesus was tempted the three times by Satan, each time he responded by quoting scripture found in Deuteronomy. He did not quote from three different Tanahk ("Old Testament") passages, but only from Deuteronomy.
I have no idea if that has any significance whatsoever, but I did find it very interesting.
YHWH in the New Testament
Matthew reminds me in chapter 3, in his quote of Isaiah 40:3, that the writers of the New Testament do not use the name YHWH when quoting scripture containing the name.
Why is that? They are changing the Word of God.
I understand that it was not culturally-acceptable at the time to use the Holy Name of God, to instead substitute the phrase "the Lord" for it (just like most of our modern English Bibles do, only they tend to put the word "Lord" in small caps).
But does this mean that God approves of changing his written word to accommodate cultural norms? If so, does this mean we are free to change phrases like "My brothers" into "My brothers and sisters", or "greet one another with a holy kiss" into "greet one another with a holy handshake"?
Or does it mean that the writers of the New Testament were not that "controlled" by the Spirit to such a fine level of detail, and that their writings were colored by their own understandings and misunderstandings and therefore may not be "inerrant"?
Or does it mean something else entirely? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Why is that? They are changing the Word of God.
I understand that it was not culturally-acceptable at the time to use the Holy Name of God, to instead substitute the phrase "the Lord" for it (just like most of our modern English Bibles do, only they tend to put the word "Lord" in small caps).
But does this mean that God approves of changing his written word to accommodate cultural norms? If so, does this mean we are free to change phrases like "My brothers" into "My brothers and sisters", or "greet one another with a holy kiss" into "greet one another with a holy handshake"?
Or does it mean that the writers of the New Testament were not that "controlled" by the Spirit to such a fine level of detail, and that their writings were colored by their own understandings and misunderstandings and therefore may not be "inerrant"?
Or does it mean something else entirely? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Who Saw the Spirit of God Descending on Jesus?
Matthew 2:16-17
As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.I always thought it was John the Baptist who saw the Spirit of God descending onto Jesus, but apparently it was Jesus himself who saw it. Interesting.
The Baptism of Jesus
Why was Jesus immersed?
Well, "to fulfill all righteousness", of course (Matthew 3:15).
But what does that mean?
Jesus is the only human to have ever walked the "Path of Righteousness" perfectly. Every other human has fallen short in some way. If you keep the Law perfectly, except for having once gotten angry at a schoolmate and keying his car as you passed through the parking lot, you've sinned, and have fallen short of the glory of God; you've ruined your chances of being worthy of heaven.
However, Jesus, having been perfect and therefore worthy of heaven, has somehow made this perfect-score available to his fellow humans as a gift. We, as believers, are given his right-ness.
When you were immersed, what if your nose didn't quite make it under the water? Then strictly speaking, you've failed to be properly immersed.
What if your understanding of immersion is somewhat lacking? Then strictly speaking, you've failed to be scripturally immersed.
But Jesus was properly, scripturally immersed. He got it right. He got the perfect score.
And because he gives us his perfect score, we too, are covered by his immersion.
Well, "to fulfill all righteousness", of course (Matthew 3:15).
But what does that mean?
Jesus is the only human to have ever walked the "Path of Righteousness" perfectly. Every other human has fallen short in some way. If you keep the Law perfectly, except for having once gotten angry at a schoolmate and keying his car as you passed through the parking lot, you've sinned, and have fallen short of the glory of God; you've ruined your chances of being worthy of heaven.
However, Jesus, having been perfect and therefore worthy of heaven, has somehow made this perfect-score available to his fellow humans as a gift. We, as believers, are given his right-ness.
When you were immersed, what if your nose didn't quite make it under the water? Then strictly speaking, you've failed to be properly immersed.
What if your understanding of immersion is somewhat lacking? Then strictly speaking, you've failed to be scripturally immersed.
But Jesus was properly, scripturally immersed. He got it right. He got the perfect score.
And because he gives us his perfect score, we too, are covered by his immersion.
John the Bum
In reading Matthew 3, I considered John the Baptist. Here we have a 30-ish year-old man, living out in the wilderness away from society, wearing anti-socialite clothing made from the hair of camels, eating locusts and honey.
Was he grime-encrusted? Did he have oily, stringy hair? Or did he spend enough time in the Jordan to be sparkling clean? Was the Jordan muddy or clean where he did his immersing?
I have no idea how one would make clothing from camel hair. I wonder if it'd be course and scratchy, or smooth. I wonder if it would be light and airy and cool during the hot days, or warm and toasty in the frigid nights. Would it be heavy when wet from the Jordan, or would water drain off easily?
Hmm; locusts and honey. Yummy. I did a quick Google and discovered that although bees are not acceptable eating according to Jewish dietary laws, honey is fine. And locusts are one of the few insects that are also kosher.
And he doesn't exactly have social schmoozing skills, as evidenced by his ranting against the elites who come to be part of the party.
Just what attracted the masses to this fellow living on the edge of society?
Luke tells us what John's message is. It's not about going to church three times a week, or avoiding alcohol, or knowing the correct rituals to follow in synagogue. It's a continuation of the Old Testament message to treat others properly (see this blog entry about the sense I had of the OT's over-arching themes), especially in the financial realm. When I get to the book of Luke, I'll likely have more to say about this.
We never much think about John, but I find him to be a rather interesting character.
Was he grime-encrusted? Did he have oily, stringy hair? Or did he spend enough time in the Jordan to be sparkling clean? Was the Jordan muddy or clean where he did his immersing?
I have no idea how one would make clothing from camel hair. I wonder if it'd be course and scratchy, or smooth. I wonder if it would be light and airy and cool during the hot days, or warm and toasty in the frigid nights. Would it be heavy when wet from the Jordan, or would water drain off easily?
Hmm; locusts and honey. Yummy. I did a quick Google and discovered that although bees are not acceptable eating according to Jewish dietary laws, honey is fine. And locusts are one of the few insects that are also kosher.
And he doesn't exactly have social schmoozing skills, as evidenced by his ranting against the elites who come to be part of the party.
Just what attracted the masses to this fellow living on the edge of society?
Luke tells us what John's message is. It's not about going to church three times a week, or avoiding alcohol, or knowing the correct rituals to follow in synagogue. It's a continuation of the Old Testament message to treat others properly (see this blog entry about the sense I had of the OT's over-arching themes), especially in the financial realm. When I get to the book of Luke, I'll likely have more to say about this.
We never much think about John, but I find him to be a rather interesting character.
Announcing the Arrival of God
Matthew, in his recounting of the beginning of Jesus' ministry, briefly mentions John the Baptist. In doing so, he quotes from Isaiah 40:3, reporting in 3:3:
A voice of one calling in the desert,However, looking directly at Isaiah 40:3, we find this:
'Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.'
A voice of one calling:Matthew was, in essence, telling his readers that John was the forerunner of not merely the "Son" of God, but of God himself, of YHWH on Earth.
"In the desert prepare
the way for YHWH;
make straight in the wilderness
a highway for our God.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Worshiping Baby Jesus
As I started reading the New Testament last night, in Matthew chapters 1 and 2, the thing that struck me is that Jesus was worshiped as a baby. I'm not a touchy-feely, baby-coo-ey sortta guy, but I was awed to consider holding God in my arms, stroking his cheek, brushing his hair from his forehead, smelling his baby-scent goodness.
Blessed is Mary, who held the entire universe in her hands, who from her body provided life-giving sustenance to the Maker of the universe.
---
By the way, do you know what the occupation was of the wise men?
They were firemen.
How do I know? Well, silly, they came from afar ....
---
Also note, there were three types of gifts given to Jesus by the wise men; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And legend has it that there were three wise men. But the Biblical accounts give no indication of how many wise men there were. Could've been three; could've been two; could've been two-hundred. We're just not told.
Blessed is Mary, who held the entire universe in her hands, who from her body provided life-giving sustenance to the Maker of the universe.
---
By the way, do you know what the occupation was of the wise men?
They were firemen.
How do I know? Well, silly, they came from afar ....
---
Also note, there were three types of gifts given to Jesus by the wise men; gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And legend has it that there were three wise men. But the Biblical accounts give no indication of how many wise men there were. Could've been three; could've been two; could've been two-hundred. We're just not told.
Monday, March 26, 2007
In with the New, Out with the Old
I'll be starting the New Testament tonight, after having finished last night reading the Old Testament.
I'd like to point out that the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" really are misleading. Many Christians mistakenly believe that the "Old Testament" is old, and is no longer relevant. Many of these folks believe the Old Testament has been done away with, nailed to the Cross.
But that's not true.
It's true that the "Old Covenant" has been nailed to the Cross, but the "Old Testament" is not the same as the "Old Covenant" (although the words mean the same).
The "Old Covenant" is the Law of Moses only, a subset of the "Old Testament". The Law of Moses applied/applies only to the nation of Israel; it never applied to non-Jews. Even the Ten Commandments have no jurisdiction over non-Jews, as that was part of the covenant with Moses and Israel.
There are, however, other covenants in the "Old Testament" which were and are binding on all peoples, not just the Jews.
For example, the covenant to be fruitful and multiply and steward the Earth (scientific inquiry is a necessary part of stewarding the earth -- Science is a God-mandated endeavour) is an agreement given to all humans.
Also, the covenant to never again send an earth-destroying flood is a promise to Jew and non-Jew alike, as well as to the animals of the world. This same covenant also instituted the death penalty for murderers, and has never been rescinded.
There were also other covenants, but most of those were with individuals or other nations serving minor roles in the story.
The main point I'm trying to make: although the "Old Mosaic/Israelite Covenant" (which is found in the "Old Testament") was nailed to the Cross, the "Old Testament" itself was not. We, all humans, are still bound under contracts found in the Old Testament.
I'd like to point out that the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" really are misleading. Many Christians mistakenly believe that the "Old Testament" is old, and is no longer relevant. Many of these folks believe the Old Testament has been done away with, nailed to the Cross.
But that's not true.
It's true that the "Old Covenant" has been nailed to the Cross, but the "Old Testament" is not the same as the "Old Covenant" (although the words mean the same).
The "Old Covenant" is the Law of Moses only, a subset of the "Old Testament". The Law of Moses applied/applies only to the nation of Israel; it never applied to non-Jews. Even the Ten Commandments have no jurisdiction over non-Jews, as that was part of the covenant with Moses and Israel.
There are, however, other covenants in the "Old Testament" which were and are binding on all peoples, not just the Jews.
For example, the covenant to be fruitful and multiply and steward the Earth (scientific inquiry is a necessary part of stewarding the earth -- Science is a God-mandated endeavour) is an agreement given to all humans.
Also, the covenant to never again send an earth-destroying flood is a promise to Jew and non-Jew alike, as well as to the animals of the world. This same covenant also instituted the death penalty for murderers, and has never been rescinded.
There were also other covenants, but most of those were with individuals or other nations serving minor roles in the story.
The main point I'm trying to make: although the "Old Mosaic/Israelite Covenant" (which is found in the "Old Testament") was nailed to the Cross, the "Old Testament" itself was not. We, all humans, are still bound under contracts found in the Old Testament.
Out with the Old, In with the New
I just finished the Old Testament last night.
When I was a teenager I started trying to read the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. I've had some periods where I've failed to be consistent, but over the years I've managed to read through the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV, and now I'm working on The Message (which is a great reading Bible, but a lousy study Bible). I've got a "rule" that I have to read one chapter of the Bible every night. It takes me about three and a half years to get all the way through.
After finishing the OT this time 'round, the following themes seem most dominant in my mind:
1. Acknowledge and honor YHWH.
2. Treat others with justice and fairness.
3. Be truthful and honest.
4. God is most concerned with the fortunes of a nation as a whole rather than with individuals (without being unconcerned about individuals).
5. Government tends to corruption, and corrupt government is evil. Government conspires to take away the rights and properties of the individuals. (And I've seen this lately in my efforts to utilize my land, build a house, etc. Government has stolen much from me, simply because "they" can.)
When I was a teenager I started trying to read the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation. I've had some periods where I've failed to be consistent, but over the years I've managed to read through the KJV, the NASB, the NIV, the NKJV, and now I'm working on The Message (which is a great reading Bible, but a lousy study Bible). I've got a "rule" that I have to read one chapter of the Bible every night. It takes me about three and a half years to get all the way through.
After finishing the OT this time 'round, the following themes seem most dominant in my mind:
1. Acknowledge and honor YHWH.
2. Treat others with justice and fairness.
3. Be truthful and honest.
4. God is most concerned with the fortunes of a nation as a whole rather than with individuals (without being unconcerned about individuals).
5. Government tends to corruption, and corrupt government is evil. Government conspires to take away the rights and properties of the individuals. (And I've seen this lately in my efforts to utilize my land, build a house, etc. Government has stolen much from me, simply because "they" can.)
UnHappy Birthday To Me ...
I turned 44 this past weekend; wow; I'm getting to be an old man.
But that's no problem; I have a faith and a hope that this is just temporary. When Jesus returns, I'll get a new body that is just as real as the one I have now, but without the flaws, such as old age. Sweet! I'm looking forward to it (although with a bit of trepidation, because after all, we do walk by faith rather than by sight -- I've never seen it; I just have faith in it).
But the title of this entry mentions an unhappy birthday.
Why?
Because the one person from whom I was looking to get a "Happy Birthday" did not so greet me. There are some deeper issues here than a mere forgotten birthday wish; this is just one more indication to me that a mistake I made some time ago has done irreparable harm.
Bummer.
Time to move on ....
But that's no problem; I have a faith and a hope that this is just temporary. When Jesus returns, I'll get a new body that is just as real as the one I have now, but without the flaws, such as old age. Sweet! I'm looking forward to it (although with a bit of trepidation, because after all, we do walk by faith rather than by sight -- I've never seen it; I just have faith in it).
But the title of this entry mentions an unhappy birthday.
Why?
Because the one person from whom I was looking to get a "Happy Birthday" did not so greet me. There are some deeper issues here than a mere forgotten birthday wish; this is just one more indication to me that a mistake I made some time ago has done irreparable harm.
Bummer.
Time to move on ....
Monday, March 19, 2007
Expect to Get Hurt
I have a friend on the other side of the world who I believe needs to hear this message:
People always hurt other people, even when they love them; that's just Life.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
The Purpose of Spiritual Gifts
From 1 Peter 4:9ff:
Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ.(emphasis added)
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Server-Building Seminar
Jonathan Gray writes:
| Name: | ACM System Administrator & Server Building Workshop |
| Tagline: | Wanted to share my experiences |
| Host: | |
| Type: |
| Start Time: | Monday, March 12, 2007 at 6:00pm |
| End Time: | Friday, March 16, 2007 at 9:00pm |
| Location: | COBA 214 also known as MBB 214 |
| City/Town: | Abilene, TX |
| Phone: | 615.330.9259 |
| Email: |
Description
I plan to cover topics including:
How to design a network topology
General server building practices
A few more specific topics such as DNS
This is a hands on workshop. We've got 4 servers that we are going to completely wipe and start over with. I'll divide whomever shows up into teams to rebuild a server.
I am also inviting other knowledgable people to participate in the discussions. I don't claim to know everything and I realize there may be some areas that I am wrong about. People are welcome to come and critique my knowledge and add their own (provided it does not detract from the overall progression of the workshop).
The workshop will end whenever we reach a stopping place or 9pm whatever comes first.
I am also trying to make the workshop minimally cumulative so that people can miss a day or two if needed.
How to design a network topology
General server building practices
A few more specific topics such as DNS
This is a hands on workshop. We've got 4 servers that we are going to completely wipe and start over with. I'll divide whomever shows up into teams to rebuild a server.
I am also inviting other knowledgable people to participate in the discussions. I don't claim to know everything and I realize there may be some areas that I am wrong about. People are welcome to come and critique my knowledge and add their own (provided it does not detract from the overall progression of the workshop).
The workshop will end whenever we reach a stopping place or 9pm whatever comes first.
I am also trying to make the workshop minimally cumulative so that people can miss a day or two if needed.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Get a Job!
Or, as Paul puts it in his letter to Titus (3:14):
Our people must learn to devote themselves to doing what is good, in order that they may provide for daily necessities and not live unproductive lives.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Hosea Nuggets, Part Second
I'm not a great believer in man-made global warming (especially since Mars is also undergoing a similar climate change). Yet I've become convinced over the past year or so that human sin does have a direct effect on the Earth. Here's a quote from Hosea 4 that emphasizes this:
YHWH indicts the whole population: "No one is faithful. No one loves.
No one knows the first thing about God.
All this cussing and lying and killing, theft and loose sex,
sheer anarchy, one murder after another!
And because of all this, the very land itself weeps
and everything in it is grief-stricken—
animals in the fields and birds on the wing,
even the fish in the sea are listless, lifeless."
Hosea Nuggets
From Hosea 3:1
Men, loving your wife is the Holy Thing to do.
Then YHWH ordered me, "Start all over: Love your wife again, your wife who's in bed with her latest boyfriend, your cheating wife.This struck me that a man's love for his wife is not just feelings, or a commitment, or a desire. It is a holiness; it is an imitation of God.
Love her the way I, God, love the Israelite people,
even as they flirt and party with every god that takes their fancy."
Men, loving your wife is the Holy Thing to do.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
No Absolutes?
I just came across a statement that said:
I confess to being mostly ignorant about Nietzsche (except that I would've preferred him to spell his name like "Neatshee"), and I certainly do not subscribe to the notion that there are no absolutes.
But this concept struck me up-side the head.
Think about killing another human. It's clearly Evil to kill another human when it's "murder". But it's Good to kill another human in order to prevent that human from murdering innocents.
Same action: different contexts, different reasons, different valuations.
Hmmm. What are the implications of this concept?
Good and evil do not exist (as absolutes, but can exist in a different context and for different reasons as Nietzsche).(From a Wikipedia article about the book series "Conversations with God" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversations_with_God, a series that I preliminarily judge to be "evil", without knowing much about the books.)
I confess to being mostly ignorant about Nietzsche (except that I would've preferred him to spell his name like "Neatshee"), and I certainly do not subscribe to the notion that there are no absolutes.
But this concept struck me up-side the head.
Think about killing another human. It's clearly Evil to kill another human when it's "murder". But it's Good to kill another human in order to prevent that human from murdering innocents.
Same action: different contexts, different reasons, different valuations.
Hmmm. What are the implications of this concept?
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Individual Bible Study
Rob Bell, in his book "Velvet Elvis", points out that prior to the 16th century or thereabouts, it was very rare for an individual to own a copy of any portion of the Scriptures, much less an entire copy.
Accordingly, individual Bible reading and study was essentially unheard of.
That which we encourage today, individualized reading, is a new invention.
I believe it's a good invention, but it's interesting to realize that it's a new invention.
However, I believe we have lost the advantage of not having our own copies of the Scriptures, for before that was common, the common practice was to get together with others and spend hours discussing scriptures. This sort of interaction would go a long way toward keeping the far-out ideas tamed, as you'd immediately have other knowledgeable Truth-seekers to analyze and critique your ideas.
However, lest you suddenly decide to do away with individual study in an effort to return to the "old paths", let me remind you that the Ethiopian eunuch had his own copy (at least of Isaiah), and was doing his own individual study. I would daresay that the eunuch was rather unique in having his own copy of a portion of the Scriptures.
Accordingly, individual Bible reading and study was essentially unheard of.
That which we encourage today, individualized reading, is a new invention.
I believe it's a good invention, but it's interesting to realize that it's a new invention.
However, I believe we have lost the advantage of not having our own copies of the Scriptures, for before that was common, the common practice was to get together with others and spend hours discussing scriptures. This sort of interaction would go a long way toward keeping the far-out ideas tamed, as you'd immediately have other knowledgeable Truth-seekers to analyze and critique your ideas.
However, lest you suddenly decide to do away with individual study in an effort to return to the "old paths", let me remind you that the Ethiopian eunuch had his own copy (at least of Isaiah), and was doing his own individual study. I would daresay that the eunuch was rather unique in having his own copy of a portion of the Scriptures.
Binding and Loosing
Ideas from Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis":
In the days when Jesus walked this earth, the rabbinic practice of setting down rules of what is and is not allowed was technically referred to as binding and loosing.
In the days when Jesus walked this earth, the rabbinic practice of setting down rules of what is and is not allowed was technically referred to as binding and loosing.
To "bind" something was to forbid it. To "loose" something was to allow it. (p. 49)---
Notice what Jesus says in the book of Matthew: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."...
What he is doing here is significant. He is giving his followers the authority to make new interpretations of the Bible.
[He is also saying that when they do so,] somehow God in heaven will be involved.
(p. 50)
Two Witnesses
Ideas from Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis":
As mentioned in previous posts, ancient rabbis had different rules applying their understanding of the scriptures. These interpretations were referred to as a rabbi's yoke, and a student of the rabbi was said to have taken the yoke of that rabbi.
Very rarely, a rabbi would arrive on the scene with a new interpretation of the Scriptures. This was nearly unheard of; after all, the scriptures had been debated and studied for centuries; how is it some newcomer has more understanding than all his predecessors?
So when this happened, the new rabbi was often challenged on his authority.
Jesus came along and said things like, "You have heard it said that X, but I tell you Y". He's essentially saying that other rabbis have it wrong; this is the correct interpretation.
The existing power structure challenged him with "Where did you get your authority?"
And Jesus' usual response was "You tell me, where did John get his?"
Jesus' appeal to John's authority was important, because in the case of a new rabbi coming along with a new yoke, it was a protection to him if two other rabbis laid their hands on him, essentially validating him, witnessing to their belief that the new rabbi had such authority to teach a new yoke. John, who was an important rabbi in that area, had made just such a witness to Jesus, saying that he was not worthy to untie Jesus' sandals.
John was one of the two necessary witnesses to Jesus' authority to teach a new interpretation of the Scriptures.
The second witness came just after Jesus came up out of the waters of immersion, when a voice from heaven proclaimed, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Later, on the Mount of Transfiguration, the phrase "Listen to him!" was added during a second endorsement by the voice from heaven.)
As mentioned in previous posts, ancient rabbis had different rules applying their understanding of the scriptures. These interpretations were referred to as a rabbi's yoke, and a student of the rabbi was said to have taken the yoke of that rabbi.
Very rarely, a rabbi would arrive on the scene with a new interpretation of the Scriptures. This was nearly unheard of; after all, the scriptures had been debated and studied for centuries; how is it some newcomer has more understanding than all his predecessors?
So when this happened, the new rabbi was often challenged on his authority.
Jesus came along and said things like, "You have heard it said that X, but I tell you Y". He's essentially saying that other rabbis have it wrong; this is the correct interpretation.
The existing power structure challenged him with "Where did you get your authority?"
And Jesus' usual response was "You tell me, where did John get his?"
Jesus' appeal to John's authority was important, because in the case of a new rabbi coming along with a new yoke, it was a protection to him if two other rabbis laid their hands on him, essentially validating him, witnessing to their belief that the new rabbi had such authority to teach a new yoke. John, who was an important rabbi in that area, had made just such a witness to Jesus, saying that he was not worthy to untie Jesus' sandals.
John was one of the two necessary witnesses to Jesus' authority to teach a new interpretation of the Scriptures.
The second witness came just after Jesus came up out of the waters of immersion, when a voice from heaven proclaimed, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Later, on the Mount of Transfiguration, the phrase "Listen to him!" was added during a second endorsement by the voice from heaven.)
Speaking of Rabbis
Once upon a time, in the land of the Trids, a mean giant often came though the land, kicking at the Trids, knocking them flying this way and that. It was a cruel thing to do, but the giant enjoyed it, and did it often.
One day, a rabbi passed through the town on his journeys. While he was in town, the mean giant came through, and kicked Trids this way and that way, left and right. The rabbi was appalled, and stood up for the Trids.
"Mr. Mean Giant, you ought not to do such things. It's cruel and wrong of you to treat these Trid people this way. If you must pick on someone, you should pick on someone your own size!"
The mean giant looked down at this itinerant preacher and laughed. He then scooped up the rabbi into his hand, and bringing the rabbi up to his face, looked into the rabbi's eyes and stated,
"Silly Rabbi, kicks are for Trids."
(Apologies to the under 30 group, who may not get this. Also, apologies to the over 30 group who will ....)
One day, a rabbi passed through the town on his journeys. While he was in town, the mean giant came through, and kicked Trids this way and that way, left and right. The rabbi was appalled, and stood up for the Trids.
"Mr. Mean Giant, you ought not to do such things. It's cruel and wrong of you to treat these Trid people this way. If you must pick on someone, you should pick on someone your own size!"
The mean giant looked down at this itinerant preacher and laughed. He then scooped up the rabbi into his hand, and bringing the rabbi up to his face, looked into the rabbi's eyes and stated,
"Silly Rabbi, kicks are for Trids."
(Apologies to the under 30 group, who may not get this. Also, apologies to the over 30 group who will ....)
Interpreting the Bible
Ideas from Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis":
In Jesus' day there were various schools of thought as to the proper interpretation of Scripture (just as there are today). One rabbi might say that X is acceptable, while Y is not, whereas another rabbi across town might say just the opposite.
In Jesus' day there were various schools of thought as to the proper interpretation of Scripture (just as there are today). One rabbi might say that X is acceptable, while Y is not, whereas another rabbi across town might say just the opposite.
Different rabbis had different sets of rules, which were really different lists of what they forbade and what they permitted. A rabbi's set of rules and lists, which was really that rabbi's interpretation of how to live the Torah, was called that rabbi's yoke. ...when you followed that rabbi, you were taking up that rabbi's yoke....
One rabbi even said his yoke was easy.
Rabbis would spend hours discussing with their students what it meant to live out a certain text. If a student made a suggestion about what a certain text meant and the rabbi thought the student had totally missed the point, the rabbi would say, "You have abolished the Torah," which meant that in the rabbi's opinion, the student wasn't anywhere near what God wanted. But if the student got it right, if the rabbi thought the student had grasped God's intention in the text, the rabbi would say, "You have fulfilled Torah."
(p. 47-48)
The Bible is Confusing
Ideas from Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis":
* The Bible is open-ended.
God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), yet the Bible is confusing.
Why?
Because the Bible is open-ended.
* The Bible is open-ended.
God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), yet the Bible is confusing.
Why?
Because the Bible is open-ended.
...we have to interpret the Bible. It is not possible to simply do what the Bible says. We must first make decisions about what it means at this time, in this place, for these people.
[T]he Bible is open-ended. ... It has to be interpreted.
(p. 45-46)
Scripture Must be Interpreted
Ideas from Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis":
* Scripture must be interpreted.
For example, the Biblical injunction to "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy". What does that mean exactly? Defined by Genesis, the Sabbath is the seventh day, starting in the evening and going through the night, the next morning, and the next day until the following evening. But in our Western culture, it means the seventh day beginning at just after midnight between Friday and Saturday. Or, to many, it means the first day, as they've come to believe that the Sabbath is now the "Christian Sabbath" of Sunday rather than the seventh day.
But that's not all; in Jesus' day, one scholar might say that walking X meters is okay, but X+1 is work, and therefore forbidden. Another scholar might say that X+1 is acceptable, but X^2 is work.
There's a level of interpretation here as to what constitutes "work", what constitutes "holy", what constitutes "Sabbath", what constitutes "remember".
Even the things we think are obvious are only obvious because of our cultural baggage/lenses, and might not be so obvious to someone else.
And unless you're reading the Bible in the original language, you're relying on someone's interpretation of that language into your language. Here, Rob goes into an interesting discussion of the word gehenna, usually translated into English as hell, but which meant something entirely different to the citizens of Jerusalem in Jesus' day.
Scripture must be interpreted.
* Scripture must be interpreted.
For example, the Biblical injunction to "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy". What does that mean exactly? Defined by Genesis, the Sabbath is the seventh day, starting in the evening and going through the night, the next morning, and the next day until the following evening. But in our Western culture, it means the seventh day beginning at just after midnight between Friday and Saturday. Or, to many, it means the first day, as they've come to believe that the Sabbath is now the "Christian Sabbath" of Sunday rather than the seventh day.
But that's not all; in Jesus' day, one scholar might say that walking X meters is okay, but X+1 is work, and therefore forbidden. Another scholar might say that X+1 is acceptable, but X^2 is work.
There's a level of interpretation here as to what constitutes "work", what constitutes "holy", what constitutes "Sabbath", what constitutes "remember".
Even the things we think are obvious are only obvious because of our cultural baggage/lenses, and might not be so obvious to someone else.
And unless you're reading the Bible in the original language, you're relying on someone's interpretation of that language into your language. Here, Rob goes into an interesting discussion of the word gehenna, usually translated into English as hell, but which meant something entirely different to the citizens of Jerusalem in Jesus' day.
Scripture must be interpreted.
Bible Elitism
About a month ago a co-worker/friend loaned me a book to read, named "Velvet Elvis", by Rob Bell. After the introduction and first chapter, I have to admit I wasn't very impressed, and laid down the book and pretty much forgot about it (although I did blog about one highlight here).
A couple of days ago he asked me if I had finished reading it, which spurred me to pick it up again. I'm rather glad I did, because the second chapter has quite a few gems in it.
One of the things that resonated with me was a statement that seems to me to be the core of my conflict with the church I'm attending. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to be critical of the church; it's full of some great people. But anyone from a similar background who has come out of that background will understand this statement:
A couple of days ago he asked me if I had finished reading it, which spurred me to pick it up again. I'm rather glad I did, because the second chapter has quite a few gems in it.
One of the things that resonated with me was a statement that seems to me to be the core of my conflict with the church I'm attending. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to be critical of the church; it's full of some great people. But anyone from a similar background who has come out of that background will understand this statement:
The idea that everybody else approaches the Bible with baggage and agendas and lenses and I don't is the ultimate in arrogance. To think that I can just read the Bible without reading any of my own culture or background or issues into it and come out with a "pure" or "exact" meaning is not only untrue, but it leads to a very destructive reading of the Bible that robs it of its life and energy.
(Pg. 54, emphasis added)
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
3 Meals a Day vs 6 Meals a Day
My mom was recently diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes, and in her education about the disease has learned that 6 smaller meals throughout the day are better than 3 bigger meals, because the blood-sugar levels are maintained at a more even level that way rather than the big roller-coaster effect of having alternating periods of famine and fasting.
As I was reading Neil R. Lightfoot's book "Everyone's Guide to Hebrews", a passage sent me on a mental tangent, and I realized that perhaps this form of diet, applied to God's word, would be better for our spiritual bodies also.
Instead of going to church three times a week and hearing a 20-30 minute sermon, how about going to church fifteen times a week and hearing a 5-minute sermonette?
Note that I'm not saying this is practical; some of us live across town from church. But look at the idea.
Many twenty-minute sermons are composed of five minutes' worth of good stuff, and fifteen minutes' worth of filler, which seem designed more to put the listeners to sleep or to daydreaming than to exhorting, encouraging, or teaching them.
Also, let me make clear, sometimes the material needs twenty minutes, two hours, or two weeks.
But the general church sermon has been standardized to be twenty to thirty minutes long, and the average preacher tends to focus on filling up that time-slot rather than tailoring the time-slot to the material.
Perhaps it's time to re-think the sermon; rather than having three big sermons per week, punctuated by long periods of fasting from God's word, maybe we should look for ways to ingest smaller doses of God's word more regularly. I don't know how the mechanics of that might be worked out; it's just a brainstorm.
What are your ideas? Do you know how to work out the mechanics of such a plan?
As I was reading Neil R. Lightfoot's book "Everyone's Guide to Hebrews", a passage sent me on a mental tangent, and I realized that perhaps this form of diet, applied to God's word, would be better for our spiritual bodies also.
Instead of going to church three times a week and hearing a 20-30 minute sermon, how about going to church fifteen times a week and hearing a 5-minute sermonette?
Note that I'm not saying this is practical; some of us live across town from church. But look at the idea.
Many twenty-minute sermons are composed of five minutes' worth of good stuff, and fifteen minutes' worth of filler, which seem designed more to put the listeners to sleep or to daydreaming than to exhorting, encouraging, or teaching them.
Also, let me make clear, sometimes the material needs twenty minutes, two hours, or two weeks.
But the general church sermon has been standardized to be twenty to thirty minutes long, and the average preacher tends to focus on filling up that time-slot rather than tailoring the time-slot to the material.
Perhaps it's time to re-think the sermon; rather than having three big sermons per week, punctuated by long periods of fasting from God's word, maybe we should look for ways to ingest smaller doses of God's word more regularly. I don't know how the mechanics of that might be worked out; it's just a brainstorm.
What are your ideas? Do you know how to work out the mechanics of such a plan?
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Your Wife Died? God May Have Done That On Purpose.
On 8 November 2004 I wrote to a friend:
The book has a slightly different flavor this time around, just as I expected.
In last night's reading I came across a stunner.
Throughout the whole book YHWH has been telling Ezekiel to do this or that as a symbolic representation of the upcoming judgment on Jerusalem. Over and over again we hear warnings such as this from chapter 24:
Preventing two cows from living the Great Bovine Dream, and sending them to their death in a sacrifice, in order to be an object lesson for thousands of years is one thing (I Samuel 6), but this taking of a man's loved wife as on object lesson seems incredibly harsh.
And yet it's somehow comforting also. It means that God is in control, not just "nature". And although a part of me rebels at a God that would be so "cruel", another part of me rises up in praise to a God who is Holy, and that part believes that the Potter has the right to do with the clay whatever He wishes, and that the appearance of unrighteousness or unfairness in such a situation is just an appearance based on the limited and mostly-blind viewpoint of us fallen humans.
And then I wonder about the paradise that Mrs. Ezekiel found herself in, and that believing-part of me realizes she was benefited from the transaction.
Then I wonder if Ezekiel had that same comfort of knowing she was in Paradise and that neither she nor he would miss out on any joy, that it was merely being postponed for something better, or if his sense of "Why me?!" was greater than his faith in God's goodness.
Just ... Wow.
I only have one chapter left to read in the book of Ezekiel, thankfully! It's a book that is so, well, meaningless, to me. But like other portions of the Bible that are similarly hard-to-understand-or-read-through, I just plod through, hoping that one of these times something will make sense.So, apparently it takes me about two and a quarter years to read through the Bible, as I'm now back in the middle of Ezekiel again.
The book has a slightly different flavor this time around, just as I expected.
In last night's reading I came across a stunner.
Throughout the whole book YHWH has been telling Ezekiel to do this or that as a symbolic representation of the upcoming judgment on Jerusalem. Over and over again we hear warnings such as this from chapter 24:
The blood from murdersAnd then we have this, where God speaks to Ezekiel:
has stained the whole city;
Blood runs bold on the street stones,
with no one bothering to wash it off—
Blood out in the open to public view
to provoke my wrath,
to trigger my vengeance.
Therefore, this is what YHWH, the Master, says: "Doom to the city of murder!
I, too, will pile on the wood.
Stack the wood high,
light the match,...."
"Your encrusted filth is your filthy sex. I wanted to clean you up, but you wouldn't let me. I'll make no more attempts at cleaning you up until my anger quiets down. I, YHWH, have said it, and I'll do it. I'm not holding back. I've run out of compassion. I'm not changing my mind. You're getting exactly what's coming to you. Decree of YHWH, the Master."
YHWH's Message came to me: "Son of man, I'm about to take from you the delight of your life—a real blow, I know. But, please, no tears. Keep your grief to yourself. No public mourning. Get dressed as usual and go about your work—none of the usual funeral rituals."Wow.
I preached to the people in the morning. That evening my wife died. The next morning I did as I'd been told.
The people came to me, saying, "Tell us why you're acting like this. What does it mean, anyway?"
So I told them, "YHWH's Word came to me, saying, 'Tell the family of Israel, This is what YHWH, the Master, says: I will desecrate my Sanctuary, your proud impregnable fort, the delight of your life, your heart's desire. The children you left behind will be killed.
"'Then you'll do exactly as I've done. You'll perform none of the usual funeral rituals. You'll get dressed as usual and go about your work. No tears. But your sins will eat away at you from within and you'll groan among yourselves. Ezekiel will be your example. The way he did it is the way you'll do it.
"'When this happens you'll recognize that I am YHWH, the Master.'"
"And you, son of man: The day I take away the people's refuge, their great joy, the delight of their life, what they've most longed for, along with all their children—on that very day a survivor will arrive and tell you what happened to the city. You'll break your silence and start talking again, talking to the survivor. Again, you'll be an example for them. And they'll recognize that I am YHWH."
Preventing two cows from living the Great Bovine Dream, and sending them to their death in a sacrifice, in order to be an object lesson for thousands of years is one thing (I Samuel 6), but this taking of a man's loved wife as on object lesson seems incredibly harsh.
And yet it's somehow comforting also. It means that God is in control, not just "nature". And although a part of me rebels at a God that would be so "cruel", another part of me rises up in praise to a God who is Holy, and that part believes that the Potter has the right to do with the clay whatever He wishes, and that the appearance of unrighteousness or unfairness in such a situation is just an appearance based on the limited and mostly-blind viewpoint of us fallen humans.
And then I wonder about the paradise that Mrs. Ezekiel found herself in, and that believing-part of me realizes she was benefited from the transaction.
Then I wonder if Ezekiel had that same comfort of knowing she was in Paradise and that neither she nor he would miss out on any joy, that it was merely being postponed for something better, or if his sense of "Why me?!" was greater than his faith in God's goodness.
Just ... Wow.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Unity in Diversity?
The phrase "Unity in Diversity" is popular amongst "Christendom", referring to the idea that although the many different groups of "Christians" are divided on a multitude of doctrinal and practical issues, we are, at core, united on a basic faith in Jesus.
On the other end of the spectrum are those who point out the New Testament insistence on unity and being of one mind and not having any divisions amongst us, such as 1 Corinthians 1:10ff:
It seems to me that the idea of "Unity in Diversity" is a cop-out; people claiming to follow Christ are too lazy to work out the differences so that unity would take precedence over diversity.
On the other hand, honest people sometimes have honest differences of understandings.
It is this "other hand" that Paul seems to tacitly recognize in his letter to the Galatians, when he recognizes the denomination of "Jewish Christians" and the denomination of "Gentile Christians", and particularly the "circumcision group" at Antioch (2:12).
These groups were divided on doctrinal issues no less than many of the doctrinal issues today.
Although Paul prefers that Christians be united, he admits that sometimes there are divisions, and these divisions do not in any way make one group less Christian than the other group.
Still, the aim should be for unity, not Unity in Diversity. Unity in Diversity is merely Plan B.
On the other end of the spectrum are those who point out the New Testament insistence on unity and being of one mind and not having any divisions amongst us, such as 1 Corinthians 1:10ff:
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?It would seem safe to say that Paul would be appalled that today there are "Baptist Christians" and "Methodist Christians" and "Presbyterian Christians" and on and on.
It seems to me that the idea of "Unity in Diversity" is a cop-out; people claiming to follow Christ are too lazy to work out the differences so that unity would take precedence over diversity.
On the other hand, honest people sometimes have honest differences of understandings.
It is this "other hand" that Paul seems to tacitly recognize in his letter to the Galatians, when he recognizes the denomination of "Jewish Christians" and the denomination of "Gentile Christians", and particularly the "circumcision group" at Antioch (2:12).
These groups were divided on doctrinal issues no less than many of the doctrinal issues today.
Although Paul prefers that Christians be united, he admits that sometimes there are divisions, and these divisions do not in any way make one group less Christian than the other group.
Still, the aim should be for unity, not Unity in Diversity. Unity in Diversity is merely Plan B.
Why Did God Enact Bad Laws?
In a previous post, I pointed out how God said he enacted bad, impossible-to-follow laws because the Israelites kept rebuffing his righteousness. Here again is his conclusion from Ezekiel 20:25:
In the first three chapters Paul is arguing with the Gentile Christians of Galatia that they are doing wrong to start following Jewish laws as part of their Christianity. He says that righteousness did not come from following the Law of Moses, but from believing in God. He quotes Genesis 15:6 which says that Abram believed God about becoming the father of innumerable descendants, resulting in that belief being credited to Abram as righteousness. Paul's point is that the righteousness of God does not come from obedience to the Law of Moses, but rather from faith. Here's the actual passage:
I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by.By chance ("providence"?!), I just read much of the book of Galatians, and found a rather interesting corroboration of this.
In the first three chapters Paul is arguing with the Gentile Christians of Galatia that they are doing wrong to start following Jewish laws as part of their Christianity. He says that righteousness did not come from following the Law of Moses, but from believing in God. He quotes Genesis 15:6 which says that Abram believed God about becoming the father of innumerable descendants, resulting in that belief being credited to Abram as righteousness. Paul's point is that the righteousness of God does not come from obedience to the Law of Moses, but rather from faith. Here's the actual passage:
Consider Abraham: "He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. -- Gal. 3:6-9Paul continues, quoting from Deuteronomy 27:26 and Habakkuk. 2:4:
All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." -- Gal. 3:10-11Paul was fully aware that no one could abide by all the little rules and regulations of the Law of Moses, and thus was cursed with having to try, and cursed by knowing he was failing at it, and cursed because he failed at it. But Jesus took that curse, making us free.
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." -- Gal. 3:13Paul goes on to say that the Law of Moses didn't even exist until another 430 years had passed, and even then, the "new" agreement did not undo the "old" agreement:
What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. -- Gal. 3:17-18And here's the corroboration with Ezekiel:
What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. -- Gal. 3:19In summary, Abram and his descendants were credited with righteousness because they had faith. However, because some did not have faith unto obedience, the Law of Moses was enacted 430 years later. And as Ezekiel reports, YHWH ...
... also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by.And wrapping this up, Paul says:
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. -- Gal. 3:23ffThus we have no responsibility to that Law of Moses, which was a curse for all who tried to follow it.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. -- Gal. 5:1
Bible Masters, Help!
I've been hunting online for scholarly opinions on the significance, if any, of the following from 1 Corinthians 16:22-24:
Question 1: Why do none of the commentators even mention this fact?
Question 2: Obviously, Paul had different shades of meaning, or he would not have used two different words. What do those shades of meaning translate into when brought over into English?
If anyone does not love the Lord—a curse be on him. Come, O Lord!The word "love" in the first sentence is the Greek "phileo", but in the third sentence, it's "agape".
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.
My love to all of you in Christ Jesus. Amen.
Question 1: Why do none of the commentators even mention this fact?
Question 2: Obviously, Paul had different shades of meaning, or he would not have used two different words. What do those shades of meaning translate into when brought over into English?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
God Enacted Bad Laws
You may remember how in the early years of the church, when Gentiles first started becoming Christians, the first Christians, being Jews, for the most part believed that the new Gentile Christians must also convert to Judaism (essentially). A big church conference was convened, and the apostle Peter argued against requiring the Gentile Christians to follow Jewish laws.
Tonight, while reading from Ezekiel, I was struck to learn that God intentionally gave them a set of bad laws. The whole of chapter 20 is basically God reiterating how he'd extend his loving arm toward Israel, and Israel kept rebuffing God's advances, slapping him in the face. After so many rejections, God's response?
And by "they", I wonder if I mean "we".
And by "we", I wonder if I mean "I".
... why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the [Gentile] disciples a yoke that neither we [Jews] nor our fathers have been able to bear? -- Acts 15:7ffIt seems clear that the Jews of Peter's day realized that the Law of Moses was an onerous law, impossible to observe completely.
Tonight, while reading from Ezekiel, I was struck to learn that God intentionally gave them a set of bad laws. The whole of chapter 20 is basically God reiterating how he'd extend his loving arm toward Israel, and Israel kept rebuffing God's advances, slapping him in the face. After so many rejections, God's response?
I also gave them over to statutes that were not good and laws they could not live by. -- Ez. 20:25Wow. What a concept. Centuries of living under an unworkable system because they wouldn't do right.
And by "they", I wonder if I mean "we".
And by "we", I wonder if I mean "I".
Monday, January 22, 2007
God's Intent
It was a new thought to me, when I read this passage in Ephesians 3:10:
Interesting.
His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms....Near as I can tell from this, God is using the church to show off his glory, not to humans, but to heavenly beings. Kind of similar to how God bragged to Satan about Job.
Interesting.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
A Call to the Called Out
As many people know, the word for "church" in the original Greek of the Bible's New Testament is "ekklesia". The word means "a gathering of the ones called out". The web page at http://www.hisholychurch.net/ekklesia.asp has some very interesting things to say about this:
Christians have been "called out" of their existing governmental structures to form a new government. This government is "not of this world" (John 18:36) and we therefore do not defend it or grow it with guns and bombs --
Here's the crux of this post: Jesus established one Kingdom, one called-out group. But since the early days of the church, humans have had a tendency to splinter off into sub-groups. What many Christians may not realize is that this tendency is strongly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:20ff:
But Paul also recognized that there would be differences among believers, regardless of the goal of unity:
And now here's the call I'm making to the called-out ones: We're not going to overcome our divisions overnight, but we can make a start by simply hearing the call to "come out" of any kingdom not established by Jesus, and recognizing that any organization that does not bear a Biblical name is not part of the Kingdom of Jesus.
If you're a "Baptist", drop that name. The New Testament church was never referred to in the Bible as a "Baptist church".
If you're a "Methodist", drop that name.
If you're a "Lutheran", drop that name.
Same for any other name that is not Biblical.
I'm not calling you (at least today) to leave that organization, but to simply drop that name in favor of a Biblical name.
Some of the Biblical names for the church are:
* church - Acts 2:37, 12:5, 14:27, 15:4
* church of Christ - Romans 16:16
* church of God - Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 10:32
* church of the living God - 1 Timothy 3:15
* general assembly and church of the firstborn - Hebrews 12:23
* church of Jesus - Matthew 16:18
* House of God - 1 Timothy 3:15
* Kingdom of God's Dear Son - Colossians 1:13
* Kingdom of God - Colossians 4:11
* Kingdom of Christ and of God - Ephesians 5:5
* Body in Christ - Romans 12:5
* Body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12:27
* Saints and Faithful Brethren - Colossians 1:2
* church of Gentiles - Romans 16:4
* Fellow Citizens with the Saints - Ephesians 2:19
* Household of God - Ephesians 2:19
* church of the Saints - 1 Corinthians 14:33
* Temple of God - 1 Corinthians 3:16
* Them Sanctified by Faith - Acts 26:32
* The Called Ones - Jude 1:1
* The Ones Preserved in Jesus Christ - Jude 1:1
In other words, stop being a "Baptist Christian" or a "Methodist Christian" or an "Episcopalian Christian"; just be a "Christian".
It's a modest start toward unity in the Kingdom of God, but it is a start.
The word 'church' in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word 'ekklesia' which comes from two words 'ek' meaning 'out' and 'kaleo' meaning to 'call.'...
In classical Greek "ekklesia" meant "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly."...
When the Greek city states found their governments had become too corrupt and oppressive, they would call for an ekklesia, an assembly outside the civil authority of the city. If enough people came out and refused to be under the civil authority, that government would collapse....
The ekklesia of Jesus Christ was founded and established by Jesus Christ almost 2000 years ago. It was a government established by Jesus the Christ, Yahshua, the anointed King and appointed to look after His Kingdom. Jesus was recognized by the existing civil government, Pontius Pilate. Jesus and His ekklesia, the called out, were persecuted by the apostate church of that day, the usurping authority of the remnant of Israel. He was killed and rose again and is living upon His throne....
Liddell and Scott define ekklesia as "an assembly of citizens summoned by the crier, the legislative assembly." [R. Scott, and H.G. Liddell, A Greek-English Lexicon, p. 206.] Thayer's lexicon says, "an assembly of the people convened at the public place of council for the purpose of deliberating" [J. H. Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 196]. Trench gives the meaning as "the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the rights of citizenship, for the transaction of public affairs" [R.C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, 7th ed., pp. 1-2]. Seyffert's dictionary states, "The assembly of the people, which in Greek cities had the power of final decision in public affairs" [Oskar Seyffert, A Dictionary of Classical Antiquities, pp. 202-203].From "fully after the LORD" by Steve Flinchum http://www.bryanstation.com/flinchum-fully.htm
Christians have been "called out" of their existing governmental structures to form a new government. This government is "not of this world" (John 18:36) and we therefore do not defend it or grow it with guns and bombs --
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) -- 2 Cor 10:3-4
Here's the crux of this post: Jesus established one Kingdom, one called-out group. But since the early days of the church, humans have had a tendency to splinter off into sub-groups. What many Christians may not realize is that this tendency is strongly condemned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:20ff:
Jesus himself prayed just before his arrest that his followers "be brought to complete unity" so that the world would know that God had sent Jesus and has loved the followers even as God has loved Jesus -- John 17:23.
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?
But Paul also recognized that there would be differences among believers, regardless of the goal of unity:
No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God's approval. -- 1 Cor. 11:19He also recognizes that there will be differences over details, with some folks believing the details are very significant while others don't make a big deal of it at all (see 1 Corinthians 8).
And now here's the call I'm making to the called-out ones: We're not going to overcome our divisions overnight, but we can make a start by simply hearing the call to "come out" of any kingdom not established by Jesus, and recognizing that any organization that does not bear a Biblical name is not part of the Kingdom of Jesus.
If you're a "Baptist", drop that name. The New Testament church was never referred to in the Bible as a "Baptist church".
If you're a "Methodist", drop that name.
If you're a "Lutheran", drop that name.
Same for any other name that is not Biblical.
I'm not calling you (at least today) to leave that organization, but to simply drop that name in favor of a Biblical name.
Some of the Biblical names for the church are:
* church - Acts 2:37, 12:5, 14:27, 15:4
* church of Christ - Romans 16:16
* church of God - Acts 20:28, 1 Corinthians 10:32
* church of the living God - 1 Timothy 3:15
* general assembly and church of the firstborn - Hebrews 12:23
* church of Jesus - Matthew 16:18
* House of God - 1 Timothy 3:15
* Kingdom of God's Dear Son - Colossians 1:13
* Kingdom of God - Colossians 4:11
* Kingdom of Christ and of God - Ephesians 5:5
* Body in Christ - Romans 12:5
* Body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12:27
* Saints and Faithful Brethren - Colossians 1:2
* church of Gentiles - Romans 16:4
* Fellow Citizens with the Saints - Ephesians 2:19
* Household of God - Ephesians 2:19
* church of the Saints - 1 Corinthians 14:33
* Temple of God - 1 Corinthians 3:16
* Them Sanctified by Faith - Acts 26:32
* The Called Ones - Jude 1:1
* The Ones Preserved in Jesus Christ - Jude 1:1
In other words, stop being a "Baptist Christian" or a "Methodist Christian" or an "Episcopalian Christian"; just be a "Christian".
It's a modest start toward unity in the Kingdom of God, but it is a start.
Friday, January 19, 2007
Linux and Flash 9
Arg! Adobe just came out with version 9 of their Flash player for Linux. I installed it on a couple of my Debian GNU/Linux boxes and found that it is still unreliable for me. I had been using the beta version of 9, and reported this problem to one of the Flash developers. I hoped the problem would get fixed, but nope.
The problem is that while playing a Flash stream, such as a video from YouTube, the playback will often just quit at random spots in the playback. There's no way to get the playback started up again except to reload the page and start from scratch. This gets mighty painful on longer videos.
I can tell I'd like the version 9 player better than the version 7 player, if it worked! As it is, I've written a script allowing me to quickly switch between the two versions. I use 9 for most things, but switch to 7 when playing a longer video and suffering from this problem.
Bummer. Maybe the next version will work.
BTW, I never really have liked Flash. It's always felt "klunky" to me, even on Windows and Macintosh. It's just that so many web developers seem to be enamored of it that you miss out on a lot of content if you don't have it.
The problem is that while playing a Flash stream, such as a video from YouTube, the playback will often just quit at random spots in the playback. There's no way to get the playback started up again except to reload the page and start from scratch. This gets mighty painful on longer videos.
I can tell I'd like the version 9 player better than the version 7 player, if it worked! As it is, I've written a script allowing me to quickly switch between the two versions. I use 9 for most things, but switch to 7 when playing a longer video and suffering from this problem.
Bummer. Maybe the next version will work.
BTW, I never really have liked Flash. It's always felt "klunky" to me, even on Windows and Macintosh. It's just that so many web developers seem to be enamored of it that you miss out on a lot of content if you don't have it.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Cells have a Zip Code
From http://creationsafaris.com/crev200701.htm#20070113a
Scientists reported in an article in [the Public Library of Science] that cells have the equivalent of a Zip-code built in to their DNA that codes their location in the body. Skin cell DNA from 47 locations on a subject were compared. Three locations on the DNA were found to correspond to the location of the cell in the body, specifying whether it came from the upper or lower torso, near to or far from the center of the body, and near to or far from the surface of the body.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Truth 2
For all of my adult life I've been interested in the Creation-Evolution controversy, and have had a love and respect for science and Truth.
In recent years, I've been disillusioned by the loudest voices in the "Scientific Community", as it has become apparent to me that they are no longer interested in Truth, but rather in maintaining their Doctrine which they equate with Truth.
I also saw a little bit of that at church last night too, which saddened me.
(And in light of recent events in my personal life, I have to add the disclaimer that as much as I think I love the Truth, I now know that in my deepest core I'm blind to my own self-deceitfulness. But no matter the darkness lurking in my deepest parts that deceives me, on the surface where I do my conscious thinking, I want to have the goal of pursuing Truth.)
In recent years, I've been disillusioned by the loudest voices in the "Scientific Community", as it has become apparent to me that they are no longer interested in Truth, but rather in maintaining their Doctrine which they equate with Truth.
I also saw a little bit of that at church last night too, which saddened me.
(And in light of recent events in my personal life, I have to add the disclaimer that as much as I think I love the Truth, I now know that in my deepest core I'm blind to my own self-deceitfulness. But no matter the darkness lurking in my deepest parts that deceives me, on the surface where I do my conscious thinking, I want to have the goal of pursuing Truth.)
Truth
An interesting statement made by Rob Bell in his book "Velvet Elvis":
I believe I've always thought of heaven/paradise as a place where we'd finally get all our questions answered. But if Rob is correct that God has no boundaries, then there can never be an end to knowledge, and we can always learn a bit more. As Rob says, truth will lead to more . . . truth.
Wow. Fascinating.
Truth always leads to more . . . truth. Because truth is insight into God and God is infinite and God has no boundaries or edges. So truth always has layers and depth and texture.Earlier in the book Rob had pointed out that his book ...
has shape and volume and weight and all the stuff that makes it a thing.He then contrasted that with God who is a "being with no edges or boundaries or limits. God has no thingness because there is no end to God."
It has thingness.
The book has edges and boundaries that define it as a finite thing. It is a book and nothing else.
I believe I've always thought of heaven/paradise as a place where we'd finally get all our questions answered. But if Rob is correct that God has no boundaries, then there can never be an end to knowledge, and we can always learn a bit more. As Rob says, truth will lead to more . . . truth.
Wow. Fascinating.
You Can't See God, but You Can See Where He's Been
There's a passage in the book of Exodus in which Moses wants to see God's glory, and God agrees to pass by Moses while shielding Moses' eyes with his hand. God then says, "I will remove my hand and you will see my back."
Rob Bell, in his book "Velvet Elvis", says:
Rob Bell, in his book "Velvet Elvis", says:
The ancient rabbis had all sorts of things to say about this passage, but one of the most fascinating things they picked up on is the part about God's back. They argued that in the original Hebrew language, the word back should be understood as a euphemism for "where I just was".
It is as if God is saying, "The best you're going to do, the most you are capable of, is seeing where I ... just ... was."
That's the closest you are going to get.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Cain the Murderer; Lamech the Defender?
My cousin has suggested a different way of looking at Lamech.
You probably recall the story of Cain and Abel, how Cain, out of anger, rose up and killed his brother, thus providing our first recorded instance of murder (Genesis chapter 4). Cain was given a sign and promised that if anyone should kill him in retaliation, he will be avenged seven times over.
A few generations later, a descendant of Cain's, Lamech, is recorded as killing someone also.
My cousin suggested otherwise; perhaps Lamech killed in self-defense, and he was merely saying, "A young man attacked me, and I killed him. If Cain is avenged seven-fold for murder, I should be avenged seventy-seven fold for self-defense."
Interesting thought.
You probably recall the story of Cain and Abel, how Cain, out of anger, rose up and killed his brother, thus providing our first recorded instance of murder (Genesis chapter 4). Cain was given a sign and promised that if anyone should kill him in retaliation, he will be avenged seven times over.
A few generations later, a descendant of Cain's, Lamech, is recorded as killing someone also.
Lamech said to his wives,I've always thought of Lamech as the typical bad-guy outlaw in Westerns, running rough-shod over other folks, and having a cocky "I run this town" attitude.
"Adah and Zillah, listen to me;
wives of Lamech, hear my words.
I have killed a man for wounding me,
a young man for injuring me.If Cain is avenged seven times,
then Lamech seventy-seven times."
My cousin suggested otherwise; perhaps Lamech killed in self-defense, and he was merely saying, "A young man attacked me, and I killed him. If Cain is avenged seven-fold for murder, I should be avenged seventy-seven fold for self-defense."
Interesting thought.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Hydroplate Theory Revisited, a Short Video
I blogged earlier about the Hydroplate Theory. Here's a short (five mins?) video of an animated explanation of the Hydroplate Theory of Noah's Flood: http://www.acu.edu/~westk/fonte23.mov
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Worshipping the Bronze Snake
I picked up a copy of the "Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible" (Tom Head, Que Publishing, 2006) from the local library the other day. All sorts of fascinating little tidbits.
Remember the bronze snake that Moses made in Deuteronomy 21:4-9? It eventually found its way to the Temple, where it became an object of veneration for the Israelites. During King Hezekiah's reforms, he smashed up this idol:
Remember the bronze snake that Moses made in Deuteronomy 21:4-9? It eventually found its way to the Temple, where it became an object of veneration for the Israelites. During King Hezekiah's reforms, he smashed up this idol:
In YHWH's opinion [Hezekiah] was a good king; he kept to the standards of his ancestor David. He got rid of the local fertility shrines, smashed the phallic stone monuments, and cut down the sex-and-religion Asherah groves. As a final stroke he pulverized the ancient bronze serpent that Moses had made; at that time the Israelites had taken up the practice of sacrificing to it—they had even dignified it with a name, Nehushtan (The Old Serpent).2 Kings 18:3-4
Was Isaiah Familiar with the ancient Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh?
I picked up a copy of the "Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible" (Tom Head, Que Publishing, 2006) from the local library the other day. All sorts of fascinating little tidbits.
Apparently (I say "apparently" because I realize there might be other factors at work here than how the book presents things) God expected Isaiah to be familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh. You've likely heard at least a passing reference to this ancient Babylonian tale, which essentially is the Babylonian version of Creation and the Flood, etc, written, according to this book, about 2000 B.C. (but I'm always suspicious of dates prior to about 500 B.C. -- too much guesswork and assumptions needed in most cases).
According to page 56, the Epic of Gilgamesh says this:
Isaiah 34:14 (The Message) says this:
(It seems that most translations hide this "Lilith" as "night bird" or similar, but some offer the margin note of the literal Hebrew being "Lilith".)
Apparently (I say "apparently" because I realize there might be other factors at work here than how the book presents things) God expected Isaiah to be familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh. You've likely heard at least a passing reference to this ancient Babylonian tale, which essentially is the Babylonian version of Creation and the Flood, etc, written, according to this book, about 2000 B.C. (but I'm always suspicious of dates prior to about 500 B.C. -- too much guesswork and assumptions needed in most cases).
According to page 56, the Epic of Gilgamesh says this:
Inanna tended the tree carefully and lovingly
she hoped to have a throne and a bed
made for herself from its wood.
After ten years, the tree had matured.
But in the meantime...
the demon Lilith had built her house in the middle.
But Gilgamesh, who had heard of Inanna's plight,
came to her rescue...
[and] Lilith, petrified with fear,
tore down her house and fled into the wilderness.
Isaiah 34:14 (The Message) says this:
Wildcats and hyenas will hunt together,
demons and devils dance through the night.
The night-demon Lilith, evil and rapacious,
will establish permanent quarters.
(It seems that most translations hide this "Lilith" as "night bird" or similar, but some offer the margin note of the literal Hebrew being "Lilith".)
Samson the Vow-Breaker
I picked up a copy of the "Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible" (Tom Head, Que Publishing, 2006) from the local library the other day. All sorts of fascinating little tidbits.
Samson, you'll recall, was dedicated at birth ...
Samson, you'll recall, was dedicated at birth ...
to God as a nazirite, which means he must be kept away from unclean animals, corpses, fermented food and drink, and that his hair must never be cut. He violates most of his vows -- most notably in [Judges] 14:8-9, where he eats fermented honey from the corpse of an unclean animal....(pg 104)
The Tanakh
I picked up a copy of the "Absolute Beginner's Guide to the Bible" from the local library the other day. All sorts of fascinating little tidbits.
One of the things I found interesting: you're probably familiar with the way the folks of Jesus' day referred to the Old Testament, as "The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings". In Hebrew, the "Law" would be "Torah", the "Prophets" would be "Nevi'im", and the "Writings" would be "Kethuvim". Taking the first letter of each word, you get "T.N.K.", and adding in some vowels, you get "Tanakh". This is the word used by adherents of Judaism to refer to what we call the Old Testament.
One of the things I found interesting: you're probably familiar with the way the folks of Jesus' day referred to the Old Testament, as "The Law, the Prophets, and the Writings". In Hebrew, the "Law" would be "Torah", the "Prophets" would be "Nevi'im", and the "Writings" would be "Kethuvim". Taking the first letter of each word, you get "T.N.K.", and adding in some vowels, you get "Tanakh". This is the word used by adherents of Judaism to refer to what we call the Old Testament.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
You Have Rocks in Your Head
From http://creationsafaris.com/crev1003.htm#body80
Rocks in the Head are Good for Balance 10/10/2003
Next time someone says you have rocks in your head, it might be a compliment, depending on where and how big. You have rocks in your inner ears that keep you from falling over. No kidding. Fish, birds, and mammals have tiny crystals of calcite, called otoliths, that are a key ingredient in the sense of balance. This means that we all have tiny chunks of limestone in our heads.
Rocks in the Head are Good for Balance 10/10/2003
Next time someone says you have rocks in your head, it might be a compliment, depending on where and how big. You have rocks in your inner ears that keep you from falling over. No kidding. Fish, birds, and mammals have tiny crystals of calcite, called otoliths, that are a key ingredient in the sense of balance. This means that we all have tiny chunks of limestone in our heads.
Donna Fekete, in a review of this paper in the same issue,2 has illustrations of these little rocks in the utricle and describes how they work. She says that the discovery may lead to improved medical treatments for vertigo and more: “In humans, mutations of a related protein have been linked to congenital deafness and defects in tooth mineralization,” she notes. In other words, the proteins that guide otolith development are also essential for hearing, and are involved in producing the other gemstones in our head – tooth enamel. 1Christian Sollner et al., “Control of Crystal Size and Lattice Formation by Starmaker in Otolith Biomineralization,” Science Magazine 25 June 2003; 10.1126/science.1088443. 2Donna M. Fekete, “Rocks That Roll Zebrafish,” Science Magazine 25 June 2003; 10.1126/science.1091171. Did you know this? Did you know that you have limestone in your ears? Did you know it is essential for you to stand and walk? This is amazing stuff. Consider that it is not just dust collected from a cave or wherever, but it is carefully manufactured by proteins and enzymes, that are in turn directed by the DNA code. The result are beautiful hexagonal crystals of calcium carbonate: little gems in your head. They reside in a fluid in your inner ear, enmeshed in a forest of hair cells that can sense every move they make. Then there are the lovely crystals in your teeth – that’s another amazing story, for another time. |
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
New Pyramids
http://www.bosnianpyramid.com/ and http://www.bosnian-pyramid.com/ report that new pyramids, twice the size of the Great Pyramid at Giza, have been found in Europe.
And The Register says, "Nope".
And The Register says, "Nope".
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
A Message to Religious Leaders
Jeremiah 23:
"Doom to the shepherd-leaders who butcher and scatter my sheep!" YHWH's Decree. "So here is what I, YHWH, Israel's God, say to the shepherd-leaders who misled my people: 'You've scattered my sheep. You've driven them off. You haven't kept your eye on them.'"...
"I know what they're saying, all these prophets who preach lies using me as their text, saying 'I had this dream! I had this dream!' How long do I have to put up with this?"...
"But don't go around pretending to know it all, saying 'God told me this...God told me that....' I don't want to hear it anymore. Only the person I authorize speaks for me. Otherwise, my Message gets twisted, the Message of the living YHWH-of-the-Angel-Armies."...
I'm telling you: Quit the 'God told me this...God told me that...' kind of talk.
A Message to Political Leaders
Jeremiah 22:2ff:
Listen to what YHWH says, O King of Judah, you who sit on David's throne—you and your officials and all the people who go in and out of these palace gates. This is YHWH's Message: Attend to matters of justice. Set things right between people. Rescue victims from their exploiters. Don't take advantage of the homeless, the orphans, the widows. Stop the murdering!
To Know God
Jeremiah 22:16
He defended the cause of the poor and needy,
and so all went well.
Is that not what it means to know me?"
declares YHWH.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
You Make Me Hate My Brother
Joel Turtel has an interesting article over at American Daily that concisely contrasts arguments for Big Government with those against. Here's one of the arguments:
[The government says] "You must pay 50 percent of your salary in state and Federal income taxes to support all our entitlement programs. You are morally responsible to help the poor, unwed mothers, college students, corporations who want tax breaks, big farmers who want farm subsidies, and Mexican illegal aliens who insist on free medical care."This is so spot-on, that "forced compassion" leads to ill-feelings toward those recipients of that compassion. I found that very interesting.
"By what right," I replied, "do you force me to be my brother's keeper at the point of a gun? Why do you think you have the right to rob me to give unearned handouts to people who will vote for you? You turn compassion into compulsion and make me hate my brother."
Friday, December 08, 2006
Hydroplate Theory
UPDATE: I've just now noticed that most of my images have disappeared (my mistake), so rather than recollect/restore them I'll just suggest you look at the pix on this page in the original: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/HydroplateOverview7.html
/End of UPDATE
There's an online book (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/, from which all illustrations below have been taken (apologies that the right-side of the pix are chopped off; go see the originals at the link above)) that presents a "Hydroplate Theory" for the current structure of the earth's surface. I find it fascinating, and although not everyone will want to read the whole book, you might find looking at a few pictures to be interesting.
The basic jist is that prior to the Flood there was a vast underground reservoir about 10 miles below the surface of the earth, and about half a mile deep. There were pillar-like supports dividing this reservoir into interconnected chambers and providing support for the crust above it. During the 1656 years between the Creation and the Flood, tidal forces (from the moon acting on these underground water chambers, just as it acts on today's oceans) caused daily stretching/compressing cycles on these pillars that built up heat and pressure, and that caused partial melting of these pillars allowing iron and nickel to sink to their bottoms while quartz remained nearer the top.
Eventually, in Noah's day, the pressure got so great that some micro-fractures opened up on the surface of the earth. These micro-fractures rapidly spread around the globe (in a matter of hour), causing the beginning of the world-encircling mid-oceanic ridge.
The sudden release of this pressurized water was even stronger than you'd think, because of some interesting physics that take place with water under certain pressures and temperatures, and when the fountains of the deep blew, they blew catastrophically.
The rift quickly eroded, and the eroded portions of the crust formed huge deposits of sediments that quickly buried many organisms, later to become fossils, and that got blown into space to become our modern-day asteroid belt,asteroids, meteoroids (composed largely of iron and nickel), and comets (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html ), and that blasted craters in nearby planets and moons.
As the heavy overlying crust was eroded away, the underlying pressure forced the remaining crustal plates up; the continents sitting on those plates, lubricated by a still-remaining water layer, slid down the slopes thus created, away from the upraised ridge.
They traveled rapidly, and then came to a rather abrupt slowdown at the end of their trip, causing all sorts of continental crunching and folding and uplifting, giving form to our modern-day folded and up-turned mountain ranges.
The newly exposed thin crustal plates now allowed all sorts of incredible volcanism to burst forth, spewing forth millions of cubic kilometers of lava, giving rise to the vast volcanic deposits we see on the Earth's surface today.
As the continents were compressed by their sudden stop, they thickened (trading thickness for breadth), and rose up out of the flood waters while sinking down to the newly-evacuated underground chambers, choking off further flood-waters. Water rushed off the newly-exposed land into the newly widened space between continents, creating vast sheet-erosion of freshly-laid sediments at first, and then slowing down to a vast "trickle" carving canyons and valleys. Trapped lakes later breached natural dams, causing further erosion (such as the Grand Canyon by the sudden drainage of two vast lakes East of the canyon), or died a slow death of evaporation, leaving great salt flats such as the Salt Flats of Nevada and the Great Salt Lake of Utah.
In the early years after the flood, sea level was much lower than at present, creating land bridges for humans and animals to cross into islands and continents now separated by water barriers. As the continents sank into the underground chambers over the course of several centuries, sea level "rose" to its present level, drowning those land bridges.
The incredible amounts of warm water, leading to high rates of evaporation, combined with the cold atmosphere from all the volcanism and debris and re-radiation of solar heat from so much water reflecting it, and cloud cover preventing solar heat, would have caused centuries of heavy snow, resulting in an "ice age".
All-in-all, a rather fascinating theory that accounts for a lot of observations.
/End of UPDATE
There's an online book (http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/, from which all illustrations below have been taken (apologies that the right-side of the pix are chopped off; go see the originals at the link above)) that presents a "Hydroplate Theory" for the current structure of the earth's surface. I find it fascinating, and although not everyone will want to read the whole book, you might find looking at a few pictures to be interesting.
The basic jist is that prior to the Flood there was a vast underground reservoir about 10 miles below the surface of the earth, and about half a mile deep. There were pillar-like supports dividing this reservoir into interconnected chambers and providing support for the crust above it. During the 1656 years between the Creation and the Flood, tidal forces (from the moon acting on these underground water chambers, just as it acts on today's oceans) caused daily stretching/compressing cycles on these pillars that built up heat and pressure, and that caused partial melting of these pillars allowing iron and nickel to sink to their bottoms while quartz remained nearer the top.
Eventually, in Noah's day, the pressure got so great that some micro-fractures opened up on the surface of the earth. These micro-fractures rapidly spread around the globe (in a matter of hour), causing the beginning of the world-encircling mid-oceanic ridge.
The sudden release of this pressurized water was even stronger than you'd think, because of some interesting physics that take place with water under certain pressures and temperatures, and when the fountains of the deep blew, they blew catastrophically.
The rift quickly eroded, and the eroded portions of the crust formed huge deposits of sediments that quickly buried many organisms, later to become fossils, and that got blown into space to become our modern-day asteroid belt,asteroids, meteoroids (composed largely of iron and nickel), and comets (http://www.creationscience.com
As the heavy overlying crust was eroded away, the underlying pressure forced the remaining crustal plates up; the continents sitting on those plates, lubricated by a still-remaining water layer, slid down the slopes thus created, away from the upraised ridge.
They traveled rapidly, and then came to a rather abrupt slowdown at the end of their trip, causing all sorts of continental crunching and folding and uplifting, giving form to our modern-day folded and up-turned mountain ranges.
The newly exposed thin crustal plates now allowed all sorts of incredible volcanism to burst forth, spewing forth millions of cubic kilometers of lava, giving rise to the vast volcanic deposits we see on the Earth's surface today.
As the continents were compressed by their sudden stop, they thickened (trading thickness for breadth), and rose up out of the flood waters while sinking down to the newly-evacuated underground chambers, choking off further flood-waters. Water rushed off the newly-exposed land into the newly widened space between continents, creating vast sheet-erosion of freshly-laid sediments at first, and then slowing down to a vast "trickle" carving canyons and valleys. Trapped lakes later breached natural dams, causing further erosion (such as the Grand Canyon by the sudden drainage of two vast lakes East of the canyon), or died a slow death of evaporation, leaving great salt flats such as the Salt Flats of Nevada and the Great Salt Lake of Utah.
In the early years after the flood, sea level was much lower than at present, creating land bridges for humans and animals to cross into islands and continents now separated by water barriers. As the continents sank into the underground chambers over the course of several centuries, sea level "rose" to its present level, drowning those land bridges.
The incredible amounts of warm water, leading to high rates of evaporation, combined with the cold atmosphere from all the volcanism and debris and re-radiation of solar heat from so much water reflecting it, and cloud cover preventing solar heat, would have caused centuries of heavy snow, resulting in an "ice age".
All-in-all, a rather fascinating theory that accounts for a lot of observations.
And You Thought Abe Lincoln was a Good Guy...
As a kid I considered Abraham Lincoln to be my favorite U.S. president. I know many such folks consider him likewise. Over the past few years however I've begun to realize that ol' Honest Abe was actually one of the worst things that could have happened to these United States of America.
This article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo118.html provides a quick overview that might entice you to rethink your position regarding Lincoln. Here's a snippet to get you started:
This article at http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo118.html provides a quick overview that might entice you to rethink your position regarding Lincoln. Here's a snippet to get you started:
Boritt does not deny that Lincoln was a non-believer. "He would not join a church, could not embrace the Christian conception of sin and redemption, kept mostly silent about Jesus, and showed no inclination to build a personal relationship with God," he writes in Newsweek. He "rejected, even ridiculed" the Calvinism of his parents. But Lincoln was a master politician, once defined by Murray Rothbard as one who is "a masterful liar, conniver, and manipulator." There has never been anyone better at it than Lincoln....
Nearly every one of Lincoln’s major claims in the Gettysburg Address is not only false, but exactly the opposite of the truth....
Lincoln of course did not believe in equality of the races at all. He clearly stated his opposition to it many times, spent his entire adult life advocating "colonization" or deportation of blacks; and supported the Illinois Black Codes and other laws that would deny blacks any semblance of citizenship. He also was behind the "Corwin Amendment" to the Constitution that would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution forever.The article also points out that our current understanding of a nation known as the United States of America is totally foreign to the founding fathers' understandings, which was that of a collective of several states in America, united. Some good reading, that only takes five or ten minutes to read. I suggest it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)