Random Thoughts
Canal simulator
We went to a demo of a canal operations simulator up at the Central Arizona Project. It’s sort of like flight-simulator except it’s for operators of canals. You sit down at a real console and conduct operations and react to “field” conditions just as a normal operator would, except that instead of being hooked to the real canal, it’s hooked to a numerical hydraulic model of the canal. It appears to work very well – they said they were pleased with it. Maybe we can do something similar here at SRP.
Eggs, almonds, citrus and garlic
These are some of my high-sensitivity foods, according to a food sensitivity analysis done on my blood last week. In addition, the preliminary results seem to indicate that I’m at least somewhat sensitive to just about everything. I’ll get more details when I go in to see her next week. The naturopathic doctor I’m going to (for the purpose of weight-loss and health-gain) runs these tests as part of her overall evaluation.
Birthers
Birthers are a variety of conspiracy theorists who are still hanging on to the idea that President Obama is not a citizen and should not be allowed to remain as president. James Taranto (Best of the Web Today) has a good summary of why we should discount their claims.
Co-habitation
I had an intense discussion with my oldest last week about whether we should consider a Christian couple living together as being in the wrong. (This is a couple in a dating relationship, not just roommates – that’s a different issue.)
My points were (1) if a couple is dating and has committed to save themselves for marriage, moving in together is just too much temptation to handle for almost everyone, (2) a couple living together does in fact give the impression that there is a sexual relationship regardless of their claims, much more so than if they were not living together, and (3) if it’s accepted by the Christian community, a couple who does not have the resolve is more likely to move in together and end up in sin than if it weren’t unaccepted.
His argument is that we should not assume that a couple living together is having sex — we just don’t know, and assuming so is unjustly judging them, especially if they specifically claim not to be intimate. There’s no valid “weaker brother” or “appearance of evil” argument because the current culture assumes that any dating couple must be having sex, and there is no difference whether they’re living together or not. A co-habitating couple claiming not to be having sex is just as credible as one that is not co-habitating making the same claim. (Note – my son is not living with a woman, and believes that sex outside of marriage is wrong.)
I confess that when we started this discussion, I was totally befuddled. How could anyone reasonably argue this? Are millenials really that different from us boomers? My first point is cross-generational and should be enough to keep Christian unmarried couples from living together. His second and third arguments assume a whole lot more change in culture than I see. I agree that we have freedom in Christ to do anything that is not prohibited in the Bible, but three of those things prohibited are leading other Christians astray, giving an appearance of evil, and subjecting yourself to temptation.
My son stands by his arguments, and I stand by mine. But we still talk, and I still love him.
Partial Preterism
While vacationing in Greer earlier this week, I read RC Sproul’s book The Last Days According to Jesus. In this book, Sproul makes a case for what he calls “partial preterism”, which is the belief that many, but not all of the New Testament prophetical passages were fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Cindy mentioned this book to me after my post about Bertrand Russel’s objections to Christianity a while ago, one of those objections being that the prophecies of Jesus’ return did not come to pass as stated in the Bible.
I don’t know a whole lot about eschatology, but what I’ve been taught, and have had no reason to discount, is the teaching pervasive in Evangelicalism that these prophecies don’t refer to the fall of Jerusalem, but to sometime in the future. The only preterists I’ve known in the past have believed that none of the references to the end of the age or last days referred to the future, but had already occurred in 70 AD. The bodily resurrection and the rapture are explained away by saying that it is really a spiritual resurrection and a spiritual rapture. But that’s clearly not what the Bible says, so I rejected it.
Sproul develops sort of a combination preterist/futurist argument, i.e. that many of the prophecies do refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, but others refer to the end of the world. He calls it “partial preterism”. I’m not going to present the argument here – it would just take too long. However it is, as you would expect from Sproul, a well-thought-out presentation of the argument and I’d recommend reading the book if you’re interested in the subject.
Two verses that Bertrand Russel uses as examples of Jesus’ predictions not coming true are:
When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. [Matthew 10:23]
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. [Matthew 16:28]
My response to Russel’s objection would have been that these statements did not necessarily mean that it had to happen right then, but in light of time relative to eternity, could happen far in the future. Reading this book though made me realize that I was being as dishonest with the interpretation of these verses as the preterists were being with verses about the rapture and the bodily resurrection. The plain reading of these verses are that Jesus would be returning within the lifetimes of most of those he was talking to. Sure, I have futurist explanations (rationalizations) for both these verses, but Sproul’s book does a good job of knocking them down. Sproul also points out that Jesus’ coming in glory to judge Jerusalem does not negate his coming at the end of the world. He backs up both.
One of the more interesting parts of this book was the description of extra-biblical historical documentation of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Several historians witnessed and documented strange lights in the sky that could have been Jesus “coming in glory.” Granted it’s not biblical, and it has been explained away by many, but interesting nevertheless.
Bottom line – my opinions in these areas have been challenged. And it occurs to me that almost all the meat in this book adds to my understanding, but there is some that I still need to investigate further.
Phoenix 110 Greer 75
Phoenix 110 Greer 75 – not a score of basketball blowout, but the difference in high temperature between where we live and where we vacationed a few days earlier this week. What a beautiful place Greer is! We stayed at the Red Setter Inn in one of their honeymoon cabins, a very nice place in a quiet, cool pine forest setting. It was a total get-away – no phone, no wireless, no cell coverage.
Most of the day we spent walking around the grounds, sitting on the deck of the main Inn reading, talking with people at the Inn, coming back to the cabin to take a nap or to sit around and read some more. I got through a couple of books and Cindy spent some time preparing for her women’s Bible study and doing some other reading. We did give in to civilization one night and watched one of the movies that the Inn had available to borrow.
Last year, which was our first time there, we spent more time away from the cabin driving around the area. This year we pretty much stuck close to home base and instead of eating every meal out, we brought some food with us. We did eat out a couple of times, but for the most part we just hung out at the Inn and our cabin.
Read the rest of this entry »
Intelligent Design’s Theological Problem
I’m not much of reader (a situation I long to correct) but I do read readers’ blogs, which provide some insight into interesting books, and occassionally into some side issues. Such is the case with R.C. Sproul’s review of Stephen C. Meyer’s new book, Signature in the Cell.
In his review, Sproul says:
Advocates of intelligent design are directing most of their efforts toward addressing scientific questions and objections. They are not addressing the questions theologians might have about the implications of their work. If they were, it would probably bring more criticism down upon their heads. Be that as it may, Christian theologians do need to ask questions about the implications of their works.
He then talks about a theological error that intelligent design proponents frequently make, which is to say that if it can be explained from laws of nature, then you cannot say it’s designed (which, by the way, is an argument that is not made in Meyer’s book). Sproul argues that this isn’t true:
… God designed things that can be explained in terms of natural laws as well as those that cannot. In fact, God designed the natural laws themselves! God not only designed irreducibly complex biological systems; He designed simple biological systems. He designed everything. It is the failure to deal with this issue adequately that has led many to see in the work of some intelligent design proponents a “God of the gaps” argument.
The “God of the gaps” argument, I assume, is that if you can’t explain it, it must be from God. Does that mean then that if one day you figure it out and can explain it, it no longer is from God? No one would use this argument if they thought about it for a second, and yet I’ve heard it.
The “thinking” behind this may be good-intentioned, that is to give God credit for understanding a whole lot more than we do. But this argument could, and sometimes does, make ID proponents come off looking as blind as evolutionists look. We have to be disciplined in our thinking.
Speaking of evolutionists, my favorite evolutionist quote so far is from George Wald, a Harvard University biochemist and Nobel Laureate:
One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here-as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. [ref]
What faith he must have!
