What Is Up With Dreams? One of the Many Mysteries of the Brain

I have always been fascinated by dreams. Apparently so are many scientists. This field of neuroscience continues to baffle many in the field as they struggle to make sense of dreams, their function, and their processes. Much of the same can be said of sleep as scientists have many unanswered questions regarding many of its nature and purposes. But what is up with some of the crazy things that happen each night when we are in REM sleep? Is there any hidden deeper meaning or purpose to our dreams? Most of the time, I really don't think there is (though I grant there are exceptions to this--for instance see the testimony of former Muslims having dreams or visions of Christ). As an example, last night I had a dream where I was at a play of some sorts and when I walked outside one of the doors to go to the bathroom Michael Moore was standing there talking to a couple other people.

After going up and introducing myself to Moore somebody opened a door which made us visible to the audience. Instinctively I moved out of the way out of fear the audience would see me. Moore didn't have enough time to get out of the way and was seen by the audience and he got mighty embarrassed and angry at me that I didn't get him out of the way also. That's the last thing I remember about the strange dream.

Let's break this down. First, why did Michael Moore make an appearance in my dream? Sure, he's occasionally the subject of discussion, and several days previously I had seen the trailer for his upcoming movie, but there's nothing so significant about him on a personal level. Also, I don't remember even thinking about him a day or two before the dream. Second, what merged Michael Moore and theatre into a single dream? Yes, I have a lot of experience in theatre, but I haven't done a mainstage show in several years and certainly none of them have involved Mr. Moore. Third, and this I found most interesting, was how my brain mixed up a couple concepts. In real life, if I were a non-participant in a production, it would not have mattered to me if somebody leaving an auditorium opened up a door and exposed me to the wings of fellow audience members. There would have been no reason to panic and run out of sigh. However, again in real life, had I actually been a participant backstage awaiting an entrance, or observing what was going on onstage, and had been inadvertently exposed to the audience, that would have been bad news. But my brain crossed those two very different scenarios into one.

Certainly some dreams probably do have a deeper significance--people's fears, unresolved conflicts, etc. But at least in my case, most the dreams I actually remember are nonsense or more akin to my brain just doing random things while I sleep. What makes all this happen during states of semi-consciousness is interesting and apparently there is no definitive answer. The hard-core materialist will just link this to the randomness of the brain in general. And what we consider "we" or our "personality" is just stuff interacting in our brains. There's no eternal "spirit," no sacredness, just reductive physicalism. Of course, they can't account for the rise of consciousness in humans or any other creature for that matter. We can understand what parts of our brain do what, but the whole area of consciousness is more murky territory for neuroscientists. Many atheistic types just pronounce the rise of consciousness a mystery and leave it at that.

Obviously I don't buy into reductive physicalism for a number of reasons, but the brain certainly is a fascinating thing. And much remains to be discovered about these different subjects related to the brain: sleep, dreams, consciousness on a whole, etc. I do think there are some answers out there and if they come I don't suspect they'll validate the claims of mystics who find meaning in every dream nor the reductive physicalist who bases everything on naturalism. But whatever the answer, it sure would be interesting to know the cause (and purpose, if anything) of the oddball things my brain processes and arranges on a nightly basis.

The Jews! The Jews!

From an email today going on and on about how the Jews control everything:

It's no coincidence that the city with more Jews than any other in the world has a baseball team with $220,000,000.00 payroll. I'm not saying the Jews are the reason why the Yankees have won 26 WS, but they're a part of it.

I burned the roof of my mouth eating pizza earlier today. I bet the Jews did it.

Falwell and the Telletubbies

One more note on the Falwell issue. Since 1999 it has been repeated over and over again that Falwell "outed" Tinky-Winky, the purple telletubby. Over eight years later, this silly story is still printed in press accounts and has featured prominently in bloggers' hate memorials to Falwell as well as mainstream media biographies after his death. But in fact, Falwell never "outed" the goofy children's show character. What happened was another writer in the National Liberty Journal pointed out, correctly I might add, that certain gay groups were claiming Mr. Winky as one of their own. This had already been on the record prior to the Liberty Journal making note of it. So, Falwell didn't write or originate the story, and the story itself was just repeating what a few gay groups were already saying. But still to this day everybody quotes this anecdote as if it was gospel truth and to show just how supposedly gay obsessed Mr. Falwell was. Too bad all the Falwell smearers have their facts wrong on this issue. Then again, I guess that doesn't matter to people who want to smear a prominent dead Christian guy.

Tolerant Loving People Who Are Celebrating the Death of Jerry Falwell

I was shocked and saddened today to learn of the death of Rev. Jerry Falwell. Though I have been very critical of some of Falwell's politics and theological positions, I nevertheless always considered him a brother in Christ. While I did not care at all for his dispensationalism, his hawkishness on foreign policy, and his apologetics for the Bush administration, he has done a number of good things over the years and certainly has impacted many people for the gospel of Jesus Christ. I never knew Falwell personally aside from a couple brief encounters. But I am always sad at any loss of life, especially when it is unexpected. I believe that Falwell is with the Lord. Whatever his faults were, I have no reason to question his salvation. But my real reason for this post is to respond to what others are saying about his death. When I heard the news, I immediately said to myself, "I bet some on the hard left are celebrating." And indeed a cursory blog search indicated this to be exactly the case.

The comments I've read from anti-Falwell types have been disgusting and heartless. Celebrate the death of a man because you disagreed with some of his opinions and political activism? The most passionate anti-Falwell types hated him because he did not support homosexual behavior and because he was anti-abortion. This alone makes someone a hateful, worthless bigot according to the hard left. But let's just say for a moment that Falwell is a bad as these folks claim. How does celebrating his death and laughing about such a tragedy make his critics any better? In fact, it arguably makes them much worse. I cannot recall the time I read about Falwell making statements where he laughed off or celebrated the death of a gay person, though his disagreements with their beliefs were just as passionate as their disagreements with his. Of course in political debate, some folks on all sides of the spectrum are able to dehumanize anyone who disagrees with them. Therefore, who cares about the people close to Falwell, his family and friends who are grieving, and who cares about the loss of life. Ding-dong the bigot is dead. That's all that matters.

I'll leave you with a link to this particular blog which "sheds no tears" over Falwell's death. Read the comments on this blog post and read through the loving comments left by those who celebrate death. This is coming from the same crowd no doubt that pats itself on the back for being so much more tolerant than people like Falwell: http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/05/jerry-falwell-dead.html

The Great Tribulation of Matthew 24: Past or Present?

The following brief study of the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21) was put together by Dr. Fred Long. For the past seven years, Dr. Long has taught at Bethel College in Mishawaka, IN, and this summer is joining the staff of Asbury Theological Seminary in Wilmore, KY. This study basically asks "What was Jesus talking about in the Olivet Discourse?" For instance, is the "great tribulation" described here a past or future event? Does Matthew 24 teach that there will be a rebuilt temple? Is the Antichrist referenced here? Read and feel free to add your comments.

General Structural Observations on the Olivet Discourse
Dr. Fred Long, 10-2002

I. The Matter of Setting is Clear: the Temple and its Buildings will be destroyed

Note the Chiasm in Mark’s account:

A Mark 13:1 And as He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples *said to Him,
B "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones
C and what wonderful buildings!"
C 13:2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings?
B Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down."
A 13:3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately,

II. The Matter of Questions: The First is clear, the second not as Clear

A. The First: “When will these things be?” (i.e., the temple being destroyed)

B. The Second Question:
1. In Mark and Luke:
a. I believe the second question is simply an elaboration of the first, “What will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled (about to take place)?”
b. I believe implicit in the disciples’ thinking is this, “When the temple is destroyed, surely this is when Jesus returns for good, to judge and set up his eternal kingdom.”
c. Matthew makes this question/assumption explicit.

2. In Matthew:
a. The second question in Matthew is this: “What is the sign of your coming (parousia) and the end (sunteleia) of the age?”
b. I believe this refers to Jesus’ final coming in Judgment and to set up his eternal kingdom and/or New Heavens/New Earth.
c. In the disciples’ thinking according to Matthew the assumption
might still be that the destruction of the temple, since it is so cataclysmic, must correspond with Jesus’s final coming and judgment and eternal kingdom.
d. Some see three questions behind Matthew’s account: 1) When will the Temple be destroyed? 2) What is the sign of your coming? and 3) What is the sign of the end of the age?
po,te tau/ta e;stai kai. ti, to. shmei/on th/j sh/j parousi,aj kai. suntelei,aj tou/ aivw/nojÈ However, in the Greek “coming” and “end” share a definite article, so really, these belong to the same question.

III. The Matter of Answers: How does Jesus answer these questions (or other
implicit questions)? Four Options:

Option A. He doesn’t answer their first question, but rather goes to the “meat and potatoes” implicit question for Mark/Luke or the explicit second question in Matthew. He answers the question, “What will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?”

1. This is a futurist interpretation, very popular among evangelicals. All of the Olivet discourse is happening now or will yet happen. It is basically a checklist for us to keep looking for today.

2. The strength of this position is that certainly the beginning of the Olivet discourse (Matt 24:3-34) contains many “signs” which culminate in “the sign of the Son of man” (24:30).

3. The weakness is that Jesus ignores the first question(!). Also there are other notable difficulties with the passage, among which are 1) Jesus says “this generation will not pass away before these things take place” (“this generation” always refers to Jesus’s contemporaries, e.g.,
Matt 11:16; 12:41-45; 23:36*) and 2) the tension created by Jesus giving all “these signs” in Matt 24:4-34, yet then later saying “no one knows the day or hour” in the remainder of Matthew 24, where Jesus also emphasizes the suddenness of his coming.

Option B: Jesus answers the first question first, then the second question. He then gives a corresponding “time tables” for each in ABAB pattern. This is a Partial Futurist position.

A Matt 24:4-28 Jesus describes Temple destruction
B Matt 24:29-31 Jesus describes His Second Coming
A Matt 24:32-35 Time Table for Temple Destruction: One generation
B Matt 24:36-39 Time Table for Second Coming: No one knows

1. The strengths are many: 1) It takes the first question seriously; 2) It resolves the tension of how certain things could happen within “this generation”, and yet others when “no one knows.”

2. There are some weaknesses, however. First, do the events in Matt 24:4-28 really only relate to the destruction of the Temple? Second, it seems as if Jesus sees the events of vv.4-28 as “immediately” preceding Jesus’s second coming (see v.29). This did not happen.

3. Third, would Jesus’s hearers have understood the alternation between ABAB (i.e., temple, second coming, temple, second coming)?

Option C: A third position is similar to B above, except that it sees the description of the Second Coming (parousia) not at Matt 24:29-31 but at 24:36ff. This is called a Partial Preterist position.

1. Matt 24:29-31is rather a description of Jesus “coming in judgment” upon Israel/Jerusalem.

a. It employs apocalyptic and poetic language from OT passages. For example, the sun/moon/stars language (Matt 24:29) is found in the OT referring to the fall of a nation. For the falling of Babylon, see Isaiah 13:9, 10, 13. For the capital city of Bozrah in Edom, see Isaiah 34:3-5. See also “the day of the Lord” in Joel 2:1-10 (a locust army); cf. Micah 1:3-4.

b. “The nations of the earth” (Matt 24:30b) actually refers to the “tribes (fule) of the land (of Israel).” This limits the description to the destruction of the temple.

c. Jesus “coming with the clouds” (Matt 24:30c) indicates that Jesus is acting with kingly authority in judgment on Israel (see Dan 7:13-14). Jesus told the high priest Caiaphas that he and others (you pl.) would see “The son of man coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matt 26:64).

d. The gathering of the “elect” by the angels refers to the protected (Jewish) Christians, who, by way of the destruction of the Temple are legitimated as the “elect” of Israel in the purposes of God. “Four Winds” is language of extent, i.e., what is taking place is far reaching (Zech 2:6; Ezek 37:9); cf. Rev 7:1-8.

2. Note the transition at 24:35. The Final (Second) Coming of Jesus is described as “unknown” (24:36); thus, we must be ready at all times.

3. There are some difficulties. First, the description of the Son of Man on the Clouds in 24:29 sure sounds like the second coming to me (cf. Acts 1:11; Rev 1:7)! Is the language really so poetic/apocalyptic? Second, can we be certain that at Matt 24:36 Jesus indeed takes up the final second coming? This may not convince all.

Option D: The last position is basically a combination of all the above in that there may be dual fulfillment, first, in AD 70 and then in the future. The problem with this is, how can we be sure of this? I would call this the Typological Position.