Why it Matters....at least to me

 

Nature tracks the passage of time.  Trees form yearly rings on their trunks, we can determine the age of the tree by counting its rings. The oldest living trees on earth are said to be the six-thousand-year-old bristlecone pines found in the Sierra Nevada. The dead trees lying beside them are said to be almost twice as old. Similarly, lakebeds are said to accumulate sediments with seasonal variations: minerals in spring, pollen and plant material in summer and fall. This creates distinguishable annual layers on the bottom of lakes that can be counted, just like counting tree rings. Scientists have found lakebeds with layers as old as thirty-five-thousand years.

 

Seasonal ice rings in glaciers provide another example. Ice rings form through the accumulation of years of falling snow, and seasonal differences can be distinguished---such as increased dust and larger ice crystals in summer---that allow the age to be determined. Scientists have drilled ice cores deep into the glaciers and found ice that is 123,000 years old in Greenland and as old as 740,000 years in Antarctica.

 

Such dating methods are straightforward. Pull a cylindrical plug from a glacier and count the layers. The clarity is one of the reasons scientists react negatively to claims that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. They consider that an ice core with 500,000 seasonal summer layers of pollen can no more be ten thousand years old than a massive oak with two hundred annual rings can be two years old.

 

Some weeks back you asked why what we believe concerning the age of the universe matters: In the January 2010 issue of Smithsonian magazine there is an article about the Dead Sea scrolls. The article says the thousands of tourists who flock to Qumran each year, where the scrolls were discovered, are told the site was once home to a Jewish sect called the Essences, who devoted their lives to writing and preserving sacred texts. An Israeli archaeologist disagrees, and says the settlement was originally a small fort that was later converted into a pottery factory to serve nearby towns. Which story sounds better to the tourists? Do they want to know the truth or do they want to continue to believe what they want to believe even if it might be false? Do we?

 

Consider the history of the United States. Do you want to know how things really were or are you comfortable with someone's story?

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"It is, in the end, cheaper to feed the whole flock for a year than to fight them for a week."  

---1850 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs

"If the tale of the poor wretches...could be impartially related, it would exhibit  a picture of cruelty, injustice, and horror scarcely surpassed by that of the Peruvians in the time of Pizarro."  

---1852 Gen. E. D. Townsend in his California Diary of the Indians facing pressure from the 1849 gold rush

Judas

 

Last night in response to Jim's question if Judas was forgiven or even saved there was a woman who repeatedly said "NO!" Paul Franks allowed Judas may have been but the woman was certain Judas was in hell and dare I think she sounded happy about that.

 

While it is a question only God can answer I find folk's attitude interesting, especially for a loving people. Based on Jim's comments concerning avoiding "being of the world" it will be interesting to see how Al convinces his "audience" to be more evangelistic.

 

Did hanging himself prove Judas' remorse at what he had done? I don't believe Judas had any idea that Jesus would be killed. Could he have been trying to force Jesus to take the throne of Israel? Is God merciful only to those who do not need mercy?

 

There is a Gnostic Gospel "Gospel of Judas" that suggests he was Jesus' favorite disciple and the only one Jesus could actually trust.  On the other hand some believe Judas was a fictional character from a collection of myths and short stories.

 

James says: "Temptation comes from our own desires, which entice us and drag us away. These desires give birth to sinful actions" and I don't need Satan's help and neither did Judas.. 

 

Oh well, as we know the bible is best studied in isolation.

 

 

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"Science and theology have things to say to each other since both are concerned with the search for truth attained through motivated belief."  

---John Polkinghorne

Reading or Not Reading

Yesterday in one of your talks you mentioned the world does not read the bible. 

 

Recently I read an interview of Jeff Bezos the founder of Amazon.com. He started Amazon.com as a book store but quickly diversified, selling DVDs, VHSs, CDs, video, and MP3 downloads/streaming, software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, food, toys, jewelry etc. The reason for diversification was that his advisors convinced him books were a limited market since most people do not read. 

 

Several years ago I read that 33% of high school graduates will never read a book after high school and 42% of college students will never read another book after they graduate. Sad to me is there are members of GSMCOC who make similar claims.

Concerning reading or not reading the Bible, Scott McConnel of Lifeway Research says most churchgoers to not read or study the Bible on a daily basis. His numbers breakdown as 19% say they read or study the Bible outside of church "every day," 36% say the engage the bible once a week, once a month, or a few times a  month and 18% say they rarely or never read or study the Bible outside of church.

It could explain not only the dumbing of America but the ineffectiveness of the church.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"Science and theology have things to say to each other since both are concerned with the search for truth attained through motivated belief."  

---John Polkinghorne

Augustine of Hippo

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for teaching of Holy Scripture but our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture"

Augustine of Hippo

"In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it."

Christians Fear Science

Many Christians cannot fully appreciate how science enriches our understanding of God's creation. They have been robbed of this experience by an unfortunate misunderstanding that the scientific picture of the world is not compatible with their believe that God created that world. For various reasons Christians have come to fear---and even reject---science.

6017, 10000, or 4.5 billion?

Based on Brad Harrub's comments it appears, at least to me, that he believes there is a vast far-left conspiracy to remove God from the educational system. When most likely they are just trying to sell text books which are out of fashion today. Reminds me of folks who think going to college causes one to lose their faith. 

 

Ussher deduced that the first day of creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC, in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox. Lightfoot similarly deduced that Creation began at nightfall near the autumnal equinox, but in the year 3929 BC. Hmmm, 75 years difference.  Based on Ussher, creation was 6017 years ago and Lightfoot 6042 years. Dr. Brad was pretty emphatic creation was 10000 years ago, differs with Ussher by 3983 years but does not explain his thinking. Which are we to believe?

The Bible May Not Change but Our Understanding of It Does!

In the sixteenth century Nicholas Copernicus suggested that the earth moves, when Scripture seems to teach the earth is immovably fixed in space.

 

This may not seem to be a huge deal nowadays, but at the time it was a very hot topic. The reason? In the fourth century BC the Greek philosopher Aristotle taught that the earth was fixed in the center of the universe and that the sun, stars, and planets revolved around it.  This fixed-earth view held sway for centuries even though, as early as 250 BC.a sun-centered system was suggested. After all, it made a lot of sense to ordinary people; the sun appears to go round the earth; and, if the earth moves, why aren't we all flung off into space? Why does a stone, thrown straight up into the air, come straight down if the earth is rotating rapidly? Why don's we feel a strong win blowing in our faces in the opposite direction to our motion? The idea that the earth moved was absurd.

 

Aristotle's work was translated into Latin and in the Middle Ages it came to influence the Roman Catholic Church. The fixed-earth seemed to fit in well with what the Bible said.

 

tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved. 1 Chron 16:30

 

The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt.
Yes, the world is established; it shall never be moved. Psalm 93:1

 

He set the earth on its foundations,
    so that it should never be moved. Psalm 104:5

 

He raises up the poor from the dust;
    he lifts the needy from the ash heap
to make them sit with princes
    and inherit a seat of honor.
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
    and on them he has set the world. 1 Samuel 2:8

 

Furthermore, the Bible seemed not only to teach that the earth was fixed; it seemed equally clearly to say that the sun moved:

 

Their voice goes out through all the earth,
    and their words to the end of the world.
In them he has set a tent for the sun,
5     which comes out like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
    and, like a strong man, runs its course with joy.
6 Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
    and its circuit to the end of them,
    and there is nothing hidden from its heat. Psalm 19:4-6

 

The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
    and hastens to the place where it rises. Eccl 1:5

 

So it is no surprise that when in 1543 Copernicus advanced the view that the earth and the planets orbited the sun, this startling new scientific theory was called into question by Protestants and Catholics alike. It is alleged that even before Copernicus published his book, Martin Luther had rejected the "heliocentric" point of view in rather strong terms:

 

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must needs invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

 

John Calvin believed that the earth was fixed:

 

"By what means could it (the earth) maintain itself unmoved, while the heavens above are in constant rapid motion, did not the Divine Maker fix and establish it?"

 

Some years later Galileo challenged the Aristotelian view. This incident has gone down in history as an iconic example of how religion is antagonistic to science.  Galileo, far from being an atheist, was convinced that the Creator, who had"endowed us with senses, reason and intellect," did not intend that we would"forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." He believed the laws of nature are written by the hand of God in the "language of mathematics" and that the "human mind is a work of God and one of the most excellent."

 

Galileo was attacked for his theory of a moving earth, first by followers of Aristotle and then by the Roman Catholic Church. The issue at stake was clear; Galileo's science was threatening the view held by academy and the church. The conflict was more between two "scientific" world-pictures than between science and religion.  History records how the Church treated Galileo.

 

But now we need to face an important question: why do Christians accept this "new" interpretation, and not still insist on a "literal" understanding of the "pillars of the earth?"  Why are we not still split up into fixed-earthers and moving-earthers? Is it really because we have all compromised, and made Scripture subservient to science?

 

And then we have young-earthers and old-earthers.

Science and Religion

Christians believe that everything exists because of God---from subatomic quarks to black holes. Science often claims to explain nature without including God in the picture. Which do we choose?

 

We do not have to choose, Science dose not over throw the Bible. Faith does not require rejecting science. We can accept both. God cares for and interacts with his creation; science offers a reliable way to understand the world he made.

 

Individuals who, with an open mind , are willing to seriously wrestle with questions about the relationship of modern science with Christian faith will resolve those most common questions about Darwin and evolution using actual results of research in astronomy, physics, geology and genetics. 

Holy or Just Insightful?

Chickens accompanied Roman armies and their behavior was carefully noted before battle; a good appetite meant victory was likely. On one occasion, the night before a battle at sea, the chickens did not eat. He had them thrown overboard. He lost the battle. 

 
12 centuries ago the church considered the chicken special. In Leviticus 5:7 a guilt offering of two turtledoves or pigeons was acceptable if the sinner in question was unable to afford a lamb but nowhere does God request a chicken be sacrificed. Matthew 23:37 tells how Jesus likened his care for the people of Jerusalem to a hen caring for her brood. During the ninth century Pope Nicholas 1, decreed that a figure of a rooster should be placed atop every church as a reminder of how special the chicken is to God. Imagine the shock and dismay of the parents when the teenagers rejected their belief in the holy chicken. 
 

Love and punishment are not mutually exclusive

 

There is the need for punishment and consequence. we punish our children for their misbehaviors, we can expect no less from God. But, no loving parent would send the child to their room forever nor would they inflict pain everyday of their child's life.

 

Jesus told the story of a rich man and a beggar as an example of eternal punishment. Jesus said the rich man lived the good life while the beggar starved at his gate. In the next life, the beggar is in paradise while the rich man is in hell. The story ends with Abraham and the beggar refusing to dip their fingers in water to relieve the rich man's misery. The only act of compassion is the rich man's request that someone warn his brothers. Where is the justice in this story? Even when judged by the command of an "eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," the rich man's sentence seems excessive. How do we justify punishing a lifetime of sin with an eternity of suffering? At what point are the scales balanced?

 

How does eternal punishment bring glory to God or is it strictly God's retribution?

 

Love and punishment are not mutually exclusive. But parental punishment is never designed to inflict pain. It desires to redeem, shape, or protect. When it is excessive, it becomes abuse. Eternal punishment contradicts even the harshest concepts of justice its only purpose is to create pain and suffering.

Finding What Some Folks Think

There is an unwritten standard on the Internet that permits one to find opposite thinking on subjects or people and that is the term "sucks."

The Internet has an environment where corporations who have had major Public Relation catastrophes can find out what is being said about them which permits them to begin to address the issues of the catastrophe. "BP Sucks" was a good one as well as Obama, ObamaCare, George Bush, Iraq, etc all followed by the "key word." Of course if you do those you must be prepared for some "non-religious thinking."

If you google our weekend speaker followed by the term "sucks" you will find people who disagree with him on various topics as well as people defending him. 

On occasion it is amazing what you can find on the Internet. The ostrich could not survive in the Internet World.

John Jenkins
865-803-8179  cell
Gatlinburg, TN



Email: jrjenki@gmail.com
Blogs: http://littlepigeon.blogspot.com/
         http://alumcave.blogspot.com/

"Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusionary exercise in comforting fantasy."  

---John Polkinghorne