What time is it? Where does the time go? Time flies when you are having fun. I simply don't have the time for that. It seemed like only yesterday. . .or, That seems such a long time ago. Time is running out.
Retired people in Michigan and Ohio would get their RVs packed, ready to escape the winter of the cold north and head to their winter homes in Florida. There is nothing wrong with that. There were many a winter I spent in Michigan and Ohio that I wished I could have hitched a ride with them. Something, though, was very telling when I watched older people who were unprepared for eternity try to squeeze as many activities, traveling, and recreation as they possibly could in their waning remaining years. For them, this life was it, and time was about to run out, so naturally, they had to get in as much as possible before the last grain of sand slipped through their own hourglass.
Our obsession with time only demonstrates that we were made more than just for time. This argument from time is an inescapable conclusion from the boundaries that are placed upon every member of the human race. The mortality rate is the same the world over--one death per person. From a human perspective we might be able to extend the quantity of the years of our lives and the quality of our lives if we do certain things to improve our health and well-being. Botox and plastic surgeries can only hide the inevitable. For every one of us, time is running out.
The Preacher of Ecclesiastes said there is a time for everything under the sun, including a time to be born and a time to die. On nearly every headstone at every cemetery, there are two prominent dates. One is the date of one's birth, and the other is the date of one's death. In between those two dates is a dash. That about sums up our lives--a dash. It all goes by so quickly. Maybe it is more like a mad dash. As the great theologian Lily Tomlin was fond of saying, "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." Or as someone else was quoted as saying, "What a tragedy it would be if you were to climb the ladder of success in this life all the way to the top only to discover too late that the ladder is leaning against the wrong wall."
That is why we find the apostle Paul in Ephesians telling us that we must redeem the time. We need to snatch up every possible moment in this life, because time is passing us all by. I think about some Christians that are wasting some precious time they may never recapture. They have so drifted from the Lord, they are out of fellowship with other believers, and their children at home are not being trained in the Lord as they should. More than just time will catch up with them, if they keep squandering the time given to them. I can't count the number of times when a Joe and Flo Doe came to me about all the problems they were having with their teenage son Bo, and they wanted a quick fix from me to make up for a lifetime of neglect and regrets.
In grief counseling we often hear that "time heals all wounds." To the grief caused by our own waywardness, these self-imposed wounds are only exposed more and more as time goes by. "Behold now is the accepted time; behold now is the day of salvation." You heard about the guy who bought a book on procrastination, but he never got around to read it. Tomorrow truly never comes, especially if we spend time like the U.S. Congress spends our tax dollars.
From the workaholics to the pleasure-seekers to the busybodies to the party-goers to the lazy to the drifters, every man has a fixation with time, in one way or another. Everything man does with his time only screams at us that we are more than just animals who wear a Rolex. Why is that man has to try to pack in as much work or fun as possible in as little time as possible? Why does life resemble for so many people a mad dash rather than a pleasant walk? Why do we all sadly complain that we don't have enough time to do all the things that "have to be done"?
Man was made for more than just time. "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also He put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end." (Eccl. 3:11) God always shows up on time. He will not allow us to take a peek into His daily or eternal planner. What He has done, though, is program within every beating heart a longing to have more than time in this life can provide. Eternity is stamped into our very being. Depraved man can deny it only for so long and try to cover it up with a lifetime of this worldly pursuits, but it can not be deprogrammed by any of man's clever ploys. We were made to live forever. There is something beyond that last date on the headstone.
Larry King was once asked when he faced near death due to his heart problems and surgeries if he ever gave any thought to matters of eternity, his soul and the afterlife. His reply was a cool and resolute, "No." I do not doubt Larry King's words, but in the quiet recesses of his mind when the camera and the microphone are nowhere present, I have to wonder if there are not many moments when Larry King, like everyone else, has that awful realization that time is quickly running out for him. Then what?
People really believe in heaven, and they really believe in hell, even when they say they don't. Time will only tell that to be true.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Why People Believe in Hell (even when they say they don't) Part IV
The opening ceremony to this year's Olympics in Beijing, China, was both spectacular and chilling. For visual effect alone, it probably excelled every opening ceremony in the history of the Olympics. The more I thought about it the next day, though, there was something deeply troubling about what I saw the night before. Sure, everything was done in sync (of course, some was done in lip sync!), everything was perfectly orchestrated, everything was superb in its overall presentation, but all of that bothered me too. Atheistic communism does not recognize the individual dignity and worth of a human being; the state is what matters most. Humans are there to serve the state, and individual expression (i.e., the Cultural Revolution) must be suppressed, so that every person must be squeezed into a totalitarian mold. What we saw at the opening ceremony was state sameness with every person dressing exactly alike, looking exactly alike, acting exactly alike, all working together in perfect tandem. . .or else. Such is exactly what we get when God is denied.
Another defining argument for the existence of hell--even when technologically advanced man says it wants to get rid of all remnants of the Christian myth--is the argument from human dignity. Previous arguments, from history, from language, from evolution, and from justice, really all stem from this argument concerning the individual worth of the human. Why does history only confirm that all civilizations around the world have been shown to hold to some sort of a belief in an afterlife? Why does our language give us away that we really believe in an awful place where we can wish people to go? Why does the current unrest within the ranks of honest evolutionists leave us with a trip to life out there beyond life on this planet? Why do we scream for justice in this life, and why are we terribly annoyed when injustice seems to have the upper hand?
It all can be traced back to how we instinctly feel about ourselves. Man has always had s self-conscious sense of the special worth and dignity of the human race. This lies behind all our humanitarian efforts to feed the hungry, care for the sick, alleviate suffering when we can, give monetary aid to non-profit organizations, send relief teams around the world when disasters hit, and thousands more kindnesses to man in need. When someone raises the issue about "man's inhumanity toward man", that only feeds the idea that man normally should be humane toward man.
Why is it that given the choice between saving a dog in a house fire and a small child, that everyone will opt for saving the child without having to deliberate over the matter for one second? That really does not make much sense if man is nothing more than a cog or two ahead of canines in the first place. As much as a particular brand of scientific propaganda wants us to believe that man is not that special at all, every move we make in life only confirms the opposite, that is, man has unequalled worth and dignity. People can talk all they want to about saving whales or saving the planet, in the real world where people live, we believe and act that nothing comes close to the lives of humans, even if they are total strangers.
Go to a school, hospital or special care institution, and look over how badly disabled children are treated, as they sometimes have to be strapped into mechanized high chairs. Examine how carefully trained teachers or nurses tend to their needs with amazing devotion, patience and attention. See how much money is spent for their welfare on a daily basis. If man has no intrinsic value far above everything else in existence, then why do we bother to go to such a huge outlay of money, manpower and energy to people who will likely not make much contribution to society? Wouldn't it seem to make more economic sense that we quietly exterminate them and then focus on projects that would yield some return? The only possible answer why we don't do this, even though we do exterminate babies in the womb, is because man can not get away from the fact that man has dignity, no matter what his mental or physical condition is.
Because man has dignity and worth, it is only a small step forward to say that man has more going on for him than just this life. People will say in surveys that they more readily believe in a heaven-like existence than they would a hell-like existence, but surveys don't tell the whole story. Because man is special, and when we see or read about the cruel, inhumane treatment of our fellow man, like disabled children who may be abused in an institution, we conjure up in our minds a hell-like place where those who are guilty should be assigned.
One argument remains, and while I am having some lighthearted fun with all this, all these arguments added together do not come close to the weight of Scripture on the subject. I intend to save the best for last in that regard. But for now, taking these arguments together, W.G.T. Shedd's memorable words ring out loud and clear, "If there were no hell in Scripture, we should be compelled to invent one."
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Another defining argument for the existence of hell--even when technologically advanced man says it wants to get rid of all remnants of the Christian myth--is the argument from human dignity. Previous arguments, from history, from language, from evolution, and from justice, really all stem from this argument concerning the individual worth of the human. Why does history only confirm that all civilizations around the world have been shown to hold to some sort of a belief in an afterlife? Why does our language give us away that we really believe in an awful place where we can wish people to go? Why does the current unrest within the ranks of honest evolutionists leave us with a trip to life out there beyond life on this planet? Why do we scream for justice in this life, and why are we terribly annoyed when injustice seems to have the upper hand?
It all can be traced back to how we instinctly feel about ourselves. Man has always had s self-conscious sense of the special worth and dignity of the human race. This lies behind all our humanitarian efforts to feed the hungry, care for the sick, alleviate suffering when we can, give monetary aid to non-profit organizations, send relief teams around the world when disasters hit, and thousands more kindnesses to man in need. When someone raises the issue about "man's inhumanity toward man", that only feeds the idea that man normally should be humane toward man.
Why is it that given the choice between saving a dog in a house fire and a small child, that everyone will opt for saving the child without having to deliberate over the matter for one second? That really does not make much sense if man is nothing more than a cog or two ahead of canines in the first place. As much as a particular brand of scientific propaganda wants us to believe that man is not that special at all, every move we make in life only confirms the opposite, that is, man has unequalled worth and dignity. People can talk all they want to about saving whales or saving the planet, in the real world where people live, we believe and act that nothing comes close to the lives of humans, even if they are total strangers.
Go to a school, hospital or special care institution, and look over how badly disabled children are treated, as they sometimes have to be strapped into mechanized high chairs. Examine how carefully trained teachers or nurses tend to their needs with amazing devotion, patience and attention. See how much money is spent for their welfare on a daily basis. If man has no intrinsic value far above everything else in existence, then why do we bother to go to such a huge outlay of money, manpower and energy to people who will likely not make much contribution to society? Wouldn't it seem to make more economic sense that we quietly exterminate them and then focus on projects that would yield some return? The only possible answer why we don't do this, even though we do exterminate babies in the womb, is because man can not get away from the fact that man has dignity, no matter what his mental or physical condition is.
Because man has dignity and worth, it is only a small step forward to say that man has more going on for him than just this life. People will say in surveys that they more readily believe in a heaven-like existence than they would a hell-like existence, but surveys don't tell the whole story. Because man is special, and when we see or read about the cruel, inhumane treatment of our fellow man, like disabled children who may be abused in an institution, we conjure up in our minds a hell-like place where those who are guilty should be assigned.
One argument remains, and while I am having some lighthearted fun with all this, all these arguments added together do not come close to the weight of Scripture on the subject. I intend to save the best for last in that regard. But for now, taking these arguments together, W.G.T. Shedd's memorable words ring out loud and clear, "If there were no hell in Scripture, we should be compelled to invent one."
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Friday, August 15, 2008
Why People Really Believe in Hell (even when they say they don't) Part III
Several weeks ago two small girls, who were close friends and playmates, were brutally shot to death on a country road in the small town of Weleetka, Oklahoma. To this day there have been no clues and no leads as to whom carried out this murder. Since different guns were used, it is believed that two people were involved. There have been sketches of a "person of interest", but even there, this person has not been identified and tracked down. The medical examiner report said there were a total of thirteen shots fired at close range. As time goes along, there is this nagging fear on the part of the families of these children, the law enforcement agencies, and the residents and friends in this small town, that whoever did this will be able to escape justice from the hands of men.
This is just one case among so many cold unsolved cases nationwide. Why do we want justice in this life, and when we don't get it, we are supremely dissatisfied? Why is it that when we are able to get some sort of justice in this life--what if the perpetrators of the crime mentioned above are caught, imprisoned, tried, found guilty and receive the death penalty--that even then we are not completely satisfied, but that we deep down in the secret chambers of our heart wish they would face even a greater, long-lasting justice? Our quick, easy lethal injections after a relatively comfortable stay in a prison system seems so tame compared to the crimes they committed and the level of suffering they inflicted upon their victims. Man wants more. Now why is that?
We have in downtown Oklahoma City a Survivor Tree. I have heard some relatives and friends of those who died in that 1995 bomb blast testify in front of a camera and in print that they would not be totally pleased when Timothy McVeigh would be executed for his crime. They probably wished they could have hanged McVeigh a thousand times on that Survivor Tree. Even when we get "perfect justice" in this life, it seems so imperfect. From where does that feeling emerge?
In the first two articles in this series, we have examined the argument from history, the argument from language and the argument from evolution as to why people really believe in the concept of hell, even when they say they don't. Now we come to the next argument--the argument from justice.
We moan when people "get away with murder", literally or otherwise. Sometimes crime does pay, and the victims end up paying for it, and that is simply not right on all fronts. Even the most conniving person on earth who loves to bend the rules and walk all over people to accomplish his personal aims, if he were on the receiving end of such wicked scheming by someone else, he would want that person to get "what is coming to him." Why does man demand justice?
So when people complain that certain laws are unjust, they are only helping to prove the existence of an external law that is permanent, fixed and perfect. Even in his fallen state, man has an internal moral mechanism that screams for fairness and justice. Where does that sense of right and wrong, or justice and injustice, originate, especially if man is nothing more than the blind choices of natural causes (see last week's article)?
So when people conclude correctly that there is no remedy in this life for the present triumph of evil over good in so many instances, then what they are really saying is the only logical remedy to the injustices in this life is perfect justice in the next one. No one will get away with anything then. Good will not remain unrewarded and evil will not remain unpunished. No matter how much indoctrination a person receives from our government-controlled system of higher learning, what can not be educated out of a man is the sense that there must be a place, a time, and a person who will see to it that all moral accounts will be settled somehow. All injustices will be rectified.
The opposite of this is accept the idea that nothing really matters in this life. If death leads to the end of everything, then this life is everything, and the smart thing to do then is to get as much pleasure out of this life as possible, regardless how it hurts others in the process. We should not complain then if injustice wins out at the end of the day. We should not be upset when others take advantage of us and get away with it. We should congratulate them instead for using their wits, and we should turn around and do likewise. The very fact that man will pound his fist for justice when something adverse affects him personally, only proves that "this-life- is-everything" worldview does not provide any help or hope to struggling man.
Expect man in his sinful state to come up with his own notions of what perfect justice is, and how he will escape the perfect justice in the life to come. For now, though, this ingrained longing for justice is only another argument in favor of a day of reckoning or judgment by someone who has all the facts at his disposal. Only a Perfect Judge can render perfect justice.
I heard it said by someone after the verdict was announced and after family and friends had gathered outside the courthouse, "I am so glad of the verdict from the jury. Justice has been served, but what he did to our family has caused so much pain, that he deserves the hottest part in hell."
People really believe in hell even when they say they don't. Justice demands it.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
This is just one case among so many cold unsolved cases nationwide. Why do we want justice in this life, and when we don't get it, we are supremely dissatisfied? Why is it that when we are able to get some sort of justice in this life--what if the perpetrators of the crime mentioned above are caught, imprisoned, tried, found guilty and receive the death penalty--that even then we are not completely satisfied, but that we deep down in the secret chambers of our heart wish they would face even a greater, long-lasting justice? Our quick, easy lethal injections after a relatively comfortable stay in a prison system seems so tame compared to the crimes they committed and the level of suffering they inflicted upon their victims. Man wants more. Now why is that?
We have in downtown Oklahoma City a Survivor Tree. I have heard some relatives and friends of those who died in that 1995 bomb blast testify in front of a camera and in print that they would not be totally pleased when Timothy McVeigh would be executed for his crime. They probably wished they could have hanged McVeigh a thousand times on that Survivor Tree. Even when we get "perfect justice" in this life, it seems so imperfect. From where does that feeling emerge?
In the first two articles in this series, we have examined the argument from history, the argument from language and the argument from evolution as to why people really believe in the concept of hell, even when they say they don't. Now we come to the next argument--the argument from justice.
We moan when people "get away with murder", literally or otherwise. Sometimes crime does pay, and the victims end up paying for it, and that is simply not right on all fronts. Even the most conniving person on earth who loves to bend the rules and walk all over people to accomplish his personal aims, if he were on the receiving end of such wicked scheming by someone else, he would want that person to get "what is coming to him." Why does man demand justice?
So when people complain that certain laws are unjust, they are only helping to prove the existence of an external law that is permanent, fixed and perfect. Even in his fallen state, man has an internal moral mechanism that screams for fairness and justice. Where does that sense of right and wrong, or justice and injustice, originate, especially if man is nothing more than the blind choices of natural causes (see last week's article)?
So when people conclude correctly that there is no remedy in this life for the present triumph of evil over good in so many instances, then what they are really saying is the only logical remedy to the injustices in this life is perfect justice in the next one. No one will get away with anything then. Good will not remain unrewarded and evil will not remain unpunished. No matter how much indoctrination a person receives from our government-controlled system of higher learning, what can not be educated out of a man is the sense that there must be a place, a time, and a person who will see to it that all moral accounts will be settled somehow. All injustices will be rectified.
The opposite of this is accept the idea that nothing really matters in this life. If death leads to the end of everything, then this life is everything, and the smart thing to do then is to get as much pleasure out of this life as possible, regardless how it hurts others in the process. We should not complain then if injustice wins out at the end of the day. We should not be upset when others take advantage of us and get away with it. We should congratulate them instead for using their wits, and we should turn around and do likewise. The very fact that man will pound his fist for justice when something adverse affects him personally, only proves that "this-life- is-everything" worldview does not provide any help or hope to struggling man.
Expect man in his sinful state to come up with his own notions of what perfect justice is, and how he will escape the perfect justice in the life to come. For now, though, this ingrained longing for justice is only another argument in favor of a day of reckoning or judgment by someone who has all the facts at his disposal. Only a Perfect Judge can render perfect justice.
I heard it said by someone after the verdict was announced and after family and friends had gathered outside the courthouse, "I am so glad of the verdict from the jury. Justice has been served, but what he did to our family has caused so much pain, that he deserves the hottest part in hell."
People really believe in hell even when they say they don't. Justice demands it.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Friday, August 1, 2008
Why People Really Believe in Hell (even when they say they don't) Part II
My latest issue of U.S. News & World Report came in the mail the other day. I subscribed to this magazine some time ago, because 1) they had a very special subscription offer, 2) there were some gifts that I wanted that came with the subscription, and 3) it is supposed to be the most unbiased, non-liberal major magazine. I appreciated the gifts, I saved lots of money with the initial subscription offer, but I am beginning to think I need to scratch reason #3.
This issue has at its theme on the front cover: FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE, with subheadings such as How will humanity evolve? What will we eat? Where will global warming hit home? How did life begin? Will we find it in the heavens?
Judging by how the questions are posed, one can easily conclude that quotations from the Bible are not to be found anywhere in the featured articles. That being said, the article that got my attention the most was the one entitled, "Will We Soon Find Life in the Heavens?" Here we read that "in the coming months, two new tools will greatly expand astrobiologists' capacity to hear and see other promising signs of life. Later this summer, the nonprofit SETI Institute. . .will begin listening for alien broadcasts on the new $50 billion Allen Telescope Array. A spread of 42 radio dishes in California's Cascade Mountains, the array is the first such facility built specifically to listen for E.T. 'We're looking for life that's clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation," says Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute. The array, half funded by Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, will search for alien signals at a clip 'hundreds to thousands times faster' than current SETI projects, says Shostak."
(Before I proceed, I need to interject a bit of advice to Seth Shostak. Perhaps he could save lots of time and money if he were to talk to a fellow scientist, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon on the Apollo 14 mission. He recently said aliens have visited our planet several times over the last six decades, but that our government has covered everything up.)
The last paragraph in this article is most telling. "That makes SETI the only project with grand-slam potential. Astronomer Shostak boldly predicts that SETI will hear from a real E.T. within 20 years. They think it's going too far," Shostak says. But he's convinced that 'we're going to find out, one way or the another, that biology is not a miracle.' "
The statements in this article reveal one apparent truth which has been documented in numerous other incidents--the evolutionary dogma is in serious trouble from within its own ranks. Principally because of the Intelligent Design movement, die-hard evolutionists have been playing defense for a number of years now, and the growing commotion within the halls of scientific academia are hard to ignore any longer. It may not get national press coverage, like for example in the U.S. News and World Report, but doubting Thomases of all kind can be found within the evolutionists' fold. People like William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe deserve much of the credit for exposing the scientific weaknesses of Darwinian evolution with such commonplace terms now like specified complexity and irreducible complexity.
So what does an evolutionist do in these days? Continue to deny the irrefutable lack of evidence for evolution where Chance does not stand a chance, take personal potshots at the advocates of Intelligent Design through ad hominem attacks, move the playing field to outer space ala Star Wars or E.T., or do all the above. If you choose "all of the above", then you go to the head of the class. (Although you may be kicked out of biology class at college.)
The third alternative is the focus of this magazine article cited above. Much of this goes back to Fred Hoyle and others who proposed panspermia or transpermia, where microbes on Venus or Mars hitched a ride on a comet and carried life forms to our planet. Hence this is how life began here. Since the facts are stacking up against life beginning here through traditional evolutionary processes, evolutionists thought they have solved that sticky problem by moving the debate to another planet where no evolution defenders or Intelligent Design promoters live.
Astronomer Shostak admits the dilemma of modern-day evolutionists. Since they are hard pressed to find evidence here for how life began by resorting to their old bag of Darwinian tricks, they are forced to go where no man has gone before to prove that "biology is not a miracle." What an interesting choice of words by the astronomer--words which he did not use by chance. What is he admitting here? Two prominent things stand out.
Number one: If intelligent life exists elsewhere in our solar system, then life here on planet Earth is not that special or unique. The elephant in the evolutionists' room has always been that everything is so precise and just perfect for life to exist here on this planet--the miles we are from the sun, the rotation on the earth's axis, the physical properties of the earth, the structure of the atom, etc. This is called the "anthropic principle." There are too many variables that have to work together for life to exist here that claiming everything resulted from a cosmic role of the dice sounds incredulous. (Albert Einstein said once, "I, at any rate, am convinced that God is not playing at dice.") If evolutionists can somehow hold out hope that there is intelligent life out there somewhere, then that removes the elephant from the room. They can then proclaim that this planet is not so unique after all.
Number two: The prevalent fear in the minds of die-hard modern evolutionists is that Intelligent Design has made too many inroads in demonstrating that life truly here is nothing short of the miraculous. Microbiology and biochemistry have opened up a new world of discoveries that evolutionists probably wished never materialized. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box was like a nuclear bomb dropped in the lap of traditional evolutionary teaching. If somehow we can point to life way out there and get the attention off life right here, then maybe the evolutionists can succeed in their minds at saying that "biology is not a miracle after all."
The astronomer said that he is looking for life that's clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation. I am reminded of a cartoon several years ago where two aliens, who just landed on our planet, where standing outside an electronics store window. They were watching an episode of Jerry Springer's daily TV show, and after a few minutes, one said to the other, "I think we better leave. There is no intelligent life on this planet."
The Intelligent Being has spoken. The Life behind all life forms has made contact with us. We don't need $50 billion of radio dishes out in the California mountains to hear this E.T. (Eternally True) speak to us maybe one day years and years from now if we keep waiting for some faint, indiscernible signal. All we need to do is pick up an easily available copy of the Bible and start reading. How many people here are clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation by listening and heeding what this Intelligent Being has said?
What does all this have to do with hell? Last week I mention two arguments why people really believe in hell, even when they say they don't. The argument of language and the argument of history are powerful reminders that hell is not something we can wish away. Now I add the ARGUMENT OF SCIENCE. Since segments of science are so determined to find intelligent life out there, then we can happily take their efforts as a backhanded compliment to what we have always believed--that Intelligent Life has not only spoken to us, but this Intelligent Life came to visit this planet over two millennium ago. This is not Hollywood fiction, but real life historical fact that science can only support and in no way can refute.
What is more is that this in-person E.T. that came to visit us and die at the hands of earth's inhabitants spoke a whole lot about the life that is out there for all of us beyond this earthly existence. One of the two destinies is Gehenna, translated "hell" in the Communication Book from the one Intelligent Life, who in-person used that word himself eleven of the twelve times we find in this discernible Signal from Heaven. To describe this place of existence that is "out there" for all who reject Intelligent Life in this life, this all-powerful, all-good Eternally True Intelligent Being used at various times the phrase, "outer darkness." That should definitely please people like astronomer Shostak because it fits neatly in their model.
If radio dishes could be constructed to detect any signals or voices out there in this "outer darkness", then we are told already of what they would consist. It would be nothing but an unending, inexpressible blend of uncontrollable sadness and anger, a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So, thank you, modern defenders of the indefensible hypothesis of evolution with your desire to take the debate "out there". By doing so, you only give more credence to the fact that there is life out there, life beyond what is here on this earthly journey. Heaven and hell are here to stay, and that is where all will stay.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
This issue has at its theme on the front cover: FRONTIERS OF SCIENCE, with subheadings such as How will humanity evolve? What will we eat? Where will global warming hit home? How did life begin? Will we find it in the heavens?
Judging by how the questions are posed, one can easily conclude that quotations from the Bible are not to be found anywhere in the featured articles. That being said, the article that got my attention the most was the one entitled, "Will We Soon Find Life in the Heavens?" Here we read that "in the coming months, two new tools will greatly expand astrobiologists' capacity to hear and see other promising signs of life. Later this summer, the nonprofit SETI Institute. . .will begin listening for alien broadcasts on the new $50 billion Allen Telescope Array. A spread of 42 radio dishes in California's Cascade Mountains, the array is the first such facility built specifically to listen for E.T. 'We're looking for life that's clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation," says Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the SETI Institute. The array, half funded by Microsoft mogul Paul Allen, will search for alien signals at a clip 'hundreds to thousands times faster' than current SETI projects, says Shostak."
(Before I proceed, I need to interject a bit of advice to Seth Shostak. Perhaps he could save lots of time and money if he were to talk to a fellow scientist, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, who walked on the moon on the Apollo 14 mission. He recently said aliens have visited our planet several times over the last six decades, but that our government has covered everything up.)
The last paragraph in this article is most telling. "That makes SETI the only project with grand-slam potential. Astronomer Shostak boldly predicts that SETI will hear from a real E.T. within 20 years. They think it's going too far," Shostak says. But he's convinced that 'we're going to find out, one way or the another, that biology is not a miracle.' "
The statements in this article reveal one apparent truth which has been documented in numerous other incidents--the evolutionary dogma is in serious trouble from within its own ranks. Principally because of the Intelligent Design movement, die-hard evolutionists have been playing defense for a number of years now, and the growing commotion within the halls of scientific academia are hard to ignore any longer. It may not get national press coverage, like for example in the U.S. News and World Report, but doubting Thomases of all kind can be found within the evolutionists' fold. People like William Dembski, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe deserve much of the credit for exposing the scientific weaknesses of Darwinian evolution with such commonplace terms now like specified complexity and irreducible complexity.
So what does an evolutionist do in these days? Continue to deny the irrefutable lack of evidence for evolution where Chance does not stand a chance, take personal potshots at the advocates of Intelligent Design through ad hominem attacks, move the playing field to outer space ala Star Wars or E.T., or do all the above. If you choose "all of the above", then you go to the head of the class. (Although you may be kicked out of biology class at college.)
The third alternative is the focus of this magazine article cited above. Much of this goes back to Fred Hoyle and others who proposed panspermia or transpermia, where microbes on Venus or Mars hitched a ride on a comet and carried life forms to our planet. Hence this is how life began here. Since the facts are stacking up against life beginning here through traditional evolutionary processes, evolutionists thought they have solved that sticky problem by moving the debate to another planet where no evolution defenders or Intelligent Design promoters live.
Astronomer Shostak admits the dilemma of modern-day evolutionists. Since they are hard pressed to find evidence here for how life began by resorting to their old bag of Darwinian tricks, they are forced to go where no man has gone before to prove that "biology is not a miracle." What an interesting choice of words by the astronomer--words which he did not use by chance. What is he admitting here? Two prominent things stand out.
Number one: If intelligent life exists elsewhere in our solar system, then life here on planet Earth is not that special or unique. The elephant in the evolutionists' room has always been that everything is so precise and just perfect for life to exist here on this planet--the miles we are from the sun, the rotation on the earth's axis, the physical properties of the earth, the structure of the atom, etc. This is called the "anthropic principle." There are too many variables that have to work together for life to exist here that claiming everything resulted from a cosmic role of the dice sounds incredulous. (Albert Einstein said once, "I, at any rate, am convinced that God is not playing at dice.") If evolutionists can somehow hold out hope that there is intelligent life out there somewhere, then that removes the elephant from the room. They can then proclaim that this planet is not so unique after all.
Number two: The prevalent fear in the minds of die-hard modern evolutionists is that Intelligent Design has made too many inroads in demonstrating that life truly here is nothing short of the miraculous. Microbiology and biochemistry have opened up a new world of discoveries that evolutionists probably wished never materialized. Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box was like a nuclear bomb dropped in the lap of traditional evolutionary teaching. If somehow we can point to life way out there and get the attention off life right here, then maybe the evolutionists can succeed in their minds at saying that "biology is not a miracle after all."
The astronomer said that he is looking for life that's clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation. I am reminded of a cartoon several years ago where two aliens, who just landed on our planet, where standing outside an electronics store window. They were watching an episode of Jerry Springer's daily TV show, and after a few minutes, one said to the other, "I think we better leave. There is no intelligent life on this planet."
The Intelligent Being has spoken. The Life behind all life forms has made contact with us. We don't need $50 billion of radio dishes out in the California mountains to hear this E.T. (Eternally True) speak to us maybe one day years and years from now if we keep waiting for some faint, indiscernible signal. All we need to do is pick up an easily available copy of the Bible and start reading. How many people here are clever enough to hold up its side of the conversation by listening and heeding what this Intelligent Being has said?
What does all this have to do with hell? Last week I mention two arguments why people really believe in hell, even when they say they don't. The argument of language and the argument of history are powerful reminders that hell is not something we can wish away. Now I add the ARGUMENT OF SCIENCE. Since segments of science are so determined to find intelligent life out there, then we can happily take their efforts as a backhanded compliment to what we have always believed--that Intelligent Life has not only spoken to us, but this Intelligent Life came to visit this planet over two millennium ago. This is not Hollywood fiction, but real life historical fact that science can only support and in no way can refute.
What is more is that this in-person E.T. that came to visit us and die at the hands of earth's inhabitants spoke a whole lot about the life that is out there for all of us beyond this earthly existence. One of the two destinies is Gehenna, translated "hell" in the Communication Book from the one Intelligent Life, who in-person used that word himself eleven of the twelve times we find in this discernible Signal from Heaven. To describe this place of existence that is "out there" for all who reject Intelligent Life in this life, this all-powerful, all-good Eternally True Intelligent Being used at various times the phrase, "outer darkness." That should definitely please people like astronomer Shostak because it fits neatly in their model.
If radio dishes could be constructed to detect any signals or voices out there in this "outer darkness", then we are told already of what they would consist. It would be nothing but an unending, inexpressible blend of uncontrollable sadness and anger, a place where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."
So, thank you, modern defenders of the indefensible hypothesis of evolution with your desire to take the debate "out there". By doing so, you only give more credence to the fact that there is life out there, life beyond what is here on this earthly journey. Heaven and hell are here to stay, and that is where all will stay.
Yours in Christ,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)