What Evidence Do We Have From the Cosmos (or From the Bible) That Human Beings Are "Valuable?" Questions Abound.


How intrinsically "valuable" are human beings according to the cosmos and also according to the Bible? In the cosmos all living things die, including human beings, and even some of the tiniest forms of life live by sucking the life out of the ones with the largest brains and/or the biggest hearts. As for the Bible's view of humanity's intrinsic "value," even more questions arise, a wide variety in fact.

FIRST, let's review the most direct and common recognitions of humanity's place in the cosmos:


THE COSMOS AND HUMAN "VALUE"

Every living thing in the cosmos dies. There is plenty of evidence that our home planet, the earth, has been struck by large objects from space. Visible fiery meteors continue to enter the earth's atmosphere from time to time some even videotaped, and some larger objects from space have passed so close to the earth in the past few decades that their pathways were within the distance from the earth to the moon's orbit. Also, a little behind the arm of the Milky Way in which our solar system lies, there are stars being drawn into our galaxy from a nearby smaller galaxy, and so over a million stars are entering our galaxy and their gravity is interacting with stars found in our galaxy which can cause grave problems for any planets on those stars as they pass nearby each other. Lucky for us the arm of the galaxy where our solar system lies has just recently (in galactic time) already passed through that danger zone where the stars keep entering our galaxy. Also note that a solar flare from our own sun came so near the earth in the 1990s that it disabled satellite and cell phone communication. The earth's magnetic field is also diminishing (viz., the earth's poles shift in polarity and power over time, and a "few generations from now" our planet will soon be in a down phase, lacking a magnetic shield, and no one knows for sure how that might effect life on earth, or affect how electronic-based technology--computers and telecommunications function). I also read that dangerous gamma radiation was detected striking the earth in bursts coming from the vicinity of a "magnestar" that blew up in our general part of the galaxy. That could be quite dangerous if the star were just a bit nearer. Others have supposed that radiation from a star going nova in our vicinity might have instigated some extinctions in the past. Though if any star went nova near the earth that might be it for all life on earth. So this cosmos provides uncertainties galore concerning the continuance of life. Even stars and galaxies in our cosmos have finite lifetimes (though the question of what sort of infinite matrix all cosmoses might lie within, or how that matrix generates new cosmoses, remains an open one in physics and philosophy).

Astronomers have evidence of rings of matter and even planets surrounding distant stars, so there might be planets in the cosmos other than earth on which sentient beings live (found in the "galactic habitable zone" of our galaxy or of distant galaxies, since there's over a hundred billion other galaxies out there, each of them containing a billion or so stars). It is not inconceivable that such beings should they exist, live on planets like ours in which every living thing dies. One is therefore left with far more questions than answers concerning cosmic "value."


GOD AND HUMAN "VALUE"

Assuming God exists, how do we know for sure that God "values" human beings or to what degree He does? I've already reviewed questions regarding the nature of such "value" based on the cosmic situation in which God has placed humanity, and also based on the fact that neither nature nor God provide every embryo a whole and healthy start in life, but instead the opposite is true, since disabilities, nutritional deficiencies, and childhood illnesses, including deaths during birth and deaths during infancy and early childhood are very common among all species, including human beings.

The Bible says and/or implies that God finds human beings "valuable," even created in God's own "image," however human beings wrote those books, and any sentient being would probably find it difficult to imagine a deity not created in THEIR own image.

However, being "created in God's image" does not even mean that hunanity was so valuable as to be granted the equally god-like gift of immortality. Instead, early authors of some books in the Bible also expressed in numerous places that everyone went to the same place after they died, Sheol, the grave, the land of shades. Such authors of early books of the Bible taught that only God was immortal, while human beings were created from dust and to dust would return. I'm not saying the Bible teaches a uniform view of the afterlife, but simply noting that there are different ideas in the Bible of the afterlife. One was that humanity was animated dust and was not immortal like God. Such a view was common in the ancient world. Among the Greeks for instance, they viewed humanity as mortal , but a select few "heros" could be taken up to be with the gods and live forever like Hercules (the early Hebrews likewise pictured only a few like Enoch and Elijah being taken up, but in other places the Bible emphasized humanity's mortality and a place known as Sheol where all ended up). So some strands of the Bible picture humanity as being "valued" while they lived and breathed, but after death they were "valued" no more than say, "dust" or mere "shadows."

Speaking of the Bible, the same people who wrote some of the earliest books in the Bible also assumed the cosmos was created in six evenings and mornings as measured by evenings and mornings on what we today know to be but one planet, earth. This does not impress humans living today who have learned that all planets have their own days and nights, evenings and mornings, rather than the earth's evenings and morning being central. Was the very first light created "in the beginning" for the sake of instituting our planet's earth days and nights, evenings and mornings? And all the rest of the cosmos was likewise created "based on earth's days and nights," six of them, whether in metaphor or fact? But if that is what "revealed" books of the Bible teach, then how can we be sure of other matters in such books, including statements that God "values" humanity?

Even the pains and pleasures that people and nations experienced were interpreted by the Bible's authors as being signs of "God's" pleasure and displeasure, or signs of God's "punishments" or "blessings." While today people question such easy black or white supernatural interpretations of disasters and boons, of good times and bad times. It would appear that it is indeed the writers of the Bible who are interpreting what happened to them and their nation in terms of "God," just as they interpreted the earth's status in cosmic creation myths, with light created for the earth's evenings and mornings, and the earth created even BEFORE the sun, moon and stars were "made and set... above the earth... to light it, and for signs and seasons" on earth, merely one planet out of the entire cosmos?

The ancient Greeks likewise viewed their nation as lying at the "center of the earth" with their oracle of Delphi lying at the earth's navel, and the earth itself being the foundation of creation with a dome above it where the sun, moon and stars lay. The ancient Greeks also thought they "knew" why good and bad things happened during the Trojan war to certain warriors and nations. They "knew" it was due to the pleasure or displeaure of their "gods" and the exertion of their supernatural powers to decide battles or bless the land (read Homer).


THE "VALUE" OF HUMANITY IN THE N.T.

Only in the New Testament are human beings portrayed as having such "value" that God would put Himself through suffering, death, and hell, including God "becoming sin"--becoming something that God cannot stand--hence God punishing God, in order to spare humanity from "hell." That is quite a claim concerning humanity's "value" but note the lateness of such a claim even in the "revealed religion" of the Bible.

Also, think about the self-centeredness of such a portrayal of humanity. Humanity's self-centeredness began with claiming it was created in God's image, then in the intertestamental period believing it would live eternally, and now in the N.T., humanity claiming its own "sins" or failures are why God had to put God through pain, death and hell, with God Himself becoming sin, and shunning and punishing Himself, thus creating a rift, albeit temporary, in God. Quite a jump from humanity being simply mortal dust that returns to dust and winds up in Sheol, the land of shades. For now the human writers of the N.T. have even divinized humanity's faults, imagining God had to take humanity's faults so seriously as to tear God Himself into pieces in a manner of speaking, God punishing God (or to use a metaphor from nature and animals) God smeared Himself with our poo and hated Himself, dissassociating God from God, creating a rift in the Godhead all because of US. Thus humanity's ego and hubris appears to have grown over time and throughout "revealled revelations" in the Bible, such that even our poo is made to eventually smell good or come out good, regardless of the consequences to "God."


THE "VALUE" OF HUMANITY VIS A VIS THE QUESTION OF HELL

Even one human group's self-centered dislike of other nations or other human beings differing from them, has sought justification in the "Divine," namely "Divine condemnations." Such hubris not only gave birth to the interpretation that when other nations suffered they were being "punished by God," but also applied later in the sense of eternal punishment (book of Daniel) other intertestamental works, and of course the N.T.

In intertestamental works the idea of "evil" demons and Satan ruling this world, their power over this world, and fears thereof, all grew immensely, leading to elevated suspicions and hatreds projected onto "outsiders." In the N.T. the projection of such fears was also projected onto believers who loved the same holy books, and who were labeled, "heretics." Thus Christians began persecuting fellow believers as soon as the first Christian emperor gained the throne of Rome, and Christians proceeded to kill more Christians in a few years during the Arian-Athanasian controversy than were killed during the previous three hundred years under non-Christian Roman emperorsl; even killing each other over matters such as whether or not a bishop had ever denied his faith under duress during the earlier days of persecution or remained "pure" (the Donatist controversy). Today Christians continue to debunk each other's practices and beliefs far moreso than non-believers have ever done.

The notion of hell raises the question of the "value" of humanity in other ways as well. Though some Christians declare that hell is God's "great compliment" to human beings, that simply begs the question of what God would do to someone He wished to "insult" rather than "compliment." Furthermore, if God already sees the past and future, then God would know in eternity that there was no "choice" for some souls but hell. What "value" does such a view place on human life?

Hellish conundrums continue when one considers the view that Adam's sin (as Augustine taught) automatically damned all humanity, and it was up to God to grant the gift of saving grace to whomever He would, but he only grants it to some, and denies it to the rest, which means God "values" only some, and damns the rest. Jonathan Edwards put it in Augustinian terms and added darker metaphors, teaching that we all deserve the utmost punishment, because God's disgust toward all of Adam's children since the fall is similar to the disgust we feel when we see a horrid insect or worm. Doesn't sound like everyone is extremely "valuable" in God's eyes.

Christians have also argued that heretics and other non-believers in this life are not very "valuable" at all, since they spread the disease of unbelief that kills people eternally. Some Christians have even argued that we should treat heretics and/or unbelievers no better in this life than God is going to treat them in the next, in hell. For example see these statements by Luther and Melanchthon regarding the Anabaptists, a diverse Reformation movement of Bible readers and preachers, many of whom wanted to live in a land were religious beliefs were totally a matter of conscience, and there were no state churches, nor coercion, nor indelible national creeds (neither Lutheran nations nor Calvinist ones nor Catholic ones), but instead each person could read the Bible and love and follow Jesus as they were led by God.

“They [the Anabaptists] are not only blasphemous, but highly seditious, urge the use of the sword against them... We may not, therefore, mete out better treatment to these men than God Himself and all the saints.”
--Luther in letter (written early in 1530) to Menius and Myconius who were composing a work against the Anabaptists

“They [the magistrates] should apply to them [the Anabaptists] the law of Moses against blasphemy and treat them as the Roman Emperors treated the Arians and Donatists.”
--Melanchthon in a letter to Myconius (Feb. 1531)[SOURCE: Mackinnon, James (Ph.D., D.D., Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History, University of Edinburgh), “Luther and the Anabaptists,” p. 57-75 in Luther and the Reformation, Vol. IV., Vindication of the Movement (1530-46), (New York: Russell & Russell, Inc, 1962), pp.64 & 69]


A FEW FINAL QUESTIONS OF "VALUE" ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

How "valued" is humanity in the "primeval history" stories in Genesis in which God "repents" of having made man, and floods the earth, drowning nearly every breathing thing on it? How about in Exodus where God tells Moses He would like to let all the Israelites in the desert die and raise up a people from Moses alone? (Even if the story is interpreted as being a ruse on God's part or a temptation or testing of Moses by God, anyone reading it cannot help to also see in it a certain callousness toward human life by God. Note that it states elsewhere in the Bible that God does not "tempt" people so why would he "tempt" Moses with an offer to let the Israelites die and set Moses up as a new Abraham giving birth to a new people? Admittedly, theologians finely divide, some say "gerrymander," the words "tempt" and "test" in this case). And one could also ask what "value" God places on human life when He commands Joshua to slaughter every breathing thing inside certain cities, including babes and pregnant women? Makes life seem relatively "cheap" in God's eyes.

Revealed biblical religion even states that God "sends lying spirits" into prophets, and God "hardens" people's hearts in order that they might be destroyed utterly as in the book of Joshua ("The Lord hardened their hearts to meet Israel in battle in order that He might destroy them utterly, that they might receive no mercy"). Or, God sends plagues and famines, or God says He will put people in the situation where they will be forced to eat their own children just to survive. Or in the N.T. God "sends them great delusion" that they might not turn and be saved. Sounds like a cavalier way to treat human life.


*A FINAL NOTE ON "HELL"*

From Origin's day to ours Christian theologians have continued to debate just how much of Jesus's apocalyptic speech about "hell" needs to be taken literally. Some say such speech is an accommodation to the ideas of Jesus's day concerning ideas of heaven and hell already in circulation since the inter-testamental period; and thus we don't even know for sure just how much of what Jesus spoke about hell was an accommodation to ideas and concepts his audience already took for granted.

The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1908) by Schaff-Herzog says in volume 12, on page 96, “In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist; one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known.”

Augustine (354-430 A.D.), one of the four great Latin Church Fathers (Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome and Gregory the Great), admitted: “There are very many in our day, who though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments.”

Origen, a pupil and successor of Clement of Alexandria, lived from 185 to 254 A.D. He founded a school at Caesarea, and is considered by historians to be one of the great theologians and exegete of the Eastern Church. In his book, De Principiis, he wrote: “We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered and subdued....for Christ must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet.” Howard F. Vos in his book Highlights of Church History states that Origen believed the souls of all that God created would some day return to rest in the bosom of the Father. Those who rejected the gospel now would go to hell to experience a purifying fire that would cleanse even the wicked; all would ultimately reach the state of bliss.

The great church historian Geisler writes: “The belief in the inalienable capability of improvement in all rational beings, and the limited duration of future punishment was so general, even in the West, and among the opponents of Origen, that it seems entirely independent of his system.” (Eccles. Hist., 1-212)

Gregory of Nyssa (332-398 A.D.), leading theologian of the Eastern Church, says in his Catechetical Orations: “Our Lord is the One who delivers man [all men], and who heals the inventor of evil himself.”

Neander says that Gregory of Nyssa taught that all punishments are means of purification, ordained by divine love to purge rational beings from moral evil, and to restore them back to that communion with God....so that they may attain the same blessed fellowship with God Himself.

Eusebius of Caesarea lived from 265 to 340 A.D. He was the Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine and a friend of Constantine, great Emperor of Rome. His commentary of Psalm 2 says: “The Son ‘breaking in pieces’ His enemies is for the sake of remolding them, as a potter his own work; as Jeremiah 18;6 says: i.e., to restore them once again to their former state.”

Gregory of Nazianzeu lived from 330 to 390 A.D. He was the Bishop of Constantinople. In his Oracles 39:19 we read: “These, if they will, may go Christ’s way, but if not let them go their way. In another place perhaps they shall be baptized with fire, that last baptism, which is not only painful, but enduring also; which eats up, as if it were hay, all defiled matter, and consumes all vanity and vice.”

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just a question: If God is loving, why would he want to destroy people? Specifically, Israelites, and also other non-believers? Shouldn't God's love be extended to each and everyone? If not, then why say God is loving?

Anonymous said...

Just a few critiques on this article at thisbread.com. If you are interested.

Edwardtbabinski said...

Dear Mr. Dollar [Jason Dollar],
I would only add to your criticism of my piece that theology and the Bible and the acts of humans and commands of God as depicted in the Bible are capable of being understood in a variety of ways, not merely pleasant or loving ones.

Also, you wrote:

"The Bible makes it clear that the horrible condition of the world as we know it is the result of falling away in disobedience from Him (Romans 8:22-ff.)."

But animals suffered and died in this cosmos for hundreds of millions of years before any alleged "falling away."

Anonymous said...

"But animals suffered and died in this cosmos for hundreds of millions of years before any alleged "falling away."

Mr. Babinski,
This is an unproven statement. Dating the age of the universe is precarious business. It is hard to do unless one is predisposed to a certain philosophical viewpoint. The science on the issue is hotly contested and in flux as to its results. A lot of assumptions go into this kind of statement and though I cannot say that I definitively know exactly how it all started and what all happened in the beginning, I am not ready to buy this proposition blindly.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Babinski,

How do you know that the following proposition is true? You wrote:

Every living thing in the cosmos dies.

Now, I wonder, how do you know this to be the case? It strikes me as a faith statement, at best. We surely know that even on our own globe entomologists are still finding new insect species, as are ornithologists discovering new birds. In the past few years, marine biologists found organisms living in super-heated water on the rims of sub-oceanic volcanic vents. All this means, really, that we have not even come close to proving your statement: we have no idea if there are cells on this planet that have been alive since day 1.

I assume you reach this inductively and not deductively:

I. This cell dies.
II. This cell also dies.
III. This cell also dies.
C.: Therefore, all cells die.

It is not deductive:

I. All living things must die.
II. This cell is a living thing.
C.: Therefore, this cell must die.

Of course, you mean it deductively, but you cannot prove your first premise: We cannot know ALL LIVING THINGS IN THE COSMOS.

Now, I have no problem arguing that God does not value life. Fine. But I have a problem that value even has a place in any discussion; and I surely can find no reason in a Godless universe that there is even any such thing as value. Moreover, if I toss God out of the cosmos (easy to do, since there is no God), I wonder what the atheistic, secular, non-religious, and non-faith-based reason is that any of us should, for example, care for the poor. What value, in an atheistic worldview, is there in my neighbor next door? Moreover, what value is there in knowing that God does not value humans if, in fact, he does not exist? What value is there in being an atheist instead of a theist?

One neighbor to this website, a self-described debunker of all things faithful, describes his interests tersely. He is interested in "atheism" and "anarchy". I wonder: Why would an anarchist care whether people believe in the lie which is theism? Who cares? What difference does it make? If, as you say, ALL THINGS DIE, then a Christian and an atheist have the same fate: Both die, both viewpoints die, and neither shall ever know which viewpoint is true or right. After all, absolute truth can only be known if there is an afterlife. If there is no afterlife, there are no answers. There is NOTHING. So, if NOTHING is the end of mankind, it is hard to find ANY VALUE inherent in the cosmos; and thus, being an atheist is as worthwhile as being Billy Graham. In fact, the idea of being a Christian atheist makes perfect sense.

Peace,

BG

Anonymous said...

Jonathan Edwards put it in Augustinian terms and added darker metaphors, teaching that we all deserve the utmost punishment, because God's disgust toward all of Adam's children since the fall is similar to the disgust we feel when we see a horrid insect or worm.

Ironically Charles Darwin didn't find insects and worms "horrid" or "disgusting." He even studied earthworms and wrote a book about them.

Anonymous said...

contratimes makes two assertions:

[1] After all, absolute truth can only be known if there is an afterlife.

[2] If there is no afterlife, there are no answers.


The two assertions don't sound logically equivalent to me. Rephrasing [1] as:

If there is an afterlife, then absolute truth can be known.

gives you the contrapositive:

If absolute truth cannot be known, then there is no afterlife.

This makes a fundamentally different claim than [2].

BTW, I don't see the logical inconsistency in an ignorant afterlife.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Mark Plus,

I thank you for commenting. I don't know what you mean by the phrase "the logical consistency in an ignorant afterlife." I am, no doubt, obtuse. I've been told that most of my life: it is clear that I am ignorant even in this life. Who needs an afterlife in which to be ignorant?

Ignorance and nothingness are not members of the same set. To be ignorant is to be agnostic, it is to "not know." But nothingness -- the abyss of non-being -- is not for the ignorant. Ignorance implies the capacity for understanding or comprehension. Nothingness does not permit this. If there is no consciousness after death, one cannot know death, and one cannot know life. Moreover, one cannot know right or truth or up or down or blue or God or atheism. There is nothing. Hence, there are no answers, and there are no absolutes, for there is, in the final and complete analysis (so to speak), nothing.

Also, since in this life we stand in a petri dish the contents and existence of which we're trying to examine, our very presence in that dish corrupts the experiment, it spoils the data. We cannot make ourselves an object of ourselves: it will never be possible to view the universe as an object, since to do so one must not be an object in that universe, and that is impossible. We claim to be objectivists, we claim to be empiricists; but there is no way we can make our own selves objects to our selves; we can't verify our own consciousness empirically to our own consciousness.

An afterlife implies a transcendence, an emancipation from space/time. It implies an objective standpoint, one from which we can say, finally, "Ah, hah! So that is how this all started; so that's who killed John F. Kennedy!" But since the absence of an afterlife precludes this sort of opportunity, we cannot EVER BE CERTAIN OF OUR CONVICTIONS. Hence, there are no answers without an afterlife.

And, if that is the case, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER NOT to be a theist. There is NO REASON NOT TO BE ANYTHING if all "truths" and "answers" will be eventually crushed into the rather claustrophobic dimensions of a black hole or the utterly featureless, timeless, and unknowable nothingness. An atheist's advantage over a theist is hardly worthwhile; an atheist may move mountains this side of death but who cares, considering life is but a blip in the great abyss of nothing? What advantage is that, really? It is not too bold to ask, "Who really gives a shit (sorry) one way or the other if even the right and the very wrong end up nowhere?"

A friend of mine has one eye. He does not see darkness in the part of his brain where his other eye should be. To him, "looking" through the absent eye is just like you or me trying to see the sunset through the palm of our hand or the back of our neck. It is like trying to taste with one's hair, or smell with one's nails. THAT is what we are talking about when we are talking about death: that moment when one slips from consciousness to NOTHING, where even death is unknown.

That, of course, is just my opinion.

Peace,

BG

Anonymous said...

Food for thought. Whether you believe in God or not, the Universe does not simply "exist." To everything, there is a cause. If you follow the cause chain of everything in the Universe upward, you eventually run out of answers. The only logical answer left is a sovereign creator God. Even a scientist should be able to figure that out. If you believe in the Big Bang creation, what caused the Big Bang? What made this massive chunk of matter that started it all? Where did it come from? What is it's cause? These are all questions that cannot be answered without a God. Take religion out of it. Maybe all religions are wrong, and maybe they all have some truth as well. I don't think any person has it completely right except that God exists. I have had too many amazing experiences in my life that make it impossible for me to not believe in God.

Lets pick a chain at random. A tennis ball.

What created a tennis ball? (ball manufacturer)
What created the manufacturer? (People)
What created people? (The union of two people)
What created the union? (A fertilization process)
What created this process of conception? (Nature?)
What created Nature?

You have a couple of options here. Random luck. (Which is the most moronic idea I ever heard) or (God)

Start again with a tulip. You end up tying into nature again, and then God.

You simply cannot escape God. Even if you take it down to the smallest living organism, there is a driving force to live. Why? For what reason? What created this will to live? Is it the nature of life? What created the nature of life? There again is no answer but God.

There simply is NO other answer. Nothing else makes sense whether you are an athiest or a believer. And don't give me this chaos theory crap. That is a total cop out. Even if the chaos theory is correct in some way, what created it? How did this universal rule or law come into existence? What defined it?

Once again, God is the only answer. Spirituality is not easy, but it exists as a way for individuals to try and establish a relationship with the Creator. You don't have to agree with religion. You don't have to go to church. You can be a complete psycho, but no matter what you were created by God and will one day return to God.

Peace to you.

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous,

I applaud what you are saying here, and I know that it is difficult to get at vagaries, at least the sort we are talking about in this thread.

Here are two things that perplex me. If we start with this fact -- that the universe is without meaning -- and that there is no purpose in the cosmos; and if we admit that this is the case even in the primordial ooze, or in the chaos that self-generated, or in the accidents of ineffable energies, how is it that purposiveness, or even the search for purpose and meaning, could evolve from purposelessness? How does order emerge from disorder; how does consciousness emerge from non-consciousness; how does meaning and sequence and mind evolve from something that has none of these things? If I cannot get more energy out of X than there is in X, how do I get more organization, purpose and meaning from the abyss?

I am sure there is an answer to all of this.

Another thing that perplexes me is this: I have already pondered in this thread what cosmic advantage an atheist has over a theist. If there is no meaning in the universe that is absolute or transcendent and if there is no after-life; and if the end of all mankind is identical -- the abyss of nothingness -- then what does this all portend for survival in the Darwinian sense? If Survival of the Fittest; if natural selection is true, how do we know, scientifically, that the FITTEST humans are NOT the religious fundamentalists? For all any of us knows, the trophy of survival shall ALWAYS go to the Christian, not the atheist. Perhaps the most effective way any human can ensure that his or her genes survive in perpetuity is to embrace Christian fundamentalism: perhaps that is how the universe is most fully ordered, in the consciousness of a religious perspective that denies Darwinism's most sacred pillar. Perhaps those who look straight at Darwinism and atheism with open hearts and arms are the most vulnerable to extinction; are indeed, the weakest, and that the universe seeks to cull them out, by resisting them at every turn? Who is to say, since the universe is apparently a-theistic and non-purposive, that it is nevertheless biased in favor of Christianity, that the Christian worldview is the most effective framework for survival?

What I am saying is this: What if survival is contingent upon embracing a lie -- Christianity -- while extinction is contingent upon accepting the truth -- atheism? And what if in the chaos Christianity's lie is actually more favorably supported by the energies of space/time/chance than the truth?

See where this all leads?

Peace,

BG

HESH PRINCE said...

I am really amazing to know this i can suggest this site for you to know more abot
Cell Phone Radiation and the Increase in Brain Cancer
people appear to have an almost pathological emotional attachment to their cell phones and

there is a fascinating suggestion that cell radiation pulses might actually be addictive to

the human brain
for more information visit this site



href="http://www.radiationreport.com/solutions/CellularPhonesandHealthPart1.pdf">Cellphonera

diation

HESH PRINCE said...

I am really amazing to know this i can suggest this site for you to know more abot
Cell Phone Radiation and the Increase in Brain Cancer
people appear to have an almost pathological emotional attachment to their cell phones and

there is a fascinating suggestion that cell radiation pulses might actually be addictive to

the human brain
for more information visit this site



href="http://www.radiationreport.com/solutions/CellularPhonesandHealthPart1.pdf">Cellphonera

diation