Personal Thoughts

We live in a kind-of “bubble” in which we sense our reality through a materialism, what we can see, feel, taste, etc. Living inside this natural sphere, all thing are considered knowable. But we are not seeing the larger picture; there is an outside, a spiritual realm. Our science is dependent on our natural senses and a kind-of circular logic. We have come to accept all things as foreseeable—not because we understand them but—because all things are explainable in a language we invented to explain them!

However, we remain wonderstruck at the absolute beauty of the world we live in but not because we are any closer to the underlining “how” of it—unless we believe in God. Birth and death, for example, remain the biggest mysteries of all; we do not cease to marvel in awe at the miracle of life itself but we can only theorize its inception. We cannot reproduce it. And if you think of it, so is the inevitability of death (That’s why “time” is so important in calculating everything discoverable; it tracks ultimate growth, movement, and decay).

But outside there is an eternity not reachable by the tools of our science and ignoring it will not make it go away or any less significant to our reality.  Angels are outside this bubble! Try explaining to them how a baby is conceived! Physical death, time, and many other aspects of our “knowledge” we call inevitable, angels remained flummoxed by. Our science has no meaning to them—only what God does on our behalf makes any sense to them.

One of the biggest mysteries for them is Calvary. “The law … was given through angels,” Stephen explained [Acts 7:53]. But that was “law” not “grace” Sadly for them, they don’t know “forgiveness” and “reconciliation.” Angels mediated the law given to Moses and proffered to Israel. This made perfect sense to them since the law was in reality the very profile of divine love—of the God they knew and served. Why this love would necessitate Christ’s incarnation and death was not clear; so, for this understanding, they would need our faithfulness in serving the God they served.

It was revealed to [the prophets] … things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things. – 1 Peter 1:12

We are truly on display before them. “We have been made a spectacle to angels,” Paul agreed [1 Corinthians 4:9]. And we probably confuse them all too often when we “sin.” Paul, for example, urged Timothy as a pastor not to have favorites within his ministry. Angels don’t know what favoritism is.

I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and the elect angels, to keep these instructions …do nothing out of favoritism. – 1 Timothy 5:21

Furthermore, they probably speak a different language [I Corinthians 13: 1]. Our varied theological interpretations of our faith add to their confusion [1 Corinthians 11:10]. They have existed exclusively to serve God [Job 1:6].

“Angels [are] ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation.”

The writer to the Hebrews penned these inspired words [Hebrews 1:14 ] and these angels do a better job of it than we realize [Psalm 91:11].

We are living the mystery of our salvation. It is, indeed, a mystery to the ten of thousands of angels commissioned from the Throne of God to oversee His work in us.  It behooves us to faithfully live it. If we need another reason? …for their sakes.

<= Schutzengel (English: “Guardian Angel”) by Bernhard Plockhorst depicts a guardian angel watching over two children.

Have we raised a generation that has lost the ability to say: “thank you”? Is this an absurd question? Are we simply negligent in recognizing the value of being thankful? Or, perhaps, this is an extreme feeling difficult to voice. Like saying “I love you” or “I’m sorry” perhaps most people find it difficult to form the words. Take a look at Paul’s encouraging directive to the church at Philippi.

“Do all things without complaining and disputing,” Philippians 2:14 NKJV

And he added this:

“Rejoice in the Lord always. Again I will say, rejoice! And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. Whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things.” Philippians 4:4, 7-8 NKJV

Admittedly, angry thoughts and words have led to splintered families, churches, and nations. Without self-awareness those who support such outrage fail to connect the dots; they do not discover that their anger has consequences. They do not understand that at the beginning of every war or divorce or separation there are “words” intended to hurt and accuse. And there is a notable absence of gratitude for the good things that have been a part of each of these relations.

The antonym of gratitude is not regret or sorrow. It is an angry, bitter, hateful spirit. And this spirit thrives on the notion of entitlement. Entitlement means you owe me something I need. And since want and need no longer are distinguishable, it is unreasonable and unfair to deny me what I want. On this logic all the outrage is justified. In this environment a little gratitude might go a long way to bring feuding factions to the bargaining table.

It seems incredulous to assume all this because of a lack of gratitude, but that is exactly what we are postulating. Being thankful for the simple benefits of life is devoid of rage, complaining, grumbling, yelling out, “unfair”! These are two feelings that cannot thrive together in the same heart.

Craig D. Lounsbrough wisely observed, “Fairness is not something to which we are entitled. Rather, it is something for which we hope.”

Paul recognizing this went further to say that being grateful, especially in prayer toward God, leads to peace on many levels. It is a peace that soothes our anxious spirits; it is also a peace that mends relations and unites us. The power of a “thank you” spoken honestly, spoken spontaneously, from a heart overflowing with gratitude, can heal a nation if enough people mean it.

I have been making an attempt at a weekly blog but a lot depends on my mood. My current mood, as I noted last week, is “contemplative.” That’s probably why I have taken a peaceful and meditative interest in Paul’s letter to the body of believers at Philippi. As an institution, all remembrance of them disappeared from the annals of church history by the second century. But for Paul, as a Roman prisoner, the faces in this tiny congregation became a cherished memory that often reminded him that his life was never without meaning. He called them “beloved and his joy and crown” [Philippians 4:1]. Only the believers in Philippi and Thessalonica received such commendation. And Paul thought this of “all” the Philippians. No fewer than eleven times he spoke inclusively of every believer in this congregation as if his heart would not let him forget any of them. “Every time I recall the fellowship we shared,” (if I might translate freely) he noted, “I am overcome with joyous appreciation to the Lord for bringing us together. I pray for each of you often asking our Lord to meet every need you have” [Philippians 1:3-4].

The church at Philippi was never ensnared by the heresies and twisted, compromised, religious thinking of the day. Unlike the churches at Rome or Galatia or Ephesus or, indeed, Corinth, the Philippians were from the first day to the present (Paul’s own words, Philippians 1:5) fellow laborers in the gospel message. And Paul knew with absolute assurance God’s work among them would flourish [Philippians 1:6].

Then Paul’s pen must have hesitated because Philippians 1:7 can have two meanings according to the grammar: Did he write, “I have you in my heart” or “You have me in your heart”? Why not both meanings! He added, “this is the absolute truth, and I know I’m right, And I see it this way about each and every one of you!”

You see, this shared passion for Christ, shared joy in their common salvation, and a shared interest in Christ’s sufferings through persecution, was a shared defense of and confirmation of the reality that is in serving Christ. Paul was never alone because he had been to Philippi and gone to the banks of the River Anghista to pray [Acts 16:13].

I could go on, playing the commentator of this warm recollection of what Paul’s service to the Savior was always all about. But I will let you study it for yourself. Paul didn’t know if his imprisonment would end in release [Philippians 2:24] or martyrdom [Philippians 2:17] but either way, his heart was rejoicing.

And what about my mood? I, too, have sweet abiding memories of what God did to which I bore joyful witness and of which now I sit in quiet meditation—of how good God is, indeed.

Truly, God is good [Psalm 73:1].

I have been unusually contemplative the last few days. This is not to say I have been despondent but more reflective, more aware of the feelings some of the people I have come to care about are feeling while I ramble on spewing my theological opinion. Some of the things God has had to do, told in the stories in the Old Testament, like killing Egyptian innocence and calling it love [Isaiah 43:2, 4] as well as what He has allowed to happen, like natural disasters and man’s cruelty to man, make Him appear distant, uncaring, and if not this, to suggest Him—well—draconian, when He doesn’t get His way.

I feel I have been left to explain Him or somehow spin His actions—or lack of action—in some merciful way—something I never imagined would be a part of ministry. Recently in a Bible study, I thought it an exciting idea to review the 7 sacrifices Moses wrote about. These speak of Christ and His death for our salvation. I forgot that someone whom I care very much about, and who was in this study, owns a farm on which they are raising some of the world’s most lovable little lambs. And here I am talking about butchering them!”

“Happy is anyone who takes no offense in me,” Jesus spoke caringly [Luke 7:23]. One translation [NLT] put the onus on us! “God blesses those who do not turn away because of [Jesus].” (And then the translator seemed to reconsider in a footnote, “Or who are not offended by me“). Even Jesus, at times, needed to explain Himself and at times the explanation was worse. “I am the bread of life,” Jesus argued with Jewish leaders who sought to entrap Him in His words. They were discussing “manna.” And then the Savior raised His voice and cried, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in yourselves” [John 6:53]. That’s where He lost them. John 6:66 is one of the saddest scriptures: “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” I have come to cherish Peter’s response to all of this when the Savior asked him if he, too, would leave, “Lord, to whom will we go? You have the words of eternal life.” Spot on, my brother!

I suppose at times God seemed cognitively dissonant. He instructed Hosea to marry a prostitute [Hosea 1:2] which represented in His mind Israel’s unfaithfulness. God was hurting—even if we can’t see it! (Marrying a prostitute was forbidden to the priests, Leviticus 21:7. According to Deuteronomy 22:21 virginity at marriage was sacrosanct.)

Many maintain, as the song goes, “We’ll talk it over in the bye and bye. I’ll ask the reasons; He’ll tell me why.” There is some truth here, but more immediately it helps to understand that mercy must be administered by a judge, The Judge, and our limited understanding of His rulings, His form of justice, is what probably bothers us most. Yet, Abraham seemed to know, “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?“[Genesis 18:25]

Amen, Brother, Amen.

[Written in loving concern with empathy and understanding]

With the current interest in redefining identities, the Christian Church is in the process of reevaluating relevant Scriptures. Binary identification, gender dysphoria and gender reassignment, gender affirming care for children, non-binary persons, shared pronouns, and misgendering are among the increasing list of labels by which some self-identify. (This explains the complexity that might introduce a gender studies course in college.)

The importance of “manhood” and consequently “fatherhood” within a changing culture is being marginalized and even discredited. Factions within the industrialized nations are pushing the narrative that men must become less virile and more feminine, more woke. Professor Tom Klingenstein, Chairman of the Clarmont Institute, addressing the need for strong national leadership (in a speech on what he called, “the war to preserve the American way of life”) opined,

“In present time when manhood is being stripped of its masculinity, traditional manhood even when flawed is absolutely essential.” 

Acculturation

How is it even possible to imagine that a kinder-gardener should be credited with knowing anything about their own sexuality! The effort to include younger children, as the ‘misnamed’ gender affirming care seeks to do, is an effort through acculturation to introduce a way of life in the same manner the Sawi tribes of Indonesia trained their young children to eat human flesh. What should be a cringe-worthy approach to life becomes the social norm because—if children are anything—children are, to use Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s term, malleable. Children are being asked to understand an adult theme that has no relevance in their play world but, nonetheless, does have life changing consequences!

Family

Men have lost their status as father and husband in any Biblical or Edenic sense and the family has been—not extended—but altered to exclude them. In the name of diversity, identity, and equity [die] masculinity has been disenfranchised and that’s tragic! Fathers have lost their identity as caregivers and protectors of the family unit.

What makes a man, a man? We have lost any intuitive understanding of the word—a fact made more evident by talks of gender fluidity or reassignment. We always understood, culturally, that boys grow into men and fathers were a vital part of that process [Proverbs 1:8]. But a society that condemns virility, that accuses loving husbands of rape, that empowers wives in the name of equity to redefine the dynamics of the marriage relationship, or that marginalizes a husband’s manliness, is a society that has lost the Biblical concept of family and its cultural importance. We have assuredly exited Eden in a most literal sense and cannot find our way back.

Fatherhood

Fatherhood culturally always stood in the way of reinventing society. There was always something about a father’s creative genius, his passion for family, his strength—not just physically but his strength—of character that made him into a frightening opponent to any who failed to discern the love in his motives. Men are by nature revolutionaries where their families are concerned. It was important for social change to occur that fathers be defanged, domesticated, and made amenable to such change. Their determination to lead where their children were concerned became culturally and legally challengeable.

Enter the idea of equity which rips and tears at a long standing cultural recognition of the role of fatherhood in society. Diversity became an acceptable word for marginalizing a father’s cultural supremacy within the family. One has to ask rhetorically: Why the attempt at eroding the distinction traditionally awarded “mother and father,” “man and woman” by inventing generic terms that can serve to narrate the story of culture without any reference to either?

Social Change?

You are familiar with the acronym LGBTQIA+. Each stage of its development legally and culturally saw Hollywood introducing more and more social change in movie format. The ‘plus’ sign opens the door wide for any other words necessary to give language to such cultural change.

The Divine Model

We have seen fathers wimp out while mothers assume roles they were not psychological suited to. The fatherly task of teaching self-discipline, for one, became less and less evident even in a household were he was still in residence. But having a dad to learn discipline and the practical wisdom it engenders was, and continues to be, the divine model:

I will be his father, and he will be my son. If he sins, I will correct and discipline him with the rod, like any father would do. – 2 Samuel 7:14

One father alone might seem insignificant in addressing crime but a culture that endorses and encourages “fatherhood” will deal with it decisively.

God, Give Us Back Fathers

Fathers were always a vital part of a Bible based social structure. It became  important in a woke world to reinterpret Scripture in a way that spins this golden truth into worthless straw. [Homosexuality, for example, in the Bible is being interpreted as only an antiquated pagan religious practice not in any way akin to the present day dissolution of the nuclear family unit.] But the important truth being ignored here  is the Biblical role of fatherhood in the children’s lives. If we can bring this to the forefront culturally, I maintain, we can cauterize this slow bleeding which is draining the very spiritual and psychological life out of our world.

I will be his father, and he will be my son. I will never take my love away from him, 1 Chronicles 17:13

God, give us back our men, our fathers!

From every ethnicity, clan, and tribe to the nations of the world the cultures of the globe and the languages used to express them are intrinsic aspects of each group’s identity. To westernize these societies so they resemble mainline Christianity is to ask them to leave the community in which they knew a sense of belonging and acceptance to become marginalized and an outcast for nothing more than some misunderstood privilege of learning how to act “civilized,” to act British or like an American! As Andrew Walls remarked in The Missionary Movement in Christian History,

“This question is alive for Africans just as it was for Greek converts in the ancient Hellenistic world. Do we have to reject our entire history and culture when we become Christians?”

We are reminded of Acts 15 and that first Council at Jerusalem.

“For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements:…” [vs. 28].

And the Church leaders then expressed a concern about any former religious ritual which had a non-christian meaning and would confuse any believer who hungered for God’s Truth in its place. Philip Jenkins, however, reminds us in The Next Christendom,

“That is not to say that there is no such thing as an unchanging “historic Christian faith,” but we must be careful to distinguish the core idea from the incidentals.”

To experience a sense of accomplishment in winning souls—as well as a sense that the pagan element has been successfully purged—missionary effort once confused westernization with evangelization. Yet it is well understood that the gospel message must transcend culture. Wearing a military uniform does not make one a soldier nor wearing a doctor’s scrubs does it make one a surgeon. Likewise teaching a non-christian culture to practice the rituals of the Western church does not make them Christian.

But what if pagan social practices come in conflict with the Christian faith. Should the indigenous pastor, for instance, be concerned about polygamy or nudity or the circumcision of girls—to name a few—when they encounter these? In the western world or, the so-called “Global North” castration and mastectomies of children (early teens), are becoming normal practices along with the enculturation^# of transgenderism. Should Christians in an effort to evangelize be concerned?

Is the purity of the Christian message being adulterated with ideas that “cut” its efficacy? Is the light of the Church’s witness flickering and might it go out? Is the new convert’s ability to live a pure faith in Christ being challenged by such cultural norms? The Western church once defined what a Christian culture looked like because in most cases Christianity became the “state religion.” But now Western religion has to join the Global South in addressing culturally defined practices which, at the very least, stand to shock the sensibilities of the believer unprepared to deal with them.

But Christianity is more about a Christ-like character first and the expression of those qualities that represent it.  Christianity is more about the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount than culture.

The “Beauty” of the Beatitudes is that they are the “core ideas” which have nothing to do with cultural norms but the quality of a pure Christianity, the Christian character that represents Christ to the world.

Any custom that confronts these inner qualities is immediately challenged by the heart and the convictions of the Believer who lives them. No tradition, observation, fashion, ritual or ceremony, religious or codified in secular law, formal or informal—whatever—will be ultimately accepted by the believer who is becoming a new person in Christ and who is guided by the conviction of the Spirit of God.

We “old” folk tend to put too much importance in a hymn book or organ—and I really do! But there is no ritual defined in Scripture in the life of the early church. It is as if I can still hear Paul caution us, “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God” [1 Corinthians 11:16].

But we have the Sermon on the Mount and it is to be lived. The Beatitudes give us our Christian identity!

A metaphor is a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something thought unrelated, a comparison between two ideas as if these were synonyms, We use them in sharing the Gospel:

“That was the true Light, which lights every man that comes into the world” [John 1:9].

Paul did not call Jesus our redeemer but our redemption [1 Corinthians 1:30] . He was the ransom price to free us from sin? But will these metaphorical or picturesque representations of our Lord’s crucifixion be misunderstood as gibberish among a peoples or tribal culture, for whom the words, themselves, have no immediate significance?

When Jesus declared, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” [John 6:53]  John witnessed “On hearing it, many … said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

“Western interpretations of the atonement,“ Philip Jenkins wrote in The Next Christendom, “ …can be traced to the writings of Saint Anselm around 1100. For Anselm, human sins were like grievous offenses committed against a great Lord, debts that required a ransom or restitution of great price, which, in Christianity took the form of the death of God’s Son. … The biblical Lord became a feudal lord” [Page 7].

Eastern Orthodoxy saw this interpretation for Jesus’ crucifixion as “overly legalistic.” To this we add that the word “atonement” itself was  brought into English by William Tyndall centuries later. The concept of “debt” was replaced by John Calvin and the Reformation with talk of criminality, punishment, and God’s wrath.

Religious training has given us a degree of comfort with the Biblical system of sacri- fices as representative (a type of) Jesus’ death, but to what extent should we consider this metaphor as explicatory in other cultures? How useful is it in a given cultural setting to evangelize a people?

• “Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” [John 1:29].
• “[Jesus], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” [Hebrews 10:12].

Catholic missionary, Vincent Donovan, asked in “Christianity Rediscovered” [page 21] “Just what was the essential message of Christianity?” He explained, “With Africans the purpose of words is not to establish logical truth, but to set up social relationships” [Page 22]. He went on to assert that “their culture is all encompassing and all important” [Page 23].

Philip Jenkins in his work, “The Next Christendom” said, which I take as a caution against confusing, diluting, or otherwise compromising the message of our Lord’s Crucifixion,

“Gradually Catholic clergy (as missionaries to Latin American in the 1700’s) succeeded in adapting the liturgy and sacraments to the native worldview and its customs, in a highly successful act of enculturation“ [Page 38].

Enculturation! Catholicism endeavored to inculcate the moral and spiritual message of the Cross as part of the cultural identity of Latin Americans but may have only succeeded in providing a modified religious ritual acceptable to both the Aztecs and Rome. How real was Calvary’s impact on their “faith”?

And how much should this truth impact the very culture it transcends? Don Richardson presented Christ to the Sawi people of the Netherland New Guinea [now: part of Indonesia] God’s “peace child” after their use of the term within their culture.

So how do we introduced to them salvation, grace, holiness, God’s love, in order that they might make these representative of their lifestyle and, in turn, promote the message without losing its emphasis, its inspiration, the “power of the Gospel”? After all, this is, indeed, the task before us!

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Africans, Indians, Nepalese, Indonesians, Argentinians, … Romans 1:16.

 

Today is Stephen Meyer’s birthday! When he was fourteen he started questioning the meaning of life’s achievements and trophies when death ultimately concludes all will be forgotten. His worrying—he called it— became eventually “a fear of a fear of a fear.” At fourteen, he concluded his life was over.

But enter the writings of the French philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre, who concluded “No finite point has any meaning unless it has an infinite reference point.” What is the value of this life unless there is a transcendent personal God? One good thing became apparent to Meyer: he was not going insane; he was becoming a philosopher.

Eventually he learned that many in his generation were thinking the same thing because they, too, were being informed by the most educated and respected minds that God didn’t exist. The most popular and brilliant scientific minds concluded a materialistic interpretation of reality in which God was not needed to bring anything into existence. They pushed this metaphysical worldview in the educational system. The philosophy of the day became existentialism: that every person is alone responsible for the course of their own life. There is no eternal plan, for, there is no God.

It gets worse: the empiricist, David Hume, then argued, that the laws of nature depend on inductive reasoning (we learn any natural law by repeatedly observing the same result for a given controlled condition or cause). “But how dependable is our perception of things? ” Intelligent minds wanted to know. Darwin, himself, in later years, confided in a friend,

“With me the horrible doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Maybe we all have “Boltzmann brains”. The theory says that at the time the universe was coming into existence there might have been a small fluctuation in the wave function from which the universe came [ψ] leading some of our brains to become Boltzmann brains instead of natural brains, in which our memories and perceptions were no longer reliable. [no joke!]

“I remember,” Meyer recalled, “looking at a windowsill in my bedroom and wondering if the impression of it in my mind accurately represented the actual object in the world.” It was inevitable that such a philosophy would come to question knowledge itself. “How do I know that my perceptions of reality are accurate?” he worried.

After teaching him to recognize an orange along with other fruit, I recall teaching our three year old son his colors. Pointing to the color “yellow” I asked “what color is this?” He responded cleverly, “Orange!” You see, oranges are naturally yellow in color; so, he was correct but we had some relearning to schedule.

Viktor Frankl, who, little doubt, amassed profound wisdom from his experience in a German concentration camp, and who, consequently, wrote his classic work, “Man’s Search for Meaning,” reminded us that such questions are okay to ask.

The real truth here is that we need God in our lives to get the answers.

Hebrews 11:6 [ESV] “Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.”

We give up a lot when we give up a faith in God!

This is not a subject that interests everyone, but a few might find an encouragement to faith by reading Stephen C. Meyer’s “The Return of the God Hypothesis.” Meyer reviews some of the latest scientific discoveries in a number of fields, including, mathematics, astronomy, astro physics, physics, cosmology, and genetics, that challenge the supposition that the universe and then life came by chance rather than by design. Mathematician and philosopher William Dembski established a rigorous method for detecting intelligence: first what has come into existence must be calculated as extremely improbable by the laws of probability and, secondly, once it does exist it must serve a specific function. An example would be the creation of carbon-based protein out of hydrogen and helium, the basic building blocks of the universe. Carbon-based compounds, thus formed, are the basis of all life.

Cambridge theoretical physicist, Sir John Polkinghorne, came up with the “Universe-Generating Machine” to illustrate the fine-tuning of the universe which supports the theory that the universe was “designed” and not coming into existence by chance. He asked his students to imagine in your space travels coming across a universe generating machine with a eleven different dials and sliders and knobs all set to default values which if any of them where moved one click up or down would produce “catastrophic results.”^* Would it be unreasonable to argue that the machine was the creation of some “designer” and if we are talking about our universe, God?

Life on earth is carbon-based but how was carbon formed out of hydrogen? “The question of how carbon acquired its precise, favorable resonance turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg” says Professor Meyer. The formation of carbon depended on four fundamental forces:

1. The strong nuclear force which holds protons and neutrons together
2. The electromagnetic force that causes opposite magnetic poles (protons vs electrons) within the atom to repel.
3. The mass of an Up Quark produces a positive charge in the neutron and proton of an atom.
4. The mass of a Down Quark produces a negative charge in the neutron and proton of an atom.

The difference in masses between quarks in an atom cannot exceed one mega-electron volt—this is the equivalent charge of .0001 percent of the charge of the largest known quark—without producing an all proton or neutron universe where life could not exist. “Much more striking,” Meyer informs our faith, “the masses of “up quarks” and “down quarks,” the constituent parts of protons and neutrons, must have precise values to allow for the production of the elements, including carbon, essential for a life friendly universe.”

Meyer went on to say that,

If the Gravitational force strength were weaker, stars wouldn’t get hot enough for nuclei to combine to form carbon. A slightly lower value for the gravitational force constant would prevent the development of thermal layering inside stars. Such layering is necessary for producing so many different types of elements including carbon and oxygen, needed for life,

If the gravitational force were too strong, the temperature inside stars would get too hot and nuclear synthesis would produce only elements heavier than carbon and oxygen.

The strength of the strong nuclear and electromagnetic forces, the ratio between the fundamental forces, the exact kinetic energy of beryllium and helium (the two elements forms from helium which in turn unite to form carbon and oxygen), and thus the strength of gravitational forces inside stars as well as the excitation energy of carbon all had to be exquisitely tuned and coordinated within very narrow tolerances to promote the synthesis of large amounts of carbon inside stars. Yet without carbon life would be impossible.

^* The Universe-Generating Machine
1. Strong Nuclear Force – holds protons and neutrons together
2. Mass of Up Quark – positive charge in the neutron and proton
3. Mass of Down Quark – negative charge in the neutron and proton
4. Electron Mass – https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/testing-creation-using-the-proton-to-electron-mass-ratio
5. Initial Entropy of the Universe – How much energy would have been wasted in the creation of the universe. A maximum entropy would be a black hole that would swallow up everything.
6. Ratio of Strong Nuclear Force to Electro-magnetic Force – The SNF holds the atom together while the magnetic force pulls it apart because the positively charged nucleus repels the negatively charged electrons orbiting that nucleus.
7. The Mass of Neutrinos – a subatomic particle that is very similar to an electron, but has no electrical charge and a very small mass.
8. Gravitational (G) Force Constant – which Is needed to measure the true ‘G’ force exerted on a body. All stars and planets maintain orbits and distances based on this constant.
9. Expansion Rate of the Universe – Special relativity or the acceleration of heavenly bodies moving away from each other and the earth. This speed cannot be too fast or slow when the universe was created. Too fast, and stars, planets and moons would never be formed; too slow and the gravitational forces would cause the universe to collapse in on itself.
10. Cosmological Constant – a repulsive force required to keep the Universe in static equilibrium. Physicists are agreed that this constant is “fine-tuned” within 1 part in 10⁹⁰.
11. Electro-magnetic Force Constant – that holds electrons within the atom orbiting that atom.

We were watching Star Trek, The Next Generation, Season 6, Episode 9, “The Quality of Life” in which Data asked Beverly Crusher, the doctor, “How do we know something is alive?” He was referring to a small AI machine that was created to perform certain tasks. This “robot” was capable of “learning.” Data is, himself, an android—a fact that gives context to his question.

How do we define life? Data, on Star Trek, thought it had to do with the ability to learn and adjust to one’s surroundings or the ability to grow. Maybe, it is more about the ability to reproduce. All living things can do that.

Live beings, “think” according to Descartes. “Cogito ergo sum.” [I think, therefore, I am.] All living organisms have brains? But what about plants? Such questions, however, are generally ignored by those of us who have a life to live, but perhaps, we should take a moment out to “think about it.”[no pun intended].

Sherlock Holme’s Professor Moriarty, in episode 12, claims to be alive (even though he was a hologram). He claimed self-awareness. “I have consciousness!” he argued. Pickard, captain of the Enterprise, realizing Moriarty’s imagined sentience was dangerous, created for him a universe within the hologram that he thought was the real world. Pickard now could pilot his ship in his reality while Moriarty and his woman friend took a shuttle craft merrily though the darkness in theirs. “Who knows.” Pickard mused, “Our reality may be very much like theirs and all this [pointing to his ship] might just be an elaborate simulation running inside a little device sitting on someone’s table.”

The newest definition of life is that all living things have a genetic code. If this “genetic code” is considered in simplest terms a protein mix, chemicals, that somehow program us to function as humans, we might someday synthesize these proteins and, thereby, replicate that organic soup in which life allegedly began?

“But cells are not simple plasmic units of chemical reactions.” affirmed Stephen Meyer in “Signature in the Cell” (New York:Harper Collins Publishers. 2009), Chapter 9. “Cells are complex living units with at least 250 functioning protein clusters,” Meyer said. The organic soup has a cook!?

America is waiting on the latest Power Ball numbers to win 1.2 billion (with a ‘B’) dollars. The odds of claiming the jackpot are 1 in 292.2 million. We understand that there is a 1 in 1,222,000 chance of death or injury from lightning in a given year; a 1 in 57,825 chance of dying from a hornet, wasp, or bee sting during your lifetime. Google it.

But

“The probability of producing the proteins necessary to build a minimally complex cell—or the genetic information necessary to produce those proteins—by chance,” Meyers calculated, “is unimaginably small.” His abacus ran out of colored beads. “That’s a ‘1’ followed by 41,000 zeros!” he wrote.

Has humankind evolved from monkeys or are we “made in the image of God”? The “monkey” theory reduces hope to nothing more than a religious placebo rather than actually talking to the God Who gives hope!. When there is no real reason for our life in relation to an eternal God, we can only dream within the limitations of this life in which death is inevitable; we are reliant on no one but ourselves, and life is invested in an evolutionary process that will “hopefully” bring in a utopia for our progeny.

For you are my hope, Lord GOD, my confidence from my youth. – Psalm 71:5 [CSB]

Not to believe in God? It makes more sense to play the lottery.