I love it when my peanut butter & chocolate go together, and by peanut butter & chocolate, I mean science & theology.

Remember this post?  Particularly point #5?

Here’s an interesting science news item from a few days back…

A few hundred thousand billion free-floating life-bearing Earth-sized planets may exist in the space between stars in the Milky Way. So argues an international team of scientists led by Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, Director of the Buckingham Centre for Astrobiology at the University of Buckingham, UK…

The scientists have proposed that these life-bearing planets originated in the early Universe within a few million years of the Big Bang, and that they make up most of the so-called “missing mass” of galaxies. The scientists calculate that such a planetary body would cross the inner solar system every 25 million years on the average and during each transit, zodiacal dust, including a component of the solar system’s living cells, becomes implanted at its surface. The free-floating planets would then have the added property of mixing the products of local biological evolution on a galaxy-wide scale.

The idea that there’s a lot of real estate floating around loose between the stars is not a new one.

This is the first time, however, that it’s been suggested that life itself originated with the universe, and was not simply a random byproduct.

Which leads me to ask the $64 trillion dollar question:
Is the Universe as we know it simply the byproduct of the creation of Life?

God, through His son and the prophets, constantly reminds us that the least shall be greatest.

Cosmologists are quick to remind us “that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people” and ask “if we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?”

With all due respect, I think they have it backwards.

We, who are physically
among the least in the Universe,
are the very reason it exists at all,
and long after this Universe is swept away,
we will just be beginning the great task
that we were created for.

There is a very real possibility that the span between the stars is not the vast ocean of emptiness we thought but a series of (relatively) small hops.

Step by step is how life spreads:
From this valley to the next, from this island to another.  Humanity is not confined to this system; there are countless worlds beyond on which to build way stations.

We’ve been looking at travel to the stars through the wrong set of lenses.

We should stop thinking about flying by jet and start thinking of getting there by stagecoach.

Who cares how long it takes as long as we get there?

As they say in the song:

“Who gives a damn?
We’re on our way!”

Writer Steven Grant recently posted the below on his FB wall.
I think he’s hit a particular nail square on the head — and I
think calling ‘em NACs (New American Calvinists) instead of
Andrew Sullivan’s “Christianist” does a better job of separating
them from more genuine followers of the faith.

Calvinism was never Christianity.  It was an active distortion of Christianity that aggrandized the rich, by making visible wealth on earth the signifier of God’s love.  Calvin’s core tenet is that all who will go to heaven were chosen at the beginning of time, as were all who weren’t.  “The reprobate are damned because they were always meant to be damned. The preterite are not saved because they were never meant to be saved.”  Needless to say, the wealthy citizens of Geneva embraced this.

In Calvinism, money=grace. The New American Calvinism takes this one step further: not only does money=grace but no money=sin.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the language of Citizens United, & the court decision allowing SuperPACs, funded by corporations & the ultrarich, unfettered ability to distort the American political process.  Unraveling the language, it becomes apparent that “citizen” now refers to exactly that: corporations & the ultrarich.  (This is also promoted by advocates of an “unamended Constitution” & “return” to pre-Constutional ideas of some founding fathers, specifically those who believed government was best served by restricting the vote to landed gentry.)  By contrast, those not fitting into that class are no longer commonly referred to as “citizens” but as “consumers,” whose position in life is to further fund (mostly but not exclusively by accumulation of goods) the ambitions of “citizens.”  Even lower are those most in need, now rarely called “the poor” & instead commonly derided as “welfare cases.”  America is now being actively stratified by the New American Calvinism into, by their reckoning, God-determined “natural order” of Citizen, Consumer & Welfare Case, paralleling the original Calvinist classifications of Elect, Preterite & Reprobate.  With a philosophical addition perhaps accidentally paralleling the philosophy of 1st Century Christianity, when the return of Christ to Earth was still thought to be imminent & occurring within their lifetimes.  Original sin would be washed away, & those saved would henceforth be without sin.  This has been interpreted by later generations as a world where no one sinned, but in their view it was rather that sin itself would no longer exist, that no behavior would be classified as sin.  In a similar turn of mind, in New American Calvinism, “grace” not only determines The Elect but removes them from the possibility of sin, so that whatever behavior they embark on, it is exempt from characterization as sin.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—

Some people may claim Zimmerman did not attack Martin.  I say following a person with a gun with the intent of forcing their unlawful surrender constitutes an attack.

Some people say Martin gave up his right to life by not running away.  These are the same folks who say Zimmerman was within his rights to shoot Martin even though he had initiated the attack.

Some people say racism no longer exists in America, that minorities who claim it does are playing the victim card, that whites who claim it does are full of white guilt.

Guess again…

“A little while ago, at a dinner party, I met a prominent analyst, a Kleinian.  He is the first therapist I’ve known socially, and I confided in him.  ‘I’d like to go back into therapy, but all four therapists I’ve seen in my life have fallen asleep.’  He didn’t laugh.  Nor did he ask me how I felt.  Instead he took it in, turned it over in his mind, then said, very carefully, ‘Well, the common denominator here is you.’” — Stephen Metcalf, “The Sleeping Cure”

“Wandering past vacant pews and pulpits among guidebook-toting spectators, I become briefly nostalgic for the cathedrals’ sacred past, until, opening my guidebook, I study that past and find nothing sacred. The glittering walls and shrines are decorated with ill-gotten gold, stolen relics, and war booty. The soaring domes and spires were raised to heaven not from piety but ambition, to outdo nearby cathedrals and show that Florence was better than Pisa, as modern Malaysian and Shanghai architects compete to build the tallest skyscraper. The niches are filled with the tombs of the rich, not because rich men were holy then but because they wanted to buy the best salvation for themselves, as today’s rich use their millions to nuzzle up to power and buy the best laws and policies for themselves. In the cathedrals’ history as opposed to their aura, I recognize the same political machinations, class inequality, greed, and immorality that rule the world today—the trademark signs of man curiously grafted onto religion. Life has left Europe’s cathedrals, but God was never there.” — Brian Jay Stanley, “The Empty Cathedrals of Europe”

Three arrested, accused of illegally feeding homeless

“When someone says ‘Kids won’t understand how two men can be married’ what they mean, what they’re trying to say, is ‘I don’t understand how two men can be married.’  When they say ‘Kids won’t understand why their d[!]ck looks different from daddy’s’ they’re trying to explain ‘I don’t understand why you want to be different from tradition.’  When they say ‘Kids won’t know who’s the daddy and who’s the mommy’ they are telling you ‘I cannot comprehend a world without very rigid gender roles, and as far as I know neither can anyone else.’” — Noah Brand, Somebody Please Think For The Children

…I told you so.

NASA Researchers: DNA Building Blocks Can Be Made in Space

Money quote:

“For the first time, we have three lines of evidence that together give us confidence these DNA building blocks actually were created in space.”

.

.

“Bobby Winter”[1] sent the following post about Jesus, Peter, Paul, Timothy, Food, And Gays:

“The evidence points to sexual orientation as being an innate condition for most people. You can decide how and when to express it, but you can’t change it. You were born that way.”

You make a HUGE assumption here that seems to imply that IF you are wrong about it, it’s no big deal – that’s always a dangerous place to be.  Be careful about what you assume when speaking for or about God.  Your voice (words) are a gift from him and you bear a tremendous responsibility in how you use them and share them. Believe me, I know – and I believe you know it too.

The Bible speaks about behavior.  Regardless of your orientation you are responsible to ‘behave’ the way God directs.  So IF God instructs you to not be ‘left handed’ then you are better off deciding to no longer express your ‘left handedness’ than trying to hide behind an excuse that you can’t help it – you were born that way.  It’s the same Jesus who told folks that losing a hand or eye was way better than losing your soul to Satan.

I’m not sure which audience you are addressing, but I suspect this piece was aimed at believers who think they are better than other believers or non-believers who practice homosexuality.  IF that is your audience then I think you do a good job of challenging them to see the bigger picture – God loves everyone.

HOWEVER, I would be concerned about how other believers or non-believers might read this piece.  Might they possibly convince themselves that they are correct in their sinful practices by what you say.  That is, might a homosexual read this and believe the only sin indicated is that of hatred or unfair judgment?

Jesus loves sinners – and ALL people are sinners – and yes, God loves every last miserable one of us.  But he also wants us to turn away from our sin – and he is the standard of what sin is, not culture, not the APA, not you or me or anyone who reads your blog. I’m not sure how many persons engaged in sinful sexual behavior consider their sexual behavior sinful.

I would say to the church: stop your sinful practice of judging others and evaluating their relationship with God.  Love everyone more than yourself.

I would say to those outside of the church: turn away from your sins and come to Jesus.  Love God more than yourself.

I do not arrive at my conclusions quickly, or without due study, prayer, & meditation.

I have turned a metaphysical corner in my spiritual growth:  While I am more convinced that ever of the reality of God, the Divinity of Christ, and the abounding grace available to all humanity through His sacrifice, I am also coming to realize we often cloud the reality with cultural / personal preconceptions.

As Paul wrote, “We see through a glass darkly”.[2] We should take care not to let the preconceptions & cultural bias of our time cloud the Truth…

…but we should also be aware that other men at other times faced no less a challenge from their preconceptions & their cultures.

A wrong belief remains a wrong belief, no matter how long or how sincerely held or, for that matter, how esteemed the person holding that belief, or by how many.

I have taken to re-reading the Bible again, more carefully than before, and taking extra care to strip away the interpretive baggage to see what it really says; in particular who is saying it and under what conditions and for which intended audience.

Eventually[3] I will do a multi-part post on the Decalogue & what I think God was getting at when He laid down the 10 Words.[4]

Not to make too fine a point of it, but God didn’t worry about homosexuality enough to mention it in the Decalogue.

Since the Decalogue is from God directly and the various laws of Moses are from him (albeit inspired by God), and because the laws of Moses were designed to whip a mob of fugitive slaves into a coherent, well disciplined army/nation, we Christians — particularly we Gentile Christians — are not bound by the Jewish laws & traditions found in the Old Testament.

This point gets repeatedly hammered home in the New Testament.  Paul was in a unique position to bridge Jewish & Roman worlds, but even though he jettisoned a lot of his Jewish heritage, I don’t think he was able to get rid of it all.

No matter; it’s not what he said but what He said that matters, and as far as I can tell the only times God ever addressed humanity directly (the Decalogue and the teachings of Christ) He had bupkis to say on homosexuality.[5]

If it doesn’t matter to Him, it shouldn’t matter to us.

.

.

.

[1]  Pseudonym requested

[2]  Considering Paul’s background & education, it would be astonishing if he wasn’t acutely familiar with Plato’s Allegory Of The Cave.  The truth remains the truth regardless of who speaks it or where.

[3] Promise!

[4]  “Commandments” is the word King James’ translators chose to use in place of the Hebrew “Asereth ha-D’bharîm” which is more accurately translated as “verses” or “sayings” or “terms” or “words”.  Why did they choose “commandments” instead?  Well, they were in the employ of a rich & powerful king; go figure…

[5]  But a lot to say about being unforgiving, judgmental, greedy, and stingy…

Check out his work at Art of Mark Bryan