As I reorganize my website, this blog is being folded into my main one. No new content will be added here, and this blog will eventually be deleted.
So if you have this blog in your bookmarks or rss feed and want to still follow it, go to http://cindik.com/
The management apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.
So if you have this blog in your bookmarks or rss feed and want to still follow it, go to http://cindik.com/
The management apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause.
Another group of believers were sincerely convinced they knew the date and time of Jesus' return and that they would all be raptured from the Earth to escape the coming tribulation. And another group was wrong.
Harold Camping of Family Radio was certain he was right. The people who listened to his radio show found his arguments convincing. And here's something to consider: if someone you trust tells you to choose between financial solvency with a future eternity in Hell and bankruptcy with a future eternity in Heaven, it's a pretty easy choice. If you're not sure which is going to come true, it gets a bit more complicated, but you're still gambling your temporary comfort against your eternal comfort.
I completely understand the kind of fear this argument instills. I grew up in the Evangelical Free church, and we were taught about the rapture. Sometimes I even worried that the rapture had happened and I was left behind.
So with one's immortal soul at stake, it makes a certain amount of sense to prove one's faith by selling everything, cashing in IRA's, pensions and 401(k) funds, and pouring all that money into billboards, vans, and RV's. These people are not crazy; they're frightened.
And now, of course, many of them are broke, unemployed, and homeless.
So first we need compassion for people who did what they thought God was calling them to do. They stepped out in faith to a degree most of us are too afraid to. Where we can, we ought to help them. They are our sisters and brothers.
Second, maybe we can start taking apart the idea of the pre-tribulation rapture so this sort of thing is less likely to occur in the future.
The modern concept of a pre-tribulation rapture came about in the nineteenth century. There have been many people who have proclaimed the date of the rapture: William Miller (see The Great Disappointment), Charles Taze Russell (whose Studies in the Scriptures were the basis of the beliefs of the Bible Students, a sect with which I was involved for a while) and others. Needless to say, none of these have come to pass.
It would be silly for a progressive theologian to say new ideas are inherently useless. There are plenty of new theological ideas, and some of them are very interesting. So I'm not going to say that a pre-tribulation rapture can't be true because it's a relatively young idea.
What I will say, however, is that I find a pre-tribulation rapture a little odd for Christianity. Here's why:
Jesus (however you understand Jesus - human, divine, both, neither?) could have avoided torturous death, but didn't. And Jesus not only suffered a sacrificial death, he lived a sacrificial life.
So I find it a little odd that people who claim to follow Jesus, the one who said "take up your cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23), should be looking for a way to escape the trouble and leave others to suffer.
One possible problem with such a theology is neglect of the environment. There have been people who argued against ecological concern because they expected an imminent rapture. To me, that's a bit like trashing the apartment when you move out.
Another problematic symptom can be smug superiority. "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned" is one bumper sticker. I've seen comments like "I'll be laughing in heaven while you suffer on Earth". Imagine Jesus taunting a prisoner this way - is that the Jesus of the Gospels?
One could also not care to help the suffering in this world, because it will all be over soon (at least for the righteous). Forget "blessed are the poor", and never mind the oppressed.
Of course, not all believers in a pre-tribulation rapture act these ways. The primary problem I have with the pre-tribulation rapture is that it suggests that some set of us with the right faith, the right knowledge, a kind of Gnosis... can escape trouble.
But we're Jesus' people,
and if we are to follow Jesus' way,
and serve like Jesus,
and take up our own crosses,
and be faithful unto death...
I don't think we get a pass on the struggles of life. Rather, I think we ought to be in the midst of them, struggling with our sisters and brothers.
However we believe our lives - and our world - will end, if we are followers of Jesus, we will love our neighbors as ourselves.
If we see how Jesus came as a servant, we will also be servants.
If we have been blessed by God, we will pour those blessings out on others.
We may not die a sacrificial death as Jesus did, but we can live a sacrificial life. Perhaps we can't do so to the degree that Jesus did, but as best as we are able, our call is to stay here to help those who struggle, to love the unloved, to care for the suffering.
Today, I will offer this prayer:
Harold Camping of Family Radio was certain he was right. The people who listened to his radio show found his arguments convincing. And here's something to consider: if someone you trust tells you to choose between financial solvency with a future eternity in Hell and bankruptcy with a future eternity in Heaven, it's a pretty easy choice. If you're not sure which is going to come true, it gets a bit more complicated, but you're still gambling your temporary comfort against your eternal comfort.
I completely understand the kind of fear this argument instills. I grew up in the Evangelical Free church, and we were taught about the rapture. Sometimes I even worried that the rapture had happened and I was left behind.
So with one's immortal soul at stake, it makes a certain amount of sense to prove one's faith by selling everything, cashing in IRA's, pensions and 401(k) funds, and pouring all that money into billboards, vans, and RV's. These people are not crazy; they're frightened.
And now, of course, many of them are broke, unemployed, and homeless.
So first we need compassion for people who did what they thought God was calling them to do. They stepped out in faith to a degree most of us are too afraid to. Where we can, we ought to help them. They are our sisters and brothers.
Second, maybe we can start taking apart the idea of the pre-tribulation rapture so this sort of thing is less likely to occur in the future.
The modern concept of a pre-tribulation rapture came about in the nineteenth century. There have been many people who have proclaimed the date of the rapture: William Miller (see The Great Disappointment), Charles Taze Russell (whose Studies in the Scriptures were the basis of the beliefs of the Bible Students, a sect with which I was involved for a while) and others. Needless to say, none of these have come to pass.
It would be silly for a progressive theologian to say new ideas are inherently useless. There are plenty of new theological ideas, and some of them are very interesting. So I'm not going to say that a pre-tribulation rapture can't be true because it's a relatively young idea.
What I will say, however, is that I find a pre-tribulation rapture a little odd for Christianity. Here's why:
Jesus (however you understand Jesus - human, divine, both, neither?) could have avoided torturous death, but didn't. And Jesus not only suffered a sacrificial death, he lived a sacrificial life.
So I find it a little odd that people who claim to follow Jesus, the one who said "take up your cross and follow me" (Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23), should be looking for a way to escape the trouble and leave others to suffer.
One possible problem with such a theology is neglect of the environment. There have been people who argued against ecological concern because they expected an imminent rapture. To me, that's a bit like trashing the apartment when you move out.
Another problematic symptom can be smug superiority. "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned" is one bumper sticker. I've seen comments like "I'll be laughing in heaven while you suffer on Earth". Imagine Jesus taunting a prisoner this way - is that the Jesus of the Gospels?
One could also not care to help the suffering in this world, because it will all be over soon (at least for the righteous). Forget "blessed are the poor", and never mind the oppressed.
Of course, not all believers in a pre-tribulation rapture act these ways. The primary problem I have with the pre-tribulation rapture is that it suggests that some set of us with the right faith, the right knowledge, a kind of Gnosis... can escape trouble.
But we're Jesus' people,
and if we are to follow Jesus' way,
and serve like Jesus,
and take up our own crosses,
and be faithful unto death...
I don't think we get a pass on the struggles of life. Rather, I think we ought to be in the midst of them, struggling with our sisters and brothers.
However we believe our lives - and our world - will end, if we are followers of Jesus, we will love our neighbors as ourselves.
If we see how Jesus came as a servant, we will also be servants.
If we have been blessed by God, we will pour those blessings out on others.
We may not die a sacrificial death as Jesus did, but we can live a sacrificial life. Perhaps we can't do so to the degree that Jesus did, but as best as we are able, our call is to stay here to help those who struggle, to love the unloved, to care for the suffering.
Today, I will offer this prayer:
God, I pray that I will not be raptured,
and that you will help me to show my faith
not by impoverishing myself to prove my trust,
but by using the ways you have blessed me
to bless others.
Do not let me escape the trouble that comes to my neighbor
But let me be a help to her and to him
As you have been a help to me.
Amen.
He is risen! He is risen indeed!
Proclaim it from the pulpit!
Post it on church signs!
Sing it in the choirs!
Write it in the newsletter!
Declare it on the blogs!
But what does "He is risen" mean to you?
Do you believe a traditional story of the crucifixion and resurrection? Was it a resurrection of the body? Resurrection into a new body? A spiritual resurrection? A metaphoric resurrection? A group hallucination?
And what is the point of the resurrection?
Does it give us eternal life? Show Jesus' triumph over death? Illustrate how the Jesus movement goes on?
Does it matter that we don't all agree on what happened and what it means?
These are questions I'm pondering this Easter morning.
Proclaim it from the pulpit!
Post it on church signs!
Sing it in the choirs!
Write it in the newsletter!
Declare it on the blogs!
But what does "He is risen" mean to you?
Do you believe a traditional story of the crucifixion and resurrection? Was it a resurrection of the body? Resurrection into a new body? A spiritual resurrection? A metaphoric resurrection? A group hallucination?
And what is the point of the resurrection?
Does it give us eternal life? Show Jesus' triumph over death? Illustrate how the Jesus movement goes on?
Does it matter that we don't all agree on what happened and what it means?
These are questions I'm pondering this Easter morning.
I have a theory about gender transition.
Before I go any farther, let me say that this is based on my experience and what I have seen in some of my friends. It is not a universal truth of gender transition. It may not even be generally true. I have no study to back this up. I am asking that no one take this as an attack on their process, and that no one use it to describe someone else's experience.
That disclaimer done, here's what I've observed in my own life:
Gender transition often involves hormones. For most of us, when we hit puberty, we get a set of secondary sexual characteristics. For those of us who take some form of hormone therapy, there is a sort of second puberty where we gain the other set of secondary sexual characteristics. (The first set generally remain, although they may diminish slightly.)
Years ago, I came up with a theory about a second psychosocial puberty as well.
Living a transgendered life - that is, projecting an outward gender that society expects while privately identifying as another gender - requires the construction of a character. For me, the tough, athletic male was not an option, so I worked on the studious, intelligent male. In high school I developed a new character that people identified as a "stoner", although I did not actually use drugs or even drink.
The creation and maintenance of these characters takes a lot of time and energy. When I was around other people, I had to play this role, which left little room for me to develop my inner identity.
As I began my social transition, I had to learn a lot of things that I ought have done as a girl (had I a girlhood). Who were my role models? What is appropriate dress? What do I want to be when I grow up? To whom am I attracted?
When I first began thinking about this second psychosocial puberty, I thought it reset me from the age I was (about 24) to about 13. Now I'm thinking it probably reset me to 8 years of age - or earlier.
The problem for me was that I was like an emancipated eight year old with no parents to guide me. No one to tell me "you're not going out of the house dressed like that, young lady". No one to tell me what people were probably not good choices to date. I did a lot of crazy - and sometimes dangerous - things. I dressed in ways that may not have been appropriate for the time and place. I put myself in situations where I was alone with a stranger.
I also had to discover who I really was. This took years. I discovered my sexual orientation. I discovered my desires and fears. I discovered role models, then changed to new role models, then new ones again. I found strengths I never knew I had - in fact, I found I was stronger as a woman than I had ever been as a man.
And, though I had never really lost my faith in God, I found a renewed relationship with my creator - one of real love.
But I was growing up alone, and I made a lot of mistakes. There were probably many times when people thought I was old enough to know better. The truth is, this little girl was still growing up.
As I approach the end of my fifth decade, I still feel at least a decade (maybe two) younger than that. I'm still lagging behind other women my age.
I'm wondering whether any other people have experienced something similar.
Before I go any farther, let me say that this is based on my experience and what I have seen in some of my friends. It is not a universal truth of gender transition. It may not even be generally true. I have no study to back this up. I am asking that no one take this as an attack on their process, and that no one use it to describe someone else's experience.
That disclaimer done, here's what I've observed in my own life:
Gender transition often involves hormones. For most of us, when we hit puberty, we get a set of secondary sexual characteristics. For those of us who take some form of hormone therapy, there is a sort of second puberty where we gain the other set of secondary sexual characteristics. (The first set generally remain, although they may diminish slightly.)
Years ago, I came up with a theory about a second psychosocial puberty as well.
Living a transgendered life - that is, projecting an outward gender that society expects while privately identifying as another gender - requires the construction of a character. For me, the tough, athletic male was not an option, so I worked on the studious, intelligent male. In high school I developed a new character that people identified as a "stoner", although I did not actually use drugs or even drink.
The creation and maintenance of these characters takes a lot of time and energy. When I was around other people, I had to play this role, which left little room for me to develop my inner identity.
As I began my social transition, I had to learn a lot of things that I ought have done as a girl (had I a girlhood). Who were my role models? What is appropriate dress? What do I want to be when I grow up? To whom am I attracted?
When I first began thinking about this second psychosocial puberty, I thought it reset me from the age I was (about 24) to about 13. Now I'm thinking it probably reset me to 8 years of age - or earlier.
The problem for me was that I was like an emancipated eight year old with no parents to guide me. No one to tell me "you're not going out of the house dressed like that, young lady". No one to tell me what people were probably not good choices to date. I did a lot of crazy - and sometimes dangerous - things. I dressed in ways that may not have been appropriate for the time and place. I put myself in situations where I was alone with a stranger.
I also had to discover who I really was. This took years. I discovered my sexual orientation. I discovered my desires and fears. I discovered role models, then changed to new role models, then new ones again. I found strengths I never knew I had - in fact, I found I was stronger as a woman than I had ever been as a man.
And, though I had never really lost my faith in God, I found a renewed relationship with my creator - one of real love.
But I was growing up alone, and I made a lot of mistakes. There were probably many times when people thought I was old enough to know better. The truth is, this little girl was still growing up.
As I approach the end of my fifth decade, I still feel at least a decade (maybe two) younger than that. I'm still lagging behind other women my age.
I'm wondering whether any other people have experienced something similar.
And now for something rare on this blog: something you would actually expect here, explicitly transgender and explicitly Christian.
I wrote this for one of my classes, and a former classmate asked for a copy, so I cleaned it up and sent it to him.
As long as I was doing that work, I decided I might as well post it here, in case anyone else found it useful.
If you want it in .rtf format, let me know.
Notes:
This is a ritual for a person who has chosen a new name, most often when transitioning between one public gender identification and another.
- This ritual is written for a person already well known to a community, who is maintaining a relationship with that community. As such, it is not necessary, nor helpful, to re-establish the old name or gender identification in order to celebrate the new one.
- Spaces are provided for the new name and for pronouns. It is important to ask the person, prior to this ritual, what name and pronouns are preferred. If the choices include less well known pronouns, such as Ze and Hir (see http://web.mit.edu/trans/GenderNeutralPronouns.pdf), the community may need to be educated regarding these prior to such a ritual.
- This ritual is not intended to educate people regarding gender transition. If this is a need in the community, it ought be addressed prior to this ritual.
- If the community has a certificate of membership, name tag, or other such document(s) with the person's name, this is a good opportunity to issue new ones.
- This ritual is a celebration of a person bringing more of himself, herself, or hirself to the relationship with the community. It is not one of nervous anticipation, but one of joy.
The parts marked Leader: are to be read by the pastor or other leader of the community.
The parts marked One: for the one choosing a new name.
The parts marked Community: are for the community at large.
The parts marked Recorder: are for the person who records the names, attendance, and other such information for the community.
[if you're not reading this on my actual blog, find the link to the original post to find the text of the ritual]
Continue reading Ritual for Recognition of Name and Reaffirmation of Covenant.
Energy is dangerous: A five pound rock four feet above the ground (twenty foot pounds) can break your toes if it falls on them.
More concentrated energy is more dangerous: The same rock 106 feet above the ground can break your head (roughly 500 foot pounds).
Gasoline can explode. Lithium batteries can catch fire. The more we concentrate energy into tiny spaces, the more dangerous it gets. We compromise between safety (low energy density) and convenience (high energy density).
Nuclear energy is pretty dense. It's pretty dangerous. We compensate by building safety around the reactors - so much that most of them are not at all portable (exceptions being the ones on ships and satellites).
Considering the accidents we've had, I think nuclear energy has been pretty safe. There have been explosions at coal-fired plants. There have been dambreaks. These are the risks of concentrated energy.
I live in Illinois - the state where the Manhattan Project began and the state that has more nuclear power plants than any other.
I have picnicked with my family at Red Gate Woods, where two sites contain the remains of research reactors from the Manhattan Project (I discovered this when I stumbled upon one of these while walking in the woods).
I have lived in West Chicago, site of a cleanup of radioactive thorium left behind by the manufacture of lantern mantles.
I live within the evacuation area for the Dresden plant - the site of the first commercial nuclear power reactor - also the first commercial nuclear power reactor to be shut down (and it was due to problems with the reactor). I have camped in the shadow of the Zion (now shut down) and Byron nuclear power plants.
For the first few years in our new home, we drank and bathed in water with radium levels in violation of EPA standards.
I work just north of Argonne Laboratories, which contains several research reactors.
A friend of mine is a pastor in Ottawa Illinois: the site of the Luminous Dial Company, where many women developed cancer as a result of painting numbers on clocks using radium-based paint.
I have visited all of these sites and more in setting up a motorcycle rally (called "Glow in the Dark").
Here's my take:
I'm not "No Nukes Anywhere" (NNA). I'm also (clearly) not "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY).
My position, as a Christian, is "Not In Someone Else's Back Yard If Not In My Back Yard" (NISEBYINIMBY). OK, it's a lousy acronym, but my point is this: "If I won't accept it where I live, I should not accept it where someone else lives". This is pretty simple to extrapolate from Jesus' teachings.
Those who desire nuclear plants(and coal-burning plants, and dams, etc. ad nauseum) should desire them near their home, work, and the schools and parks where their children play. These things will inevitably be near someone's home, work, and the schools and parks where their children play, as someone will work there and have a family.
More concentrated energy is more dangerous: The same rock 106 feet above the ground can break your head (roughly 500 foot pounds).
Gasoline can explode. Lithium batteries can catch fire. The more we concentrate energy into tiny spaces, the more dangerous it gets. We compromise between safety (low energy density) and convenience (high energy density).
Nuclear energy is pretty dense. It's pretty dangerous. We compensate by building safety around the reactors - so much that most of them are not at all portable (exceptions being the ones on ships and satellites).
Considering the accidents we've had, I think nuclear energy has been pretty safe. There have been explosions at coal-fired plants. There have been dambreaks. These are the risks of concentrated energy.
I live in Illinois - the state where the Manhattan Project began and the state that has more nuclear power plants than any other.
I have picnicked with my family at Red Gate Woods, where two sites contain the remains of research reactors from the Manhattan Project (I discovered this when I stumbled upon one of these while walking in the woods).
I have lived in West Chicago, site of a cleanup of radioactive thorium left behind by the manufacture of lantern mantles.
I live within the evacuation area for the Dresden plant - the site of the first commercial nuclear power reactor - also the first commercial nuclear power reactor to be shut down (and it was due to problems with the reactor). I have camped in the shadow of the Zion (now shut down) and Byron nuclear power plants.
For the first few years in our new home, we drank and bathed in water with radium levels in violation of EPA standards.
I work just north of Argonne Laboratories, which contains several research reactors.
A friend of mine is a pastor in Ottawa Illinois: the site of the Luminous Dial Company, where many women developed cancer as a result of painting numbers on clocks using radium-based paint.
I have visited all of these sites and more in setting up a motorcycle rally (called "Glow in the Dark").
Here's my take:
I'm not "No Nukes Anywhere" (NNA). I'm also (clearly) not "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY).
My position, as a Christian, is "Not In Someone Else's Back Yard If Not In My Back Yard" (NISEBYINIMBY). OK, it's a lousy acronym, but my point is this: "If I won't accept it where I live, I should not accept it where someone else lives". This is pretty simple to extrapolate from Jesus' teachings.
Those who desire nuclear plants(and coal-burning plants, and dams, etc. ad nauseum) should desire them near their home, work, and the schools and parks where their children play. These things will inevitably be near someone's home, work, and the schools and parks where their children play, as someone will work there and have a family.
There is the question of nuclear waste. We already have problems with
toxic waste products: solids that don't break down for decades or centuries and waste gases (carbon dioxide and more immediately harmful
gases) that cause problems from other energy sources (including wood,
which may be the oldest non-animal energy source used by humans).
Nuclear waste is toxic waste.
Nuclear waste has a geometric decay rate. Unstable elements are given "half lives" because, in a given amount of time, half of it will decay. In the same amount of time, half of the remaining half will decay.
Imagine owing $65,536 to the bank for your mortgage. Imagine that you were not allowed to pay it, but the debt decreased with a half life of one year.
After one year you would owe $32,768.
After two, $16,384.
Three: $8,192.
Four: $4096.
Five: $2048.
Ten: $64.
Fifteen: $2.
After 18 years, you would still owe 25 cents. After 20, 6.25 cents.
When would you pay off the mortgage?
So it's important to look at how long it takes these isotopes to decay.
Bear in mind, however, that "decay" doesn't mean that they disappear. Each atom of one isotope decays into a different isotope (usually of a different element). Often, these new atoms are also unstable. See http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/chain.html
Here is an incomplete list of half lives of various isotopes, along with a few mileposts for reference:
source for half lives: http://www.iem-inc.com/toolhalf.html
Fuel
Product of non-fission events including neutron loss or absorption
Fission product
decay product of above unstable elements
Po-212 - 0.305 microseconds
Po-213 - 4.2 microseconds
Po-214 - 164.3 microseconds
Po-215 - 0.00178 seconds
At-217 - 0.0323 seconds
Po-216 - 0.15 seconds
Po-211 - 0.516 seconds
At-218 - 2 seconds
Rn-219 - 3.96 seconds
N-16 - 7.13 seconds
Ag-110 - 24.6 seconds
Rh-106 - 29.9 seconds
Rn-220 - 55.6 seconds
Nb-97m - 60 seconds
Pa-234m - 1.17 minutes
O-15 - 122.24 seconds
Bi-211 - 2.14 minutes
Tl-209 - 2.20 minutes
Ba-137m - 2.552 minutes
Kr-88 - 2.84 minutes
Po-218 - 3.05 minutes
Tl-208 - 3.07 minutes
Tl-207 - 4.77 minutes
Fr-221 - 4.8 minutes
Pr-144m - 7.2 minutes
Np-240m - 7.4 minutes
N-13 - 9.97 minutes
Ba-142 - 10.6 minutes
Te-133 - 12.45 minutes
Tc-101 - 14.2 minutes
Xe-138 - 14.17 minutes
Rb-89 - 15.2 minutes
Xe-135m - 15.29 minutes
Rb-88 - 17.8 minutes
Pr-144 - 17.28 minutes
Ba-141 - 18.27 minutes
Sb-126m - 19.0 minutes
Bi-214 - 19.9 minutes
C-11 - 20.38 minutes
Mn-52m - 21.1 minutes
Fr-223 - 21.8 minutes
Te-131 - 25.0 minutes
Pb-214 - 26.8 minutes
Br-84 - 31.80 minutes
Cs-138 - 32.2 minutes
Pb-211 - 36.1 minutes
Te-134 - 41.8 minutes
Bi-213 - 45.65 minutes
Y-91m - 49.71 minutes
I-134 - 52.6 minutes
Te-133m - 55.4 minutes
Rh-103m - 56.12 minutes
Zn-69 - 57 minutes
Bi-212 - 60.55 minutes
Np-240 - 65 minutes
Te-129 - 69.6 minutes
Nb-97 - 72.1 minutes
Kr-87 - 76.3 minutes
Ba-139 - 82.7 minutes
La-142 - 92.5 minutes
F-18 - 109.74 minutes
In-113 - 1.658 hours
Ar-41 - 1.827 hours
Kr-83m - 1.83 hours
I-132 - 2.30 hours
Br-83 - 2.39 hours
Ni-65 - 2.520 hours
Mn-56 - 2.579 hours
Sr-92 - 2.71 hours
Sr-87m - 2.81 hours
Cs-134m - 2.90 hours
Pb-209 - 3.253 hours
Cu-61 - 3.408 hours
Y-92 - 3.54 hours
Sc-44 - 3.927 hours
La-141 - 3.93 hours
Ru-105 - 4.44 hours
Kr-85m - 4.48 hours
Pu-243 - 4.956 hours
Pu-241 - 14.4 years
Tc-99m - 6.02 hours
Ac-228 - 6.13 hours
I-135 - 6.61 hours
Pa-234 - 6.70 hours
Xe-135 - 9.09 hours
Te-127 - 9.35 hours
Sr-91 - 9.5 hours
Y-93 - 10.1 hours
Pb-212 - 10.64 hours
K-42 - 12.36 hours
I-130 - 12.36 hours
Cu-64 - 12.701 hours
I-123 - 13.2 hours
Pd-109 0- 13.427 hours
Pr-143 - 13.56 days
U-240 - 14.1 hours
Na-24 - 15.00 hours
Am-242 - 16.02 hours
Zr-97 - 16.90 hours Zirconium is used in the cladding of the fuel rods
I-133 - 20.8 hours
K-43 - 22.6 hours
W-187 - 23.9 hours
Th-231 - 25.52 hours
Pm-151 - 28.40 hours
Te-131m - 30 hours
Ce-143 - 33.0 hours
Br-82 - 35.30 hours
Rh-105 - 35.36 hours
Mn-57 - 36.08 hours
La-140 - 40.272 hours
Sc-48 - 43.7 hours
Sm-153 - 46.7 hours
Np-238 - 2.117 days
Pm-149 - 53.08 hours
Np-239 - 2.355 days
Hg-197 - 64.1 hours
Xe-133m - 2.188 days
Au-198 - 2.696 days
Mo-99 - 66.0 hours
In-111 - 2.83 days
Ru-97 - 2.9 days
Tl-201 - 73.06 hours
Te-132 - 78.2 hours
Ga-67 - 3.261 days
Sc-47 - 3.351 days
Ra-224 - 3.66 days
Nb-95m - 86.6 hours
Rn-222 - 3.824 days
Sb-127 - 3.85 days
Ca-47 - 4.53 days
Bi-210 - 5.012 days
Xe-133 - 5.245 days
Pm-148 - 5.37 days
Mn-52 - 5.591 days
U-237 - 6.75 days
Ag-111 - 7.45 days
I-131 - 8.04 days
Sn-125 - 9.64 days
Ac-225 - 10.0 days
Nd-147 - 10.98 days
Ra-223 - 11.434 days
Xe-131m - 11.9 days
Sb-126 - 12.4 days
Ba-140 - 12.74 days
Cs-136 - 13.1 days
P-32 - 14.29 days
Ra-225 - 14.8 days
Eu-156 - 15.19 days
V-48 - 16.238 days
Rb-86 - 18.66 days
Th-227 - 18.718 days
Th-234 - 24.10 days
Pa-233 - 27.0 days
Cr-51 - 27.704 days
Yb-169 - 32.01 days
Ce-141 - 32.50 days
Te-129m - 33.6 days
Nb-95 - 35.15 days
Ru-103 - 39.28 days
Pm-148 - 41.3 days
Fe-59 - 44.53 days
Cd-115m - 44.6 days
Hg-203 - 46.60 days
Sr-89 - 50.5 days
Be-7 - 53.44 days
Te-125m - 58 days
Y-91 - 58.51 days
I-125 - 60.14 days
Sb-124 - 60.20 days
Zr-95 - 63.98 days Zirconium is used in the cladding of the fuel rods
Y-90 - 64.0 hours
Sr-85 - 64.84 days
Co-58 - 70.8 days
Tb-160 - 72.3 days
Ir-192 - 74.02 days
W-185 - 75.1 days
Co-56 - 78.76 days
Sc-46 - 83.83 days
S-35 - 87.44 days
Te-127m - 109 days
Se-75 - 119.78 days
W-181 - 121.2 days
Sn-123 - 129.2 days
Po-210 - 138.38 days
Cm-242 - 162.8 days
Zn-65 - 243.9 days
Ag-110m - 249.9 days
Co-57 - 270.9 days
Average term of human pregnancy - 280 days
Ce-144 - 284.3 days
Sn-119m - 293.1 days
Mn-54 - 312.5 days
Ru-106 - 368.2 days
Th-228 - 1.913 years
Cs-134 - 2.062 years
Na-22 - 2.602 years
Pm-147 - 2.6234 years
Cf-252 - 2.638 years
Fe-55 - 2.7 years
Sb-125 - 2.77 years
Eu-155 - 4.96 years
Co-60 - 5.27 years
Ra-228 - 5.75 years
Eu-154 - 8.8 years
Kr-85 - 10.72 years
H-3 - 12.35 years (Tritium)
Eu-152 - 13.33 years
Cd-113m - 13.6 years
Nb-93m - 13.6 years
Cm-244 - 18.11 years
Ac-227 - 21.773 years
Pb-210 - 22.3 years
Cm-243 - 28.5 years
Sr-90 - 29.12 years
Cs-137 - 30.0 years
Time since UCC began - 54 years
U-232 - 72 years
Pu-238 - 87.74 years
Sm-151 - 90 years
Ni-63 - 96 years
Am-242m - 152 years
Am-241 - 432.2 years
Time since Luther's 95 Theses - 496 years
Ho-166m - 1,200 years
Ra-226 - 1,600 years
Time since crucifixion of Jesus - ~1980 years
Time since building of Solomon's Temple at Jerusalem - ~2968 years
Mo-93 - 3,500 years
Time since world was created (Ussher) - 6014 years
Cm-246 - 4,730 years
C-14 - 5,730 years
Pu-240 - 6537 years
Th-229 - 7,340 years
Am-243 - 7,380 years
Pu-239 - 24,065 years
Cm-245 - 8,500 years
Time since world was created (Camping) - 13,023 years
Pa-231 - 32,800 years
Se-79 - 65,000 years
Ni-59 - 75,000 years
Th-230 - 77,000 years
Sn-126 - 100,000 years
Ca-41 - 130,000 years
U-233 - 159,000 years
Tc-99 - 213,000 years
U-234 - 244,500 years
Cm-248 - 339,000 years
Pu-242 - 376,000 years
K-40 - 1,270,000,000 years
Zr-93 - 1,530,000 years Zirconium is used in the cladding of the fuel rods
Be-10 - 1,600,000 years
Np-237 - 2,140,000 years
Cs-135 - 2,300,000 years
Pd-107 - 6,500,000 years
Cm-247 - 15,600,000 years
I-129 - 15,700,000 years
U-236 - 23,400,000 years
Pu-244 - 82,600,000 years
U-235 - 703,000,000 years (fissile uranium - the isotope increased when "enriched")
Oklo nuclear reactor - 1,700,000,000 years ago
Time since life on Earth began (Science) - 3,700,000,000 years
U-238 - 4,470,000,000 years (the isotope decreased when "enriched" - isotope more present in "depleted" uranium)
Time since Earth was created (Science) - 4,540,000,000 years
Time since sun was created (Science) - 4,570,000,000 years
Time since big bang (Science) - 13,750,000,000 years
Th-232 - 14,100,000,000 years
Rb-87 - 47,000,000,000 years
Re-187 - 50,000,000,000 years
Sm-147 - 106,000,000,000 years
Gd-152 - 108,000,000,000,000 years
In-115 - 5,100,000,000,000,000 years
Stable isotopes:
Tl-205
Pb-206
Pb-207
Pb-208
Nuclear waste is toxic waste.
Nuclear waste has a geometric decay rate. Unstable elements are given "half lives" because, in a given amount of time, half of it will decay. In the same amount of time, half of the remaining half will decay.
Imagine owing $65,536 to the bank for your mortgage. Imagine that you were not allowed to pay it, but the debt decreased with a half life of one year.
After one year you would owe $32,768.
After two, $16,384.
Three: $8,192.
Four: $4096.
Five: $2048.
Ten: $64.
Fifteen: $2.
After 18 years, you would still owe 25 cents. After 20, 6.25 cents.
When would you pay off the mortgage?
So it's important to look at how long it takes these isotopes to decay.
Bear in mind, however, that "decay" doesn't mean that they disappear. Each atom of one isotope decays into a different isotope (usually of a different element). Often, these new atoms are also unstable. See http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/understand/chain.html
Here is an incomplete list of half lives of various isotopes, along with a few mileposts for reference:
source for half lives: http://www.iem-inc.com/toolhalf.html
Fuel
Product of non-fission events including neutron loss or absorption
Fission product
decay product of above unstable elements
Po-212 - 0.305 microseconds
Po-213 - 4.2 microseconds
Po-214 - 164.3 microseconds
Po-215 - 0.00178 seconds
At-217 - 0.0323 seconds
Po-216 - 0.15 seconds
Po-211 - 0.516 seconds
At-218 - 2 seconds
Rn-219 - 3.96 seconds
N-16 - 7.13 seconds
Ag-110 - 24.6 seconds
Rh-106 - 29.9 seconds
Rn-220 - 55.6 seconds
Nb-97m - 60 seconds
Pa-234m - 1.17 minutes
O-15 - 122.24 seconds
Bi-211 - 2.14 minutes
Tl-209 - 2.20 minutes
Ba-137m - 2.552 minutes
Kr-88 - 2.84 minutes
Po-218 - 3.05 minutes
Tl-208 - 3.07 minutes
Tl-207 - 4.77 minutes
Fr-221 - 4.8 minutes
Pr-144m - 7.2 minutes
Np-240m - 7.4 minutes
N-13 - 9.97 minutes
Ba-142 - 10.6 minutes
Te-133 - 12.45 minutes
Tc-101 - 14.2 minutes
Xe-138 - 14.17 minutes
Rb-89 - 15.2 minutes
Xe-135m - 15.29 minutes
Rb-88 - 17.8 minutes
Pr-144 - 17.28 minutes
Ba-141 - 18.27 minutes
Sb-126m - 19.0 minutes
Bi-214 - 19.9 minutes
C-11 - 20.38 minutes
Mn-52m - 21.1 minutes
Fr-223 - 21.8 minutes
Te-131 - 25.0 minutes
Pb-214 - 26.8 minutes
Br-84 - 31.80 minutes
Cs-138 - 32.2 minutes
Pb-211 - 36.1 minutes
Te-134 - 41.8 minutes
Bi-213 - 45.65 minutes
Y-91m - 49.71 minutes
I-134 - 52.6 minutes
Te-133m - 55.4 minutes
Rh-103m - 56.12 minutes
Zn-69 - 57 minutes
Bi-212 - 60.55 minutes
Np-240 - 65 minutes
Te-129 - 69.6 minutes
Nb-97 - 72.1 minutes
Kr-87 - 76.3 minutes
Ba-139 - 82.7 minutes
La-142 - 92.5 minutes
F-18 - 109.74 minutes
In-113 - 1.658 hours
Ar-41 - 1.827 hours
Kr-83m - 1.83 hours
I-132 - 2.30 hours
Br-83 - 2.39 hours
Ni-65 - 2.520 hours
Mn-56 - 2.579 hours
Sr-92 - 2.71 hours
Sr-87m - 2.81 hours
Cs-134m - 2.90 hours
Pb-209 - 3.253 hours
Cu-61 - 3.408 hours
Y-92 - 3.54 hours
Sc-44 - 3.927 hours
La-141 - 3.93 hours
Ru-105 - 4.44 hours
Kr-85m - 4.48 hours
Pu-243 - 4.956 hours
Pu-241 - 14.4 years
Tc-99m - 6.02 hours
Ac-228 - 6.13 hours
I-135 - 6.61 hours
Pa-234 - 6.70 hours
Xe-135 - 9.09 hours
Te-127 - 9.35 hours
Sr-91 - 9.5 hours
Y-93 - 10.1 hours
Pb-212 - 10.64 hours
K-42 - 12.36 hours
I-130 - 12.36 hours
Cu-64 - 12.701 hours
I-123 - 13.2 hours
Pd-109 0- 13.427 hours
Pr-143 - 13.56 days
U-240 - 14.1 hours
Na-24 - 15.00 hours
Am-242 - 16.02 hours
Zr-97 - 16.90 hours Zirconium is used in the cladding of the fuel rods
I-133 - 20.8 hours
K-43 - 22.6 hours
W-187 - 23.9 hours
Th-231 - 25.52 hours
Pm-151 - 28.40 hours
Te-131m - 30 hours
Ce-143 - 33.0 hours
Br-82 - 35.30 hours
Rh-105 - 35.36 hours
Mn-57 - 36.08 hours
La-140 - 40.272 hours
Sc-48 - 43.7 hours
Sm-153 - 46.7 hours
Np-238 - 2.117 days
Pm-149 - 53.08 hours
Np-239 - 2.355 days
Hg-197 - 64.1 hours
Xe-133m - 2.188 days
Au-198 - 2.696 days
Mo-99 - 66.0 hours
In-111 - 2.83 days
Ru-97 - 2.9 days
Tl-201 - 73.06 hours
Te-132 - 78.2 hours
Ga-67 - 3.261 days
Sc-47 - 3.351 days
Ra-224 - 3.66 days
Nb-95m - 86.6 hours
Rn-222 - 3.824 days
Sb-127 - 3.85 days
Ca-47 - 4.53 days
Bi-210 - 5.012 days
Xe-133 - 5.245 days
Pm-148 - 5.37 days
Mn-52 - 5.591 days
U-237 - 6.75 days
Ag-111 - 7.45 days
I-131 - 8.04 days
Sn-125 - 9.64 days
Ac-225 - 10.0 days
Nd-147 - 10.98 days
Ra-223 - 11.434 days
Xe-131m - 11.9 days
Sb-126 - 12.4 days
Ba-140 - 12.74 days
Cs-136 - 13.1 days
P-32 - 14.29 days
Ra-225 - 14.8 days
Eu-156 - 15.19 days
V-48 - 16.238 days
Rb-86 - 18.66 days
Th-227 - 18.718 days
Th-234 - 24.10 days
Pa-233 - 27.0 days
Cr-51 - 27.704 days
Yb-169 - 32.01 days
Ce-141 - 32.50 days
Te-129m - 33.6 days
Nb-95 - 35.15 days
Ru-103 - 39.28 days
Pm-148 - 41.3 days
Fe-59 - 44.53 days
Cd-115m - 44.6 days
Hg-203 - 46.60 days
Sr-89 - 50.5 days
Be-7 - 53.44 days
Te-125m - 58 days
Y-91 - 58.51 days
I-125 - 60.14 days
Sb-124 - 60.20 days
Zr-95 - 63.98 days Zirconium is used in the cladding of the fuel rods
Y-90 - 64.0 hours
Sr-85 - 64.84 days
Co-58 - 70.8 days
Tb-160 - 72.3 days
Ir-192 - 74.02 days
W-185 - 75.1 days
Co-56 - 78.76 days
Sc-46 - 83.83 days
S-35 - 87.44 days
Te-127m - 109 days
Se-75 - 119.78 days
W-181 - 121.2 days
Sn-123 - 129.2 days
Po-210 - 138.38 days
Cm-242 - 162.8 days
Zn-65 - 243.9 days
Ag-110m - 249.9 days
Co-57 - 270.9 days
Average term of human pregnancy - 280 days
Ce-144 - 284.3 days
Sn-119m - 293.1 days
Mn-54 - 312.5 days
Ru-106 - 368.2 days
Th-228 - 1.913 years
Cs-134 - 2.062 years
Na-22 - 2.602 years
Pm-147 - 2.6234 years
Cf-252 - 2.638 years
Fe-55 - 2.7 years
Sb-125 - 2.77 years
Eu-155 - 4.96 years
Co-60 - 5.27 years
Ra-228 - 5.75 years
Eu-154 - 8.8 years
Kr-85 - 10.72 years
H-3 - 12.35 years (Tritium)
Eu-152 - 13.33 years
Cd-113m - 13.6 years
Nb-93m - 13.6 years
Cm-244 - 18.11 years
Ac-227 - 21.773 years
Pb-210 - 22.3 years
Cm-243 - 28.5 years
Sr-90 - 29.12 years
Cs-137 - 30.0 years
Time since UCC began - 54 years
U-232 - 72 years
Pu-238 - 87.74 years
Sm-151 - 90 years
Ni-63 - 96 years
Am-242m - 152 years
Am-241 - 432.2 years
Time since Luther's 95 Theses - 496 years
Ho-166m - 1,200 years
Ra-226 - 1,600 years
Time since crucifixion of Jesus - ~1980 years
Time since building of Solomon's Temple at Jerusalem - ~2968 years
Mo-93 - 3,500 years
Time since world was created (Ussher) - 6014 years
Cm-246 - 4,730 years
C-14 - 5,730 years
Pu-240 - 6537 years
Th-229 - 7,340 years
Am-243 - 7,380 years
Pu-239 - 24,065 years
Cm-245 - 8,500 years
Time since world was created (Camping) - 13,023 years
Pa-231 - 32,800 years
Se-79 - 65,000 years
Ni-59 - 75,000 years
Th-230 - 77,000 years
Sn-126 - 100,000 years
Ca-41 - 130,000 years
U-233 - 159,000 years
Tc-99 - 213,000 years
U-234 - 244,500 years
Cm-248 - 339,000 years
Pu-242 - 376,000 years
K-40 - 1,270,000,000 years
Zr-93 - 1,530,000 years Zirconium is used in the cladding of the fuel rods
Be-10 - 1,600,000 years
Np-237 - 2,140,000 years
Cs-135 - 2,300,000 years
Pd-107 - 6,500,000 years
Cm-247 - 15,600,000 years
I-129 - 15,700,000 years
U-236 - 23,400,000 years
Pu-244 - 82,600,000 years
U-235 - 703,000,000 years (fissile uranium - the isotope increased when "enriched")
Oklo nuclear reactor - 1,700,000,000 years ago
Time since life on Earth began (Science) - 3,700,000,000 years
U-238 - 4,470,000,000 years (the isotope decreased when "enriched" - isotope more present in "depleted" uranium)
Time since Earth was created (Science) - 4,540,000,000 years
Time since sun was created (Science) - 4,570,000,000 years
Time since big bang (Science) - 13,750,000,000 years
Th-232 - 14,100,000,000 years
Rb-87 - 47,000,000,000 years
Re-187 - 50,000,000,000 years
Sm-147 - 106,000,000,000 years
Gd-152 - 108,000,000,000,000 years
In-115 - 5,100,000,000,000,000 years
Stable isotopes:
Tl-205
Pb-206
Pb-207
Pb-208
I should be studying right now, but this was in my head and I had to let it out: it was taking up far too much space.
Lately, I've been thinking about how theology - and, primarily, I'm acquainted with Christian theology - tends to diminish God.
I believe that, at least in most cases, this is unintentional., We're just trying to figure out how things work and, with our narrow vantage point on the fuzzy outside of a rock with a molten core, flying around what amounts to a mid-sized (in cosmological respects) fusion reactor, which itself is flying with billions of other reactors (of various sizes) around a gravitational center which may well be densely-packed matter, which itself is moving... well, you may begin to see the problem. Forget about seeing the forest for the trees. We'd be lucky to see the forest for the fuzziness of the moss.
What troubles me is how our clearly simple understandings of theology become the stuff with which we condemn each other as apostate, heretic, blasphemer, and damned. What troubles me is our lack of humility in our theology. What troubles me is that we too often call our theologies "truth".
For example, let us consider the question of works versus grace. This has been raging for centuries, and even those who fall entirely on one side or the other have trouble working it out.
On the works side, we have a simple proposition: do what God tells you (and avoid that which God prohibits) and you'll be rewarded; get it backward and you'll be punished. This is easy to understand if one has had a parent or guardian, teacher, police officer, or other authority figure in one's life. And, if one doesn't think too hard about this, it seems to work well.
The problem with a works theology is that God's plans are dependent on people. God's plans for Adam and Eve can be interrupted by their disobedience; God has to rely on Samson's parents raising him as they're told; God even has to rely on Judas selling out Jesus in order to get to the sacrifice. If I have a choice to do as God desires or to do otherwise, I can personally change the course of God's plan. It makes me, at least in a small way, more powerful than God.
So let's put all the power in the hands of God: nothing happens unless God wills it. If the entirety of the universe is planned by God, then none of us have any choice at all - we're part of the plan. This works well with scenes such as God hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex 4:21, 7:4-5) or God allowing "the satan" to direct the Sabeans to kill Job's servants and steal his Oxen (Job 1:15) and the Chaldeans to kill Job's servants and steal his camels (Job 1:17).
Of course, that means nothing we can do will affect the outcome. This is where John Calvin went, and it led him to double predestination - which he didn't like but had to accept: before the universe was created, God decided who was created for eternal punishment and who was created for eternal bliss. How else could it be? Isn't God in control?
Both of these viewpoints deal with a variation on the riddle "Can God make a rock (humanity) so heavy (able to affect its own destiny) that God can't lift it (determine its fate)? In short, what does "all powerful" (omnipotent) mean?
In Christian theology, there are recurring bubbles of universalism (relatively recently Carlton Pearson made a bunch of waves, and it looks like Rob Bell may as well). These theologies of the redemption of all people (or all of Earth, or all of creation) have many different flavors, but they settle a problem: If God predestines everything, nothing - and no one - is responsible but God. But if God's responsible, why do people do bad things? Why are there disasters? What's the point of cancer?
There are several theologies that make us co-creators with God. "But" complain some theologians "if we have any input at all, doesn't that mean God makes adjustments because of us? Does that mean God changes? And if God changes (which is, of course, against scripture as we know it), how can we trust God not to change again?" And, besides, if we're doing part of the lifting, how great is this God character anyway?
As I noted in a previous blog, these theologies all put God on the same timeline as we are. Most of us recognize the hold time has on us: just remember something embarrassing you did in your life and try to change things so it never happened. We may have a future of many (perhaps infinite) possibilities, but we have a single unchangeable past.
Most of us are willing to free God of space - we let God be everywhere (omnipresent). We allow God to be eternal - in the sense that God has always been, and ever will be. But we don't give God the same transcendence through time as through space. The God of the Pleiades is the same as the God of the Moon and the God of Jerusalem and the God of far western Joliet IL USA, but the God of today remembers the God of yesterday.
And that's a problem for me - because it makes time greater than God. How great time is! Shouldn't God be greater than time? Should God be the creator of time (at least as we know time)? For many theologies, basic cause and effect creates a theological problem where time is greater than God.
This, however, is no big deal, as long as we accept that we have a theology where the greatest (small g) god is time. And if we want God to be, as Anselm put it, "that greater than which nothing can be thought", then we have to accept that "God is greater than time, even if our theologies cannot account for it".
Now, in a previous blog, I suggested that God may be on another timeline. This does not by any means make me a superior theologian. The truth is, I have no way of knowing whether God experiences any kind of time or space outside of what God created - it's just a way for me to get a handle on my relationship with God. My developing theology, like all theologies, is full of holes, contradictions, and inconsistencies.
The point of this article is not to convince anyone that my life-as-improvisation theology is the one right theology, a ground-breaking theology, an important theology, a novel theology, or even a useful theology.
The point is that every theology makes God smaller than God is. It has to: nothing in human experience is adequate even as a metaphor for God. And if our theologies are only our weak attempts at grasping the greatness of God, then they are insufficient as a means of judging one another.
It's not that you're right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and you're wrong. We're all wrong. As the Apostle Paul writes: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known." (I Corinthians 13:12).
So let us speak our theologies, and listen more than speak, for each of us may learn from many. But let's not wield our theologies as weapons; rather, let us exchange them as recipes, tasting from each other's pots, adding, stirring, and seeking to get ever closer to understand what God - and we - are made of, realizing that our efforts will never get it exactly right.
Lately, I've been thinking about how theology - and, primarily, I'm acquainted with Christian theology - tends to diminish God.
I believe that, at least in most cases, this is unintentional., We're just trying to figure out how things work and, with our narrow vantage point on the fuzzy outside of a rock with a molten core, flying around what amounts to a mid-sized (in cosmological respects) fusion reactor, which itself is flying with billions of other reactors (of various sizes) around a gravitational center which may well be densely-packed matter, which itself is moving... well, you may begin to see the problem. Forget about seeing the forest for the trees. We'd be lucky to see the forest for the fuzziness of the moss.
What troubles me is how our clearly simple understandings of theology become the stuff with which we condemn each other as apostate, heretic, blasphemer, and damned. What troubles me is our lack of humility in our theology. What troubles me is that we too often call our theologies "truth".
For example, let us consider the question of works versus grace. This has been raging for centuries, and even those who fall entirely on one side or the other have trouble working it out.
On the works side, we have a simple proposition: do what God tells you (and avoid that which God prohibits) and you'll be rewarded; get it backward and you'll be punished. This is easy to understand if one has had a parent or guardian, teacher, police officer, or other authority figure in one's life. And, if one doesn't think too hard about this, it seems to work well.
The problem with a works theology is that God's plans are dependent on people. God's plans for Adam and Eve can be interrupted by their disobedience; God has to rely on Samson's parents raising him as they're told; God even has to rely on Judas selling out Jesus in order to get to the sacrifice. If I have a choice to do as God desires or to do otherwise, I can personally change the course of God's plan. It makes me, at least in a small way, more powerful than God.
So let's put all the power in the hands of God: nothing happens unless God wills it. If the entirety of the universe is planned by God, then none of us have any choice at all - we're part of the plan. This works well with scenes such as God hardening Pharaoh's heart (Ex 4:21, 7:4-5) or God allowing "the satan" to direct the Sabeans to kill Job's servants and steal his Oxen (Job 1:15) and the Chaldeans to kill Job's servants and steal his camels (Job 1:17).
Of course, that means nothing we can do will affect the outcome. This is where John Calvin went, and it led him to double predestination - which he didn't like but had to accept: before the universe was created, God decided who was created for eternal punishment and who was created for eternal bliss. How else could it be? Isn't God in control?
Both of these viewpoints deal with a variation on the riddle "Can God make a rock (humanity) so heavy (able to affect its own destiny) that God can't lift it (determine its fate)? In short, what does "all powerful" (omnipotent) mean?
In Christian theology, there are recurring bubbles of universalism (relatively recently Carlton Pearson made a bunch of waves, and it looks like Rob Bell may as well). These theologies of the redemption of all people (or all of Earth, or all of creation) have many different flavors, but they settle a problem: If God predestines everything, nothing - and no one - is responsible but God. But if God's responsible, why do people do bad things? Why are there disasters? What's the point of cancer?
There are several theologies that make us co-creators with God. "But" complain some theologians "if we have any input at all, doesn't that mean God makes adjustments because of us? Does that mean God changes? And if God changes (which is, of course, against scripture as we know it), how can we trust God not to change again?" And, besides, if we're doing part of the lifting, how great is this God character anyway?
As I noted in a previous blog, these theologies all put God on the same timeline as we are. Most of us recognize the hold time has on us: just remember something embarrassing you did in your life and try to change things so it never happened. We may have a future of many (perhaps infinite) possibilities, but we have a single unchangeable past.
Most of us are willing to free God of space - we let God be everywhere (omnipresent). We allow God to be eternal - in the sense that God has always been, and ever will be. But we don't give God the same transcendence through time as through space. The God of the Pleiades is the same as the God of the Moon and the God of Jerusalem and the God of far western Joliet IL USA, but the God of today remembers the God of yesterday.
And that's a problem for me - because it makes time greater than God. How great time is! Shouldn't God be greater than time? Should God be the creator of time (at least as we know time)? For many theologies, basic cause and effect creates a theological problem where time is greater than God.
This, however, is no big deal, as long as we accept that we have a theology where the greatest (small g) god is time. And if we want God to be, as Anselm put it, "that greater than which nothing can be thought", then we have to accept that "God is greater than time, even if our theologies cannot account for it".
Now, in a previous blog, I suggested that God may be on another timeline. This does not by any means make me a superior theologian. The truth is, I have no way of knowing whether God experiences any kind of time or space outside of what God created - it's just a way for me to get a handle on my relationship with God. My developing theology, like all theologies, is full of holes, contradictions, and inconsistencies.
The point of this article is not to convince anyone that my life-as-improvisation theology is the one right theology, a ground-breaking theology, an important theology, a novel theology, or even a useful theology.
The point is that every theology makes God smaller than God is. It has to: nothing in human experience is adequate even as a metaphor for God. And if our theologies are only our weak attempts at grasping the greatness of God, then they are insufficient as a means of judging one another.
It's not that you're right and I'm wrong, or I'm right and you're wrong. We're all wrong. As the Apostle Paul writes: "For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known." (I Corinthians 13:12).
So let us speak our theologies, and listen more than speak, for each of us may learn from many. But let's not wield our theologies as weapons; rather, let us exchange them as recipes, tasting from each other's pots, adding, stirring, and seeking to get ever closer to understand what God - and we - are made of, realizing that our efforts will never get it exactly right.
I was thinking today about whose responsibility it is to stay in communication.
When two friends lose touch, who is to blame? Surely not the one who called or visited last - the burden must shift, right?
And when someone has a task to do, it's surely the responsibility of the person with the task to inquire about the details: when, where, how, et cetera. Or wait, maybe it's the responsibility of the person with the information to make sure the tasked person knows the details and is reminded of them?
I'm increasingly convinced that it's the responsibility of everyone involved (and why it's co-mmunication).
My background is in electronics, and especially computers, so forgive the nerdiness of this metaphor:
When a computer sends information to a printer (even the old "dumb" printers that couldn't tell the computer when they were out of toner), there are ways for the printer to talk back. Sometimes the printer uses a wire to say when it's "ready" and when it's "busy", or a wire to say it received what the computer sent. Sometimes the printer sends messages back: stop sending (XOFF) and start again (XON). Sometimes the computer tells the printer when it's done sending (ETX) and the printer says it received it (ACK), or the printer asks for data (ENQ) and says when it has it (ACK).
What I'm getting at here is that, even in the most basic communications ("here, print this"), both sides have a responsibility to be in communication together.
In our passive-aggressive society, we sometimes are afraid to tell someone we don't want to talk with them, so we pretend to be listening and "ACKnowledge" them even when we're not hearing them.
Likewise, we think other people may be "just being nice" when they talk with us. So we wonder whether we're bothering someone when we call them, and if they don't call us, we assume they don't want to talk with us.
What's missing here is honesty.
In our desire to not hurt someone's feelings, or to not have them angry with us, we will give false signals back, and re-interpret the signals we receive.
The responsibility for honest communication lies with me. If I haven't heard from you, even if I made the last call, it's my responsibility to pick up the phone and make contact. If I don't know what you want me to do for you, it's my responsibility to check in.
The responsibility for honest communication lies with you. If you haven't heard from me, even if you made the last call, it's your responsibility to pick up the phone and make contact. If you have something for me to do, it's your responsibility to make sure I know it.
Communication requires both sides to speak honestly, and both sides to listen without reinterpreting what was said.
Keep in touch.
When two friends lose touch, who is to blame? Surely not the one who called or visited last - the burden must shift, right?
And when someone has a task to do, it's surely the responsibility of the person with the task to inquire about the details: when, where, how, et cetera. Or wait, maybe it's the responsibility of the person with the information to make sure the tasked person knows the details and is reminded of them?
I'm increasingly convinced that it's the responsibility of everyone involved (and why it's co-mmunication).
My background is in electronics, and especially computers, so forgive the nerdiness of this metaphor:
When a computer sends information to a printer (even the old "dumb" printers that couldn't tell the computer when they were out of toner), there are ways for the printer to talk back. Sometimes the printer uses a wire to say when it's "ready" and when it's "busy", or a wire to say it received what the computer sent. Sometimes the printer sends messages back: stop sending (XOFF) and start again (XON). Sometimes the computer tells the printer when it's done sending (ETX) and the printer says it received it (ACK), or the printer asks for data (ENQ) and says when it has it (ACK).
What I'm getting at here is that, even in the most basic communications ("here, print this"), both sides have a responsibility to be in communication together.
In our passive-aggressive society, we sometimes are afraid to tell someone we don't want to talk with them, so we pretend to be listening and "ACKnowledge" them even when we're not hearing them.
Likewise, we think other people may be "just being nice" when they talk with us. So we wonder whether we're bothering someone when we call them, and if they don't call us, we assume they don't want to talk with us.
What's missing here is honesty.
In our desire to not hurt someone's feelings, or to not have them angry with us, we will give false signals back, and re-interpret the signals we receive.
The responsibility for honest communication lies with me. If I haven't heard from you, even if I made the last call, it's my responsibility to pick up the phone and make contact. If I don't know what you want me to do for you, it's my responsibility to check in.
The responsibility for honest communication lies with you. If you haven't heard from me, even if you made the last call, it's your responsibility to pick up the phone and make contact. If you have something for me to do, it's your responsibility to make sure I know it.
Communication requires both sides to speak honestly, and both sides to listen without reinterpreting what was said.
Keep in touch.
At http://www.sandersweb.net/bible/verse.php a random Bible verse will appear.
This morning I got II Thessalonians 3:3: "3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one".
The footnote allows that "the evil one" may also be translated "evil".
Contemporary ideas about good and evil often boil down to "doing what is right" and "opposing what is right" (Axis of Evil) or pointless cruelty (in so many movies where evil is personified in a car, a man in dreams, or possession by a demon).
But this is a modern idea. Evil once meant harm (and its opposite, good, a benefit). So if we look at the scripture again, it might read:
I have often heard people - especially Christians - testify to how God has protected them. When bad things happen, the response is sometimes "God is testing me" or "God will turn this to good". Sometimes it's the more troubling "I didn't pray hard enough", "I didn't have enough faith", or "God is punishing me for what I did".
Why would God be testing us? (Psalms 17:3) Doesn't God know our hearts? (Psalms 44:21, 139:1-4; I Samuel 16:7; Luke 16:15) Some argue that we are tested so that we know our own hearts, and perhaps this is true - I know I have often learned what I really value in cases where I lost something trivial. But in cases where someone has lost a child to disease or violence, this argument is of little consolation.
Others suggest that such trials temper us as steel is tempered in heat, making us stronger. This, too, can be valid - I have learned to deal with some kinds of pain by repeated exposure. Yet we often see people struggling with hardship after hardship, without time to recover. Can a steady stream of trouble be God's way of strengthening us?
The last three responses I mentioned blame the sufferer. I find these the weakest of all responses, though they seem to strongly advocate for God's righteousness.
Most of us have heard the story of Job, who was beset by trouble as a test from God. We talk about the patience of Job, but a large portion of the book is taken up by three men - called friends - who rebuke Job for the sins he must have committed. A fourth person arrives later in the book to join in the accusation. Job protests his innocence, and God arrives late in the story to say Job was right and the other men wrong.
A large portion of the book of Ecclesiastes deals with the fact that wrongdoers often prosper and those who are righteous often suffer.
So how can we take this verse from Thessalonians seriously, knowing that God shines the sun and brings the rain on both those who do right and those who do wrong? (Matthew 5:45) Against what harm, against what evil are we protected?
One way is to say "well, it could be worse". We can imagine how much worse things would be without God's protection. But that makes God little more than a leaky umbrella - partial protection against the problems of life.
Another way is to have faith that, no matter what happens in this life, a better life in the future is safeguarded. Jesus spoke of treasure in heaven (Matthew 3:19-21; Luke 12:33, 18:22). The convenience of this viewpoint is that it is untestable in this lifetime, so no one can prove it wrong.
So how can we read this verse? How does God's protection work?
I have to admit, I have no easy answer to this one. All my answers seem either inadequate (God protects somewhat) or some form of rationalization - not much better than Job's friends.
Know that, in this life, whether you believe or not, whether you do right or not, you will have gains and you will have losses. You will have joy and you will have pain. Like the name of the tree in Eden (Genesis 3), you will know good and evil.
If you believe in the resurrection, however, you have hope for something better. And if you have a community of believers around you, you will have the support of people who love you. And, for me, that is what Christianity is about.
This morning I got II Thessalonians 3:3: "3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one".
The footnote allows that "the evil one" may also be translated "evil".
Contemporary ideas about good and evil often boil down to "doing what is right" and "opposing what is right" (Axis of Evil) or pointless cruelty (in so many movies where evil is personified in a car, a man in dreams, or possession by a demon).
But this is a modern idea. Evil once meant harm (and its opposite, good, a benefit). So if we look at the scripture again, it might read:
3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against harm.Is this true?
I have often heard people - especially Christians - testify to how God has protected them. When bad things happen, the response is sometimes "God is testing me" or "God will turn this to good". Sometimes it's the more troubling "I didn't pray hard enough", "I didn't have enough faith", or "God is punishing me for what I did".
Why would God be testing us? (Psalms 17:3) Doesn't God know our hearts? (Psalms 44:21, 139:1-4; I Samuel 16:7; Luke 16:15) Some argue that we are tested so that we know our own hearts, and perhaps this is true - I know I have often learned what I really value in cases where I lost something trivial. But in cases where someone has lost a child to disease or violence, this argument is of little consolation.
Others suggest that such trials temper us as steel is tempered in heat, making us stronger. This, too, can be valid - I have learned to deal with some kinds of pain by repeated exposure. Yet we often see people struggling with hardship after hardship, without time to recover. Can a steady stream of trouble be God's way of strengthening us?
The last three responses I mentioned blame the sufferer. I find these the weakest of all responses, though they seem to strongly advocate for God's righteousness.
Most of us have heard the story of Job, who was beset by trouble as a test from God. We talk about the patience of Job, but a large portion of the book is taken up by three men - called friends - who rebuke Job for the sins he must have committed. A fourth person arrives later in the book to join in the accusation. Job protests his innocence, and God arrives late in the story to say Job was right and the other men wrong.
A large portion of the book of Ecclesiastes deals with the fact that wrongdoers often prosper and those who are righteous often suffer.
So how can we take this verse from Thessalonians seriously, knowing that God shines the sun and brings the rain on both those who do right and those who do wrong? (Matthew 5:45) Against what harm, against what evil are we protected?
One way is to say "well, it could be worse". We can imagine how much worse things would be without God's protection. But that makes God little more than a leaky umbrella - partial protection against the problems of life.
Another way is to have faith that, no matter what happens in this life, a better life in the future is safeguarded. Jesus spoke of treasure in heaven (Matthew 3:19-21; Luke 12:33, 18:22). The convenience of this viewpoint is that it is untestable in this lifetime, so no one can prove it wrong.
So how can we read this verse? How does God's protection work?
I have to admit, I have no easy answer to this one. All my answers seem either inadequate (God protects somewhat) or some form of rationalization - not much better than Job's friends.
Know that, in this life, whether you believe or not, whether you do right or not, you will have gains and you will have losses. You will have joy and you will have pain. Like the name of the tree in Eden (Genesis 3), you will know good and evil.
If you believe in the resurrection, however, you have hope for something better. And if you have a community of believers around you, you will have the support of people who love you. And, for me, that is what Christianity is about.
Photos
