I generally post fully formed thoughts (or long mulled-over thoughts) here, but I thought I'd post this new thought because I think there may be significant implications and I'd love other people who are way smarter than me to be able to toy around with potential implications. And since I'm at a busy stage in my life, maybe I'll do some more of these Pascalesque Pensées (in terms of short thoughts, not in terms of the same quality as Pascal). 

THOUGHT: A Big Crunch would lead to a big bang before all matter was absorbed into the singularity. If one wants to argue that all matter in the universe is required in order to initiate a new big bang, then they would have to deal with the insane teleological implication that there is exactly enough matter in the universe to trigger a big bang, and no less would do (though more might). 

Yet, if one wants to avoid the teleological implications of the latter position, then most of the time when a big crunch happens, the singularity is triggered with less matter than the original big bang - leaving some matter stranded from the old big bang. Given ~infinite playthroughs, it seems like more and more matter might be stranded outside the big crunch force until eventually a new singularity capable of a big bang could not be formed. 

One of the most famous scientists in the last century was astronomer Carl Sagan. While Sagan was a brilliant scientist in his own right, a large part of his popularity comes from his profound ability to disseminate scientific thinking and scientific concepts to the non-scientific masses. His willingness to step down out of his ivory tower and tend to the well-being of the general population has made him a staple resource in many lives outside of the scientific community. Sagan's condescension to the lay people may have a variety of explanations, but I personally think that one of the biggest reasons Sagan cared for the masses was because he was more than a scientist. He was an artist. A poet, to be more precise. Sagan could see beauty in the universe and in the story of humanity. His fascination and love for science and for beauty allowed him to communicate convincingly large scientific concepts to the general population. 

Perhaps Sagan's most famous observation was that we humans are essentially stardust. Sagan said, “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.” How beautiful is this observation? To imagine that this bright, powerful object we rely on every day of our lives, the sun, is actually the very type of being from which every molecule in our body has been sourced - it's absolutely mind-blowing and beautiful. We are all made of star-stuff. Every human you have ever met was once a piece of a burning, shining star. ​

There is a famous Orwellian movie I hear referenced every once in awhile - Minority Report. The movie is basically about a future world in which technology enables leaders to know who will commit which crimes before they actually happen. They are able to essentially rid the world of crime (except the crimes of the aristocrats, of course) by locking up "criminals" before they actually commit their crimes. 

The movie is similar to another common ethical dilemma in which you are a time traveler who has the opportunity to kill Hitler while he's a child. Would it be moral to kill him before he actually committed his crime, even if you were as certain as you could be of what his future held? Can the ends justify the means? Can one be guilty and justly judged before they've committed a crime?

Minority Report and time traveling assassins are all far-fetched sci-fi concepts, but the idea of preemptive justice is not far-fetched at all. As Americans, we've preemptively judged many nations through our military and many criminals through disproportionate sentencing. We drop bombs and we raise sentences based on what we know of our enemies. 

While we certainly preemptively judge on a national scale, we Americans often promote Minority Report justice on an individual scale. I mean, isn't that what self-defense usually is? If someone invades your home and you choose to confront them with a gun rather than lock your room and call the police, aren't you preparing to kill an aggressor based on the assumption that they're seeking your harm rather than your material goods? Even if one thinks the death penalty is a legitimate punishment for murder, how many cases of "self-defense" are cases in which one's life would have been taken? How many times is self-defense taking the life of someone who would have stolen or assaulted rather than killed?

I have to ask two questions, then. First, why are we so critical of Minority Report as being Orwellian when we do something similar in our promotion of self-defense on both a national and individual scale? Second, why do we hide our inhumanity behind self-defense? Many would be appalled at state execution for theft, assault, or rape, as many are even appalled at state execution for murder. Yet self-defense goes even further in that it is execution for a presumed crime. 

Self-Defense is passing the death sentence for a crime not yet committed.

Did Jesus only speak inerrantly? Was there anything about which he was mistaken? Was a perfect eyewitness for every event or could his perception ever be skewed? Did he ever get any of his math homework wrong? Did he know Bible verses perfectly the first time trying to recite them from memory, or did he have to work and try over and over again until he knew it? What does it mean to grow in wisdom and understanding if not that there is a point where we are less informed? Isn't being ill-informed sometimes/often the same thing as being errant?

When we speak of inerrancy of the Bible, we assume that it has to be so because God's words are inerrant. How is it that the written word of God must be inerrant while it seems the living word of God was certainly errant? Is it because Jesus's errant part was the human part (if you think we can dissect him like this)? Is Jesus's human nature any more prone to errancy than the non-divine human agents God inspired to write the Bible? How is it that the God-man indwelt by God's Spirit could speak errantly while the God-inspired, human authors of the Bible could write perfectly? Did God empower the human authors more than his own Son? Or does God only ensure that he speaks inerrantly for certain events - like the writing of scripture - and not for other events, like the incarnation of the redeemer?

Proverbs 26:4-5
Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
    or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
    or he will be wise in his own eyes.

The Bible is a complex document which can be confusing on a multitude of levels. But perhaps one of the ways in which it is most often confusing is in its bipolarity. Did Jesus come to bring judge the world (Jn. 9) or not judge it (Jn. 3)? Is Jesus the prince of peace (Is. 9) or did he come to bring not peace, but division (Lk. 12)? Or, as Proverbs 26 writes, are we or are we not supposed to answer a fool according to their folly? ​