Luke Judge

Image : flickr.com

big Bang is trying to explain the origin of the universe. currently, there seems to be a general consensus that universe with a big bang say this is not what Hinduism begin? before we discuss that we are on the main theory about it.

big Bang idea came into play after it was revealed that the universe is continually expanding. It was found that the heavenly bodies are running away from us. The speed is proportional to their distance from us. Those who are mostTravel with the maximum speed. There was no explanation for this other than self-evident, that all celestial bodies from a single point source, and began after an explosion travels outward.

The theory is that was concentrated at the beginning of the universe at one point. Whether mass or energy was everything was a point this time around 14.7 billion years ago a big explosion took place, and form the galaxies started and ran away from the center. big Bang says that noBody knows about the time before the event. It had no information about the nature of the universe or, as so much mass and energy applied at a point and why an explosion took place at the time zero time can be considered. No scientist knows what was there before the big Bang What does Hinduism say about the origin?

According to Hinduism, God created the universe. There is no mention of the big Bang in the Hindu scriptures. Lord Bramha Vishnu directed to create the universe. Mr.Bramha created all animals, plants, death, disease, humans and everything else. According to Hinduism, Lord Bramha is the creator. There is no support for big Bang in Hinduism. even for scientists it is difficult to say that we are sure what happened after the explosion, but above anything that we know. does this sound credible?

Mimosa Book Area 51

comparative Religion Books consensus, explosion, heavenly bodies, hinduism, maximum speed, single point

Ahmadis continue to live in fear

The Jakarta Post, Bogor/West java

Intimidated by rumors of another assault, more than 600 residents in the isolated Cisalada neighborhood in Ciampea Udik village, Bogor, are living in fear after fresh violence.

“I’m afraid to go to the traditional market because other residents might try to kill me,” 51-year-old Lela (not her real name) told The Jakarta Post last week.

Lela and her husband live in a house only a dozen meters away from a mosque that was torched on Friday.

“I cannot erase the horrific memory of dozens of young men from Pasar Salasa and Kebon Kopi [areas] suddenly attacking our neighborhood,” she said.

Lela was referring to an incident that took place last Friday evening, when approximately 20 people attacked Cisalada residents at around 7:15 p.m. Assailants threw stones and Molotov cocktails, and burned more than 30 Koran at an Ahmadiyah mosque that was under construction. The mob disbursed but later returned in larger numbers and set fire to five houses, a car and two motorcycles.

So far, none of the assailants have been apprehended, but one Ahmadi was arrested on Monday for allegedly stabbing one of the attackers.

Yellow police lines surrounded the remains of shattered buildings when the Post visited the area.

Soldiers and police officers used empty houses as makeshift base camps. Five police trucks were parked in schoolyard that no longer had glass in its window frames. Some officers patrolled the area with rifles slung around their shoulders.

Lacking confidence in the authorities’ ability to prevent further attacks, some residents decided to move their families to other areas in Bogor, West Java.

Ali, a 34-year-old university student living in Jakarta, came home to visit his mother and help her move to temporarily stay with relatives

“I’m worried about her, especially considering these rumors of an even larger assault,” he said.

A nearby house belonging to Ali’s uncle was allegedly raided by the angry mob during the incident.

Even though the incident was immediately reported to the nearest police precinct, located only 7 kilometers away, the police finally arrived two hours after the initial assault, neighborhood unit chief Edi Humaedi said.

“I watched the mob marching toward us, and one hooligan even asked for my permission to burn our mosque. Can you imagine such a thing? They were just young kids,” Edi said.

He said he would defend his belief and neighborhood, to death if necessary, if another mob attacked his community.

Another resident from nearby Pasar Salasa, Dodon, 51, said he was angry with Ahmadiyah followers because their teachings were blasphemous and insulted Islam.

“Their Koran is different from ours. They have removed several verses and they believe that the Prophet Mohammad wasn’t the last prophet,” Dodon told the Post, although he also admitted to never read the Ahmadis’ scripture. (rch)

comparative Religion Books assailants, five houses, molotov cocktails

All of a sudden, after years of membership in your church, you start hearing “new” words used much more frequently than ever before, such as: Conversation.  Missional.  Incarnational.  Prophetic.  Mystery. Community.  Relational. Authentic. Post-modern. Deconstruct. Narrative.  Story.  Re-imagine.  Tribe.  Contextual.  Mystery.

Or phrases such as: “You can’t put God in a box.”  “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”  “The Bible is just ink on paper.”  Vintage Faith.  Vintage Christianity.

There’s more, and most of it has a totally different meaning than you might guess, and it’s not good, and they are usually signs that you may be conversing with a pastor, or other person, who has bought into the emergent movement, another “religion of man.”  But let’s look at another phrase here today: spiritual formation.

When was the first time you were aware that this term all of a sudden was being tossed around all over the place?  As a Christian growing up in the Nazarene church, I can tell you that I never heard this phase up until perhaps two years ago, at about the same time when I began researching and finding out about the horrors of the emergent church movement.  So what brought about the prominent use of this phrase, what does the emergent church define it as, and if so, is their definition biblically sound?

One mystic equates Christian mysticism with spiritual formation. He defines it as being formed, by the Holy Spirit, through Christ, in the image and likeness of God.    Sounded good, until I continued on to the pages where he promotes all sorts of heretical books by mystic writers; the usual suspects like Julian of Norwich, Thomas Merton, et al.

At Trevecca Nazarene University’s website, their definition is “Spiritual formation is the process of being conformed to the image of Christ for the sake of others.”  But as some of you know, that apparently includes the use of prayer labyrinths and retreats to Thomas Merton’s old monastery to “practice the silence”, certainly not biblically sound.

It’s even hard to pin down an exact definition of spiritual formation, and that’s where we can get into trouble.  What does it mean when someone mentions it to you?  Do you nod your head in approval, because it sounds pretty good to you?  Do you have some idea of what it is, yet you are not sure, and you don’t want to sound ignorant and unlearned by asking the person what they mean?  It could be, and so you go on thinking that it means one thing to you, but it might mean a totally different thing to the person talking about it.

Its like the word missional for me.  As missions president for a few years at my former church, I used to use that word in my yearly reports.  I would, with great pride, talk about the kind of church the Nazarene church was, that it was a “missional” church.  It was only until a few years later, when stumbling onto all this emergent silliness, that I realized that I may have been using the word while thinking of the traditional meaning of sending missionaries to the world to preach the gospel, when in reality, it seems that much of the Nazarene denomination’s use of the word is now, at best, confusing and changing like a chameleon, depending who uses the word.  It now often means a more social gospel-like, community oriented idea.

Back to spiritual formation.  Let’s cut to the chase: spiritual formation as defined and used by the emergent church crowd, is not a good thing.  If it’s not good, it’s not from God.  If it’s not from God, then there is only one other other source.  It can’t be bad and from God, so the source must be Satan.  Harsh words?  Perhaps, but if your conclusion about spiritual formation is that it is not of God, what else can it come from?  As you read the following article, remember that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.”  If you mix a little bad with a lot of good, it’s all bad.  To answer the well used phrase by some emergents, “you can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater”…. yes, doctrinally and biblically, you can.

So it makes me ask the question: how did spiritual formation get thrown into the mix all of a sudden in the Nazarene universities?  It did not exist in the 70?s when I went to Eastern Nazarene College, as far as I know.  Who started the first spiritual formation theological degree program, and where?  And what was the biblical rationale behind it, that we missed something like this for so many years?  Is this an example of Brian McLaren and company’s assertion that we have not gotten it right in 2,000 years, and that now this is the “New Reformation” that is happening?  (Remember that these programs now use books by McLaren, Rob Bell, Richard Foster, and all sorts of teachers and writers who clearly do not come close to speaking the same language, or expressing the confidence in holy scripture that John Wesley had, even though they try to say he was an emergent).

The following was originally posted at Nazarene Church Has Lost It’s Way