Hi everyone,
So, you haven't seen Star Wars: The Force Awakens yet? Good... That Galaxy far far away is a pretty big place, and a lot has happened since we last visited it in Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi.
There are spoilers in here, but they come later and regard Princess Leia and the Resistance only, I will warn you before that happens.
The Battle of Endor saw a decisive victory for the Alliance to Restore the Republic, with the destruction of the Second Death Star and the death of Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader.
The Alliance reformed into the New Republic and sent messages to planets, encouraging them to rebel against the Imperial Garrisons on their planets. However, not every planet did so and the Empire held on to some of them. This led to the Civil War.
If you remember in the trailer the desert planet, Jakku, not Tatooine, that is where the final battle of the Civil War between the now massively expanded New Republic, thus the Star Destroyers littering the desert.
After this the Empire retreated to the unknown territory planets, and eventually signed a disarmament treaty with the New Republic. The Republic [and supposedly the Empire] then began to retire their large fleets, leading to the position we come to in the movie.
Meanwhile, the New Republic had to prove it was different from the Galactic Republic that the Empire replaced. The first way it did this was not to move the Senate back to the old building (seen in the prequels) on Coruscant (as far as I know it stayed part of the Empire, but I could be wrong).
Instead, the Senate of the New Republic moves to different host countries, also the Chancellor is no longer called the Supreme Chancellor (too Imperialistic, I guess). At the time of the Force Awakens the Chancellor is a guy called Lanever Villecham and the Senate presently sits on a planet called Hosnian Prime.
Ok, so spoilers (potentially, not really) will be below so stop reading and come back afterwards if you would prefer.
General Leia is not part of the Republic Senate in the Force Awakens. This is because she was suspicious of the Empire and believed, unlike the Republic, that they wouldn't disarm. This is why the Resistance force is so small in the movie, like ten X-Wings. It actually isn't sanctioned, fully, by the Republic. Leia actually has become annoyed with how slow the Republic Senate is to make decisions, just like her mother was when she voted no confidence in the Supreme Chancellor of her day!
The Senate began to see Leia as irrational and stuck in the past, thinking there would be war when the New Republic attempted to tell everyone there would be peace. Leia and the Senate eventually parted ways, though she still has a representative there. She then contacted the retired Admiral Ackbar, who first fought for the Republic in the Clone Wars, then for the Alliance and was drawn out of retirement to lend his military knowledge to the Resistance.
Friday, 18 December 2015
Tuesday, 25 August 2015
Operation Janus
Hey all, I have recently been reading the book The Martian, which I would highly recommend, and these missions named after Greek deities has inspired me to make all the problems in my flat a little more fun by giving them NASA style mission names and numbers. Janus and Eris, Chaos and Discord, ODDs 2 spoiler!
So, firstly, the whole thing is called Operation Janus because Janus was the Greek god of chaos and it seems like the flat is just living proof of entropy, or the theory that everything tends towards chaos. So Janus is like Apollo or something, it is the overarching group of missions.
Within operation Janus we presently have five other smaller missions.
Operation Triton - aka "the stinky bathroom". This is so named because Triton was a god of the sea and the bathroom has to do with water.
Operation Eris - the continuing struggle for hot water. So named because Eris was the goddess of discord and unshowered housemates can lead to discord.
Operation Hestia - there have been these leaks and wet carpets resulting. Hestia was the goddess of architecture and the hearth/home. Thought it was an apt name trying to stop leaking pipes and make this place a home again.
Operation Hephaestus - The fixing of the washing machine. Hephaestus was the god of blacksmiths and craftsmen and this is a technology problem.
Operation Pan - Wild mushrooms appearing! Inside. Pan was the god of the wild and nature.
Janus 1 was involved with Operation Triton and Operation Athena (the fixing of the internet, as she was the goddess of wisdom and the internet gives access to such).
Result: Operation Triton ongoing, Operation Athena sorted out by us getting in our own internet and not using the building's.
Operation Athena has been officially declared successful.
Janus 2 involved Operations Triton, Hestia and Hephaestus.
Result: Triton was ignored, Hestia was attempted to be fixed by replacing the cylinder and Hephaestus was fixed by me getting in a repair man.
Janus 3 again involved Operation Hestia, or Hestia 2, but was ignored. As were Operation Hestia 3 to 7.
Janus 4. This involved Hephaestus 4 and Hestia 8. The result was the leak causing Hestia eight that was then wetting our carpets (and also feeding Operation Pan) was sorted out.
Operation Hestia is officially declared successful!
Janus 5. Continuing from Janus 4 in many ways as Hephaestus 4 failed and Hephaestus 5 failed. Meaning Hephaestus is very much ongoing. This, however, also included Eris 2 and Pan 3. Operation Pan was thought to be dealt with but was found to be ongoing near the toilet and the sink. Operation Triton has been worked on by Andy extensively, but it is too early to declare it a success as of yet.
Result: Hephaestus ongoing. Eris 5, 6 and 7 have all been declared successful, though, for some reason, our immersion works by a completely different method than it did before Eris 2. Operation Pan ongoing.
Operation Eris has been officially declared successful, even if it was a completely unforeseen method.
Ongoing Missions:
Operation Hephaestus
Operation Pan
Operation Triton
So, firstly, the whole thing is called Operation Janus because Janus was the Greek god of chaos and it seems like the flat is just living proof of entropy, or the theory that everything tends towards chaos. So Janus is like Apollo or something, it is the overarching group of missions.
Within operation Janus we presently have five other smaller missions.
Operation Triton - aka "the stinky bathroom". This is so named because Triton was a god of the sea and the bathroom has to do with water.
Operation Eris - the continuing struggle for hot water. So named because Eris was the goddess of discord and unshowered housemates can lead to discord.
Operation Hestia - there have been these leaks and wet carpets resulting. Hestia was the goddess of architecture and the hearth/home. Thought it was an apt name trying to stop leaking pipes and make this place a home again.
Operation Hephaestus - The fixing of the washing machine. Hephaestus was the god of blacksmiths and craftsmen and this is a technology problem.
Operation Pan - Wild mushrooms appearing! Inside. Pan was the god of the wild and nature.
Janus 1 was involved with Operation Triton and Operation Athena (the fixing of the internet, as she was the goddess of wisdom and the internet gives access to such).
Result: Operation Triton ongoing, Operation Athena sorted out by us getting in our own internet and not using the building's.
Operation Athena has been officially declared successful.
Janus 2 involved Operations Triton, Hestia and Hephaestus.
Result: Triton was ignored, Hestia was attempted to be fixed by replacing the cylinder and Hephaestus was fixed by me getting in a repair man.
Janus 3 again involved Operation Hestia, or Hestia 2, but was ignored. As were Operation Hestia 3 to 7.
Janus 4. This involved Hephaestus 4 and Hestia 8. The result was the leak causing Hestia eight that was then wetting our carpets (and also feeding Operation Pan) was sorted out.
Operation Hestia is officially declared successful!
Janus 5. Continuing from Janus 4 in many ways as Hephaestus 4 failed and Hephaestus 5 failed. Meaning Hephaestus is very much ongoing. This, however, also included Eris 2 and Pan 3. Operation Pan was thought to be dealt with but was found to be ongoing near the toilet and the sink. Operation Triton has been worked on by Andy extensively, but it is too early to declare it a success as of yet.
Result: Hephaestus ongoing. Eris 5, 6 and 7 have all been declared successful, though, for some reason, our immersion works by a completely different method than it did before Eris 2. Operation Pan ongoing.
Operation Eris has been officially declared successful, even if it was a completely unforeseen method.
Ongoing Missions:
Operation Hephaestus
Operation Pan
Operation Triton
Wednesday, 22 July 2015
The Parable of Austerity and Debt Forgiveness
Jesus tells a Parable about a man,
who will be called Greece,
who was burdened by billions of Euro worth of debt, and he had defaulted.
There was nothing he could do,
no referendums,
no negotiating tables,
just debt and no way to pay it.
He was called up for it.
Heading into the European Central Bank office he knew he was in trouble. He pleaded with Mario Draghi (President of the ECB) to give him more time and not kick him out of the Euro.
Having mercy on the man in tonnes of debt, the entire debt was written off!
There was no way the man could pay it, but there was kindness and mercy shown to him.
Later on the same day, Greece met Germany who owed him some rent money since World War II (supposedly),
when Germany said she couldn’t pay, Greece made Nazi posters and posted them on the Internet of Germany, publicly shaming her.
The European Central Bank got wind of the story and brought Greece back to another meeting.
Greece was told that even though all their debt had been written off, the ECB was disappointed with Greece for what they had done to Germany,
"Don't you know what you put on the Internet stays there forever?" Mario asked Greece. "All your debt was forgiven, but you could not pay it forward, and humiliated Germany. You wicked, wicked man."
Consequentially, Greece was forced to bring in reforms that created more austerity and worse conditions for living, until all the debt was paid off.
- Matthew 18: 24-34
who will be called Greece,
who was burdened by billions of Euro worth of debt, and he had defaulted.
There was nothing he could do,
no referendums,
no negotiating tables,
just debt and no way to pay it.
He was called up for it.
Heading into the European Central Bank office he knew he was in trouble. He pleaded with Mario Draghi (President of the ECB) to give him more time and not kick him out of the Euro.
Having mercy on the man in tonnes of debt, the entire debt was written off!
There was no way the man could pay it, but there was kindness and mercy shown to him.
Later on the same day, Greece met Germany who owed him some rent money since World War II (supposedly),
when Germany said she couldn’t pay, Greece made Nazi posters and posted them on the Internet of Germany, publicly shaming her.
The European Central Bank got wind of the story and brought Greece back to another meeting.
Greece was told that even though all their debt had been written off, the ECB was disappointed with Greece for what they had done to Germany,
"Don't you know what you put on the Internet stays there forever?" Mario asked Greece. "All your debt was forgiven, but you could not pay it forward, and humiliated Germany. You wicked, wicked man."
Consequentially, Greece was forced to bring in reforms that created more austerity and worse conditions for living, until all the debt was paid off.
- Matthew 18: 24-34
Friday, 10 April 2015
Should Christians Vote Yes in May?
I clearly no longer agree with a younger, dumber, slightly brainwashed version of myself. But I wanted to leave this here so people can see how humans and knowledge and acceptance can develop in an individual.
I have thought and prayed about the issue of the referendum on the 22nd of May 2015. I have thought and prayed about what I, personally, would vote; what I think about the entire issue; what I think other people should vote; etc. etc. For some time now I have come to some conclusions and for some time I have been debating putting them on this blog.
Previously I have written a post titled "TotD: Why I'm Against Gay Marriage", which can be found on: http://waveysthoughts.blogspot.ie/2013/05/totd-why-im-against-gay-marriage.html. This post will nearly sound contradictory to that previous post. However, it is looking at things from a different perspective, I believe. I still stick by the majority of what I have said there.
The main [Christian] objections against Same-Sex Marriage are as follows:
- The Bible condemns homosexuality.
- Think of the children!
- Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church, it is a religious institution from God and should only be between one man and one woman. Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) destroy the sanctity of marriage.
- Religious liberty...
I will try and deal briefly with the first two of these but the third is the one I want to spend the most time on. The fourth may have to be its own post and I have sort of dealt with it before in "Response to the Asher Bakery vs Equality Commission.", which can be found at: http://waveysthoughts.blogspot.ie/2014/07/response-to-asher-bakery-vs-equality.html
1. Does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Should that change how I vote?
Yes, the Bible does in fact condemn homosexuality. It condemns it in all its forms; going as far as to use words that are understood as the male person in a homosexual relationship that gives and the one who takes... Sorry for the imagery.
Yes, the Bible does in fact condemn homosexuality. It condemns it in all its forms; going as far as to use words that are understood as the male person in a homosexual relationship that gives and the one who takes... Sorry for the imagery.
Based on the above should a Christian vote 'no'?
I don't think this fact has any bearing on what to vote in the referendum in May.
Firstly, if you personally have a problem with homosexuality and you think it is wrong, then don't be homosexual [I know it's not that simple, I don't want to get into it more here]. But really, how does a couple of young men, or a couple of young women getting married affect you personally? Yes, it affects them, yes as a Christian I believe that there are serious consequences for people who chose to ignore God [in any and every issue] and live their lives their own way, and yes there is a responsibility to warn people of the things that lie ahead if they keep on this pathway of ignoring God.
However, you cannot force Christian beliefs on non-Christians. We cannot make peoples' choices for them. As the cliched saying goes: "God's law for God's people." Christians cannot, and should not, expect people who do not share our beliefs and convictions to share our rules; where they are not also the laws of the State.
I get that it is a scary time for "Christendom". Christians have been in power in European society for many centuries; it has only been in the most recent ones that the power of the Church has begun to decline.
This terrifies Christians, however, we have to remember that for the first three centuries of the Christian Church it was the minority in society, and it flourished. People said it would die out, be wiped out, etc. It wasn't! The acceptance of Christianity by the Roman Empire is probably one of the worst things that happened to the church, as it opened the doors for people to join the church who didn't believe in Jesus or give a monkeys about any Christian beliefs or doctrines, but had to because of fear of punishment from the Emperor.
Christians see the decline in Christian influence on society as steps backwards, however, "every crisis is also an opportunity", and instead of focusing on "maintaining the status quo" Christians should be asking what "new thing" is God doing in this new day, and how can Christianity be relevant in it.
With that said, Christians need to see a separation between society and the church, a separation that hasn't really existed for a long time; but certainly does now.
Therefore, I don't see the biblical understanding of homosexuality as a reason for voting no.
2. Think of the children!
Another big argument I have heard, from both Christians and non-Christians, against SSM is the children, and how they need both a male and a female parent. Many arguments have been made against this, it is not my interest to present them or join in the debate on their side. In my previous posting, listed above, item three is about children. I abide by that statement, it is my own personal conviction.
However,
The issue of adoption and artificial insemination or surrogacies is not an issue that even comes into the referendum on 22nd of May. Many people, who really should do some reading before they vote, think it is.
In reality, you are not voting on the issues in the paragraph above. Unfortunately, Christian, you don't get a say in whether a homosexual couple are allowed to adopt children, or 'have' children at all. Believe it or not the President is about to sign all those things you are freaking out about into law, it will be law whether you vote yes or no.
You see, earlier in the year the Government brought forward what is called "The Children and Family Relationships" Bill. This grants homosexual couples rights of adoption and clears up some things about surrogacy and artificial insemination and all that jazz.
I think you know where this is going:
Therefore, the issue of the redefinition of the family, and the rights of gay people to "have" or adopt children is not relevant to the referendum this May. It should not come into your decision whether to vote yes or no.
There is no reason, based on convictions about what you think could happen to children brought up by two parents of the same-sex, to vote no in the referendum in May.
3. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church, it is a religious institution from God and should only be between one man and one woman. Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) destroy the sanctity of marriage.
Finally, on to the main reason for writing this blog. Thanks for sticking with it.
The Sanctity of Marriage.
Again, I must reiterate my complete agreement with the Christian doctrine of the sanctity of marriage and express the importance of what a marriage is, how it is seen by God, and what it is a picture of.
In his book Is God Anti-Gay? [one of the best books I have read on the topic of homosexuality and Christianity, and written by someone who knows what they are talking about, and it's only 90 pages] Sam Allberry talks about why he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
He says: “Human marriage is a reflection of this supreme, heavenly marriage between Christ and his people. It is one of the reasons why Christians are resistant to allowing marriage to be defined in such a way as to include gay couples. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot reflect the union of Christ and the church, instead only reflecting Christ and Christ or church and church.” (22-3)
^Just so we are clear, I agree with him. I loved this so much that I took the time to type it out as I thought it would be useful later; and it was :D
So, here's the big revelation I have had recently, the thing I want to share with you all:
Christians see the decline in Christian influence on society as steps backwards, however, "every crisis is also an opportunity", and instead of focusing on "maintaining the status quo" Christians should be asking what "new thing" is God doing in this new day, and how can Christianity be relevant in it.
With that said, Christians need to see a separation between society and the church, a separation that hasn't really existed for a long time; but certainly does now.
Therefore, I don't see the biblical understanding of homosexuality as a reason for voting no.
2. Think of the children!
Another big argument I have heard, from both Christians and non-Christians, against SSM is the children, and how they need both a male and a female parent. Many arguments have been made against this, it is not my interest to present them or join in the debate on their side. In my previous posting, listed above, item three is about children. I abide by that statement, it is my own personal conviction.
However,
The issue of adoption and artificial insemination or surrogacies is not an issue that even comes into the referendum on 22nd of May. Many people, who really should do some reading before they vote, think it is.
In reality, you are not voting on the issues in the paragraph above. Unfortunately, Christian, you don't get a say in whether a homosexual couple are allowed to adopt children, or 'have' children at all. Believe it or not the President is about to sign all those things you are freaking out about into law, it will be law whether you vote yes or no.
You see, earlier in the year the Government brought forward what is called "The Children and Family Relationships" Bill. This grants homosexual couples rights of adoption and clears up some things about surrogacy and artificial insemination and all that jazz.
I think you know where this is going:
Therefore, the issue of the redefinition of the family, and the rights of gay people to "have" or adopt children is not relevant to the referendum this May. It should not come into your decision whether to vote yes or no.
There is no reason, based on convictions about what you think could happen to children brought up by two parents of the same-sex, to vote no in the referendum in May.
3. Marriage is a symbol of Christ and the Church, it is a religious institution from God and should only be between one man and one woman. Same-Sex Marriages (SSM) destroy the sanctity of marriage.
Finally, on to the main reason for writing this blog. Thanks for sticking with it.
The Sanctity of Marriage.
Again, I must reiterate my complete agreement with the Christian doctrine of the sanctity of marriage and express the importance of what a marriage is, how it is seen by God, and what it is a picture of.
In his book Is God Anti-Gay? [one of the best books I have read on the topic of homosexuality and Christianity, and written by someone who knows what they are talking about, and it's only 90 pages] Sam Allberry talks about why he doesn't agree with gay marriage.
He says: “Human marriage is a reflection of this supreme, heavenly marriage between Christ and his people. It is one of the reasons why Christians are resistant to allowing marriage to be defined in such a way as to include gay couples. A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, cannot reflect the union of Christ and the church, instead only reflecting Christ and Christ or church and church.” (22-3)
^Just so we are clear, I agree with him. I loved this so much that I took the time to type it out as I thought it would be useful later; and it was :D
So, here's the big revelation I have had recently, the thing I want to share with you all:
Civil Marriage is not the same thing as a Church Marriage.
In case you didn't get that, voting yes in May will not damage the sanctity of marriage. If you think that it does you are still living in a time when you think church and state aren't separate and you haven't yet 'divorced' them in your head.
Civil marriages have long ago ruined the sanctity of marriage. Take the below image as an extreme example of such:
Okay, if this blog wasn't controversial enough for you, it gets worse.
My belief is that every Christian could vote yes, or abstain from voting, without any conscience issues [I don't see any benefit in voting no, and I question the morality behind someone who would, having understood all that is contained in this post, besides for point 4 reasons]. Christian ministers, preachers and pastors should then opt to leave the civil registrars of solemnisers. [This is not the word sodomiser, in case anyone is getting irate at seeing it, a solemniser is someone registered in Ireland to conduct civil marriage ceremonies, the other is a derogatory term for a homosexual. It is not the latter I am using.]
For a long time, there has been a distinction between a Christian marriage and a civil one; perhaps it is time to make that distinction even clearer and a church leader should marry people in the eyes of God and the church, and a civil registrar could marry someone in the eyes of the State. I know, for a lot of smaller Christian churches in Ireland, that up until recently this was the case; I believe my own parents' wedding was conducted as such. Would it really be that difficult to go back to that system?
If we believe in the sanctity of marriage, as Christians keep talking about, then we should respect marriage enough to have nothing to do with civil marriages; which, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have been known to damage the sanctity of marriage [not that Christian ones don't as well].
This would also stop the foreseeable problem for ministers and church leaders when this referendum does return a yes vote [which it will, don't lie to yourself], of a church leader being asked to conduct an SSM, as they are on the list of registered solumnisers. They won't be on the list, so there is no problem.
Okay, but they are calling them 'Same-Sex Marriages", surely as Christians we cannot stand for that term being used for such a thing... and if we follow what you are outlining here, surely we should start campaigning for all civil marriages to drop the term marriage. Should that be our campaign?
If you feel very strongly about the damage to the sanctity of marriage that an SSM or a civil marriage is doing then I suggest a change of wording or terminology is required. However, marriage and wedding are English translations of biblical terms that are much older.
If you feel strongly about the word, perhaps it should be the original words you feel strongly about, not their translation.
Allow the State to have the words wedding and marriage. Let the Christian church, now pulled out from all civil marriages, instead use the Greek terms Gamos. [If it is that important to you].
Is the sanctity of marriage a reason to vote no in May?
Nope.
Should Christians do something to distinguish Christian marriages from Civil ones in order to protect the sanctity of marriage?
Yup:
- Separate from the civil distribution of marriage, creating a clear distinction.
- Do not Gamos couples in your church 'willy-nilly' as some Churches have a tendency to.
- Teach about the meaning of Gamos so that people will understand and will not enter into marriage lightly.
4. Religious Liberty.
I have one hesitation to voting yes in the referendum this May. That is religious liberty. If a yes is the outcome can a registered solemniser refuse to conduct a SSM if it is against their personal, and churches, religious convictions? Can someone who is not a church leader, but works as a Civil registrar?
These things are not being made clear, and are the things I would like to have cleared up. Is there a conscience clause in this referendum? I don't believe someone who does not agree with a wedding, be it between a couple of the opposite sex or the same-sex should have to conduct their wedding.
Were I a pastor I would not conduct the wedding of my non-Christian [or Christian] friends or congregants who have been cohabiting and sleeping together, unless they came to a point of repentance and understood that their actions were wrong [and they understood the thing they were entering into], nor would I conduct the wedding of two people of the same-sex. This, I believe, should be the attitude of the entire Christian community when it comes to weddings.
To a civil registrar I see the difficulties, but perhaps a clear distinction between marriage under God and a civil marriage would ease issues of conscience on providing a civil marriage for a Same-sex couple.
In Summary:
The reasons Christians have been giving for voting no, and opposing the same-sex referendum on 22nd of May 2015 are not valid ones, in least in what I can see.
The "Children and Family Relationships" Bill is legislating for gay couples to adopt and "have" children and so should not form part of the debate about the 22nd of May. Therefore the result of the referendum will not be a redefinition of 'the family'.
The sanctity of marriage is in tatters anyway. The Christian church needs to clean it up, and no amount of shouting at society that doesn't care what we say will do that. We need to remove the log from our own eye, treat marriage with the respect it deserves within the church first, before we can point to something like SSM destroying the sanctity of marriage. We need to distinguish Christian marriage from both opposite sex and same-sex Civil Marriages.
Questions about religious freedom, not about issues not pertaining to the referendum in May, need to be asked.
Do I advocate a yes?
Not necessarily. I don't understand why you would vote no, in my head it seems futile and pointless, and perhaps even cruel. This issue is to do with equal rights, in the eyes of the State, for our fellow citizens. It is wrong to oppress them, but it is also wrong to think of what they will be doing on the same level as a marriage between a man and a woman under God. So...
I am advocating an abstention, at the very least, if you can't vote yes. I am also advocating a clearing up of the results on religious freedom a yes vote will have, instead of an argument about things not pertaining to the bill; and I am advocating some thought put into the idea of marriage [from a Christian perspective].
Now, can we finally focus on the more important referendum coming in May? The changing of the age to run for President from 35 to 21; that has results that will effect us all more than this Same-Sex Marriage one... The next President of Ireland could be some young 'whipper-snapper'.
Wednesday, 3 December 2014
The McMass Project (the McDonaldization of the Church)
Recently, there appeared on Facebook the following video
Since this was uploaded others have been talking about the success of having a Starbuck's coffee in their church building.
In Calvary, since I started going pretty much, we've been going through the books of Samuel (with a break for Christmas, 1 Thessalonians and 11 weeks of Psalms called mixtape.) This past week we have been looking at 2 Samuel 6, and I feel like it has something to say about the McDonaldization of the Church, to steal John Drane's phrase, though I am sure when he wrote his book he didn't even foresee someone suggesting opening a McDonalds in the actual church!
"David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim. And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart, with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark.
And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. And David was angry because the LORD had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day. And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” So David was not willing to take the ark of the LORD into the city of David. But David took it aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. And the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household.
And it was told King David, “The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing. And when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. And David danced before the LORD with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn."
(2 Samuel 6:1-15 ESV)
In the above episodes from 2nd Samuel we see two attempts at bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. In the first attempt to move the Ark King David, in his hastiness, followed the most recent practice, that of the Philistines. In 1 Samuel the Ark is captured in a battle and the Philistines have it for some time but God proves Himself better than their god, Dagon, and they start getting tumours, so they send the Ark of the Covenant back to Israel on a cart.
Mike (Neglia, teaching pastor, Calvary Cork for those who don't know), mentioned that it was like David knew about this and decided it would be faster to carry the Ark by cart then on some people's backs and he adopted the Philistine practice into the worship of the people of Israel, in a way God had said not to. The result: disaster, Uzzah died.
So, later on they try it again. This time though, David follows all of the proper procedures, he has the right people carry the Ark, he recognises its Holiness and his sinfulness and he worships God in the right way.
In the Wednesday night 'Deeper' study on the above passage the question was put to us about worship services and how you often hear people say 'I got something out of that'. However, a worship service is about us worshipping God, so the question was put do we think about how God feels about our worship services? Another question asked whether we do something similar to David and his people, do we see something in culture and attempt to adopt it for use in the church when really we shouldn't?
Okay, so what has this got to do with the above video? Maybe you see where I am going with this.
I believe, strongly, that the opening of a secular franchise in your church's building is comparable to the first of David's attempts to bring the Ark to Jerusalem. The Church often engages in evangelistic activities, coming up with new ways of making the church contemporvant (a mixture of contemporary and relevant that I like). This is not a slight to many of those ways.
I think having a restaurant in your church building that helps make a little money, which can be used to fund other ministries and do some outreach at the same time. Similarly, a coffee shop run by the church can be a nice idea too.
There is a difference between these things and a non-Christian franchise though. There is little in the Bible to tell us about how a Church should be run, there are things about elders and leaders, taking communion and being at peace with one another, but not much about how a Church service should look.
The one verse I can think of, and most churches I know of point to, is Acts 2:42: "They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teachings, to the breaking of bread, to worship and to prayer."
This sets up a foundation for what the activities of the church should be: teaching, fellowship, worship and prayer. You can add evangelistic to that as well.
Yes, a McDonalds in your church would cover two of those five, but it could counter the other three.
When you buy into a franchise you buy into a worldview and a mentality and a mission statement. Buying into McDonalds' one is fundamentally opposed to a Christian worldview, mentality and mission statement. McDonalds are part of the consumerist, capitalist worldview. They exist to prey off of people's need to have things.
I believe it was John Ortberg who wrote about the deception of the Happy Meal, it doesn't actually bring lasting happiness.
McDonalds is also a business, and out to make money. It doesn't care about the ministry of the church. Add to that McDonalds initiative called "McDonalds Pride" and it should send most Bible-believing churches heading to the hills.
During Calvary's Wednesday study we actually talked about this very issue, as in writing this blog it has been on my mind, at one point in the discussion someone made the point that a person working in a church-owned McDonald's franchise would be able to evangelise from the cash desk. I said nothing at the time, but the obvious answer is that no, the person could not evangelise from the cash desk of the church-owned McDonalds.
Here's why:
1. When you buy into a franchise you buy into their ideals.
2. One of the statements a quick Google search on "McDonalds' proselytizing policy' shows that McDonalds forbids the promotion of religious beliefs.
3. You have bought into the rules of running a McDonalds franchise when you decided to buy it.
4. Evangelism can't happen.
5. People would be within their rights to complain if you did.
Imagine walking into a McDonalds and ordering pig and a Muslim man was serving you, and he proceeded to give out to you for eating Haram pork? Would you be happy? No.
Think of every experience of McDonalds you have, do you know anything about any of the staff from only attending the restaurant? No, because that is not the kind of experience McDonalds wants you to have. They want every McDonalds everywhere to be the same.
So, you might argue that people will know that your McDonalds is different because it is run by a church.
Again, here are the reasons this isn't true:
1. You buy into a franchise and into the rules that come with that franchise. You become McDonalds, not McDonalds becomes McMass.
2. McDonalds want every franchise of McDonalds to be the same, have the same look, feel, food etc. There is no room for individual expressions of McDonalds (the same is true for every other franchise).
3. When you buy into a McDonalds franchise (which starts at $300,000) McDonalds, according to their franchising website charge you rent for the building (as it is now looking like McDonalds and belongs to McDonalds). So the church building isn't even belong to the church anymore.
It's great that churches want to try something different in order to stay relevant in a changing, and increasing post-Christian, world. Buying into a secular franchise is not the way. The teleos or goal may be honourable and godly, like King David's was in bringing the Ark to Jerusalem, or Uzzah's was in trying to catch it as it fell, but the means does not justify the end. God has commanded us how to worship Him, He has said things that give us a worldview contrary to that of capitalism and consumerism, to buy into those worldviews would be to bomb the rock on which Christianity stands.
Pastoral theology and pastoral care have been learning about this recently. Pastoral care, feeling the need to be professional, bought into modern psychological ideas. Over time this has led to a distance between the church and the pastoral carers. This distance has recently been recognised and efforts are being made to bring pastoral care and counselling back to the Bible and the Christian worldview.
I can guarantee, 100%, that a church that buys into a franchise, over time, will similarly move away from having their worldview grounded in the teachings of the Bible to that of consumerism and capitalism. It may not even be noticed, but in a century the Church will look back and wonder how they wandered so far from the Biblical truth. The McDonaldization of the Church (figuratively and literally) is not a good idea.
Since this was uploaded others have been talking about the success of having a Starbuck's coffee in their church building.
In Calvary, since I started going pretty much, we've been going through the books of Samuel (with a break for Christmas, 1 Thessalonians and 11 weeks of Psalms called mixtape.) This past week we have been looking at 2 Samuel 6, and I feel like it has something to say about the McDonaldization of the Church, to steal John Drane's phrase, though I am sure when he wrote his book he didn't even foresee someone suggesting opening a McDonalds in the actual church!
"David again gathered all the chosen men of Israel, thirty thousand. And David arose and went with all the people who were with him from Baale-judah to bring up from there the ark of God, which is called by the name of the LORD of hosts who sits enthroned on the cherubim. And they carried the ark of God on a new cart and brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the hill. And Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, were driving the new cart, with the ark of God, and Ahio went before the ark.
And David and all the house of Israel were celebrating before the LORD, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. And David was angry because the LORD had broken out against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzah to this day. And David was afraid of the LORD that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the LORD come to me?” So David was not willing to take the ark of the LORD into the city of David. But David took it aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. And the ark of the LORD remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the LORD blessed Obed-edom and all his household.
And it was told King David, “The LORD has blessed the household of Obed-edom and all that belongs to him, because of the ark of God.” So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom to the city of David with rejoicing. And when those who bore the ark of the LORD had gone six steps, he sacrificed an ox and a fattened animal. And David danced before the LORD with all his might. And David was wearing a linen ephod. So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the LORD with shouting and with the sound of the horn."
(2 Samuel 6:1-15 ESV)
In the above episodes from 2nd Samuel we see two attempts at bringing the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem. In the first attempt to move the Ark King David, in his hastiness, followed the most recent practice, that of the Philistines. In 1 Samuel the Ark is captured in a battle and the Philistines have it for some time but God proves Himself better than their god, Dagon, and they start getting tumours, so they send the Ark of the Covenant back to Israel on a cart.
Mike (Neglia, teaching pastor, Calvary Cork for those who don't know), mentioned that it was like David knew about this and decided it would be faster to carry the Ark by cart then on some people's backs and he adopted the Philistine practice into the worship of the people of Israel, in a way God had said not to. The result: disaster, Uzzah died.
So, later on they try it again. This time though, David follows all of the proper procedures, he has the right people carry the Ark, he recognises its Holiness and his sinfulness and he worships God in the right way.
In the Wednesday night 'Deeper' study on the above passage the question was put to us about worship services and how you often hear people say 'I got something out of that'. However, a worship service is about us worshipping God, so the question was put do we think about how God feels about our worship services? Another question asked whether we do something similar to David and his people, do we see something in culture and attempt to adopt it for use in the church when really we shouldn't?
Okay, so what has this got to do with the above video? Maybe you see where I am going with this.
I believe, strongly, that the opening of a secular franchise in your church's building is comparable to the first of David's attempts to bring the Ark to Jerusalem. The Church often engages in evangelistic activities, coming up with new ways of making the church contemporvant (a mixture of contemporary and relevant that I like). This is not a slight to many of those ways.
I think having a restaurant in your church building that helps make a little money, which can be used to fund other ministries and do some outreach at the same time. Similarly, a coffee shop run by the church can be a nice idea too.
There is a difference between these things and a non-Christian franchise though. There is little in the Bible to tell us about how a Church should be run, there are things about elders and leaders, taking communion and being at peace with one another, but not much about how a Church service should look.
The one verse I can think of, and most churches I know of point to, is Acts 2:42: "They devoted themselves to the Apostles' teachings, to the breaking of bread, to worship and to prayer."
This sets up a foundation for what the activities of the church should be: teaching, fellowship, worship and prayer. You can add evangelistic to that as well.
Yes, a McDonalds in your church would cover two of those five, but it could counter the other three.
When you buy into a franchise you buy into a worldview and a mentality and a mission statement. Buying into McDonalds' one is fundamentally opposed to a Christian worldview, mentality and mission statement. McDonalds are part of the consumerist, capitalist worldview. They exist to prey off of people's need to have things.
I believe it was John Ortberg who wrote about the deception of the Happy Meal, it doesn't actually bring lasting happiness.
McDonalds is also a business, and out to make money. It doesn't care about the ministry of the church. Add to that McDonalds initiative called "McDonalds Pride" and it should send most Bible-believing churches heading to the hills.
During Calvary's Wednesday study we actually talked about this very issue, as in writing this blog it has been on my mind, at one point in the discussion someone made the point that a person working in a church-owned McDonald's franchise would be able to evangelise from the cash desk. I said nothing at the time, but the obvious answer is that no, the person could not evangelise from the cash desk of the church-owned McDonalds.
Here's why:
1. When you buy into a franchise you buy into their ideals.
2. One of the statements a quick Google search on "McDonalds' proselytizing policy' shows that McDonalds forbids the promotion of religious beliefs.
3. You have bought into the rules of running a McDonalds franchise when you decided to buy it.
4. Evangelism can't happen.
5. People would be within their rights to complain if you did.
Imagine walking into a McDonalds and ordering pig and a Muslim man was serving you, and he proceeded to give out to you for eating Haram pork? Would you be happy? No.
Think of every experience of McDonalds you have, do you know anything about any of the staff from only attending the restaurant? No, because that is not the kind of experience McDonalds wants you to have. They want every McDonalds everywhere to be the same.
So, you might argue that people will know that your McDonalds is different because it is run by a church.
Again, here are the reasons this isn't true:
1. You buy into a franchise and into the rules that come with that franchise. You become McDonalds, not McDonalds becomes McMass.
2. McDonalds want every franchise of McDonalds to be the same, have the same look, feel, food etc. There is no room for individual expressions of McDonalds (the same is true for every other franchise).
3. When you buy into a McDonalds franchise (which starts at $300,000) McDonalds, according to their franchising website charge you rent for the building (as it is now looking like McDonalds and belongs to McDonalds). So the church building isn't even belong to the church anymore.
It's great that churches want to try something different in order to stay relevant in a changing, and increasing post-Christian, world. Buying into a secular franchise is not the way. The teleos or goal may be honourable and godly, like King David's was in bringing the Ark to Jerusalem, or Uzzah's was in trying to catch it as it fell, but the means does not justify the end. God has commanded us how to worship Him, He has said things that give us a worldview contrary to that of capitalism and consumerism, to buy into those worldviews would be to bomb the rock on which Christianity stands.
Pastoral theology and pastoral care have been learning about this recently. Pastoral care, feeling the need to be professional, bought into modern psychological ideas. Over time this has led to a distance between the church and the pastoral carers. This distance has recently been recognised and efforts are being made to bring pastoral care and counselling back to the Bible and the Christian worldview.
I can guarantee, 100%, that a church that buys into a franchise, over time, will similarly move away from having their worldview grounded in the teachings of the Bible to that of consumerism and capitalism. It may not even be noticed, but in a century the Church will look back and wonder how they wandered so far from the Biblical truth. The McDonaldization of the Church (figuratively and literally) is not a good idea.
Monday, 24 November 2014
Heaven 1. Will I be aware of who I am, and the Earth, in Heaven?
Hey guys,
I know it's a long time since I wrote anything, but I have been thinking about the nature of Heaven a lot recently and have, consequentially, been reading a book called "Heaven" by Randy Alcorn.
Two of the questions I have often had about life in Heaven is the links to our Earthly lives, which I will touch on here, but will probably come back to, and whether in Heaven we are aware of Earth. Randy Alcorn has provided some thoughts I wish to share, which I feel go a long way to answering these questions.
Do we remember our lives on Earth in the Present Heaven?
I have always felt that we would likely remember our lives on Earth in Heaven, for if we didn't remember things we did and said on Earth then how would we be ourselves?
The way I know I am myself (the same person that existed yesterday, last week, last year and a decade ago), logically speaking, is because I can identify within myself the memories of being in places, doing things, being part of things, etc. in those times. I see them from my first person perspective and have my subjective emotions about those times. Therefore I am still the same person, calling myself Wavey/David Cowpar today as the person who called himself David Cowpar a decade ago. (See the chapter on this topic in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, by Moreland and Craig, published by IVP [US, I think])
In sum, memory is important in recognising we are ourselves, so I felt it was important that we would have this memory in Heaven.
Turns out we will remember Earth in Heaven. Alcorn says: “In fact, we’ll all likely remember much more in Heaven than we do on Earth, and we will probably be able to see how God and angels intervened on our behalf when we didn’t realize it.” (68) I love the idea that we will see what God and the angels were doing in our lives when we get to Heaven. Praise the Lord.
The Bible actually tells us that we will have to give accounts of our lives to God after we die. If this is the case it is likely that we would have to remember the things we did, good and bad, this would lend credence to the idea that we will remember Earth.
“The positions of authority and the treasures we’re granted in Heaven will perpetually remind us of our life on Earth, because what we do on Earth will earn us those rewards.” (68) - I want to look into this topic more! Below are some relevant verses, in case you would too. Expect a blog on this topic in the (hopefully) not too distant future.
Matthew 6:19-21; 19:21; Luke 12:33; 19:17 and 19; 1 Timothy 6:19; Revelation 2:26-8= verses on rewards in Heaven for life on Earth.
If there are rewards in Heaven based on what we do on Earth I feel like the Church makes too little of this. In the song "How Lovely is Your Dwelling Place" (both the older and newer versions) there is the idea of even being a doorkeeper of Heaven would be a blessing. This is true, but I think, at least in my mind, it has downplayed the idea of there being different rewards and roles given in Heaven based on our faithfulness on Earth.
Can I be the first to say I'm terrified by this and see myself being the poo collector at the moment... Time to pull up the socks and live what I believe in every minute... Help me Lord!
Okay, so turning from awareness of our lives on Earth to an awareness of Earth after our lives.
You have to understand something about the nature of the Heaven we go to before the return of Christ to fully grasp this, I think.
The present Heaven is not permanent. It is temporary. We do not live there forever. Revelation tells us of the time when the old Heaven and Earth will become the New Heaven and New Earth and the New Jerusalem will descend from Heaven and come to Earth, where God will make His dwelling place among us, making the New Heaven and the New Earth effectively one place.
This means that the present Heaven will pass away, it is the place God dwells now, as it is the place where the saints who have already passed on dwell. However, they, and we if we don't live to see the return of Christ (come Lord Jesus), will not live there for eternity.
This is important because an obvious objection to people being able to see what happens on Earth today would be that there is no pain, tears, sorrow etc. in Heaven. This comes from a verse in Revelation (21:4). However, if you see Heaven as the Present Heaven and the New/Coming Heaven, a distinction the Bible makes, then this verse fits into the verses describing the New Heaven, as opposed to the Present/Temporary Heaven.
With that in mind let's look at a couple of passages that seem to suggest we can see Earth from Heaven:
In 1 Samuel 28 Saul goes to the Witch of Endor and he asks her to bring up Samuel.
Now, I have oft. debated what is happening in this passage. Is the woman calling up the actual Samuel or is it perhaps a demon that was assigned to Samuel (a familiar spirit) but one that would have been familiar with his ways and the things he said.
Presently, I lean towards the idea that God allowed the actual Samuel to appear. If you want to ask me about why you can on ask.fm/Wavey1111.
So, God brings Samuel up and he speaks to Saul. In this conversation Samuel recalls things that Saul did during his (Samuel's) lifetime, suggesting he remembers his life on Earth. However, Samuel also seems to be aware of things that have happened since he died and left the Earth. We can infer from this that either God told him before he left Heaven to appear to Saul, or that he could see some of what was happening from Heaven.
Hebrews 12:1;
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us..."
(Hebrews 12:1 ESV)
This could be figurative language, but it could also be saying that these people still 'surround' us, and that, not only were they witnesses to Christ while on this Earth, but that they are witnesses to our lives today as well.
Time for the convincing one?
Luke 15:7;
"Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."
(Luke 15:7 ESV)
If there is a party in Heaven when someone comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, it would suggest that people in Heaven are aware of the goings on on Earth, at least when it comes to salvation and God's major acts in Redemption history (see Revelation, there are times when the saints in Heaven rejoice at what God is doing on Earth, or lament about having to wait, etc.)
I don't think we will know every detail of what's happening on Earth... I don't feel like we will physically be able to see the Earth from Heaven, but I think we will have some awareness of what's going on.
This leads me to my final interesting question in this area.
Will we pray in Heaven for those on Earth?
I think it's safe to answer this in the affirmative.
The Bible tells us that Jesus is in Heaven interceding for His people on Earth. Prayer is just conversations with God. If we are in Heaven and able to speak with God, and God lets us know some things about Heaven; at least when someone is saved, possibly also as witnesses surrounding and encouraging believers on Earth to keep running the race that has been marked out for them, then I can't see why we wouldn't 'pray' about those things.
"The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working."
(James 5:16 ESV)
When we are in Heaven, and made perfect in His righteousness and by the spilling of His blood, how much more power will there be in our praying for people on the Earth?
It's a cool thought.
So, there are some thoughts on Heaven and its relationship with Earth....
Let me know what you think in the comments below, want to ask a question anonymously? Do so by copying ask.fm/Wavey1111 into your search bar and leave your question. If you don't need anonymity just post below.
In A ainm agus A chuid seirbhis, ~
I know it's a long time since I wrote anything, but I have been thinking about the nature of Heaven a lot recently and have, consequentially, been reading a book called "Heaven" by Randy Alcorn.
Two of the questions I have often had about life in Heaven is the links to our Earthly lives, which I will touch on here, but will probably come back to, and whether in Heaven we are aware of Earth. Randy Alcorn has provided some thoughts I wish to share, which I feel go a long way to answering these questions.
Do we remember our lives on Earth in the Present Heaven?
I have always felt that we would likely remember our lives on Earth in Heaven, for if we didn't remember things we did and said on Earth then how would we be ourselves?
The way I know I am myself (the same person that existed yesterday, last week, last year and a decade ago), logically speaking, is because I can identify within myself the memories of being in places, doing things, being part of things, etc. in those times. I see them from my first person perspective and have my subjective emotions about those times. Therefore I am still the same person, calling myself Wavey/David Cowpar today as the person who called himself David Cowpar a decade ago. (See the chapter on this topic in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, by Moreland and Craig, published by IVP [US, I think])
In sum, memory is important in recognising we are ourselves, so I felt it was important that we would have this memory in Heaven.
Turns out we will remember Earth in Heaven. Alcorn says: “In fact, we’ll all likely remember much more in Heaven than we do on Earth, and we will probably be able to see how God and angels intervened on our behalf when we didn’t realize it.” (68) I love the idea that we will see what God and the angels were doing in our lives when we get to Heaven. Praise the Lord.
The Bible actually tells us that we will have to give accounts of our lives to God after we die. If this is the case it is likely that we would have to remember the things we did, good and bad, this would lend credence to the idea that we will remember Earth.
“The positions of authority and the treasures we’re granted in Heaven will perpetually remind us of our life on Earth, because what we do on Earth will earn us those rewards.” (68) - I want to look into this topic more! Below are some relevant verses, in case you would too. Expect a blog on this topic in the (hopefully) not too distant future.
Matthew 6:19-21; 19:21; Luke 12:33; 19:17 and 19; 1 Timothy 6:19; Revelation 2:26-8= verses on rewards in Heaven for life on Earth.
If there are rewards in Heaven based on what we do on Earth I feel like the Church makes too little of this. In the song "How Lovely is Your Dwelling Place" (both the older and newer versions) there is the idea of even being a doorkeeper of Heaven would be a blessing. This is true, but I think, at least in my mind, it has downplayed the idea of there being different rewards and roles given in Heaven based on our faithfulness on Earth.
Can I be the first to say I'm terrified by this and see myself being the poo collector at the moment... Time to pull up the socks and live what I believe in every minute... Help me Lord!
Okay, so turning from awareness of our lives on Earth to an awareness of Earth after our lives.
You have to understand something about the nature of the Heaven we go to before the return of Christ to fully grasp this, I think.
The present Heaven is not permanent. It is temporary. We do not live there forever. Revelation tells us of the time when the old Heaven and Earth will become the New Heaven and New Earth and the New Jerusalem will descend from Heaven and come to Earth, where God will make His dwelling place among us, making the New Heaven and the New Earth effectively one place.
This means that the present Heaven will pass away, it is the place God dwells now, as it is the place where the saints who have already passed on dwell. However, they, and we if we don't live to see the return of Christ (come Lord Jesus), will not live there for eternity.
This is important because an obvious objection to people being able to see what happens on Earth today would be that there is no pain, tears, sorrow etc. in Heaven. This comes from a verse in Revelation (21:4). However, if you see Heaven as the Present Heaven and the New/Coming Heaven, a distinction the Bible makes, then this verse fits into the verses describing the New Heaven, as opposed to the Present/Temporary Heaven.
With that in mind let's look at a couple of passages that seem to suggest we can see Earth from Heaven:
In 1 Samuel 28 Saul goes to the Witch of Endor and he asks her to bring up Samuel.
Now, I have oft. debated what is happening in this passage. Is the woman calling up the actual Samuel or is it perhaps a demon that was assigned to Samuel (a familiar spirit) but one that would have been familiar with his ways and the things he said.
Presently, I lean towards the idea that God allowed the actual Samuel to appear. If you want to ask me about why you can on ask.fm/Wavey1111.
So, God brings Samuel up and he speaks to Saul. In this conversation Samuel recalls things that Saul did during his (Samuel's) lifetime, suggesting he remembers his life on Earth. However, Samuel also seems to be aware of things that have happened since he died and left the Earth. We can infer from this that either God told him before he left Heaven to appear to Saul, or that he could see some of what was happening from Heaven.
Hebrews 12:1;
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us..."
(Hebrews 12:1 ESV)
This could be figurative language, but it could also be saying that these people still 'surround' us, and that, not only were they witnesses to Christ while on this Earth, but that they are witnesses to our lives today as well.
Time for the convincing one?
Luke 15:7;
"Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance."
(Luke 15:7 ESV)
If there is a party in Heaven when someone comes to a saving knowledge of Christ, it would suggest that people in Heaven are aware of the goings on on Earth, at least when it comes to salvation and God's major acts in Redemption history (see Revelation, there are times when the saints in Heaven rejoice at what God is doing on Earth, or lament about having to wait, etc.)
I don't think we will know every detail of what's happening on Earth... I don't feel like we will physically be able to see the Earth from Heaven, but I think we will have some awareness of what's going on.
This leads me to my final interesting question in this area.
Will we pray in Heaven for those on Earth?
I think it's safe to answer this in the affirmative.
The Bible tells us that Jesus is in Heaven interceding for His people on Earth. Prayer is just conversations with God. If we are in Heaven and able to speak with God, and God lets us know some things about Heaven; at least when someone is saved, possibly also as witnesses surrounding and encouraging believers on Earth to keep running the race that has been marked out for them, then I can't see why we wouldn't 'pray' about those things.
"The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working."
(James 5:16 ESV)
When we are in Heaven, and made perfect in His righteousness and by the spilling of His blood, how much more power will there be in our praying for people on the Earth?
It's a cool thought.
So, there are some thoughts on Heaven and its relationship with Earth....
Let me know what you think in the comments below, want to ask a question anonymously? Do so by copying ask.fm/Wavey1111 into your search bar and leave your question. If you don't need anonymity just post below.
In A ainm agus A chuid seirbhis, ~
Thursday, 20 November 2014
Wavey, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, Wiki How, and others' Guide to Dishwashing.
For drying skip to Step 7.
Step 1.
Preparation.
You will need:
Step 1.
Preparation.
You will need:
- a sponge- not a floor sponge, or a counter sponge, this should be specifically for dishes.
- a sink
- a drying rack
- Washing up liquid.
- Hot water
- Dirty dishes
Step 2.
Pre-washing.
When you finish eating rinse milk out of glasses (it turns sour and sticks to the bottom) and sauce off of plates, mash out of pots and sauce out of sauce pans.
Rinsing helps make the washing process quicker and easier later as well as keeping the water cleaner.
Washing Dishes Rocket Science: You need clean water to make dirty things clean, therefore the cleaner the water the easier to make the dirty things clean.
Some items need to be soaked. This is also part of the pre-washing stage.
Step 3.
Set-up.
Fill basin or sink with hot water. Prepare dishes so categories are easy to get at.
Step 4.
Cutlery and glasses.
These are the things that go directly into your mouth or touch your mouth:
- Spoons.
- Forks
- Glasses
- Chopsticks
- Cups
- Sometimes knives.
Washing Dishes Rocket Science: The things that directly touch your mouth need to be the cleanest so doing them first means the cleanest and hottest water gets them the cleanest you can.
Remember: you need to clean the outsides of cups and glasses too because people touch them, there are germs there that will stay there if you don't clean it. Plus, leaving a glass on top of a plate with gravy on it means the underside of the glass now has gravy on it.
These two items can be interchangeable, sometimes you will have very dirty spoons but glasses that only had water, clean the glasses first. Most of the time it will be the cutlery that is least dirty.
Step 5.
Mid-range dirty things.
This is stuff like plates, bowls, serving spoons, lightly dirty pots (maybe that had carrots in them).
They cause the least amount of dirt to the water.
Again, there is interchangeable things here. Sometimes plates can be dirtier than some pots, or especially pot lids, do the pot first in that case.
Again make sure you wash the outsides of pots and bowls and the underside of plates.
Step 6.
The dirties.
These are the dirtier pots, pans, oven dishes, baking trays, frying pans, woks etc.
These are usually the dirtiest dishes from the breakfast/lunch/dinner. It makes sense to do them last.
Washing Dishes Rocket Science: If you put the dirtiest things in the water first it will make the water dirty. Then that dirt will float around in there until you put in a glass. The dirty water will likely make the glass more dirty than if you had just rinsed it and put it aside. This is why the method is set this way. Dirty things make clean things dirty as dirtiness is simply an absence of clean.
The end result of doing things backwards is dirty dishes with food germs on them, these are then being passed off as clean dishes, which is unhygienic, of course.
Step 7.
Drying.
It is most hygienic to allow dishes to drip dry on a drying rack.
Drying racks are specially designed to help dishes dry.
They contain a place for cutlery and utensils to stand upright as this has been determined to be better than leaving these items under bigger, wetter dishes.
They provide space for bowls and plates, showing that you need to allow them to dry facing vertically.
Washing Dishes Rocket Science: If you stack wet bowls or plates the water that is on top of each one will just stay on top of it. Gravity teaches us that if you place things in a way that allows gravity to pull whatever is on top of them downwards that it will do so. This is why plates and bowls are stored sideways and not stacked when you are leaving them to dry.
These drying racks sometimes have a space for glasses and mugs, other times they do not. If they do place the glass/mug upside-down to allow gravity pull the water down from the glass/mug.
If they do not include such an area leaving the glasses on the draining board (usually found next to the sink) works the same way.
Washing Dishes Rocket Science: Like plates and bowls above the glasses dry on the same principle. Leaving them facing upright will mean that the water will go to the bottom of the glass and not dry. Similarly, leaving them on a flat surface, such as a counter top, will cause the water to gather at the top of the glass, leaving it wet at the rim.
Finally, pots and pans. Again, sometimes a drying rack will have a space for these. If not it is ok to put them on top of glasses or plates, providing they are not stopped from dripping in doing so. Always put them upside-down (see glasses and mugs above).
For example, if you placed a pot the right way up the water will gather at the bottom, and not dry, if you place the pot on a plate that is lying down, not on its side, then the water will gather at the plate, keeping the plate and the pot wet.
Step 8.
Adding more dishes later.
Washing dishes is the job that is never done. If you find you have more dishes, and there are still some on the drip dryer, that are dry, then put those away before washing anything else.
Washing Dishes Rocket Science: Putting wet things on top of dry things makes the dry things wet, not the wet things dry for dryness is an absence of water.
And that's pretty much it. Happy dish washing dish washers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)