R.E. Slater - The Quantum Universe We Live In

"Whole regions of space will never be observable from Earth for that reason. Mack noted that assuming inflation happened, the universe is actually 10 to the 23 times bigger than the 46 billion light-years humans can see. So if there is an edge to the universe, it's so far away Earthlings can't see it, and never will." - Dr. Katie Mack

"By definition, the universe contains everything, so there is no "outside." Physicist Stephen Hawking has often said that the whole question makes no sense, because if the universe came from nothing and brought everything into existence, then asking what lies beyond the universe is like asking what is north of the North Pole." - Dr. Stephen Hawking

While away last month visiting Mexico's beautiful Gulf coasts (our first time) to rest and heal up from the past 14 months of horrible health, infectious diseases, and complex surgery gone wrong, I decided to catch up on quantum scientific breakthroughs in cosmological studies of the universe. I chose Paul Halpern's Edge of the Universe book (2012) as my guide and was not disappointed.

When not talking to Serbian, Argentinian and Sri Lanka friends we readily made, or when not having great conversations with any number of non-American guests and workers, I had hoped to have selected a simple study guide offering edge-of-the-seat, can't-wait-what's-next, discussion of "the universe we think we know" and "the quantum one we're now discovering."  And so, with every turn of an orbital research satellite zooming around the earth or, star-filled observatory log documenting that evening's findings, the search for the quantum structures of the universe continue apace with the technology we have on hand.

The other reason I thought to undertake this task was to put into historical perspective all those Stephen Hawking's physics and philosophical readings I did so many years ago. Here too I discovered a few more new developments in quantum astrophysics that were yet in their infancy or non-existent a decade or two ago. So this too was an expectation met.

And so, for those readers who are interested in the cosmos in which we live - and are trying to understand - here's some mind-blowing statements I've come across to get you started . Enjoy!

R. E. Slater

March 15, 2017

Mind-blowing statements:

Where is the center of the universe? EVERYWHERE! Any point in the universe is factually the center of the universe.

What is the hiss found in the static background of the universe? It is the left over remnants, or relic-radiation, of the Big Bang 13.75 billion years ago.

When we look back in time how is this done? It is done every time "old" light (photonic radiation) is captured by our eye or camera lens. The further the light the further its travel to us and older its "reveal."

How far back can we see? At present half our universe in any one direction (45.6 to 46.5 billion light years away) which makes the universe approximately 93b LYs across. But no more than 62b LYs (or 124b Lys across) in any one direction as our space in the universe is expanding as quickly as all other spaces. And too quickly for the speed of photoaic radiation (light) to surpass/overcome these expanding distances.

Was the universe always infinite if it began as a singularity? Yes. It is both inherently and theoretical infinite in all directions at once even as it expanded from its singularity point.

How is this possible? Because time is measured by speed and distance (photon emittal between massless, primordial-Higgs forces) so that as the universe "brewed" so did matter which was held time captive. In effect there was no time. It's was part of a liquefied hyperspace consisting of 0, 1, or 2 dimensions (not the 3D, matter, or 4D, Space-Time, we are familiar with today). Thus, primordial time was as "infinite in its eternity" as matter was "infinite in its spatial dimensions." This was the substance of the singularity of the Big Bang before the Higgs boson fixed its rotation and gave all particles their mass.

What happened when the Big Bang tripped over its threshold of expansion? In less than a flash of a second (faster than ultra short gamma ray bursts), 10 to the -32 second to be exact, the BB expanded instantly across a non-existent void to a distance of 10 to the 78th factor, in a violent explosion. If you had been looking at the Big Bang and blinked your eyes you would have found yourself standing in the middle of our present-day universe (minus it's supercooling phase where homogeneous matter-blobs clumped together to form the stars, nebulae and galaxies to come. This took the remaining 13.75 billion years to create.

What shape is the universe? Is it spherical, oval, elongated, thin, or web-like in its mega-cluster lattices (essentially it looks more like a sea sponge's structure than a spider web)? Yes, it is all this but scientifically it is considered flat as it is propelled infinitely outwards into a void that isn't there by creating its own space.

When will this expansion stop? During its first six billion years dark matter's gravitational force was holding the universe back in order for it to form. If dark matter had continued as a force the universe would eventually reverse course and become crunched up back into a singularity again ("singularity" means something that is unique).

What stopped dark matter's effect? At around 8 billion years ago dark energy overcame dark matter and for the past eight billion years has been propelling the universe at exceedingly faster and faster rates. If this dynamic force holds then the universe will be ripped apart into nothingness - even down to its subatomic structures. Effectively all will cease to exist because all has been separated from itself (reminds me of spiritual death as an annihilating force ripping body-soul-spirit and all creational connections apart).

What does this mean? That we live in a connected universe. Without connectivity we have no presence. If we collect all the matter in the universe it would consist of 4-5% of everything in it. The stuff we don't know and cannot measure or see is dark. We named this dark matter (23%) + dark energy (72%) = 95% of the remaining universe. Effectively, even the stuff that we don't understand or can't feel or see impacts us with a massively unseen force. Thus, we live in a connected cosmos - not only with matter and forces but with each other (also composed of matter and forces). Everything effects the movement, rotation, and direction of the other back to ourselves and back again to others, creation, and even God our Creator.

R.E. Slater

March 15, 2017

Additional References

• http://www.iflscience.com/space/the-edge-of-the-universe-is-closer-than-scientists-previously-thought/

• http://www.livescience.com/33646-universe-edge.html

• https://www.google.com.mx/amp/amp.space.com/33005-where-is-the-universes-edge-op-ed.html?client=ms-android-verizon

• Harvard.edu - https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~ejchaisson/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_site_summary.html

* * * * * * * * * * *

Physical cosmology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Cosmic evolution)

This article is about the branch of physics and astronomy. For other uses, see Cosmology.

"Cosmic Evolution" redirects here. For the book by Eric Chaisson, see Cosmic Evolution (book).

Part of a series on
Physical cosmology
Big Bang · Universe Age of the universe Chronology of the universe
Early universe[show]
Expansion · Future[show]
Components · Structure[show]
Experiments[show]
Scientists[show]
Subject history[show]
Category  Cosmology portal  Astronomy portal
v t e

Physical cosmology is the study of the largest-scale structures and dynamics of the Universe and is concerned with fundamental questions about its origin, structure, evolution, and ultimate fate.^[1] Cosmology as a science originated with the Copernican principle, which implies that celestial bodies obey identical physical laws to those on Earth, and Newtonian mechanics, which first allowed us to understand those physical laws. Physical cosmology, as it is now understood, began with the development in 1915 of Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, followed by major observational discoveries in the 1920s: first, Edwin Hubble discovered that the universe contains a huge number of external galaxies beyond our own Milky Way; then, work by Vesto Slipher and others showed that the universe is expanding. These advances made it possible to speculate about the origin of the universe, and allowed the establishment of the Big Bang Theory, by Georges Lemaitre, as the leading cosmological model. A few researchers still advocate a handful of alternative cosmologies;^[2]however, most cosmologists agree that the Big Bang theory explains the observations better.

Dramatic advances in observational cosmology since the 1990s, including the cosmic microwave background, distant supernovae and galaxy redshift surveys, have led to the development of a standard model of cosmology. This model requires the universe to contain large amounts of dark matter and dark energy whose nature is currently not well understood, but the model gives detailed predictions that are in excellent agreement with many diverse observations.^[3]

Cosmology draws heavily on the work of many disparate areas of research in theoretical and applied physics. Areas relevant to cosmology include particle physics experiments and theory, theoretical and observational astrophysics, general relativity, quantum mechanics, and plasma physics.

Subject history[edit]

Nature timeline

view • discuss • edit

-13 —

–

-12 —

–

-11 —

–

-10 —

–

-9 —

–

-8 —

–

-7 —

–

-6 —

–

-5 —

–

-4 —

–

-3 —

–

-2 —

–

-1 —

–

0 —

cosmic expansion

Earliest light

cosmic speed-up

Solar System

water

Single-celled life

photosynthesis

Multicellular
life

Land life

Earliest gravity

Dark energy

Dark matter

←

Earliest universe (−13.80)

←

Earliest galaxy

←

Earliest quasar

←

Omega Centauri forms

←

Andromeda Galaxy forms

←

Milky Way Galaxy
spiral arms form

←

Alpha Centauri forms

←

Earliest Earth (−4.54)

←

Earliest life

←

Earliest oxygen

←

Atmospheric oxygen

←

Earliest sexual reproduction

←

Cambrian explosion

←

Earliest humans

L
i
f
e

P
r
i
m
o
r
d
i
a
l

Axis scale: billions of years.
Also see: Human timeline and Life timeline

See also: Timeline of cosmology and List of cosmologists

Modern cosmology developed along tandem tracks of theory and observation. In 1916, Albert Einstein published his theory of general relativity, which provided a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time.^[4] At the time, Einstein believed in a static universe, but found that his original formulation of the theory did not permit it.^[5] This is because masses distributed throughout the universe gravitationally attract, and move toward each other over time.^[6] However, he realized that his equations permitted the introduction of a constant term which could counteract the attractive force of gravity on the cosmic scale. Einstein published his first paper on relativistic cosmology in 1917, in which he added this cosmological constant to his field equations in order to force them to model a static universe.^[7] However, this so-called Einstein model is unstable to small perturbations—it will eventually start to expand or contract.^[5] The Einstein model describes a static universe; space is finite and unbounded (analogous to the surface of a sphere, which has a finite area but no edges). It was later realized that Einstein's model was just one of a larger set of possibilities, all of which were consistent with general relativity and the cosmological principle. The cosmological solutions of general relativity were found by Alexander Friedmann in the early 1920s.^[8] His equations describe the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker universe, which may expand or contract, and whose geometry may be open, flat, or closed.

History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big Bang^[9][10][11]

In the 1910s, Vesto Slipher (and later Carl Wilhelm Wirtz) interpreted the red shift of spiral nebulae as a Doppler shift that indicated they were receding from Earth.^[12][13] However, it is difficult to determine the distance to astronomical objects. One way is to compare the physical size of an object to its angular size, but a physical size must be assumed to do this. Another method is to measure the brightness of an object and assume an intrinsic luminosity, from which the distance may be determined using the inverse square law. Due to the difficulty of using these methods, they did not realize that the nebulae were actually galaxies outside our own Milky Way, nor did they speculate about the cosmological implications. In 1927, the Belgian Roman Catholic priest Georges Lemaître independently derived the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker equations and proposed, on the basis of the recession of spiral nebulae, that the universe began with the "explosion" of a "primeval atom"^[14]—which was later called the Big Bang. In 1929, Edwin Hubble provided an observational basis for Lemaître's theory. Hubble showed that the spiral nebulae were galaxies by determining their distances using measurements of the brightness of Cepheid variable stars. He discovered a relationship between the redshift of a galaxy and its distance. He interpreted this as evidence that the galaxies are receding from Earth in every direction at speeds proportional to their distance.^[15] This fact is now known as Hubble's law, though the numerical factor Hubble found relating recessional velocity and distance was off by a factor of ten, due to not knowing about the types of Cepheid variables.

Given the cosmological principle, Hubble's law suggested that the universe was expanding. Two primary explanations were proposed for the expansion. One was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow. The other explanation was Fred Hoyle's steady state model in which new matter is created as the galaxies move away from each other. In this model, the universe is roughly the same at any point in time.^[16][17]

For a number of years, support for these theories was evenly divided. However, the observational evidence began to support the idea that the universe evolved from a hot dense state. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1965 lent strong support to the Big Bang model,^[17] and since the precise measurements of the cosmic microwave background by the Cosmic Background Explorer in the early 1990s, few cosmologists have seriously proposed other theories of the origin and evolution of the cosmos. One consequence of this is that in standard general relativity, the universe began with a singularity, as demonstrated by Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking in the 1960s.

An alternative view to extend the Big Bang model, suggesting the universe had no beginning or singularity and the age of the universe is infinite, has been presented.^[18][19][20]

Energy of the cosmos[edit]

Light chemical elements, primarily hydrogen and helium, were created in the Big Bang process (see Nucleosynthesis). The small atomic nuclei combined into larger atomic nuclei to form heavier elements such as iron and nickel, which are more stable (see Nuclear fusion). This caused a later energy release. Such reactions of nuclear particles inside stars continue to contribute to sudden energy releases, such as in nova stars. Gravitational collapse of matter into black holes is also thought to power the most energetic processes, generally seen at the centers of galaxies (see Quasar and Active galaxy).

Cosmologists cannot explain all cosmic phenomena exactly, such as those related to the accelerating expansion of the universe, using conventional forms of energy. Instead, cosmologists propose a new form of energy called dark energy that permeates all space.^[21] One hypothesis is that dark energy is the energy of virtual particles, which are believed to exist in a vacuum due to the uncertainty principle.

There is no clear way to define the total energy in the universe using the most widely accepted theory of gravity, general relativity. Therefore, it remains controversial whether the total energy is conserved in an expanding universe. For instance, each photon that travels through intergalactic space loses energy due to the redshift effect. This energy is not obviously transferred to any other system, so seems to be permanently lost. On the other hand, some cosmologists insist that energy is conserved in some sense; this follows the law of conservation of energy.^[22]

Thermodynamics of the universe is a field of study that explores which form of energy dominates the cosmos – relativistic particles which are referred to as radiation, or non-relativistic particles referred to as matter. Relativistic particles are particles whose rest mass is zero or negligible compared to their kinetic energy, and so move at the speed of light or very close to it; non-relativistic particles have much higher rest mass than their energy and so move much slower than the speed of light.

As the universe expands, both matter and radiation in it become diluted. However, the energy densities of radiation and matter dilute at different rates. As a particular volume expands, mass energy density is changed only by the increase in volume, but the energy density of radiation is changed both by the increase in volume and by the increase in the wavelength of the photons that make it up. Thus the energy of radiation becomes a smaller part of the universe's total energy than that of matter as it expands. The very early universe is said to have been 'radiation dominated' and radiation controlled the deceleration of expansion. Later, as the average energy per photon becomes roughly 10 eV and lower, matter dictates the rate of deceleration and the universe is said to be 'matter dominated'. The intermediate case is not treated well analytically. As the expansion of the universe continues, matter dilutes even further and the cosmological constant becomes dominant, leading to an acceleration in the universe's expansion.

History of the universe[edit]

See also: Timeline of the Big Bang

The history of the universe is a central issue in cosmology. The history of the universe is divided into different periods called epochs, according to the dominant forces and processes in each period. The standard cosmological model is known as the Lambda-CDM model.

Equations of motion[edit]

Main article: Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric

The equations of motion governing the universe as a whole are derived from general relativity with a small, positive cosmological constant.^[23] The solution is an expanding universe; due to this expansion, the radiation and matter in the universe cool down and become diluted. At first, the expansion is slowed down by gravitation attracting the radiation and matter in the universe. However, as these become diluted, the cosmological constant becomes more dominant and the expansion of the universe starts to accelerate rather than decelerate. In our universe this happened billions of years ago.

Particle physics in cosmology[edit]

Main article: Particle physics in cosmology

Particle physics is important to the behavior of the early universe, because the early universe was so hot that the average energy density was very high. Because of this, scattering processes and decay of unstable particles are important in cosmology.

As a rule of thumb, a scattering or a decay process is cosmologically important in a certain cosmological epoch if the time scale describing that process is smaller than, or comparable to, the time scale of the expansion of the universe. The time scale that describes the expansion of the universe is ${\displaystyle 1/H}$ with ${\displaystyle H}$ being the Hubble constant, which itself actually varies with time. The expansion timescale ${\displaystyle 1/H}$ is roughly equal to the age of the universe at that time.

Timeline of the Big Bang[edit]

Main article: Timeline of the Big Bang

Observations suggest that the universe began around 13.8 billion years ago.^[24] Since then, the evolution of the universe has passed through three phases. The very early universe, which is still poorly understood, was the split second in which the universe was so hot that particles had energies higher than those currently accessible in particle accelerators on Earth. Therefore, while the basic features of this epoch have been worked out in the Big Bang theory, the details are largely based on educated guesses. Following this, in the early universe, the evolution of the universe proceeded according to known high energy physics. This is when the first protons, electrons and neutrons formed, then nuclei and finally atoms. With the formation of neutral hydrogen, the cosmic microwave background was emitted. Finally, the epoch of structure formation began, when matter started to aggregate into the first stars and quasars, and ultimately galaxies, clusters of galaxies and superclusters formed. The future of the universe is not yet firmly known, but according to the ΛCDM model it will continue expanding forever.

Areas of study[edit]

Below, some of the most active areas of inquiry in cosmology are described, in roughly chronological order. This does not include all of the Big Bang cosmology, which is presented in Timeline of the Big Bang.

Very early universe[edit]

The early, hot universe appears to be well explained by the Big Bang from roughly 10⁻³³ seconds onwards, but there are several problems. One is that there is no compelling reason, using current particle physics, for the universe to be flat, homogeneous, and isotropic (see the cosmological principle). Moreover, grand unified theories of particle physics suggest that there should be magnetic monopoles in the universe, which have not been found. These problems are resolved by a brief period of cosmic inflation, which drives the universe to flatness, smooths out anisotropies and inhomogeneities to the observed level, and exponentially dilutes the monopoles. The physical model behind cosmic inflation is extremely simple, but it has not yet been confirmed by particle physics, and there are difficult problems reconciling inflation and quantum field theory. Some cosmologists think that string theory and brane cosmology will provide an alternative to inflation.

Another major problem in cosmology is what caused the universe to contain far more matter than antimatter. Cosmologists can observationally deduce that the universe is not split into regions of matter and antimatter. If it were, there would be X-rays and gamma rays produced as a result of annihilation, but this is not observed. Therefore, some process in the early universe must have created a small excess of matter over antimatter, and this (currently not understood) process is called baryogenesis. Three required conditions for baryogenesis were derived by Andrei Sakharov in 1967, and requires a violation of the particle physics symmetry, called CP-symmetry, between matter and antimatter. However, particle accelerators measure too small a violation of CP-symmetry to account for the baryon asymmetry. Cosmologists and particle physicists look for additional violations of the CP-symmetry in the early universe that might account for the baryon asymmetry.

Both the problems of baryogenesis and cosmic inflation are very closely related to particle physics, and their resolution might come from high energy theory and experiment, rather than through observations of the universe.

Big Bang Theory[edit]

Main article: Big bang nucleosynthesis

Big Bang nucleosynthesis is the theory of the formation of the elements in the early universe. It finished when the universe was about three minutes old and its temperature dropped below that at which nuclear fusion could occur. Big Bang nucleosynthesis had a brief period during which it could operate, so only the very lightest elements were produced. Starting from hydrogen ions (protons), it principally produced deuterium, helium-4, and lithium. Other elements were produced in only trace abundances. The basic theory of nucleosynthesis was developed in 1948 by George Gamow, Ralph Asher Alpher, and Robert Herman. It was used for many years as a probe of physics at the time of the Big Bang, as the theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis connects the abundances of primordial light elements with the features of the early universe. Specifically, it can be used to test the equivalence principle, to probe dark matter, and test neutrino physics. Some cosmologists have proposed that Big Bang nucleosynthesis suggests there is a fourth "sterile" species of neutrino.

Standard model of Big Bang cosmology[edit]

The ΛCDM (Lambda cold dark matter) or Lambda-CDM model is a parametrization of the Big Bang cosmological model in which the universe contains a cosmological constant, denoted by Lambda (Greek Λ), associated with dark energy, and cold dark matter (abbreviated CDM). It is frequently referred to as the standard model of Big Bang cosmology.

Cosmic microwave background[edit]

Main article: Cosmic microwave background

Evidence of gravitational waves in the infant universe may have been uncovered by the microscopic examination of the focal plane of the BICEP2 radio telescope.^{[9][10][11][25]}

The cosmic microwave background is radiation left over from decoupling after the epoch of recombination when neutral atoms first formed. At this point, radiation produced in the Big Bang stopped Thomson scattering from charged ions. The radiation, first observed in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson, has a perfect thermal black-body spectrum. It has a temperature of 2.7 kelvins today and is isotropic to one part in 10⁵. Cosmological perturbation theory, which describes the evolution of slight inhomogeneities in the early universe, has allowed cosmologists to precisely calculate the angular power spectrum of the radiation, and it has been measured by the recent satellite experiments (COBE and WMAP) and many ground and balloon-based experiments (such as Degree Angular Scale Interferometer, Cosmic Background Imager, and Boomerang). One of the goals of these efforts is to measure the basic parameters of the Lambda-CDM model with increasing accuracy, as well as to test the predictions of the Big Bang model and look for new physics. The recent measurements made by WMAP, for example, have placed limits on the neutrino masses.

Newer experiments, such as QUIET and the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, are trying to measure the polarization of the cosmic microwave background. These measurements are expected to provide further confirmation of the theory as well as information about cosmic inflation, and the so-called secondary anisotropies, such as the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect and Sachs-Wolfe effect, which are caused by interaction between galaxies and clusters with the cosmic microwave background.

On 17 March 2014, astronomers at the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced the apparent detection of gravitational waves, which, if confirmed, may provide strong evidence for inflation and the Big Bang.^{[9][10][11][25]} However, on 19 June 2014, lowered confidence in confirming the cosmic inflation findings was reported.^[26][27][28]

Formation and evolution of large-scale structure[edit]

Main articles: Large-scale structure of the cosmos, Structure formation, and Galaxy formation and evolution

Understanding the formation and evolution of the largest and earliest structures (i.e., quasars, galaxies, clusters and superclusters) is one of the largest efforts in cosmology. Cosmologists study a model of hierarchical structure formation in which structures form from the bottom up, with smaller objects forming first, while the largest objects, such as superclusters, are still assembling. One way to study structure in the universe is to survey the visible galaxies, in order to construct a three-dimensional picture of the galaxies in the universe and measure the matter power spectrum. This is the approach of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey.

Another tool for understanding structure formation is simulations, which cosmologists use to study the gravitational aggregation of matter in the universe, as it clusters into filaments, superclusters and voids. Most simulations contain only non-baryonic cold dark matter, which should suffice to understand the universe on the largest scales, as there is much more dark matter in the universe than visible, baryonic matter. More advanced simulations are starting to include baryons and study the formation of individual galaxies. Cosmologists study these simulations to see if they agree with the galaxy surveys, and to understand any discrepancy.

Other, complementary observations to measure the distribution of matter in the distant universe and to probe reionization include:

• The Lyman-alpha forest, which allows cosmologists to measure the distribution of neutral atomic hydrogen gas in the early universe, by measuring the absorption of light from distant quasars by the gas.
• The 21 centimeter absorption line of neutral atomic hydrogen also provides a sensitive test of cosmology
• Weak lensing, the distortion of a distant image by gravitational lensing due to dark matter.

These will help cosmologists settle the question of when and how structure formed in the universe.

Dark matter[edit]

Main article: Dark matter

Evidence from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, the cosmic microwave background and structure formation suggests that about 23% of the mass of the universe consists of non-baryonic dark matter, whereas only 4% consists of visible, baryonic matter. The gravitational effects of dark matter are well understood, as it behaves like a cold, non-radiative fluid that forms haloes around galaxies. Dark matter has never been detected in the laboratory, and the particle physics nature of dark matter remains completely unknown. Without observational constraints, there are a number of candidates, such as a stable supersymmetric particle, a weakly interacting massive particle, an axion, and a massive compact halo object. Alternatives to the dark matter hypothesis include a modification of gravity at small accelerations (MOND) or an effect from brane cosmology.

Dark energy[edit]

Main article: Dark energy

If the universe is flat, there must be an additional component making up 73% (in addition to the 23% dark matter and 4% baryons) of the energy density of the universe. This is called dark energy. In order not to interfere with Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the cosmic microwave background, it must not cluster in haloes like baryons and dark matter. There is strong observational evidence for dark energy, as the total energy density of the universe is known through constraints on the flatness of the universe, but the amount of clustering matter is tightly measured, and is much less than this. The case for dark energy was strengthened in 1999, when measurements demonstrated that the expansion of the universe has begun to gradually accelerate.

Apart from its density and its clustering properties, nothing is known about dark energy. Quantum field theory predicts a cosmological constant (CC) much like dark energy, but 120 orders of magnitude larger than that observed. Steven Weinberg and a number of string theorists (see string landscape) have invoked the 'weak anthropic principle': i.e. the reason that physicists observe a universe with such a small cosmological constant is that no physicists (or any life) could exist in a universe with a larger cosmological constant. Many cosmologists find this an unsatisfying explanation: perhaps because while the weak anthropic principle is self-evident (given that living observers exist, there must be at least one universe with a cosmological constant which allows for life to exist) it does not attempt to explain the context of that universe. For example, the weak anthropic principle alone does not distinguish between:

• Only one universe will ever exist and there is some underlying principle that constrains the CC to the value we observe.
• Only one universe will ever exist and although there is no underlying principle fixing the CC, we got lucky.
• Lots of universes exist (simultaneously or serially) with a range of CC values, and of course ours is one of the life-supporting ones.

Other possible explanations for dark energy include quintessence or a modification of gravity on the largest scales. The effect on cosmology of the dark energy that these models describe is given by the dark energy's equation of state, which varies depending upon the theory. The nature of dark energy is one of the most challenging problems in cosmology.

A better understanding of dark energy is likely to solve the problem of the ultimate fate of the universe. In the current cosmological epoch, the accelerated expansion due to dark energy is preventing structures larger than superclusters from forming. It is not known whether the acceleration will continue indefinitely, perhaps even increasing until a big rip, or whether it will eventually reverse.

Other areas of inquiry[edit]

Cosmologists also study:

• Whether primordial black holes were formed in our universe, and what happened to them.
• The GZK cutoff for high-energy cosmic rays, and whether it signals a failure of special relativity at high energies
• The equivalence principle, whether or not Einstein's general theory of relativity is the correct theory of gravitation, and if the fundamental laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.
• The increasing complexity of universal structures, an example being the progressively greater energy rate density.^[29]

See also[edit]

• Hubble's law
• Illustris project
• List of cosmologists
• Photon
• Physical ontology
• String cosmology
• Universal Rotation Curve

Life, Faith, and Worship after Evangelicalism: The "Post-Evangelical Life"

Post-Evangelical Life

Link to original article

by Guest Contributor

February 10, 2017

This guest post was written by Holly Love.

Back in December, I wrote here and on my blog about how I was having a hard time attending my evangelical church after the [Trump] election. That piece struck a nerve. To date it has almost 7,500 Facebook shares, making it the most read post that I have ever written, by far. This tells me that lots of other people are feeling the same way and struggling with the same things that I was in the wake of November 8, 2016.

I want to tell the rest of the story–what happened after we left that evangelical church and started going to a “mainline” one. It’s not the story of theologically weak/watered down preaching that I thought it would be. For my fellow dissatisfied evangelicals who aren’t sure about leaving: there is light at the end of the tunnel.

My family is now attending a Presbyterian church (USA) about five minutes from our house. I had always thought of the PC/USAs as the “liberal” Presbyterians, and they are, in a sense. This is the first mainline church that I have personally ever attended, and I wasn’t sure what to expect. I was probably not alone in having a mental picture of mainline churches as being kind of like this: wishy-washy, unfamiliar, lukewarm.

But … surprise: that’s not what I found at all. Our new church feels surprisingly similar to the traditional Baptist church of my early childhood: pews, hymnals, a full choir. All the children coming to the front for a children’s message.

There are some welcome differences, however - the associate pastor, music minister, and youth minister are all women, in addition to other roles that are traditionally filled by women in evangelical churches, such as the children’s minister.

The church is unapologetically formal - hymns only, from an actual hymnal, no projection screen. A pipe organ. People up on stage wearing robes. This formality has taken a little getting used to, as I have attended contemporary churches since I was eight years old. It’s growing on me. I appreciate that they don’t try to thread the needle between traditional and contemporary, as many churches do, with the awful “praise team” approach that no one ends up actually liking. While I miss singing my favorite praise choruses I’m gaining an appreciation for the deep theology in the lyrics to the old hymns.

The main thing I was worried about was that a mainline church wouldn’t actually preach the Bible. I have found this not to be true at all. The sermons are very similar to the sermons at the evangelical churches I have attended all my life.

What makes our church special is that even though my family is new, and the church is large, the pastoral staff went out of their way to make us feel welcome immediately. I mean, really: my toddler and I went to one service in early December and talked to staff members briefly on the way out the door. The following week, I got a card in the mail from the pastor, Jonah got a postcard from the children’s minister, and the pastor added me as a friend on Facebook and Instagram. On our next visit, staff members somehow remembered my name, and Jonah’s name. That’s the way it’s done, folks. I have never felt as welcome anywhere.

By way of comparison, at the last church we were visiting, the pastoral staff and their families had a special section to sit in during the service. (Maybe it’s not nice to link and put them on blast–but I think they should know how they came across, right?) Unless someone outside of the section went up to them, I never saw them interact with anyone besides church staff members. No staff member other than the children’s minister ever even looked at me, let alone spoke to me. Not once, over the course of three months.

Regular readers of my blog will recall that I was looking for a church that wasn’t filled with Trump voters and that would speak against him. The first Sunday we visited our new church happened to be the first Sunday of Advent. The pastor spoke about the difference between happiness and joy, and mentioned that attendees might not be feeling very happy this Christmas season. Though he wasn’t explicit, I took this to be a tacit reference to the election. I’ll never forget it. I knew I was home.

Everything has not been perfect on this point. This previous Sunday I just felt sure that the pastor would mention the Muslim/refugee ban from the pulpit. When he didn’t, I was pretty disappointed. There was talk about divisions in the country and reaching out and spending time with someone whose life is radically different than yours, and a prayer for justice and against oppression, but nothing explicit.

But here’s what’s different from the past: even though I’m not a member and haven’t been there long, I felt comfortable enough to message the pastor and ask him about it. So I did. He was very thoughtful and transparent in a way that I am not used to ministers being, saying that he is attempting to minister to a diverse group of people, and while most members feel like he and I do, not everyone does. I’m going to quote him directly, as this is anonymous:

“I probably missed an opportunity yesterday and I’ve struggled with that. I’m still processing the faithful response, in our community, to these days of chaos and outright hatred. I won’t always get it right, so I’m grateful for the gifts of grace and of community. I need voices like yours to speak your truth in love and challenge me to deeper faithfulness.”

I’ll take it. If things go the way they might with human rights abuses and outright evil from the Trump administration, however, I’m going to need a stronger response. We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.

How are you feeling about church these days?

---

*Holly Love is an ESL teacher and blogger in Atlanta, Georgia. She writes about marriage, parenting, faith, work, politics, social justice, and current events at her blog, lovelyintrospection and can be found on Twitter @introspectivegal.

The City of Jerusalem - Its Archaeology, History, and Pictorial Maps, Part 1

Jerusalem Within These Walls

(an hour long documentary of Jerusalem's History)

Beginning about a year and a half ago I began taking "half-semester" classes at a local Christian college to help me remember subjects from my deep past or to fill in those areas I've always wanted to know about but have had little time to study or investigate since my university days long years ago. Hence, I've taken diverse classes on Economic Monetary Supply and the Modern American Banking System; The Science and Politics of Albert Einstein during the rise of Nazism; Michigan Regiments in the Civil War; read and discussed the very, very long Roman Classic poem The Aeneid by the poet Virgil (phenom!); studied ancient Athenian Greece (my fav city-state!) through the eyes of Greek/Persian historian Herodotus, the Father of Ancient History; read and discussed William Shakespeare's Hamlet (phenom!); undertaken a study of 1&2 Samuel (since religious America seems so interested in modern day Kings and Empires); studied the interconnectivity of Michigan's Environmental Watersheds; and even taken a World Christianity course (so I might hear from non-American Christians of their theology, worship, and convictions from around the world).

One of the classes I'm currently taking is an archaeological course on the City of Jerusalem. Here is a very short history of the city through its historical eras:

• beginning as a religious city under the reign of Melchizedek's time (Genesis 14.18-20) to Abraham's time where God prevented the sacrifice of his son Isaac on Mt. Moriah (the very same place where today's modern Islamic Mosque now rests along with Ishmael's bones);

• later becoming known as "Jerusalem" to serve as the capital city of Israel beginning in King David's reign through to the later occupations of Assyria, Babylon, Persia, and Rome;

• into the InterTestamental period between the Old and New Testaments (539 BC - 69/70 AD) when Jewish exiles to Jerusalem undertook a second rebuilding of the temple under Ezra and Nehemiah until its later destruction nearly 600 years later by Rome;

• through to its brief Christianized period after serving as a Jewish citadel of religious importance for much of its ancient history;

• then into the Byzantine period of Turkish domination of the Ottoman empire as it swayed between Christianity and the nascent Islamic religion developing during this time;

• into the early and middle medieval periods of the "Christian" Crusades and Muslim defense of their lands from Westernizing influences;

• and finally, as a deeply segregated city housing all three of the world's major religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) within its modernized borders brought about by the  wicked holocausts of World Wars 1&2.

Topography of Israel

Maps and Pictures of Jerusalem

Aerial View of Jerusalem

French Map of Old Jerusalem

Landmarks layout of Old Jerusalem

Synopsis of Old Jerusalem

Jerusalem may be considered the fountainhead of three major world religions housed within its city walls offering to the visitor a kaleidoscopic view of the city and its people as they are today - a remarkable outcome of 3,000 years of history, hope, and faith.

Model representation of Ur David

Model representation of Ur David

Model representation of Ur David and Ur Solomon (further up the hill)

Model representation of Ur Solomon with the Temple of Jerusalem within

Jerusalem's Jewish Period

Starting with Ur Jerusalem (the City of Jerusalem) during the reign of King David. There is a large model representation in Jerusalem of Ur David, Ur Solomon (further up the hill), and Mt. Moriah (further up still, where God stayed Abraham from sacrificing his son Isaac). It was on Mt. Moriah where the Temple of Solomon was built (after 970 BCE) to be later destroyed by Babylon (587-6 BCE). Fifty years later (539 BCE) Nehemiah and Ezra rebuilt the walls and temple of Jerusalem (it was a much poorer version to the original) which was destroyed 600 years later in 69/70 CE by Rome. Since the Christian church had no use for the temple site, and the Jews held no power under Rome, it slowly transformed to become the city garbage dump over the next 500 years until Persia came in to rule Jerusalem (638 CE). At which point the site was cleared of refuse and the Muslim Mosque built and dedicated to Muhammad's (570-632 CE) resurrection from this spot until its present day's use:

"Although the Qur'an does not mention the name "Jerusalem", the hadith assert that it was from Jerusalem that Muhammad ascended to heaven in the Night Journey, or Isra and Miraj.[citation needed] The city was one of the Arab Caliphate's first conquests in 638 AD; according to Arab historians of the time, the Rashidun Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab personally went to the city to receive its submission, cleaning out and praying at the Temple Mount in the process. Sixty years later the Dome of the Rock was built, a structure enshrining a stone from which Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven during the Isra. (The octagonal and gold-sheeted Dome is not the Al-Aqsa Mosque to the south, the latest version of which was built more than three centuries later). Umar ibn al-Khattab also allowed the Jews back into the city and freedom to live and worship after four hundred years.

"Under the early centuries of Muslim rule, especially during the Umayyad (650–750) and Abbasid (750–969) dynasties, the city prospered; geographers Ibn Hawqal and al-Istakhri (10th century) describe it as "the most fertile province of Palestine",[citation needed] while its native son, the geographer al-Muqaddasi (born 946) devoted many pages to its praises in his most famous work, The Best Divisions in the Knowledge of the Climes. Under Muslim rule Jerusalem did not achieve the political or cultural status enjoyed by the capitals Damascus, Baghdad, Cairo etc. Interestingly, al-Muqaddasi derives his name from the Arabic name for Jerusalem, Bayt al-Muqaddas, which is linguistically equivalent to the Hebrew Beit Ha-Mikdash, the Holy House."

- Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Jerusalem)

Did you know?

The Ark of the Covenant of Israel came as an adaptive type from Egypt? The Egyptian's used "processional arks" to honor their gods, culture, and Pharaohs. Having left Egypt from bondage, and being well acquainted with Egyptian culture after many years of servitude, Israel established a "processional ark" for their God, Yahweh. Here are some drawings showing the similarities (Israel's ark is the last picture typically seen in the movie, "Indiana Jones").

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ark_of_the_Covenant

Egyptian hieroglyphic of a ceremonial ark in processional

Egyptian ceremonial processional of  Pharoah

Egyptian ceremonial processional using on ark to carry one of their gods or goddesses

Egpytian processional of an ark in ceremonial usage

A depiction of the Ark of the Covenant

Kwok Pui Lan - Chinese PostColonolism and the Need for Theological Innovation

Kwok Pui Lan with Professor John Cobb

On postcolonialism, theology, and everything she cares about

http://kwokpuilan.blogspot.com/2017/03/a-rich-past-for-positive-future-for.html

by Kwok Pui Lan

March 5, 2017

*Presented at the “New Frontiers in Theology” Conference

at Claremont School of Theology on February 17, 2017

A Rich Past for a Positive Future for Theology

As an Asian postcolonial feminist theologian, my relationship to the Christian past is multifaceted and ambivalent. My reading of the Bible and the long theological tradition is never a “natural” reading, arising out of a living tradition that shaped my culture. For example, I wondered how the termsousia and hypostases in the debates on Trinity could be translated into Chinese and whether there would be equivalent concepts in Chinese philosophy.

So why do we have to study the Christian past? Sometimes my students put this even more bluntly, “Why do we have to study the dead white guys?”

We study the past because we want to learn different models of how theologians addressed social, political, and ecclesiastical issues of their time. Take for instance, this year we are commemorating the 500th anniversary of Luther’s posting of the 95 theses. The questions that Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and Münster raised for the church and wider public remain with us to this day, such as, the source of authority, the shape of liturgy and the meaning of sacraments, the visible and invisible church, the relation between the two kingdoms, and the relation between the established church and radical reform impulses.

Kwok Pui Lan teaches theology and spirituality
at the Episcopal Divinity School and is the author
of Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology

A highly relevant question for today might be “How can the Church be reformed so that it might respond to the challenges of the Trump era?” Although the Chinese may not have an event equivalent to the Reformation, the Reformation provided a mirror through which to look at the relation between religion, politics, and power at a watershed moment of the early development of capitalism and modernity.

Without learning from the past, we impoverish ourselves because we are left with the tyranny of the present. We can easily lose hope and fall prey to cynicism and despair. This is especially important in the United States because historical literacy is low and people seek immediate relevance. Facebook and social media outlets can make us obsessed with the immediate present. Learning from history allows us to maintain a certain distance and to have a broader perspective when examining our present time.

Given that we have such a long and rich theological tradition and so many theological giants before us, there is also the danger of the tyranny of the past. We might become so immersed and inculturated into certain modes of theological thinking, patterns of argument, and the common vocabularies of a certain theological tradition and our minds be so colonized that we are unable to see the horizon beyond or dare to take the road less traveled.

Theological innovations often begin by posting radical questions to the past. The feminist theological movement wrestled with the validity of past tradition. Mary Daly argued that the Christian tradition is so sexist that it is irredeemable, while Letty Russell spoke of a usable past. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza offered a revisionist history of Christian origin, and Rosemary Radford Ruether recovered the lost voices of Christian women in history.

Many theologians who have found their cultures and traditions left out from the dominant theological tradition have recovered their histories through the use of slave narratives, alternative archives, oral history, literature, and myths and stories to create a colorful tapestry of theologies. Today, theology is a global enterprise and we must pay attention to the global contexts shaping human lives and our theological imagination. Theology is contextual, but our contexts are deeply intertwined today. We need to find ways to educate ourselves about how others are developing theologies to respond to common concerns of our time. This must be a sustained and deliberate effort and not something to do only when we have time.

I wish I knew when I began to study theology that this would be a life-long vocation with many twists and no easy answers. Our work is harder because, unlike Luther and the reformers who stood in the vanguard of the intellectuals of their time, we as contemporary theologians have to defend our existence in the academy and larger society. When Christian theology is in a defensive posture, the marginal voices within it could be even more marginalized or suppressed. A danger for theological movements is that they become reactionary or ossified over time and fail to respond to new challenges. There is often much excitement when a theological movement begins, but as it becomes institutionalized or domesticated, it needs new reformers and discussants to keep it alive and on the cutting-edge.

Facing the future, theologians have important roles to play in the Trump era. Latin American theologians reminded us that we must distinguish between the worship of God and the worship of idols. When people are mesmerized by populist claims such as “Make America Great Again” and the representation of the President as pseudo-Messiah, theologians must challenge idolatry and alternative facts. In the battle for truth, we stand on the shoulders of giants such as Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Y. T. Wu, Oscar Romero, Mercy Oduyoye, Tissa Balasuriya, Desmond Tutu, Gustavo Gutiérrez, Ivone Gebara, and others. When the country begins to look inward, we need theologians and leaders of faith communities who are cosmopolitan in theological outlook, astute about world politics, and have a deep sense of American multiracial and multicultural history.

We must develop a culture of resistance in the churches and rid ourselves of Constantinian Christianity in order to see clearly the life and ministry of a postcolonial Jesus. Americans have not been comfortable seeing the connections between empire and Christianity. Middle-class American Christianity has so successfully adapted to the individualistic culture that religion has often become a private affair.

The Christian message of sin, atonement, justification, and salvation has been thoroughly individualized, if not psychologized, such that they have relatively little social import. We look at Jesus as primarily a religious figure, separated from the highly politicized and volatile situation of his time, an era filled with periodic popular revolts and protests against Roman colonial rule. We must recover that the Jesus movement was a resistance movement against Pax Romana. Jesus was not a passive religious leader, but took an uncompromising stance against the Roman Empire and its client Judean and Galilean rulers. Jesus’ revolutionary message is relevant to our time more than ever as we struggle against pax Americana.

Do I think theology will have a positive future? My answer is yes. When I began to study theology in the early 1970s, Gustavo Gutierrez had published A Theology for Liberation Theology for a few years. [But] Mary Daly had not published Beyond God the Father. As a doctoral student, I witnessed the development of Womanist theology, Mujerista and Latina theology, Asian American feminist theology, and gay and lesbian theology. Today we have [a great] such a plurality of voices arising from racial and ethnic communities in the U.S. and from faith communities around the world.

In the 1960s, some of the avant garde theologians launched a series of books with the title “New Frontiers in Theology” and their aim was to facilitate “discussions among Continental and American theologians” and the discussants were all male. Here at this conference, we have such diversity of theological voices, and this should give us hope for a positive and more inclusive future.

- KPL

Islam, Christianity, and Pope Francis

I provide Dr. Olson's article today in hopes of standing in solidarity with those peaceful sects of Islam dedicated to the peace and love of their religious beliefs and principles. I think it is important to recognize that Islam is as diverse as Christianity is, as urbane as Christianity can be, and even as distraught over Western culture as Christianity has shown. The point being, Islam's "bad press" has come from terror-based fundamentalist sects described as "radical" but far removed from the teachings of Islam. Like some terror-based sects of Christianity (KKK, Jim Crow laws, and today's more radical Dominionists churches) both religions have had their share of ungodly evil shown in the wicked works of terrible acts against humanity. And when juxtaposed with Western culture in its secular or nationalistic forms, has good grounds, as would Christianity, to oppose its ungodly character. As background then, the blog below is written to a base of evangelical readers many of whom are struggling with the meaning of their faith in a world gone mad. To these readers I express my sympathies and encouragement even as I do all Muslim readers joining this post. Thank you for your consideration.

R.E. Slater

March 3, 2017

* * * * * * * * *

Was Pope Francis Wrong about Islam?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2017/03/4636/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=BRSS&utm_campaign=Evangelical&utm_content=259

by Roger Olson

March 2, 2017

Comments

According to many news reports, Pope Francis made some off-the-cuff remarks to reporters about Islam. The “gist” of this informal talk—not a papal pronouncement—was that there is no such thing as “Islamic Terrorism” unless there is also such a thing as “Christian terrorism.” This conversation took place aboard the papal airplane on the pope’s way back to Rome after a special event in France in late 2016. (The precise date does not matter here.)

Some American conservatives are angry that the pope would deny the existence of “Islamic terrorism” and especially that he would seem to place Islam and Christianity on a plane of moral equivalence. Actually, there is much debate and dispute about exactly what the pope said and what he meant. But I will put that aside for now and tackle only one question: Is Islam itself, as a religion, inclined toward terrorism?

*Sidebar: The opinions expressed here are my own (or those of the guest writer); I do not speak for any other person, group or organization; nor do I imply that the opinions expressed here reflect those of any other person, group or organization unless I say so specifically. Before commenting read the entire post and the “Note to commenters” at its end.*

But first I need to lay out my credentials for talking about this. During my Ph.D. in Religious Studies at Rice University (Houston) I co-taught an introduction to religion course for undergraduates. I was assigned by the department chair to teach a mini-course, as part of the semester course, about Islam. I dived into the subject and read many scholarly articles and books about Islam and taught the course. I even visited the local mosque and spoke with a group of Muslim men gathered there. I invited to my classroom representatives of different kinds of Islam who I could find in Houston. Two stand out to me as especially, even extremely, different. One was a Sunni Muslim from the Middle East and the other was a Sufi Muslim from Turkey.

One thing I discovered during my studies and later learned more about is Islam’s diversity. Exactly like Christianity, there are different “denominations” of Muslims. Of course they do not call them “denominations,” but I am simply using that term for “branches,” “types,” “tribes” of the same religion. Most people in America are woefully ignorant about the diversity of Islam.

• For example, how many Americans know which country in the world has the most Muslims? Wait for it….Indonesia. And Islam in Indonesia is very different from Islam in, say, Saudi Arabia.

• How many Americans know anything about Sufiism—a mystical branch of Islam? (Yes, I know, many Muslims deny Sufis are real Muslims. So what? Many Christians deny Quakers are real Christians [because they don’t practice water baptism]. To sociologists of religion, Sufis are Muslims.)

My point is simply that I do have a Ph.D. in Religious Studies from a major research university and that my studies then, during my program there and then and since, I have studied Islam much more than the average America ever will.

So back to the pope and Islam. His point seems to have been that Islam itself is not inclined toward terrorism or violence but that some Muslims, like some adherents of many religions—including Christianity—distort their true heritage and misinterpret and misapply it to justify violence including terrorism. Who can really doubt that about Christians? Think of the Crusades. Then think of the event in Norway a few years ago in which a devoted Christian slaughtered many young people at a camp for his own religiously-inspired reasons?

The vast majority of so-called Muslim terrorists or Islamic terrorists come from a particular part of the Middle East and are driven by some Imams of a particular branch of Islam especially common in Saudi Arabia known as Wahabism. (I am not claiming that all Wahabi Muslims support terrorism.) Almost none come from Indonesia, for example, although some might be recruited from there and other predominantly Islamic countries.

I think the pope’s point is simply that one ought not to label a whole religion—in this case Islam—with terrorism. That is what some conservative Americans especially tend to do. That is what “Islamic terrorism” or “Muslim terrorists” tends to mean to many Americans especially.

On the other hand… It does seem to me there’s no escaping those labels. So what’s the right solution? Perhaps it is not, as the pope suggests, to abandon those phrases entirely but to teach people—in churches, in schools, through the media—that those phrases do not mean that all Muslims or even branches of Islam are inclined toward violence or terrorism and that there are many Muslims in the world who abhor terrorism.

If you disagree (and I expect even some of my best friends will disagree) please imagine something with me for a moment. Imagine that a particular sect of Christianity became a fertile ground for extreme violence and even terrorism. (This has happened in history.) Then imagine that news reached you that in some countries where Christianity is not well-known and is little understood most people began to talk about “Christian terrorism” and “Christian violence” such that all Christians living there were under suspicion of being potential terrorists—including members of Christian “peace churches” (e.g., Friend/Quakers, Mennonites, etc.). Would you not want some spokesperson for the dominant religion in those countries to speak up in support of Christians and Christianity as a whole and contradict those there who spoke without qualification about “Christian terrorism?”

Now, please, do not respond by saying “That could never happen because no sect/denomination of ‘real Christianity’ would ever become terrorists.” Perhaps so; I’m inclined to agree. But! Some Muslims say that Islamic terrorists do not represent “real Islam!” My point is not about the meaning of “real Christianity.” My point is that there are many kinds of people who claim to be Christians and it is not at all inconceivable that a group of such might someday become terrorists and people who know little about Christianity would probably equate their terrorism with Christianity. Wouldn’t you want someone among them to correct them? I would.

- RO

*Note to commenters: This blog is not a discussion board; please respond with a question or comment solely to me. If you do not share my evangelical Christian perspective (very broadly defined), feel free to ask a question for clarification, but know that this is not a space for debating incommensurate perspectives/worldviews. In any case, know that there is no guarantee that your question or comment will be posted by the moderator or answered by the writer. If you hope for your question or comment to appear here and be answered or responded to, make sure it is civil, respectful, and “on topic.” Do not comment if you have not read the entire post and do not misrepresent what it says. Keep any comment (including questions) to minimal length; do not post essays, sermons or testimonies here. Do not post links to internet sites here. This is a space for expressions of the blogger’s (or guest writers’) opinions and constructive dialogue among evangelical Christians (very broadly defined).