Jump to content

GandalfTheWise

Royal Member
  • Posts

    1,459
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

GandalfTheWise last won the day on April 17 2018

GandalfTheWise had the most liked content!

Reputation

2,377 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Wisconsin

Recent Profile Visitors

5,161 profile views
  1. Depending on who you read, NAR has become a relatively ambiguous slur in some polemic circles (i.e. heresy hunters) with an increasing large umbrella as to what it encompasses. Once someone gets labeled as NAR on some web sites, few bother to look in detail as to what they actually teach in context but just recycle isolated quotations from various books or sermons as proof that they are NAR and should be avoided. And then anyone who ever has anything to do with them might get hit with the label as well. Here is my sense of what the three main issues are. 1. I think most Christians would agree with the idea that we are to be influencers and examples in the world around us, in our neighborhoods, vocations, and lives. This includes those Christians whom God has called into the business world, management, teaching, politics, or indeed any role we are called to. Dominionism takes this to an extreme with the idea Christ has given the Church a mandate to become the leaders and authorities in all these areas to establish the Kingdom of God now in preparation for Jesus' Return. Note that this extreme is basically the opposite side of the extreme that sees the entire world preparing for the antichrist right now and that any Christian attempt to better the world is futile and rejects prophecy. My sense is that some teachers and preachers who push the idea that Christians can and should be examples, influencers, and leaders in the world around us erroneously get lumped into the NAR category. The reality is just about every Christian ministry does see its role as establishing the Kingdom of God in their region of influence though they may not use those words. This might be a home for battered women and children, a medical center, a food bank, a christian school, an activist group opposing drunk driving or human trafficking or other things that advocate christian values and practices outside the walls of the church. 2. The idea that God has put people with gifts and callings in areas of evangelism, church planting, pastoring, teaching, etc. is pretty much standard among all churches. Some fringes in the church take this to an extreme seeing some individuals as apostles and prophets without the proper grounding in the Body of Christ at large but more as specially anointed lone rangers. This leads to individual-centered ministries without a healthy level of accountability of some leaders. This is all too common everywhere and does not just apply to prominent large ministries but many small local churches. My sense is that actual NAR people specifically uses the terms apostles and prophets as particular God-assigned offices some people have and advocate a limited accountability for them because they are special. This is far different than the majority of Christians having particular teachers or leaders that they respect and follow. 3. Finally, there is the old debate of whether miraculous works and gifts of God were for only specific times and places in church history (or possibly today in places where the gospel has never been preached before), or if they are meant to be part of the ongoing life and ministry of the Body of Christ. The NAR obviously is part of the side that believes miraculous signs, works, and gifts for today. However, my sense is that most pentecostals and probably many charismatics see excesses (lack of accountability of leaders or unhealthy obsession with political and economic power) as problems rather than embracing them. In other words, NAR is a smaller movement within pentecostal and charismatic circles that many pentecostals and charismatics reject. I think the key things to look at are 1. is there an unhealthy fixation with acquiring political or economic power? 2. Is there an elevation of certain individuals to the point of reduced accountability? 3. Is there an unhealthy view of miracles (e.g. you aren't healthy or wealthy because you do not have enough faith)? For me, the extremes are the starting point of even considering if someone is really NAR or not. Many solid mature Christians believe in influencing society, respect particular teachers and leaders, and believe in the miraculous as for today without being anywhere close to the extremes of NAR.
  2. I think C.S. Lewis indirectly makes some good statements on this topic in the Narnia books. Paraphrasing from memory here. Lucy is concerned about meeting Aslan because he was a lion. She was worried about how dangerous he was and if he was a tame lion. The answer she got was that he wasn't tame and that he wasn't safe, but that he was good. I think that's something modern society has lost about men. Instead of good men, we want weak men incapable of causing harm. The solution to male misconduct is thought to be taking away strength and power. But, strength and power are just tools that can be used or misused. The real problem is that we have too few good men teaching other men how to be good, but rather more and more women teaching men how to be safe because they are scared of a few bad men. We need more good men capable of preventing harm. Good men will build houses and cities and make them safe for their families. Bad men tear them down. Weak men sit back and watch good men and bad men do things because they are not capable of engaging with either. I know, not enough spirituality and proper Christian doctrine in this post. But over my lifetime, I've slowly watched the church turn being a man into following rules of behavior (to reign them in) rather than maturing with fruit of the Spirit tempering and focusing strength and power to unleash them to be a force for good in this world.
  3. Yup. I think this needs to be read in its complete context with the portion that is accusatory shown in red. Pages 39 and 40 (of the version I referenced in a prior post). Jesus was taking your sins and those of everyone else upon Him as He felt this absence of His Father's presence. He said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (See Matt. 27:46, author's paraphrase). Jesus knew it would happen, but the horror of separation from the bright presence of the Father was worse than He could have imagined, and it caused Him to cry out. He committed His Spirit to the Father and died. So they put Him—that is, His body—in a grave, and His spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go. Remember in the very beginning of this book, I said that when you die, only your body dies. The rest of you, your soul and spirit, goes either to heaven or hell. There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place. He became your substitute and took all the punishment you deserve. He bore all your sins. He paid the debt you owe. If read in context, I'm not sure this is as nefarious as painted to be. With regard to the first red line, I've known many believers that rather sloppily use the terms heaven and hell as meaning the same thing both before and after the Judgement day and Resurrection without nuancing what the grave is right now between death and resurrection nor contrasts between the New Earth and heaven. I've read various conjectures about where Jesus was spiritually and what he was doing between His death and resurrection. This strikes me as yet another example of sloppiness with regard to such things and stating conjectures as fact. I think the second red statement flows into the following sentence rather than referring to the sentence two before. My sense is that the intended use of the second red statement is as a lead in to "There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place. He became your substitute and took all the punishment you deserve. He bore all your sins. He paid the debt you owe." Having seen the previous and following chapters, the emphasis is on salvation through Christ alone. I think the end of the paragraph explains what she meant by the first red line. Bottom line though is that to some degree selecting these two lines was putting words into her mouth by forcing a particular bad possible intended meaning onto selectively edited portions of a complete paragraph and ignoring the rest of the paragraph as being superfluous to what she was saying.
  4. FWIW, here's how I look at such accusations and go about trying to see if they hold water or not. I like to go back to original sources and see what people actually said for themselves and give them the same benefit of the doubt I'd give to anyone. I just skimmed through Joyce Meyer's "The Most Important Decision You Will Ever Make" 10th edition from about 1996. It's literally the first time I've ever read or listened to anything she's done to any extent other than a few quotes or sound bytes. It seemed like a pretty standard presentation of the gospel in vernacular terms so people who know little about Christianity would understand. The worst I could find were things that were a bit sloppy. It's pretty much what I'd expect from any typical preacher or teacher who's been around pentecostal circles. Nothing jumped out at me as particularly problematic though those who see charismatics and pentecostals as heretics would likely dislike some parts of the book for that reason. Given that this book is one often referenced as proof of her heresy of teaching another Jesus, I thought I'd be seeing a different Jesus featured prominently. I found nothing of the sort. Here are some quotes that are representative of what is in the book. These are from chapter 3 that is talking about who Jesus is as part of an ongoing paraphrase of what happened from Adam and Eve through the Israelites to the church age. ...God began to deal with them [Adam and Eve] concerning their sin, but He also had an immediate plan for their redemption and deliverance from this mess they had gotten themselves into. In Genesis 3:15, God told the serpent that the offspring (seed of woman) would bruise his head, and he (Satan) would bruise the heel of the offspring. He was speaking of Jesus, His only begotten Son, who was already in existence spiritually. God is a Triune God. We refer to Him as "The Trinity": one God in three persons—Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Each one of the Holy Persons of the Godhead has a major role in your life. (p. 25) ...Jesus already existed spiritually, but in order to help man out of the mess he was in, Jesus would eventually need to come to earth. He would need to get inside a natural human body like yours and mine. He would need to humble and lower Himself to become a human being. Remember, Jesus is all God, the Son of God. In other words, very God of very God. He certainly was and is very much God. [p. 26] ...This Messiah would become their sacrifice, the final sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice. He would be the sacrificial, perfect, flawless lamb of God. No longer would they need to offer lambs without blemish on the altars in the temple as a sacrifice for their sin. Jesus would come and be the last sacrifice, the final sacrifice. His sacrifice would put an end to the system of the law. [p. 32] ...The prophecies were being given. People were waiting for their Messiah, their Savior, and Deliverer. I do not believe they even truly understood what they were waiting for. They did not understand He would deliver them from the law, from the "works" involved in trying to please God with perfection when it is impossible to do. They did not understand that He, Jesus, the Messiah, Savior of the world, would shed His own blood on a cross, let His blood flow, pouring out His life to remove all sin from every generation. 3 They were waiting, but did not really know what they were waiting for. [p. 33] ..God's time came. The Holy Spirit appeared to a young virgin named Mary. She became pregnant by the miracle-working power of God—pregnant with Jesus, the Son of God. It had to happen this way. Jesus was already in heaven spiritually and had always been. He was with God from the beginning. But now He was going to take on flesh so He could help the rest of the fleshly humans who were in a mess that they had no way out of without a Savior. John 1:1,14 says that Jesus is the Word of God and that the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among men. Hebrews 4:15 says Jesus is a High Priest who understands our weaknesses and failures because He. having had a fleshly body and a natural soul, was tempted in all points just like we are, yet without sin. Beloved, this is the big difference. Jesus was alive to God inside, totally connected with the Father. He was one with Him, like Adam was before he sinned. The Bible calls Him the second Adam. (See 1 Cor. 15:45,47.) Romans 5:12-21 says if one man's (Adam) sin caused all men to sin, then how much more can one man's (Jesus) righteousness make all men right with God? [pp. 34-35] On pages 35-36, there is one sloppily phrased section that I'm not sure what she was getting at. I suspect she was referring to Jesus sharing our common humanity but having a pure relationship with God as Adam and Eve once had but phrased it rather poorly. ...Adam's sin came down on you from generation to generation. Now, if you will believe it, the second Adam, Jesus, is waiting to give you His righteousness. Adam was a man, full of God, full of God's life. Sin came and man was filled with darkness. The light in him went out. Are you full of darkness or light? Jesus was also a man, born of a woman, but He was full of God. Adam sinned. Jesus did not ever sin; He was a perfect sacrifice for sin. [pp 35-36]. From the beginning of chapter 4 (What should you believe?) pages 37-41, Believe that Jesus did what the Bible says. Believe He is indeed the Son of God, born of a virgin. He took man's sin on Himself. He became our sacrifice and died on the cross. He did not stay dead. He was in the grave three days. During that time, He entered hell and defeated Satan. All this He did willingly because He loved His Father (God) and because God and Jesus loved you and me so much that no plan was too extreme. Whatever it took to get God's people back, free again, is what They would do. Jesus paid for our sins on the cross and went to hell in our place. Then, as God had promised, on the third day Jesus rose from the dead. What Happened on the Cross When Jesus hung on the cross, He took our sin upon Himself. God cannot stay in the presence of sin. As Jesus took our sin, He was separated from the presence of the Father. The same thing happened to Adam in the garden. As he sinned, the presence of God left him. God cannot dwell in the midst of sin. Sin puts a wall between man and God. Jesus was taking your sins and those of everyone else upon Him as He felt this absence of His Father's presence. He said, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (See Matt. 27:46, author's paraphrase). Jesus knew it would happen, but the horror of separation from the bright presence of the Father was worse than He could have imagined, and it caused Him to cry out. He committed His Spirit to the Father and died. So they put Him—that is, His body—in a grave, and His spirit went to hell because that is where we deserved to go. Remember in the very beginning of this book, I said that when you die, only your body dies. The rest of you, your soul and spirit, goes either to heaven or hell. There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place. He became your substitute and took all the punishment you deserve. He bore all your sins. He paid the debt you owe. He did it for you because He loves you. John 3:16 says: "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jesus went to hell for you. He died for you. He paid for your sins. God was faithful to Jesus. God did what He told Jesus He would do. He raised Him from the dead. But until that happened, He was alone for three days satisfying the courts of justice and conquering the hosts of hell. He took the keys of hell and death. He preached to the prisoners held captive there in paradise. He led them out victorious. On the third day, He rose from the dead. After that, He entered into the heavenlies with some of His own blood and placed it there as a constant reminder that sinless blood had been shed to pay for man's sin because the life is in the blood. (Lev. 17:11.) Now, I'd say that this latter part gets a bit sloppy with regard to the nuances between the grave, hell, where souls are before the final judgement, legal and spiritual aspects of judgement, mercy, and forgiveness, and includes conjectures on what various isolated verses mean, but no sloppier than I've often heard from many pastors and teachers over the years in a range of churches and ministries and read in various posts over the years from a range of Christians. Later in the book, she refers to necessary beliefs following a format pretty similar to most Christian creeds I've seen. She includes clearly Trinitarian statements as part of that. And then another accusation of heresy is the isolated sound bite (without context of what was said next) where she says Jesus became sin and was no longer the Son of God referring to a point in time when He was heading to and was on the cross. If she kept going on for a couple minutes making claims that Jesus was no longer God for a time or things like that to make a strong point out of it, I'd see that as very problematic and would call it out as such. However, I suspect this is more likely a very sloppy cringe-worthy way of saying that Jesus' relationship with His Father was somehow broken at that time because he was bearing our sin and included a poor paraphrase of the first part of II Cor 5:21 (For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. KJV). Bottom line, in this one book/booklet that is referenced as proof of heresy and false teaching, I didn't see any serious problems except for some sloppiness and conjectures about the spirit world before the Judgement Day that I've heard in many Christian circles. There was a definite pentecostal/charismatic aspect to it that I have no doubt affects some people's view toward it. I've not seen her alleged prosperity and word of faith type teachings as to whether they are nuts (name it and claim it) or nuanced (where a necessary part of faith is God's guidance in what we ask for) so cannot comment on that. My sense from reading this material for myself is that many republishing and repeating some of these accusations are not looking into this for themselves but simply repeating what someone else said and passing it on as something to be accepted as true. In this day and age where unproven accusations flying through social media are enough to cancel someone and ruin their life, Christians need to be different. We need to be committed to truth and that can require effort. It's easy to trivially republish or repost things that appall us, but that's the lazy thing to do, and at some point we will become part of the screaming accusatory wild mob rather than the respected voice of reason that is trusted to discern things clearly. I think God is calling us all to be more like the Bereans who looked for themselves as to what was true, or Gamaliel who gave the benefit of the doubt, or to follow Deut 13:14 ("then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly...") rather than believing hearsay of people who are just repeating what they heard. FWIW, the biggest consequence in my eyes is that when I see Christians pass on unproven accusations in blogs or posts or videos is that I lose confidence in what those individuals say going forward when it regards such things. I don't doubt their sincerity or motives, but they just showed me I'm risking my own reputation if I don't double check what they say before I repeat it or act on it.
  5. I fully agree. I've been watching heresy hunters (as I think of them) flourish in some circles for decades. It's a seductive thing and I spent a few years as a zealous heresy hunter myself. You start off with sincere motives but it eventually turns into a dark obsession with finding false teaching in every ambiguous statement a person makes, especially if they are outside of your denomination or theological opinions. At some point, you start looking at individual words and wondering what do they "really" mean when they say this and assume the worst. It's ultimately a prideful trap where you think you are among the spiritual elite discerning enough to see false teaching that most others are missing. And you see yourself as doing an indispensable service to the church. What got me out of it was looking into original sources for myself. There was a particular popular author and book (not named here) that had started me down this path of heresy hunting in the early 80's. I didn't question what he said since the book was heavily researched and well-documented, and thought God had lead me across a critical situation in the church that everyone should be concerned about and do something about. I didn't question a thing in the book for months until someone in a Sunday school class handed me a booklet written by a person I'd labeled as a false teacher on the basis of that book. I enthusiastically tore into it to verify the accusations and to maybe find more. Instead, I found that my go-to book and author was full of cherry-picked, out of context, and misrepresented material. In the very first case I looked at, the original author had written a paragraph and in the next two paragraphs expanded on what he did and did not mean. My go-to book ignored and did not quote this writer's paragraph on what he did not mean and made the claim that that was indeed what he really meant. In other words, my trusted heresy hunter was putting the wrong words into the original author's mouth and accused him of teaching something he explicitly said was wrong. I was shocked at this outright lie and assumed it was an oversight. But then I found similar "oversights" in a few other cases I looked at. I realized that this was indeed the modus operandi of this heresy hunting author. He had reached a point where he was putting words into people's mouths about what they really were and were not intending to say. Over the years, I've seen that same pattern in many heresy hunters. There is simply the sincere belief that any ambiguous phrase is assumed to be hiding someone's actual beliefs and that it is okay to pull things out of context because they have something to hide. Awhile ago, I spent a fair amount of effort on this site trying to fact check the most egregious examples I was seeing (which in my mind were probably pushing being slander or libel and definitely at a level of falsely accusing the brethren), but ultimately it's tiring and exhausting, and a never ending task that takes away time from other things. Unfortunately, the couple of seconds it takes to copy and paste or link to a false accusation often overwhelms the amount of time it takes to meaningfully research and address it. This is especially true with elaborate and extensive accusations that pile together 101 Reasons so-and-so is a heretic where the sheer weight of "evidence" takes on a life of its own where showing the first 10 of the list of 101 reasons are wrong does not disprove the other 91 in some people's minds.
  6. In what for me is rare short post, to some degree I'd lean toward including having a personal testimony of what God has done and is doing in one's life as an essential. Ultimately, God does real stuff in our lives and that is what really counts rather than how correctly we can explain what He did after the fact. I'm not sure how to add that into a list of doctrinal points.
  7. What we see as being sidelined or shelved might be a matter of discipline or preparation/transformation or taking a rest break or a push to move in a different direction. I think it's important to prayerfully discern which it is. If discipline due to stubbornness or self-will, what do we need to change? If preparation or transformation, what is the big change that is happening? If taking a rest, how to make the most of it? If a move to a new direction, what is that direction? For a long time, I saw Moses spending decades as a shepherd in the wilderness as discipline and punishment for having jumped the gun, being disobedient, being a murderer, etc. Then at some point, I realized it was a necessary step of transformation and preparation to transform him from being an Egyptian (used to having authority, education, and wealthy urban living) into a Hebrew (used to being a shepherd, self-supporting, and living an agrarian lifestyle). God wanted Moses to be a Hebrew prophet, not an Egyptian general or pharaoh. God was preparing him to lead a nation of shepherds. It took decades in the wilderness to change him to the point he was more comfortable as a Hebrew than an Egyptian. Moses couldn't in one day become a Hebrew leader by just deciding to, that's what he tried to do what he killed the Egyptian. He had to live as a Hebrew in the wilderness for decades to become one. He wasn't sidelined, he was being transformed into a Hebrew prophet.
  8. Nice article I saw a link to in another group contrasting the difference between critically looking at ideas and thoughts versus critically attacking people. Here is the opening paragraph quoted: "There is a massive difference between a critical mind and a critical spirit. The former builds up; the latter tears down. Having a critical mind is a terrific thing. It results in healthy self-reflection, learning, and evaluating the why beneath everything one does. Having a critical spirit is a terrible thing. It results in pushing people away, mistrusting everything and everyone, and constantly looking for things to be broken instead of rejoicing in the good things the Lord has done and is doing. Here are five differences between a critical mind and a critical spirit:" https://churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/366281-5-differences-between-a-critical-mind-and-a-critical-spirit.html?fbclid=IwAR1A_wtBRU851msQqLDO_22jKk4xu52XCmKFOe4XTNZjzGFX-rDpiLfiDR0
  9. The day a teacher ceases to be a learner they cease to be a teacher. A teacher is first and foremost a learner and is simply a learner who has learned enough to have something to offer those who haven't learned as much.
  10. The Truth Watchers site leans toward the fringes of Christian beliefs on some things. One article is about why the Bible teaches Christian men should have beards. Another is about why it is unbiblical for Christian women to wear makeup (and claims early Christians believed cosmetics were demonic). Still another describes how any Christian scholar engaged in textual criticism or translation of the wrong Bible versions into English is in danger of hellfire because they are making changes to the Bible. Here's a quote from that site (among other info about Bible versions) about those who create new Bible versions. "In this day and age of prominent Christian scholars promoting multitudes of Bible versions and practicing textual criticism, it may seem extreme to many reading this article that altering the Scripture comes with a judgement of eternal damnation. Indeed, this is an uncomfortable and undesirable conclusion. However, in light of the cultural context and the literal meaning of Revelation 22:18-19, no other conclusion is possible without twisting the Scripture which Peter warns about bringing to oneself destruction (2 Peter 3:16). It appears the Bible itself places the altering of the Scripture in the same unforgivable category of sin as blaspheme of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31-32; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10)." In other words, the person criticizing Heiser's works believes that creating any English version of the NT not based on the Textus Receptus (the version of the Greek NT used for the KJV) is as unforgivable a sin as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. This person's testimony (which I do like) includes that he tried out close to 70 churches before finding one that preached the Bible (which is in a denomination with some definite isolationist tendencies). I suspect that any Christian scholar outside a limited denominational circle would like Heiser also considered to be heretical in various ways.
  11. A number of thoughts that I'll try to organize somewhat. There will always be someone who will point to just about anything any Christian teaches or proclaims and find fault with it. Some will even nit-pick a new believer's enthusiastic testimony because they have a theological disagreement with using of one of the terms like "born-again", "born anew", "received Christ", "accepted Christ into my heart", "became a Christian", "made Jesus Lord of my life" or "gave my heart to the Lord". Seriously, over the years, I've heard someone somewhere complain about just about every common term used for some reason or another. It's a bit of an exaggeration, but not too far off the mark, that just about anything you teach will have a critic in some way... some more vocal and lacking in obvious fruit of the Spirit than others. I tend to take into account the messenger when evaluating the message. The main measures I have on myself are something like this. Am I pointing people toward Christ (versus gaining converts to my way of thinking)? Am I inspiring and encouraging someone to grow in Christ (versus creating dependence in them upon me as a teacher)? Do people more deeply care, love, respect, and work with other believers due to my teaching (versus forming groups that argue with other groups)? Is my teaching rooted in the day to day living experiences of being in Christ (of both myself and the countless Christians I've known over the years) or is it rooted in trying to be a doctrinal authority? Am I stirring hearts to follow Christ or am I reeling off intellectual opinions on various topics? Am I more concerned with real spiritual fruit and growth in people's lives versus making sure people are "right" in every detail of what they believe? Bottom line, do I see God's hand in someone's life as the main thing driving change in their life versus seeing my teaching ability or opinions as the main thing driving change? With regards to correct doctrine, I think there is a lot of wisdom in the old saying (which shows up in a lot of forms), In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; and in all things, love. There are some things that pretty much everyone Christian agrees that they believe. In contrast, there are the distinctive doctrines which vary from church to church and denomination to denomination that Christians argue about (usually under the guise of what the Bible "really" teaches on a particular topic and reasons why our church or denomination is better than others). I try to keep most of my focus on the core things that all Christians agree on and try to act as a peacekeeper on those things that will tear the body of Christ asunder. This very much affects how I deal with people who disagree with me. I try to look deeper than the surface argument or criticism and see what the core issue might be and how to resolve it, because ultimately I have an obligation as a Christian to as much as possible be at peace with other believers. I personally have backed off many non-essentials (except for a peacemaking role) simply because I was burning too many bridges. If the people you are ministering to are growing in Christ with visible growth of spiritual fruit and changes in their lives, you're doing something right. There is always room for improvement and change and moving forward as a teacher. With regard to when criticism is godly or ungodly, I think the usual distinction is that godly criticism ultimately leads to encouragement and growth whereas ungodly criticism ultimately leads to discouragement and giving up. Similarly, ungodly flattery will lead to complacence and arrogance and self-focus whereas godly encouragement will lead to more improvement and a rejoicing in what has happened in others. Now, these aren't 100% fast and firm because sometimes God does things to get us out of ruts that are rather drastic at times and can feel discouraging for a time, but I'd say typically it's about the long term effect of things.
  12. A reasonable place to start with regard to info about particle accelerators is the wiki article for "Particle Accelerator". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_accelerator This contains a nice overview and lot of terms and topics that can be read about in more depth. The reality is that old cathode ray tube CRT TVs and computer monitors are in essence particle accelerators. Just typing in "Particle accelerator" on YouTube will give a number of videos talking about different types of accelerators. Up until maybe 15 years ago or so, the most powerful accelerator in the world was at Fermilab in Illinois. Back in the 80s, the US started building the SSC (superconducting super collider) in Texas that if I recall was going to be bigger than CERN but was cancelled due to gov't budget cuts. One of the harder parts of building these large colliders that are miles across in size is finding good geographical locations where the ground is very stable where tons upon tons of materials aren't going to sink or settle at different rates putting bends into the particle track. There was a big opening ceremony for the Gotthard Base Tunnel put on by the Swiss gov't which was very strange (phrasing it politely). That is a railroad tunnel through a part of the Swiss Alps. I've seen some Christian internet sources mislabel this as an opening ceremony for CERN. The only thing I've seen out of CERN of this nature is a poor quality short video from several years ago at night where a handful of people were doing some type of ritual in front of one of the statues from India. Without more info, I'd tend to attribute this to a random person walking home after working late grabbing some cell phone footage of a group of random individuals doing this on their own rather than a systemic part of CERN.
  13. @Starise Very good post. I think too that in the best teachers both the message and the messenger are solid. A solid message is extensive knowledge and experience built into understanding that grows into wisdom. A solid messenger is one in whom the fruit of the Spirit is readily apparent and who is capable of explaining the message to hearers in a variety of ways that get the main points across.
  14. I've not read any of his work but have read some summaries and have skimmed his web site. As far as I can tell, he is a Christian and an actual Hebrew and OT scholar who is committing his life to this speciality. He's not just someone who took a Hebrew course or two at some point and is called a "scholar" because they look stuff up in Strongs and and do a few teachings here and there on this type of topic. As far as I can tell, one thrust of his research is to better understand the beliefs and cultures of the peoples and lands surrounding those who were the focus of the OT. This provides a context for understanding what are similarities and what are differences between the people of Israel (and their forebears) and the general culture and place they lived. This helps give us a better understanding of how people in the OT saw the world and God's interactions with them. For example, we can plainly see in a few NT stories that the disciples' world view contained the idea that health and wealth were a sign of God's favor and that Jesus' role was that of a military/political leader. We can acknowledge that some disciples believed those things without we ourselves believing those things. Delving into how those in the OT saw the world around them does not change the OT, it gives us better insight into how those living in those times themselves would understand various parts of the OT. This type of approach necessarily means he has to look at existing literature, languages, and archeological evidence outside the Bible to learn from. This also means that part of his work will be conjectural in nature (which will require more work from himself or others to delve into in the future to learn more about). Finally, some of his work will simply show our western and traditional understanding of some parts of the OT will be incomplete or in error. The main criticisms I've found of his work fit these categories. Some seem angry that he is looking at literature outside the OT to learn about the surrounding cultures and religions. Some seem to equate this with adding those things to the OT or replacing the OT with those things. Others hop onto more conjectural points that differ from traditional views as proving he doesn't know what he is doing and use this to discredit those things he writes that are on a more solid footing. Then there are those criticisms from those I think of as heresy hunters who look for single out of context sentences and passages to make accusations of heresy about. As with many scholars, there are two sides to his work. There is his detailed academic side and there is his popular/colloquial side where he attempts to summarize his findings in a way that non-specialists can understand. I'm actually intrigued about his work now and will probably read some of his books in the future.
  15. Physicist here. I knew some people who worked at CERN back when I was in grad school. I did some debugging of computer code that analyzed CERN data back in the mid 80s. It basically operates on the idea of throwing rocks at other rocks so they break apart and you can see what is inside. It accelerates various types of particles, crashes them into other particles so they break apart. It then has a lot of detectors all around to see what comes out. The upgrades mentioned in the article are basically so they can throw the rocks harder than they could before. I'm not worried about it blowing up the world or opening doors to other dimensions or stuff like that. As of a few years ago, the LHC particle beam stored on the order of 1/3 of a billion joules of energy when operating. For reference, an average lightning bolt has on the order of a billion joules of energy. There are rare forms of lightning called superbolts which can have 100 to 10,000 times more energy than an average lightning bolt. At this point, CERN is not even close to approaching the power and energy levels in the most powerful lightning bolts that naturally occur on a regular basis.
×
×
  • Create New...