Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

WHAT IS AN INTERFEROMETER?

An interferometer is a device in which light waves (or other waves, such as radio waves) are superimposed on each other. This superimpostion may cause an interference pattern which can be viewed on a screen, and information can be derived from the nature of the pattern.

If that sounds like heavy physics, read on. It gets easier!

The Interferometer was invented by Albert Michelson for his 1887 experiment. Michelson, a winner of the Nobel Prize, is a name you will become familiar with as you investigate Geocentrism. The problem he had to deal with was how to measure variations in the speed of light rays which had only travelled very short distances. As we all know, light travels incredibly fast, so the only way to do this was to look at how the two waves interfered with each other when viewed together on a screen. He would see images like these:

There’s no need to go any deeper into the science. Wikipedia says:

Interferometers are widely used in science and industry for the measurement of small displacements, refractive index changes and surface irregularities.

And a Google image search of waves interfering with one another brings up countless images like these:

The key point here is that waves do not behave in random ways. If you have ever watched sea waves passing around a rock, or a harbour wall, you may have had the impression of arbitrary motion. But even in that situation, if you watch carefully, you will see definite order in the way they interact. This is the basis of interferometry. It is not necessary to know more detail. Interferometry is well-understood, non-controversial, extremely useful in both industry and scientific research, and was given to the World by Albert Michelson well over a century ago.

Posted on

CAN YOU HELP??

I wasn’t concerned about building this site in public view as I was sure it wasn’t going to get many visits, if any, while I was building it. But it’s been getting significant visits from day one!

It is also being a much longer job to bring all the physics down to a level that anyone can understand. That is why I said in one of the articles above that people should first review evolution thoroughly. The science there is MUCH easier. Please, please drop me a line on the Contact Page and let me know if you could help with writing accessible articles.

Many thanks,

Keith

Posted on

Clarification Q24

Question 24

RS Asked:

“Where is repentance, turning from sin and being born again?”

I was including repentance in acknowledging ones’ sin. Is it possible to acknowledge ones’ sin as sin, and yet not repent? Is it possible to acknowledge ones’ sin as sin and yet not wish to turn from it? Is not Rebirth something that follows from these things? I suspect we have the same view, but I have summarised a little further than you are comfortable with. The issue we may disagree on (People do) is exactly what it means to “turn from sin”. Some would say that leading a good, clean life is essential to be Saved. But we cannot lead such a life until we are. The Greek translated as “repentance” is “metanoia”, which means a “change of mind.” We are saved by a change of mind, not by changing our ways. However, our actions are always a consequence of our thoughts, so when we have made our change of mind, and when as a result we also have the Lord’s help to behave differently, then we will. These things may happen simultaneously (or sometimes not) and therefore it is difficult to establish cause and effect. However, the prime cause at the individual level is the change of mind. See also page on the Gospel.

Posted on

Clarification Q15

Question 15

RS Stated:

“These items are not subject to the individual conscience of the believer, the Bible is clear on them.”

The Bible is indeed clear on how believers should behave with respect to these things, but how the Civil Power or other individuals behave is another matter. Christians do not make the laws, and people who are not Christian will live their lives according to their own conscience. The role of believers is to draw people wherever possible to the Gospel, not to insist on Christian behaviour on the part of those who do not (yet) believe.

Posted on

Clarification Q23

Question 23

RS Stated:

“The word “rapture” is not in the Bible, but the concept is.”

There are many different theologies about exactly what it is and when it happens. What I am saying is that I do not think a focus on “Rapture” is fruitful for people trying to lead Christian lives. Also there are often links with Dominionist theology, which can lead to violence. God knows what He will do at the End. I don’t need to. I need to know how to be a good witness for Him today.

Posted on

Clarification Q12

Question 12

RS Stated:

“Although the word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible, the word “godhead” does, and all through scripture we see that it consists of three”

The Original Q and A said:

12 Must We Believe in the Trinity?

No. “Trinity” is not a Scriptural term. We must believe what the Bible says about God, about Jesus Christ, and about the Holy Spirit. See Question 6.

The first part of 6 says:

6 Do Men Understand Exactly how God Works?

No. The belief that they do is based on pride. Men have neither the perspective, the knowledge, nor the intelligence to know exactly how God works. Any attempt to tie God down to a few simple mechanisms is a futile endeavour, based on pride.

I don’t pretend to understand precisely what the relationship is between God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. People argue about it, and come to firmly held, but different conclusions. As the original answer says, we must believe what the Bible says about God, about Jesus Christ, and about the Holy Spirit, but that clearly leaves room for some varying interpretations. The Greek “Theotes”, often translated as “Godhead”, does not contain an implicit notion of tripleness. That is arrived at by interpretation. What really vexes me here is when it gets to the point of Calvin burning Servetus at the stake, partly for his rejection of Infant Baptism, but also for his different belief about the nature of “Trinity”. I will not be held to anybody else‘s prescription of what the Trinity is, nor do I expect others to subscribe to my view. I think there are more fruitful things to do than discussing the precise explanation here, and many things more fruitful than condemning others for their particular understanding, as some people do.

For what it’s worth, my own view goes something like this: I have seen President Obama on TV many times. Each time, it was genuinely President Obama. However, at no time was it really him, but only an image transmitted to my location electronically, bearing his words and thoughts. I see the Holy Spirit in a similar way, on one hand being truly God, but on the other, only a manifestation of God transposed to a particular location while the Creator Himself remains in place. I see Jesus as fully human, but uniquely having received half of his DNA not from a human father, but directly from God. He also had a uniquely powerful covering of the Holy Spirit; therefore, with the two together, was effectively God on Earth. But God Himself was still in Heaven. I could give this understanding the name “Trinity”, but the name would add nothing to it. As I said at the beginning, I offer this “for what it’s worth.” There are probably millions of words written by theologians on this that I have not had the time to read. If anybody has, and can offer me a different perspective which could improve my understanding of God and my witness as a Christian, I would be pleased to hear it.

Posted on

Clarification Q11

Question 11

RS stated:

“The Bible is clear on violence, that there is no acceptable reason for Christians to use violence. Not even self defence.”

My belief is that one could never be certain that Jesus would approve of an act of violence. But let us suppose that a man armed with two Glock 9mm pistols is shooting into a school playground. Each pistol holds seventeen rounds. You are a slight woman who turns up behind him with a handy piece of wood. Do you knock him out? This is where many people would say that not doing so would be a sin. My main answer is that the likelihood of any of us being in such a hypothetical situation is so remote as to make it pointless to consider it. In any situation that we are even remotely likely to be faced with, violence is not an option for a Christian. See also the post “Violence in Self-Defence?”

SS asked:

“I am a competition sword fencer it keeps me fit and I enjoy the mental and physical challenge. How would that fit with your beliefs?”

I guess the essence of violence being wrong is that it is a forceful act that does damage to someone against their wishes. On this definition, many acts that do not actually involve physical violence would need to be defined as violence. However, when it comes to sport, the key words of the definition would be “against their wishes.” An act which is not against a persons’ wishes would not fit the definition.

I think that any debate here is therefore about the motivation(s) of those taking part and those watching. I’m no expert on fencing, but suspect it is fairly balletic and nobody gets hurt, so I would have difficulty seeing any problem with it. People might say that it acts out a means of warfare, but then what about Javelin, Discus, Shooting, Archery, Polo (a great way for cavalrymen to practice)? I think people mainly engage in these sports for the skill and challenge and any linkage to warfare is not what is in either their heads or the heads of spectators. The exception would be Shooting, particularly in the American context, where people often practise with a view to carrying a weapon and possibly using it. I would be more concerned about say, boxing, where physical injury is fairly common and there is often the expression of anger and the desire to see injury, either on the part of those involved or those watching. I can’t really see that a Christian would want to be involved there. I could also mention Football, which is non-violent, but can provoke a degree of excitement and obsession in some that transcends their enthusiasm for God. I have watched Amish folk playing ball games; the quietness of both players and spectators was remarkable.

So, in short, Sport is not violence, but it would seem reasonable to consider the players’ motivations and the possible influence on others. I should also admit to a bias here: I am utterly useless at all sports.

Posted on

Sins Visited on the Fourth Generation? Is That Justice?

The statement that sins will be visited even to the third and fourth generations of the the Fathers is one of the more worrying ones in Scripture. The Bible also clearly states that everyone is to be punished specifically for his own sin. Theologians can and do debate this endlessly. We think the answer is simple, and found in the latter part of the article on Predestination here.

Posted on

Christian Zionism is a Contradiction in Terms

Of all the new winds of doctrine to engulf the churches in the last two hundred years, Christian Zionism has to be one of the most grievous. And perhaps its most remarkable feature is that it is in obvious contradiction with the Gospel. Since this is clearly not obvious to many, a little repetition of basic facts is in order here.

First, Christianity is based on the actions and teachings of Jesus Christ as written in the New Testament. At the heart of Christianity is the Once-for-All substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross; the final sacrifice that makes it possible for all men to be Saved, with no further punishment. One might even say that this concept, known as the Gospel, is not merely the heart of Christianity, but actually is Christianity.

Second, Christ’s sacrifice replaced the Old Covenant sacrificial system documented in the Old Testament. This system relied on the ongoing blood sacrifices of animals in the Jerusalem Temple to expiate sin. Most Jews of the first century did not accept the New Testament teachings about Jesus, and continued with the Temple sacrifices for forty years after the Crucifixion; until Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jews scattered in 70 AD.

It should be clear from the above points that the Christian Zionist desire to rebuild the Temple and restore animal sacrifices is completely antithetical to the once-for-all Sacrifice of Jesus. One may support one or the other, but not both. If Christ’s Sacrifice was what the New Testament says it is, then animal sacrifice is not merely redundant, but blasphemous. And if animal sacrifice is still necessary, then the teaching of an effective, substitutionary Sacrifice of Christ is wrong.

This is not saying that people cannot choose either one or the other. We have free will and we all make our choices. But plain logic does not allow someone to choose both. To support animal sacrifice is to reject the cross. It is hard to conceive of a more serious error for a Christian to make.

For those who prefer a more Biblical treatment of this subject, we recommend the video below. It was  made by Steven Anderson who we do not support due to several statements made by him with which we do not agree. This video, however, deals very well with the subject from a Biblical viewpoint and is well worth the time needed to view it. You could skip the second part where he lectures on genealogies and DNA; the argument presented there is secondary, though probably also sound. The video is called “Marching to Zion”. Click HERE to watch (1 hour 48 minutes for whole video, 1 hour 10 minutes for the main part.)

There is also the far from inconsequential matter of the violence, suffering and death resulting from Zionist migration to Palestine. There are those who claim that Jewish immigrants to the area found an empty desert, and Palestinians only arrived subsequently from their native areas to make trouble. This story is patently absurd, since the Mediterranean and the Middle East are the cradles of Western Civilisation, and have been permanently occupied for thousands of years. The creation of a new state or colony almost inevitably results in violence between the new arrivals and the original inhabitants.  In this case it has certainly caused, and still causes, huge bouts of violence and suffering. For a Christian endeavouring to propagate love for enemies and peace, support for any of the coercion or violence that takes place in this situation is simply not possible.

(Parenthetically, for atheists there is a variation on the Christian Zionist attempt to philosophically both have their cake and eat it; they will often point to the historical, Biblical claim that Jews have to the Holy Land, while simultaneously denouncing the Bible as mere fables.)

The Christian Zionist error links with another rather common one of putting too much emphasis on the Old Testament. Clearly the Old Testament has much to teach us, but for a Christian the New Testament is paramount, and the Old must always be viewed through the framework of the New. Expressed in poor but pithy poetry we might say:

If you wish to put more emphasis

On the Old Testament  than the New,

Don’t call yourself a Christian,

Call yourself a Jew.

 

A further matter which really should not need discussion, at least by Christians, is the likelihood of the Temple being rebuilt. The Bible makes clear in 2 Thessalonians that the Temple will be rebuilt, and the “Man of Sin” will set himself up there as God, before Jesus returns. And all the things that have happened in the last hundred years or so, and continue to happen today in the Middle East, are moving toward that conclusion. Whatever any individual Christian does or does not do today, the Third Temple will be built. The only issue for Christians is whether they are able to witness to the Cross and show Love for all men, completely free of any false doctrine that compromises and undermines their words and actions.

See also Evangelical Really Means Zionist?

 

Posted on

Is Christianity a Religion? No, it’s a Relationship with Jesus.

Since this site is primarily about the failure of Churches to represent true Christianity, a few words on what Christianity really is are in order. People are so conditioned to thinking of Christianity as something centred on churchgoing, especially the Sunday Service of Hymns and Sermon, that they find it hard to imagine any alternative.

The real fundamentals of Christianity, however, are not hard to understand. A person’s Christian Life begins with conversion, which is the acceptance of the validity of Christ’s Sacrifice and their personal need for it. (See Gospel if you are not clear on this.) The dynamics of this conversion in reality only involve Jesus and the New Christian. It may well be that some Church or Missionary, or tract or website, played a part in the conversion, but the power for Salvation comes only from Jesus, and it is only to Jesus that the new convert has allegiance. A new two-way loving relationship has been formed, very much akin to marriage, and everything now depends on the outworking of that relationship. This is what Paul is talking about in Philippians 2 when he instructs Christians to “work out your own salvation.”

Just as every Marriage relationship differs, every relationship with Jesus differs. The often wide differences are caused by the very different situations people are in when they turn to Christ, and differences in speed at which the relationship matures. No such thing as a typical, black and white, boilerplate Christian! Take two extreme examples:

  1. Imagine a drug addict and thief from an abusive home who eventually meets Jesus at age thirty.
  2. For comparison, think of an Amish person who decides at eighteen to accept Amish teaching, lifestyle and Baptism. (See The Special Place of the Amish in History for more on the Amish.)

Ten years on, the Amish person will almost certainly be leading a life that has every appearance of genuine conversion. Yet it’s possible that he is merely following his particular culture; it’s more difficult to see the effect of conversion on someone who already functions well, and lives in a society where things like sharing, faithfulness and modesty are normal. However, the ex-addict ten years on may still be dealing with issues from his previous life, even though he has made huge steps forward in his relationship with Jesus and improving his lifestyle. The permutations and variations are infinite. It makes it very hard to know who is really in a relationship with Jesus. There is no simple marker like weekly church attendance or Infant Baptism. It’s about working out the relationship because you love Him, because He first loved you.

For all Christians, and especially new ones, the key advice is to get soaked in the Bible from personal reading; sadly there are very few people who will give that vital advice. The teaching from churches, whether Protestant, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, or whatever is much more “Listen to us!”

Click here to browse other articles on the Home Page.

Or here to read more on “working out your own salvation.”