Behind our book shop in Bondi Junction, a council worker spends literally hours cleaning up what some vandal took only minutes to accomplish. The spray can of paints make a design or a tag or something by which the graffiti artist made his mark. The cleansing took much more energy and effort.
I suppose in this season of the Jewish holidays, when repentance and forgiveness is so much the theme, this is a good photo to consider.
What does it take to ruin a situation? What time and effort does it take to speak too quickly, to touch inappropriately, to leer and lust after something which isn't yours... it might only be moments, but the effects can be far reaching. And damaging. And costly.
In October 1987, A Momentary Lapse of Reason peaked at #3 on the Billboard 200. Pink Floyd's 'reunion' album was a big success. (Seems fitting to quote this album which also contained "Dogs of War" in light of so much reference to this in Aussie news of late with Rugby League battlers the Canterbury Bulldogs).
A momentary lapse of reason. Consider these lyrics from "One slip" "One slip, and down the hole we fall
It seems to take no time at all
A momentary lapse of reason
That binds a life for life
A small regret, you won't forget"
Of course, you can argue that this is only a song, but how many times have we lived in the regret of wrong decisions. Of missed opportunities, of personal failures?
God knows, my friend. God knows your heart and your desires. And he wants you to know his desires for the planet and for your life.
Yes it might be one slip (or many as in the case of Kanye and John Della Bosca and Mike Duvall and John Edwards), and the full weight is rarely felt. We don't know how far we've fallen, as my longtime friend Bob Mumford used to say, "until you try to climb back up."
What about Razorlight's conclusion, "I get over the breaks
And I stumble and fall
And I get over the breaks
And sometimes stumble and fall
Yes I fall
Yes I fall
I stumble and fall"
Stumble, falling, how do we get back up?
That's what Kippur is all about. The holiday of Yom Kippur is about God cleansing us of sin and unrighteousness. He cares enough to deal with this as he wants to be in relationship with us. It's our sin that separates us from God. It's God's grace which brings us back into fellowship with him. Awesome!
Like in the photo, it took a lot on the part of the cleanser to accomplish this, so it was in the love gift of God, that he sent his only son, Y'shua, to die for us and bring us eternity. Thanks Lord! No wonder they sing "amazing grace."
This restoration is undeserved. This restoration is costly. This restoration is done by another and not by ourselves. Our response? Gratitude and humility. Thanks, Lord!
30 September 2009
19 September 2009
Rosh Hashanah.. God is good?
God is good and ready to forgive
Rosh Hashanah message 5770
Given in Bondi Junction
18 September 2009
Tonight we greet a new year. It’s not like crowding into the Opera House steps to watch millions of dollars of fireworks go off on 31 December. The revelry of Trafalgar Square or Times Square is not apparent here. We might wear different apparel than usual, but not the wild and crazy clothing of New Year’s Eve. No, tonight is a night of awe and respect; it’s a night of self-introspection and repair. And, oh, please hear me, it IS a night of celebration. We are rejoicing in the newness that should characterize a new year. And it’s all based on the text of tonight, the Psalm we read early on, Psalm 86. And the key passage is “God is good, and ready to forgive.”
Last weekend I was in Brisbane, and enjoyed the first Brisbane Festival. The highlight was a large fireworks show called “RiverFire.” It was spectacular. The air force supplied a fly-over. I supplied a thousand Gospel tracts to the crowd which gathered almost as early as our crowds in Sydney fireworks displays do. And it was celebratory.
So what will you do to celebrate tonight’s New Year here in Sydney? May I suggest it’s not about resolutions of your own reformation and repair. May I suggest it’s not about revelry and fireworks. Although we hope to have enough to share, it’s not about apples and honey and honeycake after the meeting. It’s about the goodness of God and his readiness to forgive.
Of course, the words ‘ready to’ are not in the Hebrew text. It’s more skeletal than that in the Hebrew.
Other versions simply say, “You are good and forgiving.” Simple. Clear. Honest. But, honestly, is that something to celebrate? Open the Esky for that one?
Maybe we should ask John Della Bosca, who was caught out last month in a sordid affair of lust and lying.
Or we should ask that American congressman from California, who was similarly caught out, But listen to his acknowledgement of wrongdoing. “My offence was engaging in inappropriate storytelling and I regret my language and choice of words.” Seems Mike Duvall a 54-year-old congressman boasted to a fellow congressman, with his microphone still on, during congressional hearings, about an affair with a 36-year-old female lobbyist. He boasted about their sexual activities. But what did he confess? Sin? Infidelity to his wife? Failure to the family? Nope, only that he was boastful and the bragging was wrong. Oy.
I’m not stuck on sexual impropriety as if that were the worst sin.
Should we ask the French Interior Minister? Brice Hortefeux sparked accusations of racism with comments last week about Arabs. He said, “it’s ok when there’s one (Arab). It’s when there are a lot of them that there are problems.” All this caught on videotape during a filming at a Le Monde shooting.
Listen, I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of other sins a man commits. How about all those in the machzor, the traditional Jewish prayer book on this day, for which we repent? Shall I name some? OK, here’s a top 10 list (See the end of sermon, if you are reading online for the complete list/prayer):
1) Passing judgment
2) Scheming against a fellowman
3) Begrudging eye
4) Frivolity
5) Obduracy
6) Running to do evil
7) Tale-bearing
8) Swearing in vain
9) Causeless hatred
10) Embezzlement.
It is interesting to note that these confessions do not specifically address the kinds of ritual sins that some people think are the be-all-and-end-all of Judaism. There is no "for the sin we have sinned before you by eating pork, and for the sin we have sinned against you by driving on Shabbat" (though obviously these are implicitly included in the catch-all). The vast majority of the sins enumerated involve mistreatment of other people, most of them by speech (offensive speech, scoffing, slander, talebearing, and swearing falsely, to name a few).
You might be thinking, “Now wait a minute, I didn’t come hear to have you tell me about sins. I came to hear about New Year and trumpets and to go into 5770 in a new way. I want change, but not religious change.”
Fair enough, and worthy of consideration. But maybe Mr Della Bosca or the French minister or Kanye West are thinking other things just about now.
Embarrassment and shame. All part of the guilt of our sin. And all good. “What,“ you say? Yes, I say, guilt is good. Not only because I’m Jewish and we as Jews dwell often in our sins and the guilt of it. No, it’s because sin should bring guilt, and guilt should bring shame and then sin, guilt and shame should lead to repentance. If you know how bad you are, you will cry out to the God who ever lives to help us and bring us to a good place.
Let’s go back to the Psalm of the night, and see this again.
Psalm 86 reads like promises offered to the most desperate person.
Kathleen Parker, an American journalist I read often, said this in the shadow of the “You lie” comment by Joe Wilson, an unknown American congressman (from her home state of South Carolina), “Across the spectrum of society, people are behaving badly…from the rude tantrum of Kanye West at the Video Music Awards to the profane threats of tennis star Serena Williams when she disagreed with a line call.”
Parker’s conclusions about the unjustified scream in President Obama’s speech end with, “there are myriad ways for a congressman to voice objection to the president's ideas or his colleagues' proposals. But dueling has been out of style for quite some time, even in South Carolina. If our will to self-govern is to prevail, then incivility will have to become equally unfashionable.”
Parker calls for people to behave well, to be civil. And that’s a fair call. But is human reform enough to make a real difference?
Let me put this to you in a personal category. Let’s say you were a habitual liar. Each week you tell hundreds of lies. Some cultural psychologists aver that the averages are as follows:
“Most people lie to others once or twice a day and deceive about 30 people per week.
The average is 7 times per hour if you count all the times people lie to themselves.
We lie in 30 to 38% of all our interactions.
Uni students lie in 50% of conversations with their mothers.
- 80% of us lie on our resumes.
- 70% of all doctors lie to insurance companies.
- 100% of dating couples surveyed lied to each other in about a third of their conversations.
- 20% - 30% of middle managers surveyed had written fraudulent internal reports.
- 95% of participating uni students surveyed were willing to tell at least one lie to a potential employer to win a job, and 41% had already done so.
We are lied to about 200 times each day.” (http://www.geocities.com/changes1611/sins22lies2.html)
Wow, that’s a lot of lying going on.
So let’s say you want to try to get that better this year. How would you go about that? Would you make lists of the lies you told? Would you try to go back and make things right with those to whom you lied, even last week? Would you say you will try harder this year and reform your behaviour? All well and good. And maybe that’s part of the procedure in repair, but King David is helping us understand a deeper and more powerful method of restoration. It’s not about reformation; it’s about repentance.
The first and required way to fix all bad actions, is to cry to God for mercy.
Listen to verse one. Incline Thine ear, O LORD, and answer me; For I am afflicted and needy.
Help-- the shortest prayer ever uttered, and often the most real. O. Hallesby in his classic book, Prayer, takes the first chapter to its full meaning with the word helplessness. We can only really pray when we know how desperate we are to find the God behind or above the prayer. We cannot simply approach him; we cannot earn our way to him. We have no capacity to gain his awareness or qualities enough to warrant his observation. Everything about our relationship with the Almighty is of grace, and in that grace we stand.
Then verses 2 and 3: O Thou my God, save Thy servant who trusts in Thee.
Be gracious to me, O Lord, For to Thee I cry all day long.
Whatever else is going on in King David’s life in this moment, he knows that God alone is the one who can fix it all up.
Again verse 4: Make glad the soul of Thy servant, For to Thee, O Lord, I lift up my soul.
Do you hear the ‘because’ or ‘for’ in each verse? Why should God listen? Because I am needy. Why should God be gracious to me? Because I cry all day long. What is it about making the soul of the king glad? Because David lifts his soul to the Lord.
I like thinking about the reason behind things. Why do we do what we do on Rosh Hashanah with trumpets and apples? Why do I wear certain clothing and travel certain places? What motivates a Family First senator from Victoria to say and do what he does? Motivations are hard to read, almost impossible, and thus we are left with only actions to evaluate.
But inside us, and in our relationship with the Lord, He knows our deepest thoughts and our considerations. He knows our motivations and as such, we can say, “In the day of my trouble I shall call upon Thee, For Thou wilt answer me.”
It all sums up in verses 12 and 13 with
I will give thanks to Thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And will glorify Thy name forever. For Thy lovingkindness toward me is great, And Thou hast delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.
Or the classic codified confession from Moses onward,
Thou, O Lord, art a God merciful and gracious, Slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth.
Do you know this God about whom David was so convinced? Do you know the mercy, the unfailing love and grace of the God of the Universes who can demand so much, who can cause us to see our darknesses and our dark side, and yet offer to us his unfailing love and comfort?
But you might say, "I don’t believe in God," or "I don’t need a God who demands so much." You might be one who prefers a nice God, a polite God, one who forgives …well, actually one who doesn’t expect much from us, and thus doesn’t need to forgive. But then you will miss it, my friend. Only those who know how painfully far we are from the Holy Lord of all the world (Adon Olam) can enter into the life and pleasure of God. It’s another one of those biblical oddities, that only the weak are strengthened; only the poor are made rich.
You might say, “I don’t believe God is good.” You may have experienced a lot of pain and suffering. You may have endured a lifeless relationship, and can only see God in the players who represented him. We all know about bad priests in Catholic churches and schools who ruined the lives of many under them. Many of our people, experienced in the evils of man’s inhumanity to man, endured the Holocaust in Europe and the rejection of others and think, justifiably, that God is either incompetent to save or evil in his own nature.
When we blame God for the things others do in his name we again miss it. When we cast aspersions on the God who made the world and fail to see our own failings, we amplify our need for him. God is so good, and we who ruin his name, who mock his name, who unjustly shame or pain others, we do him a disservice. God is not mocked. It is we who fail. It is we who need him.
Our Jewish people are the ones who should know this the most. Each year, on Rosh Hashanah, we begin again. We look inside again and cry ‘oy’ at the evils we have done. We ask for forgiveness.
God is good, and ready to forgive.
But we fail to acknowledge him. We fail to cry out of our need for him.
Into that scene came Y’shua. He’s the messiah our forefathers awaited. He’s the one who taught us to admit our sins. He’s the one who takes our sins on himself and bears them himself. He had done no violence, according to the prophet and according to the record of the Bible, there was no deceit in his mouth. And it hurt God in his heart to let Y’shua suffer.
But Y’shua, or as others call him Jesus, chose to bear our suffering. He chose to live our lives and take our pain. He chose to be wounded for us, and bring us to the reality of the forgiving God.
When met with a lame man, lying on his pallet, needing help, Y’shua offered depth of help the man found unexpecting. Each of the synoptics record it, “Matt. 9.5 “For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, and walk’?
Mark 2.9 “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your pallet and walk’?
Luke 5.23 “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?”
To be healed, to be free, to truly live a life of newness in 5770 or any year, Y’shua extended the forgiveness of sins to the man lying on his pallet. That’s what we need. That’s the only way to have a new year. Not in revelry or reformation. But in repentance and the grace that Y’shua brings.
If you’ve never accepted Y’shua as your messiah, as your Saviour, why not do it now? What a great day to be born again, on New Years, and truly start over?
-------------------------------------------------------
Text of Al Khet (Confession of sins on Yom Kippur)
For the sin which we have committed before You under duress or willingly.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by hard-heartedness.
For the sin which we have committed before You inadvertently.
And for the sin which we have committed before You with an utterance of the lips.
For the sin which we have committed before You with immorality.
And for the sin which we have committed before You openly or secretly.
For the sin which we have committed before You with knowledge and with deceit.
And for the sin which we have committed before You through speech.
For the sin which we have committed before You by deceiving a fellowman.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by improper thoughts.
For the sin which we have committed before You by a gathering of lewdness.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by verbal [insincere] confession.
For the sin which we have committed before You by disrespect for parents and teachers.
And for the sin which we have committed before You intentionally or unintentionally.
For the sin which we have committed before You by using coercion.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by desecrating the Divine Name.
For the sin which we have committed before You by impurity of speech.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by foolish talk.
For the sin which we have committed before You with the evil inclination.
And for the sin which we have committed before You knowingly or unknowingly.
For all these, God of pardon, pardon us, forgive us, atone for us.
For the sin which we have committed before You by false denial and lying.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a bribe-taking or a bribe-giving hand.
For the sin which we have committed before You by scoffing.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by evil talk [about another].
For the sin which we have committed before You in business dealings.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by eating and drinking.
For the sin which we have committed before You by [taking or giving] interest and by usury.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a haughty demeanor.
For the sin which we have committed before You by the prattle of our lips.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a glance of the eye.
For the sin which we have committed before You with proud looks.
And for the sin which we have committed before You with impudence.
For all these, God of pardon, pardon us, forgive us, atone for us.
For the sin which we have committed before You by casting off the yoke [of Heaven].
And for the sin which we have committed before You in passing judgment.
For the sin which we have committed before You by scheming against a fellowman.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a begrudging eye.
For the sin which we have committed before You by frivolity.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by obduracy.
For the sin which we have committed before You by running to do evil.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by tale-bearing.
For the sin which we have committed before You by swearing in vain.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by causeless hatred.
For the sin which we have committed before You by embezzlement.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a confused heart.
For all these, God of pardon, pardon us, forgive us, atone for us.
And for the sins for which we are obligated to bring a burnt-offering.
And for the sins for which we are obligated to bring a sin-offering.
And for the sins for which we are obligated to bring a varying offering [according to one's means
And for the sins for which we are obligated to bring a guilt-offering for a certain or doubtful trespass.
And for the sins for which we incur the penalty of lashing for rebelliousness.
And for the sins for which we incur the penalty of forty lashes.
And for the sins for which we incur the penalty of death by the hand of Heaven.
And for the sins for which we incur the penalty of excision and childlessness.
Given in Bondi Junction
18 September 2009
Tonight we greet a new year. It’s not like crowding into the Opera House steps to watch millions of dollars of fireworks go off on 31 December. The revelry of Trafalgar Square or Times Square is not apparent here. We might wear different apparel than usual, but not the wild and crazy clothing of New Year’s Eve. No, tonight is a night of awe and respect; it’s a night of self-introspection and repair. And, oh, please hear me, it IS a night of celebration. We are rejoicing in the newness that should characterize a new year. And it’s all based on the text of tonight, the Psalm we read early on, Psalm 86. And the key passage is “God is good, and ready to forgive.”
Last weekend I was in Brisbane, and enjoyed the first Brisbane Festival. The highlight was a large fireworks show called “RiverFire.” It was spectacular. The air force supplied a fly-over. I supplied a thousand Gospel tracts to the crowd which gathered almost as early as our crowds in Sydney fireworks displays do. And it was celebratory.
So what will you do to celebrate tonight’s New Year here in Sydney? May I suggest it’s not about resolutions of your own reformation and repair. May I suggest it’s not about revelry and fireworks. Although we hope to have enough to share, it’s not about apples and honey and honeycake after the meeting. It’s about the goodness of God and his readiness to forgive.
Of course, the words ‘ready to’ are not in the Hebrew text. It’s more skeletal than that in the Hebrew.
Other versions simply say, “You are good and forgiving.” Simple. Clear. Honest. But, honestly, is that something to celebrate? Open the Esky for that one?
Maybe we should ask John Della Bosca, who was caught out last month in a sordid affair of lust and lying.
Or we should ask that American congressman from California, who was similarly caught out, But listen to his acknowledgement of wrongdoing. “My offence was engaging in inappropriate storytelling and I regret my language and choice of words.” Seems Mike Duvall a 54-year-old congressman boasted to a fellow congressman, with his microphone still on, during congressional hearings, about an affair with a 36-year-old female lobbyist. He boasted about their sexual activities. But what did he confess? Sin? Infidelity to his wife? Failure to the family? Nope, only that he was boastful and the bragging was wrong. Oy.
I’m not stuck on sexual impropriety as if that were the worst sin.
Should we ask the French Interior Minister? Brice Hortefeux sparked accusations of racism with comments last week about Arabs. He said, “it’s ok when there’s one (Arab). It’s when there are a lot of them that there are problems.” All this caught on videotape during a filming at a Le Monde shooting.
Listen, I’m pretty sure that there are plenty of other sins a man commits. How about all those in the machzor, the traditional Jewish prayer book on this day, for which we repent? Shall I name some? OK, here’s a top 10 list (See the end of sermon, if you are reading online for the complete list/prayer):
1) Passing judgment
2) Scheming against a fellowman
3) Begrudging eye
4) Frivolity
5) Obduracy
6) Running to do evil
7) Tale-bearing
8) Swearing in vain
9) Causeless hatred
10) Embezzlement.
It is interesting to note that these confessions do not specifically address the kinds of ritual sins that some people think are the be-all-and-end-all of Judaism. There is no "for the sin we have sinned before you by eating pork, and for the sin we have sinned against you by driving on Shabbat" (though obviously these are implicitly included in the catch-all). The vast majority of the sins enumerated involve mistreatment of other people, most of them by speech (offensive speech, scoffing, slander, talebearing, and swearing falsely, to name a few).
You might be thinking, “Now wait a minute, I didn’t come hear to have you tell me about sins. I came to hear about New Year and trumpets and to go into 5770 in a new way. I want change, but not religious change.”
Fair enough, and worthy of consideration. But maybe Mr Della Bosca or the French minister or Kanye West are thinking other things just about now.
Embarrassment and shame. All part of the guilt of our sin. And all good. “What,“ you say? Yes, I say, guilt is good. Not only because I’m Jewish and we as Jews dwell often in our sins and the guilt of it. No, it’s because sin should bring guilt, and guilt should bring shame and then sin, guilt and shame should lead to repentance. If you know how bad you are, you will cry out to the God who ever lives to help us and bring us to a good place.
Let’s go back to the Psalm of the night, and see this again.
Psalm 86 reads like promises offered to the most desperate person.
Kathleen Parker, an American journalist I read often, said this in the shadow of the “You lie” comment by Joe Wilson, an unknown American congressman (from her home state of South Carolina), “Across the spectrum of society, people are behaving badly…from the rude tantrum of Kanye West at the Video Music Awards to the profane threats of tennis star Serena Williams when she disagreed with a line call.”
Parker’s conclusions about the unjustified scream in President Obama’s speech end with, “there are myriad ways for a congressman to voice objection to the president's ideas or his colleagues' proposals. But dueling has been out of style for quite some time, even in South Carolina. If our will to self-govern is to prevail, then incivility will have to become equally unfashionable.”
Parker calls for people to behave well, to be civil. And that’s a fair call. But is human reform enough to make a real difference?
Let me put this to you in a personal category. Let’s say you were a habitual liar. Each week you tell hundreds of lies. Some cultural psychologists aver that the averages are as follows:
“Most people lie to others once or twice a day and deceive about 30 people per week.
The average is 7 times per hour if you count all the times people lie to themselves.
We lie in 30 to 38% of all our interactions.
Uni students lie in 50% of conversations with their mothers.
- 80% of us lie on our resumes.
- 70% of all doctors lie to insurance companies.
- 100% of dating couples surveyed lied to each other in about a third of their conversations.
- 20% - 30% of middle managers surveyed had written fraudulent internal reports.
- 95% of participating uni students surveyed were willing to tell at least one lie to a potential employer to win a job, and 41% had already done so.
We are lied to about 200 times each day.” (http://www.geocities.com/changes1611/sins22lies2.html)
Wow, that’s a lot of lying going on.
So let’s say you want to try to get that better this year. How would you go about that? Would you make lists of the lies you told? Would you try to go back and make things right with those to whom you lied, even last week? Would you say you will try harder this year and reform your behaviour? All well and good. And maybe that’s part of the procedure in repair, but King David is helping us understand a deeper and more powerful method of restoration. It’s not about reformation; it’s about repentance.
The first and required way to fix all bad actions, is to cry to God for mercy.
Listen to verse one. Incline Thine ear, O LORD, and answer me; For I am afflicted and needy.
Help-- the shortest prayer ever uttered, and often the most real. O. Hallesby in his classic book, Prayer, takes the first chapter to its full meaning with the word helplessness. We can only really pray when we know how desperate we are to find the God behind or above the prayer. We cannot simply approach him; we cannot earn our way to him. We have no capacity to gain his awareness or qualities enough to warrant his observation. Everything about our relationship with the Almighty is of grace, and in that grace we stand.
Then verses 2 and 3: O Thou my God, save Thy servant who trusts in Thee.
Be gracious to me, O Lord, For to Thee I cry all day long.
Whatever else is going on in King David’s life in this moment, he knows that God alone is the one who can fix it all up.
Again verse 4: Make glad the soul of Thy servant, For to Thee, O Lord, I lift up my soul.
Do you hear the ‘because’ or ‘for’ in each verse? Why should God listen? Because I am needy. Why should God be gracious to me? Because I cry all day long. What is it about making the soul of the king glad? Because David lifts his soul to the Lord.
I like thinking about the reason behind things. Why do we do what we do on Rosh Hashanah with trumpets and apples? Why do I wear certain clothing and travel certain places? What motivates a Family First senator from Victoria to say and do what he does? Motivations are hard to read, almost impossible, and thus we are left with only actions to evaluate.
But inside us, and in our relationship with the Lord, He knows our deepest thoughts and our considerations. He knows our motivations and as such, we can say, “In the day of my trouble I shall call upon Thee, For Thou wilt answer me.”
It all sums up in verses 12 and 13 with
I will give thanks to Thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart, And will glorify Thy name forever. For Thy lovingkindness toward me is great, And Thou hast delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol.
Or the classic codified confession from Moses onward,
Thou, O Lord, art a God merciful and gracious, Slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness and truth.
Do you know this God about whom David was so convinced? Do you know the mercy, the unfailing love and grace of the God of the Universes who can demand so much, who can cause us to see our darknesses and our dark side, and yet offer to us his unfailing love and comfort?
But you might say, "I don’t believe in God," or "I don’t need a God who demands so much." You might be one who prefers a nice God, a polite God, one who forgives …well, actually one who doesn’t expect much from us, and thus doesn’t need to forgive. But then you will miss it, my friend. Only those who know how painfully far we are from the Holy Lord of all the world (Adon Olam) can enter into the life and pleasure of God. It’s another one of those biblical oddities, that only the weak are strengthened; only the poor are made rich.
You might say, “I don’t believe God is good.” You may have experienced a lot of pain and suffering. You may have endured a lifeless relationship, and can only see God in the players who represented him. We all know about bad priests in Catholic churches and schools who ruined the lives of many under them. Many of our people, experienced in the evils of man’s inhumanity to man, endured the Holocaust in Europe and the rejection of others and think, justifiably, that God is either incompetent to save or evil in his own nature.
When we blame God for the things others do in his name we again miss it. When we cast aspersions on the God who made the world and fail to see our own failings, we amplify our need for him. God is so good, and we who ruin his name, who mock his name, who unjustly shame or pain others, we do him a disservice. God is not mocked. It is we who fail. It is we who need him.
Our Jewish people are the ones who should know this the most. Each year, on Rosh Hashanah, we begin again. We look inside again and cry ‘oy’ at the evils we have done. We ask for forgiveness.
God is good, and ready to forgive.
But we fail to acknowledge him. We fail to cry out of our need for him.
Into that scene came Y’shua. He’s the messiah our forefathers awaited. He’s the one who taught us to admit our sins. He’s the one who takes our sins on himself and bears them himself. He had done no violence, according to the prophet and according to the record of the Bible, there was no deceit in his mouth. And it hurt God in his heart to let Y’shua suffer.
But Y’shua, or as others call him Jesus, chose to bear our suffering. He chose to live our lives and take our pain. He chose to be wounded for us, and bring us to the reality of the forgiving God.
When met with a lame man, lying on his pallet, needing help, Y’shua offered depth of help the man found unexpecting. Each of the synoptics record it, “Matt. 9.5 “For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, and walk’?
Mark 2.9 “Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Arise, and take up your pallet and walk’?
Luke 5.23 “Which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins have been forgiven you,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’?”
To be healed, to be free, to truly live a life of newness in 5770 or any year, Y’shua extended the forgiveness of sins to the man lying on his pallet. That’s what we need. That’s the only way to have a new year. Not in revelry or reformation. But in repentance and the grace that Y’shua brings.
If you’ve never accepted Y’shua as your messiah, as your Saviour, why not do it now? What a great day to be born again, on New Years, and truly start over?
-------------------------------------------------------
Text of Al Khet (Confession of sins on Yom Kippur)
For the sin which we have committed before You under duress or willingly.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by hard-heartedness.
For the sin which we have committed before You inadvertently.
And for the sin which we have committed before You with an utterance of the lips.
For the sin which we have committed before You with immorality.
And for the sin which we have committed before You openly or secretly.
For the sin which we have committed before You with knowledge and with deceit.
And for the sin which we have committed before You through speech.
For the sin which we have committed before You by deceiving a fellowman.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by improper thoughts.
For the sin which we have committed before You by a gathering of lewdness.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by verbal [insincere] confession.
For the sin which we have committed before You by disrespect for parents and teachers.
And for the sin which we have committed before You intentionally or unintentionally.
For the sin which we have committed before You by using coercion.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by desecrating the Divine Name.
For the sin which we have committed before You by impurity of speech.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by foolish talk.
For the sin which we have committed before You with the evil inclination.
And for the sin which we have committed before You knowingly or unknowingly.
For all these, God of pardon, pardon us, forgive us, atone for us.
For the sin which we have committed before You by false denial and lying.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a bribe-taking or a bribe-giving hand.
For the sin which we have committed before You by scoffing.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by evil talk [about another].
For the sin which we have committed before You in business dealings.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by eating and drinking.
For the sin which we have committed before You by [taking or giving] interest and by usury.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a haughty demeanor.
For the sin which we have committed before You by the prattle of our lips.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a glance of the eye.
For the sin which we have committed before You with proud looks.
And for the sin which we have committed before You with impudence.
For all these, God of pardon, pardon us, forgive us, atone for us.
For the sin which we have committed before You by casting off the yoke [of Heaven].
And for the sin which we have committed before You in passing judgment.
For the sin which we have committed before You by scheming against a fellowman.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a begrudging eye.
For the sin which we have committed before You by frivolity.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by obduracy.
For the sin which we have committed before You by running to do evil.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by tale-bearing.
For the sin which we have committed before You by swearing in vain.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by causeless hatred.
For the sin which we have committed before You by embezzlement.
And for the sin which we have committed before You by a confused heart.
For all these, God of pardon, pardon us, forgive us, atone for us.
And for the sins for which we are obligated to bring a burnt-offering.
And for the sins for which we are obligated to bring a sin-offering.
And for the sins for which we are obligated to bring a varying offering [according to one's means
And for the sins for which we are obligated to bring a guilt-offering for a certain or doubtful trespass.
And for the sins for which we incur the penalty of lashing for rebelliousness.
And for the sins for which we incur the penalty of forty lashes.
And for the sins for which we incur the penalty of death by the hand of Heaven.
And for the sins for which we incur the penalty of excision and childlessness.
25 August 2009
Questionable release
(Beijing, Scotland, CIA tapes)
China has released two prominent legal activists after representations from the US. The activists are seen as important to the development of rule of law and public policy discussion of problems in Tibet and Xinjiang.
The unexpected release of Ilham Tohti, a Uighur economist and commentator, Xu Zhiyong, a public interest lawyer, and his assistant Zhuang Lu, was met with relief by human rights activists after they had been swept up in a wide political security crackdown.
Over in Scotland, the news about the release of Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, met questioning by foreign press. As a result, Scotland's Parliament has been recalled to discuss the situation. The Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, is expected to defend the decision to free the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity, which killed 270 people.
Last week he granted compassionate release to the terminally ill Libyan who had served eight years of a life sentence.
Britain is facing growing criticism from many countries, including the US, with its highest military officer saying he was appalled by the decision. Admiral Mike Mullen told CNN that the release of Megrahi was ''obviously a political decision. I was appalled by the decision''.
Sen Joe Lieberman pointed to shocking suggestions by the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, his son, Seif, and the head of the Libyan-British Business Council that the decision was influenced by Britain's interest in exploring for oil in Libya. The director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, has accused Mr MacAskill of making a mockery of the rule of law and giving comfort to terrorists.
But the US has its own problems with questionable releases. CIA interrogators threatened an al Qaeda prisoner with a gun and an electric drill to try to scare him into giving up information, according to a long-concealed inspector-general's report made public on Monday.
The gun and drill were used in two separate interrogation sessions against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, one of the sources said. Al-Nashiri is accused of plotting the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead. A federal judge in New York ordered a redacted version of the report released Monday as part of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Findings included threatening the murder of a child and the rape of a mother to suspects if they did not cooperate.
Wow, this is revelatory. And shocking. Questionable releases, whether Chinese activists or informing and guilt-bringing reporting or bombers who murdered hundreds of Scottish (and others) citizens…they bring a sense of right and wrong, don’t they?
We think out loud about our own desires and what is right in any situation. And often, if we are honest, we don’t know what we would do if we had the power to adjust things.
Imagine, or remember, some of the wrongs you’ve committed. Imagine someone coming to you and asking if you would like to be freed from the consequences of the wrongs. And then imagine that this person actually released you from the guilt, from the pains, from the suffering of the wrongs you had done.
What would you feel? Tremendous freedom; great satisfaction; awesome pleasure – you would feel many of these, wouldn’t you? You’d jump for joy. You’d at least smile as you walked out of the courtroom or the field or the basement of the wrongs in which you’d been living.
But how would others feel? How would those feel whom you had wronged? How would those affected by your behavior feel in light of the release you had just experienced?
The Jewish new year is fast approaching. In Sydney we will have a service on Friday night, 18 September, to remember and reflect. And to announce to everyone who attends, that God has done the most believable thing—He has paid your penalty and freed you from your sin. He has given you release from the guilt of your sin and made you alive with Him. And all because of Y’shua, the Just One who knows all you have ever done, and yet poured out His blood on the earth to save you from those sins. Awesome pleasure, and yet, undeserving... maybe a bit of guilt about receiving such an offer. How do you feel about this?
Some will say this release is questionable. Some will mock what God has done. But He did it nonetheless. The resultant reality is our freedom. Which would you rather have: the question or the answer?
I’ll choose the answer: freedom in believing in Y’shua. This works for now, for 18 September, for 2009, and into forever.
China has released two prominent legal activists after representations from the US. The activists are seen as important to the development of rule of law and public policy discussion of problems in Tibet and Xinjiang.
The unexpected release of Ilham Tohti, a Uighur economist and commentator, Xu Zhiyong, a public interest lawyer, and his assistant Zhuang Lu, was met with relief by human rights activists after they had been swept up in a wide political security crackdown.
Over in Scotland, the news about the release of Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi, met questioning by foreign press. As a result, Scotland's Parliament has been recalled to discuss the situation. The Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, is expected to defend the decision to free the only man convicted of the 1988 atrocity, which killed 270 people.
Last week he granted compassionate release to the terminally ill Libyan who had served eight years of a life sentence.
Britain is facing growing criticism from many countries, including the US, with its highest military officer saying he was appalled by the decision. Admiral Mike Mullen told CNN that the release of Megrahi was ''obviously a political decision. I was appalled by the decision''.
Sen Joe Lieberman pointed to shocking suggestions by the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi, his son, Seif, and the head of the Libyan-British Business Council that the decision was influenced by Britain's interest in exploring for oil in Libya. The director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, has accused Mr MacAskill of making a mockery of the rule of law and giving comfort to terrorists.
But the US has its own problems with questionable releases. CIA interrogators threatened an al Qaeda prisoner with a gun and an electric drill to try to scare him into giving up information, according to a long-concealed inspector-general's report made public on Monday.
The gun and drill were used in two separate interrogation sessions against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, one of the sources said. Al-Nashiri is accused of plotting the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, which left 17 U.S. sailors dead. A federal judge in New York ordered a redacted version of the report released Monday as part of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU. Findings included threatening the murder of a child and the rape of a mother to suspects if they did not cooperate.
Wow, this is revelatory. And shocking. Questionable releases, whether Chinese activists or informing and guilt-bringing reporting or bombers who murdered hundreds of Scottish (and others) citizens…they bring a sense of right and wrong, don’t they?
We think out loud about our own desires and what is right in any situation. And often, if we are honest, we don’t know what we would do if we had the power to adjust things.
Imagine, or remember, some of the wrongs you’ve committed. Imagine someone coming to you and asking if you would like to be freed from the consequences of the wrongs. And then imagine that this person actually released you from the guilt, from the pains, from the suffering of the wrongs you had done.
What would you feel? Tremendous freedom; great satisfaction; awesome pleasure – you would feel many of these, wouldn’t you? You’d jump for joy. You’d at least smile as you walked out of the courtroom or the field or the basement of the wrongs in which you’d been living.
But how would others feel? How would those feel whom you had wronged? How would those affected by your behavior feel in light of the release you had just experienced?
The Jewish new year is fast approaching. In Sydney we will have a service on Friday night, 18 September, to remember and reflect. And to announce to everyone who attends, that God has done the most believable thing—He has paid your penalty and freed you from your sin. He has given you release from the guilt of your sin and made you alive with Him. And all because of Y’shua, the Just One who knows all you have ever done, and yet poured out His blood on the earth to save you from those sins. Awesome pleasure, and yet, undeserving... maybe a bit of guilt about receiving such an offer. How do you feel about this?
Some will say this release is questionable. Some will mock what God has done. But He did it nonetheless. The resultant reality is our freedom. Which would you rather have: the question or the answer?
I’ll choose the answer: freedom in believing in Y’shua. This works for now, for 18 September, for 2009, and into forever.
25 July 2009
Was there a flourishing Palestinian society before 1948
NOT by Bob Mendelsohn, but written by Charles Oren
Tuesday July 21, 2009
Published here
http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?article=2007
Too many writers on ME conflict base their ideas on the premise that there was a flourishing Arab society in Palestine that was destroyed by the creation of Israel.
However, there were 200,000 Arabs here in 1830, and conditions were very bad, just as in every other part of the Ottoman Empire.
Conditions improved after 1832 when Mohamed Ali permitted infidels to buy land since he wanted European support for his campaign against Turkey. Arabs migrated to Palestine attracted by the prosperity created by Christians building churches, consuls providing law & order and then Jews draining the swamps. There were 600,000 Arabs here when the Mandate started. This grew to 1,200,000 by 1948 due to British policy to encourage Arab immigration so as to thwart Jewish efforts to create a state. Most of these 1.2 m Arabs were new immigrants, 'colonialists' just as the Jews ...... except that we returned to the only land we had ever claimed as ours in 3,000 years. Even the Koran recognises this fact.
There were few Jews here in the 19th and 20th century. However, there were 15 m Jews in the world who had dreamt of Zion for 2,000 years. However, not a single Arab anywhere considered Palestine as his or Holy !
The 1947 partition plan was based on demography. A minority of these 1.2 m Arabs lived in the area allocated to Israel, probably less than 400,000. Of these, 150,000 remained in their homes and became Israeli citizens. Hence, only 250,000 Arabs fled rather than remain under Israeli rule. The others lived in areas allocated to them, and so cannot claim refugee status since they did not flee foreign rule.
And yet, everyone repeats the claim that there were 750,000 Arab refugees in 1948 ....... but ignore the 1 m Jews expelled from Arab states.
No one mentions the populations of the countries involved in the conflict. It can be presumed that today's readers do not know that there were only 600,000 Jews here in 1948 and they had no army or weapons since the Brits had confiscated all Jewish arms.
My own grandchildren cannot grasp this!
There were about 100 m Arabs in the countries around Israel who attacked in 1948. With those odds, it should have taken them only a few weeks to drive all the Jews into the sea.
And everyone accepts that they had a right to attack Israel !
This was a war of aggression that has not yet ended. Israel has a right to defend itself and to expect compensation, in cash and/or territory.
The odds were worse in 1967!
Russia had flooded Egypt and Syria with weapons after the 1956 fiasco while there was still a very effective arms embargo on Israeli.
Israel had grown from 600,000 in 1948 to 3 m in 1967. Homes, jobs etc had to be created for all these people. Just imagine the chaos in any other country if the population suddenly tripled ! No country today is able to create even a few new jobs for their unemployed.
It is an insult to human intelligence to claim that 6 m Jews are a threat to 1,500 m Muslims who are supported by the rest of the world that depends on their oil.
And finally, UN resolutions are treated as if they are based on justice without considering the number of Muslim and Jewish states involved.
Tuesday July 21, 2009
Published here
http://www.icjs-online.org/index.php?article=2007
Too many writers on ME conflict base their ideas on the premise that there was a flourishing Arab society in Palestine that was destroyed by the creation of Israel.
However, there were 200,000 Arabs here in 1830, and conditions were very bad, just as in every other part of the Ottoman Empire.
Conditions improved after 1832 when Mohamed Ali permitted infidels to buy land since he wanted European support for his campaign against Turkey. Arabs migrated to Palestine attracted by the prosperity created by Christians building churches, consuls providing law & order and then Jews draining the swamps. There were 600,000 Arabs here when the Mandate started. This grew to 1,200,000 by 1948 due to British policy to encourage Arab immigration so as to thwart Jewish efforts to create a state. Most of these 1.2 m Arabs were new immigrants, 'colonialists' just as the Jews ...... except that we returned to the only land we had ever claimed as ours in 3,000 years. Even the Koran recognises this fact.
There were few Jews here in the 19th and 20th century. However, there were 15 m Jews in the world who had dreamt of Zion for 2,000 years. However, not a single Arab anywhere considered Palestine as his or Holy !
The 1947 partition plan was based on demography. A minority of these 1.2 m Arabs lived in the area allocated to Israel, probably less than 400,000. Of these, 150,000 remained in their homes and became Israeli citizens. Hence, only 250,000 Arabs fled rather than remain under Israeli rule. The others lived in areas allocated to them, and so cannot claim refugee status since they did not flee foreign rule.
And yet, everyone repeats the claim that there were 750,000 Arab refugees in 1948 ....... but ignore the 1 m Jews expelled from Arab states.
No one mentions the populations of the countries involved in the conflict. It can be presumed that today's readers do not know that there were only 600,000 Jews here in 1948 and they had no army or weapons since the Brits had confiscated all Jewish arms.
My own grandchildren cannot grasp this!
There were about 100 m Arabs in the countries around Israel who attacked in 1948. With those odds, it should have taken them only a few weeks to drive all the Jews into the sea.
And everyone accepts that they had a right to attack Israel !
This was a war of aggression that has not yet ended. Israel has a right to defend itself and to expect compensation, in cash and/or territory.
The odds were worse in 1967!
Russia had flooded Egypt and Syria with weapons after the 1956 fiasco while there was still a very effective arms embargo on Israeli.
Israel had grown from 600,000 in 1948 to 3 m in 1967. Homes, jobs etc had to be created for all these people. Just imagine the chaos in any other country if the population suddenly tripled ! No country today is able to create even a few new jobs for their unemployed.
It is an insult to human intelligence to claim that 6 m Jews are a threat to 1,500 m Muslims who are supported by the rest of the world that depends on their oil.
And finally, UN resolutions are treated as if they are based on justice without considering the number of Muslim and Jewish states involved.
23 July 2009
Does the universe have a beginning?
From the internet...
Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
This article is online at
http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=beginning1
For some Q and A, read
http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=id_qa
Scientific discoveries revive the ancient belief in a beginning to the universe. If we could rewind the history of the universe, what would we discover about its origin and development? Did it really have a beginning, or was it always there?
The influential ancient philosopher Aristotle stated, “It is impossible that movement should ever come into being or cease to be, for it must always have existed. Nor can time come into being or cease to be.”
Meanwhile, the biblical book of Genesis famously starts off, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
Which is it? Is the universe eternal—has it always been here? Or did it have a start at some point in time—did it have a birthday, so to speak? These are the two schools of thought that have enrolled followers since early times. (Actually, there was also a third school that postulated that the universe existed on the back of a giant sea turtle, but they’re mostly gone now.)
The seesaw of opinion has tipped one way or the other over time. But lately the weight of evidence has all been coming down on the side of the birthday universe.
In the old days when the Christian church dominated Western society, the creation of the universe was taken for granted. But slowly the scientific viewpoint pushed aside creation as well as the Creator. Now many scientists are thinking that the idea of a creation may not have been so far off from the truth as they thought. It’s looking like the universe had a beginning after all.
Remarkably, one of the first scientists to swing the pendulum of opinion back to the birthday-universe position was so entrenched in eternal-universe thinking that at first he refused to believe his own conclusions.
A GREAT BRAIN'S BIGGEST BLUNDER
When Albert Einstein developed his revolutionary theory of general relativity in 1916, his mathematical calculations pointed to an extraordinary conclusion—the universe was expanding. And since if you rewind the tape on any expansion, you get back to a point where it started, that meant the universe must have had a beginning too.1
Einstein, however, was like most scientists of his day in that he believed in an eternal universe. Unwilling to accept a beginning to the universe, Einstein fudged the numbers in order to nullify the conclusion that the universe was expanding.
University of California astrophysicist George Smoot explains that Einstein’s main problem with an expanding universe was its implication of a beginning. A beginning pointed to a beginner beyond scientific investigation.2 However, once experimental data proved that the universe really was expanding, Einstein admitted his error, calling it “the biggest blunder of my life.”3
There’s a point worth considering here: if it could happen to Einstein, it could happen to anyone. Rarely is anyone completely objective when it comes to the issue of a Creator. While it is true that religious belief and philosophy became an obstacle for scientific inquiry in the days of Galileo, trends have changed. In the modern era it has at times been a prejudice against the possibility of a cosmic designer that has kept many scientists from honest and open inquiry.
Thankfully, the truth generally comes out in the end and scientists begin to see the light. For Einstein and others, it was something called red shift that started the parade of evidence for a universe with a beginning.
RED SHIFTING THE BIG BANG THEORY INTO HIGH GEAR
In the late 1920s, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble noticed something unusual as he gazed into the heavens. It wasn’t a new planet or little green men waving at him from Mars; it was something both more tedious and at the same time more thrilling.
Hubble had been spending countless nights at the Mount Wilson Observatory, studying the stars and galaxies and especially the spectrum of color in the light they sent our way. He discovered that the light from most other galaxies was shifted to the red end of the spectrum, which indicated they were moving away from us.
Furthermore, the farther a galaxy was away from us, the more red shifted its light was and, thus, the faster it was moving away from us. The only explanation for all of this was that space itself was expanding, causing all galaxies to move away from each other. In an expanding universe, from any point in space (including our own), it would appear that most stars and galaxies were racing away. And the farther away they were, the faster they would be racing.
There it was in the red shift: proof that Einstein had been right in the first place (before he fudged his formula) and that the universe really was expanding. Proof, in other words, that the universe was not eternal but had a beginning.4
And yet not everyone accepted the proof at first, including a scientist named Sir Fred Hoyle (former Plumian professor of astronomy at Cambridge University and founder of the Institute of Astronomy at Cambridge). Ironically, it was Hoyle who originally described the event as a “big bang,” meaning to mock the idea. The name stuck. (According to physics professor Brian Greene, the term “big bang” is actually misleading since there was nothing to explode and no space in which an explosion could take place.)5 But unlike Hoyle, many other scientists began coming over to the side of the newly named theory.
The world’s leading astrophysicist, Stephen Hawking, who has held the esteemed position of Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, calls Hubble’s discovery of an expanding universe “one of the great intellectual revolutions of the twentieth century.”6 The discovery that the universe had a beginning has led to a new science called cosmology, which attempts to understand what happened at the origin of the universe, how it works, and what will happen in its future.
The new science led cosmologists to take another look at a seemingly mundane insight from the 19th century, the second law of thermodynamics.
THE QUESTIONS THAT FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE
Einstein’s theorems based on his theory of relativity predict that the universe could not have begun without an outside force or Beginner.14 Since Einstein’s theory of relativity ranks as the most exhaustively tested and best proven principle in physics, his conclusion is deemed correct.15
Tests from an array of radio telescopes at the South Pole have confirmed the big bang to a still higher degree of accuracy than ever before.16 Background radiation measurements exceed 99.9% of what had been predicted.17 There are now more than 30 independent confirmations that the universe had a one-time origin.18
A SECOND LAW OF FIRST IMPORTANCE
In addition to Hubble’s discovery, the second law of thermodynamics also predicts a beginning to the universe. You say you don’t know the second law of thermodynamics? Think again.
Let’s say you come into a room containing me and a bunch of your other pals, and you find a steaming cup of Starbucks coffee on the table. Being the thoughtful individual that you are, you ask, “Does this belong to anyone?”
To which I reply, “It’s been there for the last month.”
Well, you’d know immediately I was wrong or lying (probably lying). Why? Because the coffee wouldn’t still be hot if it had been there for a month; it would be room temperature.
That’s the second law of thermodynamics in action. This law states that everything continually moves from a state of order to disorder and that heat and energy dissipate over time. This is a law that has been verified by proof after scientific proof and has never been shown to be wrong.
Now let’s apply this law to the universe, just as cosmologists have. If the universe were eternal, it would have gone cold and lifeless long ago. The stars would have burned out. Planets would have broken up into clouds of dust. And even the black holes would have ceased vacuuming the universe of unsightly stars and planets.
When you see flaming suns and scorching meteors, in other words, you’re looking at a steaming cup of coffee that over infinite time would have long since gone room temperature. Since the universe is still full of pockets of heat and energy, it cannot be eternal. Who would have thought heat would be such a helpful clue? And that is just the half of it.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TV INTERFERENCE
There is still another way that the measurement of heat help to prove that the universe is expanding. In the spring of 1964, two researchers at Bell Labs observed a persistent hiss while testing their microwave radiation detector. Regardless of which direction they pointed the antenna, the static was the same. (This is the same static as TV interference. The same static that was supposed to be gone when I paid $150 to have my satellite dish installed.) Those men, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, had discovered what scientists say is the echo from the birth of the universe.7
But how could scientists know for sure that the hiss they were hearing was actually an echo from the beginning of the universe? Mathematicians calculated that heat generated at the moment the universe began would have been enormous beyond comprehension. This heat would have gradually dissipated over the life of the cosmos, leaving only a tiny residual of about 3 degrees Kelvin (-270 degrees C).
Additionally, in order for galaxies to have formed by the explosion needed to have slight variations in the form of waves or ripples.
According to George Smoot, these ripples would result in very slight fluctuations in the predicted temperature and would reveal an identifiable pattern.8 Thus, if the temperatures matched up, the birth of the universe would be scientifically verified. Merely discovering the temperature to be 3 degrees Kelvin would not prove that the universe actually had a beginning, the fluctuations also needed to match.9
But how could we verify fluctuations so subtle?
THE GREATEST DISCOVERY OF ALL TIME?
In 1992, a team of astrophysicists led by Smoot launched the COBE satellite in order to verify the temperatures in space. The satellite would be able to take precise measurements and determine whether fluctuations in temperature existed.
The results stunned the scientific world. Not only was the three-degree temperature confirmed, but more importantly, the profiles of the fluctuations were discovered to be a match with what had been expected.10 Hawking called the discovery “the scientific discovery of the century, if not all time.” Smoot himself excitedly stated to newspaper reporters, “What we have found is evidence for the birth of the universe.”11 He also said, “If you’re religious, it’s like looking at God.”12
Astounded by the news, Ted Koppel began his ABC Nightline television program with an astronomer quoting the first two verses of the Bible. The other special guest, a physicist, immediately added his quote of the third Bible verse: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. … And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light” (Genesis 1:1, 3).13
Evidence like that provided by the COBE satellite raises some intriguing questions, to say the least.
New telescopes such as the infrared Spitzer Space Telescope, launched in 2003, have opened up even bigger windows to our universe. They have prompted astronomer Giovanni Fazio, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, to remark, “We are now able for the first time to lift the cosmic veil that has blocked our view.”19
As a result of the accumulating evidence, the scientific community has long since begun asking questions about origins, such as the following:
• What was there before the big bang?
• Why did the big bang result in a universe enabling life to exist?
• How could everything originate from nothing?
Smoot ponders what was there before the beginning: “Go back further still, beyond the moment of creation—what then? What was there before the big bang? What was there before time began?”20 The same astrophysicist notes that “until the late 1910’s … those who didn’t take Genesis literally had no reason to believe there had been a beginning.”21 The Genesis account of creation and the big bang theory both speak of everything coming from nothing. Suddenly the Bible and science agree (a discovery somewhat embarrassing to materialists). Smoot admits, “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.”22
The evidence had begun to add up, and some scientists weren’t liking the sum.
A ONE TIME BEGINNING
Hoyle and other scientists fervently pursued alternative explanations to a one-time origin of the universe. Eventually, however, the evidence showed clearly that the universe had a beginning, and the big bang theory was proclaimed victorious. Ironically, it was evidence from Hoyle’s own research that helped confirm that the universe had a one-time beginning.
TRYING TO AVOID THE BAD DREAM
A beginning to the universe was like a bad dream come true for materialists who wanted to believe everything had always existed. It brought scientists face to face with the loical conclusions that primary cause must exist. That argument is a simple logical syllogism:
1. Everything that has a beginning had a cause.
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore, the universe had a cause.
But admitting a cause leads to the next logical question: who or what is the cause?
Think about it for a minute. Since time, space, matter, and motion are all a part of the created universe, then before the beginning it was timeless, spaceless, and motionless.
What can happen spontaneously from this state of affairs? There’s nothing moving, there’s nothing colliding, there’s … well, nothing. Not even the potential for anything to happen.
The fact everything came from nothing has forced scientists to acknowledge that something outside of space and time, something very powerful and with apparent volition, must have acted to bring about the beginning. That is, there must have been an intelligent Designer of the universe. Some might go ahead and use the name God for this Creator.
Well, in certain academic circles, this line of reasoning simply won’t do. Thus it is that many materialists have looked for a way to prove that the universe didn’t have a beginning. Smoot remarks, “Cosmologists have long struggled to avoid this bad dream by seeking explanations of the universe that avoid the necessity of a beginning.”23
Sir Fred Hoyle (he who mockingly coined the term “big bang”) was one scientist who strongly opposed the concept of a beginning for the universe. In 1948 Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold joined Hoyle in postulating that matter was in a continual state of creation. They called their idea the steady state theory, which was an attempt to show that the universe is eternal after all, even though the evidence had long been trending against such a view. However, the COBE discovery of background radiation was the fatal blow to the steady state theory. 24
Next came the oscillating-universe theory. According to this concept, the universe explodes, contracts, and explodes again, eternally yo-yoing. This would be another way to permit a belief in the eternal existence of the universe. But the physics for this theory didn’t work.
More recently, some scientists, including Hawking, have begun considering the so-called multiverse theory. This theory accepts that our universe is finite, but it suggests that ours is just one of many universes. The whole multi-universe may be eternal, according to this theory, even though our particular universe is not. This theory is covered in more depth in another article in this magazine, but the key point to understand about it right now is that it has no evidence whatsoever to support it.
These theories fit neatly with the philosophy of materialism, whereas a beginning of the universe would raise the obvious question, who was there to start it? Professor Dennis Sciama, Hawking’s supervisor while he was at Cambridge, admits his reasons for supporting the steady state theory: “I was a supporter of the steady state theory, not in the sense that I believed that it had to be true, but in that I found it so attractive I wanted it to be true.”25
An origin of the universe meant materialists were suddenly faced with the questions that threatened their worldview.
Today most cosmologists and physicists accept the big bang theory as the scientific explanation of how our universe began. In fact, scientists believe they can trace the history of the universe all the way back to 10-43 of a second. Prior to that point in the history of our universe, all of our current theories break down and science can see no further back. The very beginning of the universe remains a mystery.
Imagine rewinding the universe back to its beginning, a time when there were no stars. No light, matter, or energy. Not even space or time. Suddenly an enormous explosion erupted from this nothingness at a temperature exceeding a million trillion trillion degrees.26 Time begins along with matter, energy, and space.
When a bomb ejects shrapnel into the air, both the bomb material and the space it blows into have already been there. However, in the beginning of the universe, neither space nor matter existed until the explosion. The space surface of the universe and the newly created matter came into existence.
According to the big bang theory, this explosion launched the entire universe, from the most distant galaxy, to the most colorful nebula, to quasars flashing like beacons, to our own comforting sun and nearby planets, to you and me with our questions about where we came from and what it all means. Since man alone thinks about the meaning and purpose of life, the beginning—and the cause of that beginning—must be fascinating to each one of us.
The verdict is in on the question of whether the universe is eternal or had a beginning. The idea that everything in the cosmos originated out of nothing seems mythical, yet it is now mainstream science.
ENDNOTES
1. Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe (New York: Vintage, 2000), 81-82.
2. George Smoot and Keay Davidson, Wrinkles in Time (New York: Avon, 1993), 36.
3. Greene, 81-82.
4. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1990), 38-51.
5. Greene, 83.
6. Hawking, 39.
7. Smoot, 80-83.
8. Ibid., 187.
9. Ibid., 240.
10. Ibid., 241.
11. Associated Press, “U.S. Scientists Find a ‘Holy Grail’: Ripples at the Edge of the Universe,” International
Herald Tribune (London), April 24, 1992, 1.
12. Thomas H. Maugh II, “Relics of ‘Big Bang’ Seen for First Time,” Los Angeles Times, April 1992, A1, A30.
13. Nightline with Ted Koppel, ABC, April 25, 1992.
14. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 3rd ed. (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001), 224.
15. Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 230.
16. E. M. Leitch et al., “Measurement of Polarization with the Degree Angular Scale Interferometer,” Nature 420 (2002): 772-87; J. M. Kovac et al., “Detection of Polarization in the Cosmic Microwave Background Using DASI,” Nature 420 (2002): 772-87; Matias Zalarriaga, “Background Comes to the Fore,” Nature 420 (2002): 747-48.
17. Gregg Easterbrook, “Before the Big Bang,” U.S. News & World Report special edition, 2003, 16.
18. Hugh Ross, “Big Bang Passes Test,” Connections, Qtr 2, 2003.
19. Paul Recer, “Newest Space Telescope: The Spitzer,” Seattle Post Intelligencer, December 19, 2003, A17.
20. Smoot, 291.
21. Ibid., 30.
22. Ibid., 17.
23. Ibid., 291
24. Ibid. 86.
25. Stephen Hawking, ed., Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time: A Reader’s Companion (New York: Bantam, 1992), 63.
26. Bradford A. Smith, “New Eyes on the Universe,” National Geographic, January 1994, 33.
13 July 2009
Jewish Christians in the Church?
Beth Hatefutsoth is the diaspora museum in Tel Aviv, Israel. The picture's caption reads:
Jews and Jewish-Christians prepare to worship at the Great Synagogue of Antioch, Syria, 4th century. Chrysostom, one of the fathers of the Church, reproves the Christians and demands that they separate from the Jews.
---Diorama, Beth Hatefutsoth, Permanent Exhibition
When I saw this diorama in Israel in 1983, I was amazed. Here was evidence in the 4th century of the reality that so many knock back...Jews for Jesus. Messianic Jews existed then and now, and caused a stir in each.
Rodney Stark makes a big deal, as do many about St John of Antioch, later titled Chrysostom (Golden tongue). According to Wikipedia, During his first two years as a presbyter in Antioch (386-387), Chrysostom denounced Jews and Judaizing Christians in a series of eight sermons delivered to Christians in his congregation who were taking part in Jewish festivals and other Jewish observances.[See Wilken, p.xv, and also "John Chrysostom" in Encyclopedia Judaica] It is disputed whether the main target were specifically Judaizers or Jews in general. His homilies were expressed in the conventional manner, utilizing the uncompromising rhetorical form known as the psogos (Greek: blame).
One of the purposes of these homilies was to prevent Christians from participating in Jewish customs, and thus prevent the perceived erosion of Chrysostom's flock. In his sermons, Chrysostom criticized those "Judaizing Christians", who were participating in Jewish festivals and taking part in other Jewish observances, such as the shabbat, submitted to circumcision and made pilgrimage to Jewish holy places.
Chrysostom claimed that on the shabbats and Jewish festivals synagogues were full of Christians, especially women, who loved the solemnity of the Jewish liturgy, enjoyed listening to the shofar on Rosh Hashanah, and applauded famous preachers in accordance with the contemporary custom.[37] A more recent apologetic theory is that he instead tried to persuade Jewish Christians, who for centuries had kept connections with Jews and Judaism, to choose between Judaism and Christianity. ( Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity. How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries, (Princeton University Press:1997)p.66-67.)
I'm not writing about church antisemitism against Jewish people today. That is abundant and shamefully abundantly clear throughout the centuries. What I'm referencing is church antisemitism against Jewish believers in Jesus today. And in 350 AD and that's not good by any means.
Chrysostom wanted Jewish believers to separate from the historic Jewish community and there are too many Christian pastors who want us to do the same. Quit eating kosher; quit keeping Shabbat; come over to our side. The title of the diorama was "Bear the Cross"... leave Judaism. Be one of us.
Friends, even the word 'Judaize' is a slur word. Judaize would mean to do Jewish things, or to invite others to do the same. It might even mean to "become Jewish." What exactly is wrong with that? The theme in the book of Galatians warrants another word--"legalize", or to 'seek favour with God by means of works' rather than by faith. But to name this action "judaizing" is a demeaning of the people to whom God gave the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Messiah according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. (Romans 9.4-5)
The Church has been guilty in so many places of demeaning Jewish people, here in Australia, and around the world. God help the church to stop the wrong of St John of Antioch, to stop the wrong of the Spanish Inquisition (which targeted Jewish Christians, along with Islam converts as well), to stop the wrong of these days. Let Jewish believers practice their faith as they desire. Don't make me eat ham; don't discourage my celebrating Rosh Hashanah. Help us focus our practices and life and culture on Messiah Y'shua, the Saviour of the world and King of Kings.
11 July 2009
Jews and Jesus. The Great Divide
Jewish people all over the world are thinking about Jesus in unprecedented numbers, and it's not because they believe in him as messiah and Lord. And it may not be because of godly evangelistic campaigns worldwide. Since the turn of the 20th century Jewish academics and theologians have been revisiting the identity and the work and ministry of the Nazarene.
And how significant is that? Today I was witnessing in Bondi Junction, nearby our book shop in Sydney. And three young chassidim, ultra-orthodox Jewish men, were readying themselves for Shabbat. They were out to share what they believed as was I. One wanted to know if I had wrapped myself with tefillin that morning; another wanted to know why I believed in Jesus. But to even mention Jesus with a bit of honour was a surprise. The third used the derogatory slur "Yoshke" for Jesus and I corrected him. He recanted. He started calling him "Y'shua."
Wow, Orthodox Jewish people using the name Y'shua with honour and respect. I was surprised and delighted.
Last night I went to a lecture delievered by my recent friend Amy-Jill Levine (photo). She and I met last year about this time, and spent some good time discussing the issues of Jewish people and faith in Jesus. She had no problem discussing, she knew the terms, the parables, the words of Jesus and the apostles. And spoke them to me without a blink.
Sure, AJ is an academic. And her field of study and professorship is New Testament at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. So it should come as no surprise, except, wait a minute. AJ attends an Orthodox synagogue in Nashville. She's a faithful Jew. She does not believe in Jesus like I do, and tens of thousands of others of us.
So why the apparent comfort in discussing the issues? Isn't the Jesus of the New Testament the great divider? So how can centrist Jewish people who would radically disagree with our theological conclusions be comfortable in using his name and his parables, like it's a series of poems from Keats or stories from John Grisham.
Donald Hagner wrote about this phenomenon in the 1980s. He posited that the reclamationists, those Jewish academics like Neusner and Flusser and (he didn't know her then) AJ, accepted the ethics of Jesus, as little more than Talmudic Judaism re-tooled. But they refused the eschaton of Jesus, that part of the New Testament which allows him to claim to be the only way to the Father. His claims to be the Messiah. His claims to be the fulfillment of biblical Jewish desire for the consummation of all things.
In the Q and A session last night, a Holocaust survivor, a Mr Goldberg couldn't quite figure out what our lecturer was saying. He chronicled his own story from cheder in Poland to Auschwitz at 16 to learning of his parents' death inside the camps. He was saying he was a sufficiently schooled and real Jew, who although he didn't practice his religion and didn't really believe in God, wondered if AJ was using the parables of Jesus to bring Jews like him to believe in Jesus. Is that so? She denied it. Of course. She made it very clear that she found Jesus to be a serious Jewish teacher, not a liberal Jew, not a Roman-obsessed revolutionary. But not God.
It's a great conversation. It's all about the Great Divider. Hear these two quotes.
John 7.43 So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him.
John 10.19 There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words.
Seems that everywhere the real Jesus went, some believed and some didn't.
And that continued last night in Bondi, and today in Bondi Junction, and among people of good will and ill will, and throughout the world.
So what do you think? Who do you think Jesus is?
And how significant is that? Today I was witnessing in Bondi Junction, nearby our book shop in Sydney. And three young chassidim, ultra-orthodox Jewish men, were readying themselves for Shabbat. They were out to share what they believed as was I. One wanted to know if I had wrapped myself with tefillin that morning; another wanted to know why I believed in Jesus. But to even mention Jesus with a bit of honour was a surprise. The third used the derogatory slur "Yoshke" for Jesus and I corrected him. He recanted. He started calling him "Y'shua."
Wow, Orthodox Jewish people using the name Y'shua with honour and respect. I was surprised and delighted.
Last night I went to a lecture delievered by my recent friend Amy-Jill Levine (photo). She and I met last year about this time, and spent some good time discussing the issues of Jewish people and faith in Jesus. She had no problem discussing, she knew the terms, the parables, the words of Jesus and the apostles. And spoke them to me without a blink.
Sure, AJ is an academic. And her field of study and professorship is New Testament at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee. So it should come as no surprise, except, wait a minute. AJ attends an Orthodox synagogue in Nashville. She's a faithful Jew. She does not believe in Jesus like I do, and tens of thousands of others of us.
So why the apparent comfort in discussing the issues? Isn't the Jesus of the New Testament the great divider? So how can centrist Jewish people who would radically disagree with our theological conclusions be comfortable in using his name and his parables, like it's a series of poems from Keats or stories from John Grisham.
Donald Hagner wrote about this phenomenon in the 1980s. He posited that the reclamationists, those Jewish academics like Neusner and Flusser and (he didn't know her then) AJ, accepted the ethics of Jesus, as little more than Talmudic Judaism re-tooled. But they refused the eschaton of Jesus, that part of the New Testament which allows him to claim to be the only way to the Father. His claims to be the Messiah. His claims to be the fulfillment of biblical Jewish desire for the consummation of all things.
In the Q and A session last night, a Holocaust survivor, a Mr Goldberg couldn't quite figure out what our lecturer was saying. He chronicled his own story from cheder in Poland to Auschwitz at 16 to learning of his parents' death inside the camps. He was saying he was a sufficiently schooled and real Jew, who although he didn't practice his religion and didn't really believe in God, wondered if AJ was using the parables of Jesus to bring Jews like him to believe in Jesus. Is that so? She denied it. Of course. She made it very clear that she found Jesus to be a serious Jewish teacher, not a liberal Jew, not a Roman-obsessed revolutionary. But not God.
It's a great conversation. It's all about the Great Divider. Hear these two quotes.
John 7.43 So there arose a division in the multitude because of Him.
John 10.19 There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words.
Seems that everywhere the real Jesus went, some believed and some didn't.
And that continued last night in Bondi, and today in Bondi Junction, and among people of good will and ill will, and throughout the world.
So what do you think? Who do you think Jesus is?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Rosen and me Originally uploaded by bobmendo On one of our last occasions together, Moishe had some fun in sharing with the Council and then...
-
StaceyHostessSDA.jpg Originally uploaded by bobmendo So many write our office and request information or clarification or support for their ...
-
Of note today was the visit of the mayor of Ariel to young Ami Ortiz. The story follows from Jerusalem Post online edition. Anti-missionarie...
