Parable-

During much of the 20th century, scientists have debated over the "Big Bang" Theory of cosmology and the Steady State Theory. Both on paper seemed quite plausible. When the evidence started trickling in however, it seemed that the Big Bang theory described evidences and predicted future results with more and more confidence, whereas those holding to the Steady State paradigm needed to explain away more and more incoming data. The Steady State Theory received its final blow when CMBR (radiation) was predicted in 1948 and then discovered in 1965. Now, it would seem obvious that for those who originally believed that their Steady State Theory was indeed true would switch camps when conflicting evidence would come in, as well as supporting evidence for the Big Bang Theory. It would also seem that those who would not switch camps even after being exposed to overwhelming evidence have either a pride or a stubbornness that is unyielding and unwilling to come to grips with what is much more likely to be the truth, and at the very least, come to grips with knowing their original idea is wrong.

Now the concept of a scientific theory is simply to look at a physical phenomena and try to interpret what it signifies.

Similarly, we all have "theories" about what the Bible says. We all read it, and try to interpret what it signifies.

I'm as guilty as the next of claiming that my interpretation is correct. In fact I can be quite stubborn about it, but after all, I'm right.

Just kidding of course.

So let's go to Genesis, because I believe that it is a spot where the story of the two cosmological models can be translated into our Biblical interpretations. Each of us hold some idea as to how to interpret the first chapter of Genesis. The three most common ways are these:
1. God created in 24hr. periods,
2. Each "day" of creation is an indefinite time period, a "day-age,"
3. the first chapter of Genesis is a piece of literature with the intent of teaching specific messages without any scientific considerations.

I'll pick on the first one because it is easiest.

If someone were to read Gen. 1, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created each grouping during 24 hr. periods. It would be perfectly reasonable to assume that God created everything less than 15,000 years ago. However, when we take our noses out of the book and look around us, it takes no time at all to completely disprove this idea (despite what Recent Creationist literature may say, it is completely impossible). Yet many still believe this. Why? Well, partly it is because a bunch of hogwash that may seem like science is fed to people, but mostly I believe it is because they believe that that is what the Bible says and so there is no other possibility that could be true. Just as those who stuck by the Steady State Theory would not give in to the conflicting evidence, these Christians will not be persuaded that their interpretation of the Bible could be incorrect.

Last class period in my Science and Religion class, we were discussing the above mentioned three interpretations of Genesis 1, giving the strengths and weaknesses of each. A girl piped up and mentioned what she thought was a strength of the literary view of Genesis.

"It is permissive. It allows you to believe what you want about science."

This to me reveals a serious flaw in her integrity. We as Christians ought to be truth seekers. This means that we should not be concerned one bit with what we want to believe or what we think is permitted to believe. We should not say that something is not true or is true based on what we think we are allowed to believe, but rather we should believe true what we are convinced is true. I believe quite strongly in the third interpretation of Gen. 1, but I certainly will not look down on someone who has looked at the evidence and truly thinks that the day-age interpretation is correct. Who I will think less of are those who pick any of these interpretations (even the one I think is right) because they think that is what we are permitted to believe, or because it goes along with their original interpretation of Genesis. Maybe this will illustrate what I'm getting at- In all fields of science, theories are contrived to fit the data. When new data comes which does not fit the original theory, that original interpretation is discarded for a new one (ideally of course, for in reality, people are people, Christian or no, and will stick with their own interpretation or theory). Later if still another theory comes along that describes the data better, it is adopted in place of the old. Similarly, we all have interpretations about Genesis 1, and if an interpretation comes along that better describes the facts that we have accumulated, why stick with the old which is contradicted by what we have discovered?

Psychology of Morality

I was reading an interesting article yesterday on the psychology of "disgust." It was intriguing to hear the author's ideas of how our sense of disgust develops, and how it originated. The studies done however, I found to be more than a little faith shaking, as odd as it may seem for such a study to do so. The results were that most of what we consider disgusting is something that is taught. Those who were not taught to think something was disgusting did not feel that that particular something was disgusting. This was quite extraordinary to me, for I had always assumed that this feeling of disgust had nothing to do with what I was taught, but rather my feelings of revulsion were very natural and innate. This disturbed me mostly because I view how my stomach can turn at stepping barefoot on dog excrement is similar to how my innards twist at acts of immorality. They both are natural feelings and involuntary reactions to what I observe. Indeed, we consider many extreme immoral scenarios to be disgusting. They are linked to each other in an intimate way. Thus my fears began as I saw that if disgust is something that is taught, so could be the case for morality. If you do not yet understand why this frightened me, notice that if morality is nothing more than what we are taught, than there is no absolute morality, and thus no God to have given it to us.

However, still dwelling on it today, the light bulb lit brightly above my head. Compare the development of morality with the development of language. Are we born already knowing right from wrong? It is quite dubious, otherwise why do we see such a maturational development as one ages? And certainly we are not born already knowing our vernacular, but we are also just as certainly born with the ability and desire and need to learn a language. Similarly, we are born with the ability and desire and need to learn what is right and what is wrong. Language becomes such a natural process within us- it is how we respond and react to things (what happens when you stub your toe?) and indeed it is how we consciously think. Similarly, morality becomes so ingrained within us, we respond and react to things with our sense of morality, and we cannot engage a moral decision without our previous moral teachings affecting our cognitive processes.

The conclusion? Perhaps more than what we thought previously, morals are based more on what a person has been taught as opposed to what would naturally develop. This does not mean that we would have no sense of morality without any teaching. We would still feel disgust towards bad flavors and odors without anyone teaching us this, and we would still feel disgust at blatant immoral behavior without anyone teaching us this. Therefore, the question of where does any sense of morality come from is still valid, and the only valid answer still is GOD.

Three Creational Sparks

Matter, Life, Spirit- the three creation events. This idea of three sparks of creation is a new way of looking at God’s handiwork, and is worth the looking over. Some of us ask questions such as “when did God’s creation event happen?” while neglecting the various facets of creation. Others ask questions regarding when particular things came into being, while neglecting who caused it to come into being. It is time to merge these two sets of questions and see where they lead us.

1. Around 13 billion years, the first spark occurred. Matter was born out of nothingness. Space-time was created, particles and sub-particles were created, and all the laws of nature, discovered and those still undiscovered, were born- God’s first creation event.

2. Around 4 billion years ago, the second spark occurred. The first simple cells of life were formed- a true miracle and completely unexplainable. Thus was the beginning of all the miraculous life forms we view today, with all their complexities, intricacies, beauty, grace, behavior and intelligence- God’s second creation event.

3. Around 200 thousand years ago, the first Homo Sapien walked the earth. When and how the human consciousness began, this third spark of creation, I do not know, but this surely is the most profound of all. Capacity for rational thought, capacity for involved relationships, a keen awareness of aesthetics, and possibly the most significant, a development of a spiritual nature and a moral sense were all born- God’s third creation event.

Now it is interesting to ponder the symmetry of what we know of God and what we know of his creation.

1. God the Lord is the king- the ruler over everything that exists. The Lord is the creator of the heavens and the earth. His laws are obeyed by all of nature. The Lord’s power is demonstrated in this first creation event.
Genesis 1:1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 14:19- “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth.”
Deuteronomy 10:14- To the Lord your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it.

2. Jesus Christ put himself into the position of experiencing life on earth, to know what it is truly like being confined to a biological shell, to feel every wound and happiness. He experienced family, friends, betrayal, threat, predation, joy, food, drink, love, happiness- all the things of life he experienced.
John 1:3,4- Through him [Jesus] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
I Timothy 1:15- Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners- of whom I am the worst.

3. The Holy Spirit, by nature is spiritual, just as a part of man is spiritual. The Holy Spirit resides in man and guides us and helps us. The Holy Spirit is not in other biological beings because they do not have the moral choices set before men due to their spirit.
Mark 1:8- I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.
Mark 13:11- Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
John 20:22- And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”
Acts 1:8- But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. . .


This is of course just one possible lens through which we can view God and what he has made.

What will heaven be like?

Well, I've got the best wife in the world, a good job, a great school, a wonderful family, great friends, good health. . . it's hard to think of an improvement.

Honestly, I think it will be much more similar to this life than what I've heard from mainstream Christianity. After all, it would seem that this reality was intended to be our eternal home. Which is strange since, albeit it's WAY in the future, eventually the sun will run out of gas, . So did God originally intend for us to expand away from planet Earth? Strange thought. Anyways, I think heaven will be infinitely complex to satisfy our minds, infinitely beautiful to satisfy our aesthetic sense, infinitely large to satisfy our desire to discover. I think we will probably have to work, for two reasons: work develops and strengthens our character, and in a sense is self-sharpening. Second, that sense of accomplishment is so satisfying. I think we will be able to experience God in a way that none of us can yet comprehend. This last one is what I'm looking forward to the most- I'm worn out wondering what or who God really is, and cannot wait to understand Him, His power, His glory, His beauty, His love, unhindered.

That's my thoughts, at any rate. Most of them don't have too strong of a base, other than this is what I imagine "perfection" being. It could be totally different.