Darwin knew as well as anyone else that Creation cannot pass unnoticed, an explanation is required. There are only three possible options. The division is between those believing there could be a Creator of some kind and those holding that a natural process caused it all. The final one includes those believing a combination of the two above. In the Western world the battle lines are usually drawn by those who care, and these divide between the two positive assertions: God did it, or a form of Darwinian evolution did it, maybe with some initial supernatural help to start it off. As things stand it is atheistic Darwinism which holds much the more powerful position, at least among the educated classes. This happens to include the great majority of those that understand or practise science. But every now and then a big juicy apple is heard falling to the ground from the tree of life.
The tree of life with its trunk, branches and twigs demonstrating the linked relationships between bacteria, fish and mammals up to mankind is still assumed by many, but evidence does not support its existence. The transitional fossils are speculative at best and non existent at worst. Many evolutionary palaeontologists, some of the greatest admit the failure of the fossil record. As for the Tree of Life, Craig Venter, a world-renowned scientist implied it was a nonevent, calling it in effect an artefact of history. Venter was on a panel of guests including two Nobel Prize winners and Richard Dawkins. The latter was visibly shocked to hear such a heresy coming from a well-respected source. This little disagreement is an indication that not every scientist is signed up to classic Darwinism. Nevertheless, the majority of those who support evolutionary theory will contend that all necessary proofs have been supplied in abundance.
I want to ask a simple question. Is the creation we see and know what Darwinism would have predicted? Darwin’s theory should produce nothing beyond what is baseline functional at the very best. A process like evolution, directed on the basis of survival, reproduction and immediate rather than future need is not likely to produce either exquisite novelties or boundless beauty. And certainly not on the scale of what is demonstrated throughout nature. If the only processes permitted to evolutionists are without direction and any thought or foresight as to how plant and animal life survive in any given or changing environment, then there is simply no chance of seeing what nature demonstrates. Not without miracle upon miracle, and miracles are precisely what Darwinism does not have. If you want miracles you need God not a process whose only mechanism for change and development is genetic mutation. The problem is that mutations do not cause Marvel Comic mutants. They mostly produce errors and some of these can be damaging, even fatal. Mutations are not good news. Every example in films of mutant improvements and super heroes are fictions. That should tell you something. Mutations cause disease, death and the breakdown of genomes. They represent a process comprising a faulty copy of a code or set of instructions via DNA. Corrupted copies, causing wonder upon wonder, all fully functioning from the get go. That is Darwinism. Is it an argument you would want to defend? A faulty possibly damaging mutation causing an advanced type of that which preceded it. Man to superman or Dr Jekyll into Mr Hyde. The latter is the more likely. If it all seems unlikely then live with it, because there is nothing else. You are quite safe since this theory, titled Neo-Darwinism, is supported without question by many of the most intelligent people on earth.
The following video shows how our bodies deal with the problem. The Bible informs us we live in a fallen world in which God is still its Sovereign Lord. You will see that the body is consumed with activity devoted to keep us well, but the invasions of damaging mutations do get through. The systems of repair are incredible, they look after us just as good parents look after their children, but damage from the world gets through to them as well. We all live in this fallen world. The wonder is that so much goes so well. Watch, listen and be amazed. You might also ask yourself how such systems evolved without thought, engineering and know how? Intelligent design perhaps!
The state has taken on the role of God and Law Giver. Political Correctness stands as Lord of all. It began like a joke bride, with British Values the ceremonial bridesmaids: carrying sets of ideals for life derived from PC principles; a series of directives that few thought could carry the day. They imposed themselves here and there, becoming a mild irritant that most of us I guess thought would simply pass away. But no part has passed away, it has got a grip and is beginning to squeeze in areas that do not as yet much concern the majority. My purpose in commenting on the modern world is to show that our inexorable move away from the laws of God leaves us open to the consequent void being filled. And of course, it is being filled by laws based on post truth perceptions of reality. They decree that minority views and feelings must be enthroned above those of the inglorious past. This kind of change when enacted at accelerating speed can sweep away all previous perceptions of reality, and to such a degree that it could be diagnosed as madness. It is like having a house clearance without considering what the losses of major items may mean for the future. In the nineteen seventies ripping out the fixtures from a nineteen twenties house seemed like a vast improvement. Decades later it is perceived as a desecration of a world whose style was far superior. We now routinely revert back to the old and shudder at what we once so admired. Modernism rides on the back of the assumption that what we now define as progressive is the last word. It is in fact just a new look, a veneer which says nothing about the true value of anything.
To make the accusation that this is madness, a kind of self mutilation is a bold claim which will require some considerable justification. What I want to try to demonstrate is that this post truth, postmodern reality is not only wrong but so dangerous it can even be held responsible for terrible injustices; like a disease where the body begins to attack itself. Where one law begins to destroy another law, a new lesser law destroying one much older and greater. The move away from God’s laws to those of our own invention has consequences. Has anyone considered whether or not they were foundational to a stable society.
Former generations of indigenous British would not and do not recognise current British values as having any connection to the Britain in which they grew up. We are told what to approve and what to hate by people we would not necessarily welcome into our home. Just try some names or titles or leaders of national organisations. Told what to hate or approve of by the Prince of Wales, Theresa May, Nigel Farage, Jeremy Corbyn, the director of the CPS, a Supreme Court judge, Richard Dawkins, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Clare Balding, Piers Morgan, the editor of the Guardian or Daily Mail or even polls of public opinion. British values are based on a consensus of opinion led by small cabals of people you may or may not like. These values are a trumped-up concoction of modern liberal thought, given a gloss of moral superiority and authority by usurping ground scoured of Christian influence. Any secularisation process in a post Christian era was bound to go down well. The cherry on top was the imposition of rafts of new hate laws which seem open to any interpretation chosen by the judges and politicians and even public opinion.
These laws and regulations have been drilled into the heads of the box tickers in every state department, big business corporations, educational establishments, the media and even churches and the military. Regiments of police, schoolteachers and council workers abide by these rules as if they had been inscribed by the finger of God. The bible expresses the judgement of God. These people are trained in the same way, taught the same ideology and sent out like disciples to teach their new gospel to those who need to hear it. and please do hear it and get it right because there are consequences for non compliance.
‘In the place of judgement wickedness was there, in the place of justice wickedness was there.’
Ecclesiastes, Ch.3 v 16.
So, when the STATE, Big Brother, wraps itself in self-righteousness and decides it knows best what to think, speak and do, then prepare yourself for the worst. Suppose for the sake of argument the state does not know best: what then? The French Revolution, Eugenics and Communism all seemed like good ideas when espoused by philosophers and politicians, but their implementation in the real world by the state was horrific. Each one became a cruel dictatorship. The most famous symbol of the French Revolution was the guillotine and its mass killing of all those the powers and people deemed to stand in opposition to the new constitution. Justice did not result from the carnage; chaos and anarchy arose, and mob rule governed until order was restored. Eugenics, conceived on the Darwinian basis that you should only breed from the best of your stock caused some countries to consider implementing laws preventing those humans who carried perceived defects or of low class to breed, with many women forced into sterilisation programmes. In its worst manifestation the theory of eugenics gave rise to the super race concept; the logic of which led to ethnic cleansing. Powerful ideologies are weapons best kept out of the hands of ambitious politicians, zealots, scientists and social engineers. My third example, Communism, was shown up by the book Animal Farm. We are all equal in this brave new world but some are more equal than others. That differential can be massive, the difference between the haves and the have not’s, masters and slaves, the chosen and the not chosen, and finally those whose views adhere to the consensus opinion and those that do not.
These ideas tend to sound good when introduced by talented orators, but they are often poisoned sweets made tasty through Utopian rhetoric livened up by threats and inducements and the chance to persecute the least favoured or the most hated. This doctrine now applies in the UK. Hate legislation exists to protect a wide but well-defined group of minorities. It is these groups that have the law solidly behind them to the detriment of those outside those groups. If Political correctness is Cultural Marxism, then it should by now be obvious. What would it look like in practice? In Marxism the state becomes the provider, sustainer, protector, and lawgiver for every citizen. Anything that places itself above the State has to be suppressed or abolished or reduced to the level of a state puppet.
In the video below Douglas Murray argues that the Establishment attack the wrong targets because they are afraid to deal with the real and primary problems. They take down the effects and leave the cause largely untroubled. The ideal and just way to proceed is to deal with the cause in whatever way is appropriate in a liberal democracy.
There is no real distinction. In Christianity faith is paramount. However St Paul says we are without excuse because nature provides compelling reasons to believe. We are instructed to live by faith, and in the scriptures reason is less treasured, but it is far from ignored. Jesus told the sceptical to believe in the signs: miracles proving his divine power and authority. These were seen sometimes by just a few people at others by thousands. They had good reasons to believe and few to disbelieve, which is no doubt why huge crowds followed him. The apostle Thomas was a sceptic, and said he would not believe Jesus had risen from the dead until he saw and touched the wounds of crucifixion. Jesus permitted these to be examined, but said, ‘better are those who have not seen and yet believed.’
Paul argued that both nature and the cosmos bear witness to God as Creator. You may argue that his audience knew nothing about science. I contend that science is a marvel which works within limits. It may explain many aspects of how the cosmos works, but it does not explain the appearance of a planet like earth in a universe like ours. Paul Davies, a physicist and professor at Arizona State University who definitely does not believe in a Creator God, wrote a book titled and subtitled: The Goldilocks Enigma / Why is the Universe Just Right for Life? It’s not too hot, it’s not too cold, and its forces act together in a way that maintains the balance between forces that would otherwise opt for chaos and destruction. Paul Davies, himself a scientist and one of the world’s most acclaimed science writers, shows how everything from the infinitesimally tiny humble carbon atom, to the speed of light and the laws of physics interact as they do, with fine tuned precision. Fine tuned means precisely adjusted to the highest levels of performance, efficiency, or effectiveness. And that is how things must be for life on earth to exist. The chances of this occurring by chance are incalculable.
The rest of this is mostly about science and cosmology, but if you read on it comes apparent just how much of science is founded on faith. The avoidance of a God as an explanation for anything that touches on science has become a surprisingly strong motive to structure all explanations in terms of random chance and meaninglessness. This goes so far and so deep that even cosmology has to be seen in terms which ensure both humanity and our place in the universe are represented as insignificant. The very fact of human existence seems to be perceived as a weird irritant which rather spoils any enjoyment in being the only viewer capable of studying the phenomena. We cannot, must not be seen to as important, or occupy any position in the universe that might tempt us to think we are important. The problem with this position is that we do have reasons to think exactly that. This fact explains the panic you will hear in some of the voices being quoted below, especially from Edwin Hubble and Stephen Hawking. Why? Because there are many reasons even for atheist physicists to think we are the creation of intelligence, and do occupy a position of significance. And in this article I am just giving a small indication of just how significant we appear to be. If you want to see more evidence please make contact and I will send the further information to you.
Fred Hoyle: Cambridge University astrophysicist and mathematician was responsible for one the greatest intuitive discoveries in science. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for carbon based life forms like us and all animal life to exist, demonstrated to Hoyle that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, Hoyle therefore predicted the values of the energy, the nuclear spin and the parity of the compound state in the carbon nucleus formed by three alpha particles (helium nuclei). This prediction was later borne out by experiment.
He later wrote.
“Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
On the earth there is a system of unbelievable complexity, including a vast array of creatures, plants and bacteria which cannot exist independently. A male and female cannot reproduce offspring without amazingly complimentary physical systems which must be perfectly aligned to each other. The flora and fauna of nature can only exist within an ecosystem, and yet the ecosystem is dependant on the flora and fauna, bacteria, plants, animal life, photosynthesis etc. DNA is made of proteins but proteins receive their instructions via DNA. The chicken and egg and which came first applies throughout nature. Laws of physics before physics, or physics before the laws which seem to rule over otherwise blind forces. This all speaks of a Designer and a Designer speaks of God. The universe seems to be at the service of planet Earth. These are some of the reasons for the title of Paul Davies’s book. For Goldilocks just about everything was just about perfect. This is not good news for those who dispute the God Did It version of Creation. Maybe as a consequence of this there is a theoretical principle in science called the Copernican Principle. It states that humans, on the Earth or in the Solar System are not privileged observers of the universe. That there is no centre in which to be located, and our position is one of mediocrity at best, only of interest because we have given birth to that strange anomaly called life. This is the fixed view of modern science. It was not however a view echoed by Einstein who throws a spanner in the works by saying the following.
The struggle, so violent in the early days of science,
between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then
be quite meaningless. Either CS [Coordinate System]
could be used with equal justification.
The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’
would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different co-ordinate systems.
What happens when more than one possible co-ordinate system can be applied to a theoretical problem in science? The answer! Trouble with a capital T. The following quotes are from the website Harmonia Philosophica.
‘People used to think the Earth as the centre of the solar system. That model is called “geocentric”. It was supported by Aristotle and first widely promoted by Ptolemy. That was the story until the 16th century “revolution”. It was then that Copernicus, actually copying and promoting an old idea of an ancient Greek astronomer (Aristarchus), proposed that the Sun should be promoted to the centre of the solar system. Since then most people think that the Sun being at the centre of the solar system is the “truth”. That couldn’t be more far from the truth, since as I am going to show in “Chapter II – Nothing wrong with Changing Coordinate Systems”, it is completely valid to use any coordinate system you want in order to formulate physical laws. What is more, not many people know that even though scientific data showed that the Earth is at a privileged centric position in the universe, cosmologists in the days of Hubble chose simply not to “accept” that data based on philosophical grounds, see “Chapter III – Heliocentric system is based on dogmas and not data”.’
‘Heliocentric system is based on dogmas and not data.
Exact sciences like physics have many limitations, often disregarded by their “followers” (i.e. people who think that measuring, evidence-based exact science is all, then we forget the basis of our science. When we forget that we use axioms (and that if we use other axioms we will reach completely different conclusions) then those axioms turn into dogmas. And dogmatism, in any form, is not a good thing…’
What follows is a quote from Edwin Hubble.
“…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favoured position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape” (Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology)
The famous astronomer Edwin Hubble published on 1937 a study on the cosmological model of the universe, under the title “The Observational Approach to Cosmology”. In the data published in that study it was evident that Earth appeared like having a “unique” position in the cosmos, i.e. that it was in the centre or very close to it. However Hubble chose not to accept that unique position based on philosophical propositions (principles) that be believed in.
In particular and even though the nebula distribution showed that Earth should be in a centre position, he discarded that idea based on the “principle” that we are not unique (so it is illogical to say that we are in a privileged centre position in the Universe). In order to accommodate that “principle” he added some corrective factors to his equations! As simple as that! No hard data, no scientific analysis – a plain philosophical choice was the basis of the choice of heliocentricity over geocentricity!’
Stephen Hawking also prefers this co-ordinate system.
‘Stephen Hawking says about these principles that “…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the centre of the universe.” He does provide and alternative view, though, as he continues: “There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption.
We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.”
We always keep in mind that the now used heliocentric model is not based purely on scientific data but also on philosophical propositions. That is not something “wrong” on its own. Everyone uses such assumptions when talking, thinking, writing scientific papers. What is “wrong” is trying to persuade people that what you say is the “only truth” that is acceptable by science…’
From Harmonia Philosophica.
So, two of the greatest names in science were prepared to place their primary axiom, the Copernican Principle before the data they had themselves observed. How did they save the it all? The Big Bang theory with all its unproved fudge factors: hyper inflation caused by they know not what, which necessarily ceased its expansion almost immediately, halted by a power unknown. Put that conjecture together with an unseen 97% of the universe, the blacked out twins of cosmology: dark matter and dark energy and you have the theory accepted today. That is how far they will go to protect their theory from one that could explain things much more easily. One proposed by George Ellis, the co-author with Stephen Hawking of the 1973 book The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time.
The following is also from the website Harmonia Philosophica.
‘Ellis has argued ‘that the geocentric model removes the need to “invent” terms like “dark energy” or “dark matter” to explain how galaxies in the cosmos move. He has proposed that we live on a planet that is near one of the two centres the universe has and, according to his calculations , the more geocentric model he advocates removes the need to “invent” terms like “dark energy” or “dark matter” to explain how galaxies in the cosmos move. He has said:
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” […] “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its centre, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” […] “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”’
All of the above should cause a few who would ridicule the geocentric model of the universe to bite their lip. George Ellis is no idiot. Two more quotes just to nail his opinion to the wall.
“If the Earth were at the centre of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce red-shifts wherever we looked! [This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations“
George Ellis has also said:
“I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its centre, and you cannot disprove it[…] A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
The video below is well worth your time, although it is very long and its subject matter difficult. It stretched my comprehension to the limits. This lecture opened up to me a view of what must have existed prior to the existence of the universe. His speculation is astonishing and God does not figure in it at all.
George Ellis is a world renowned scientist who co-authored a book with Stephen Hawking. In this video below he is speaking to an invited audience of scientists and students. Both the lecture and the following Q & A session are fascinating. He is not a Christian, he may well be a theist or an agnostic. Half way through his lecture he begins opening up on a subject entirely new to me. Things that physics, chemistry and biology cannot explain. He argues from a philosophical mindset that before the universe existed there had to be aspects of this world already in existence. Here are just three of them: mathematics, ethics and beauty. He begins his list with mathematics because physics is based in mathematics. His argument is entirely novel as far as I know and he speaks it out to an audience of his peers. He has a big reputation to cherish but chose to trespass into areas far beyond empirical science. It seemed to me when I first heard his talk, that he risked almost everything. Did he speak of God? No he did not. But I have the feeling God must have been hovering somewhere in the ether. In his quiet, understated way Ellis also trashed the multiverse, quantum, string and other speculative theories as being beyond the possibility of scientific proof. Which means they are close to pseudo science.
He is a man well worth listening to, even though it is a very long session.
We live in a society in which rights dominate. In this case the victims are the most vulnerable category of humanity there is: the unborn. They have no voice because a craven legislature folded under pressure and left them open to the death penalty. Choosing the right of choice over what was once understood to be nature’s greatest gift, the conception of a child. Never have self serving definitions of rights been so abused. Ask a newly pregnant mother, one who wants her child, what is growing in her body. She will respond, “It is my child” or “our child.” Redefine child as a foetus and you strip it of not only its rights but its humanity. We all know what is growing in a mother’s womb following conception. The debate is a sham. The unborn son or daughter is in its natural state at that time in its journey towards birth. Everyone knows it, but the knowledge is buried along with the child victim in the cause of a right no mother has, except in extremis: risk of severe medical harm or death. I realise that complex and awful circumstances often exist where there is no simple solution, but it is not these cases that concern me here. They need to be settled on a case by case basis. It is the abortion industry which conspires with state approval to do what amounts to unspeakably horrible mutilating acts in order to remove a perfectly formed human life from its natural and only safe haven. I repeat, they take a living human in its natural state and kill it.
Think for a moment of a human performing necessary maintenance work on the exterior of a space station. He will be in a space suit supplied with air in order to breathe. He is human and perfectly well adapted to survive due to the care and attention devoted to his safety. Above all protection from the life threatening atmosphere millimetres from his vital organs. Destroy the life saving space suit and breathing equipment, rip him out of the atmosphere that keeps him safe and he will die. It is exactly the same for the embryo which exists in an environment perfectly formed to protect it until it is safe to begin its new life, filling its lungs with air. The viability argument that won the day for the abortionists was about the most specious ever used to win a vote, let alone bring a viable life to a truly ghastly end. If for no other reason I thank God for his existence as Judge. Because this is an ongoing holocaust perpetuated without shame or remorse and sanctioned at the highest levels of government.
God’s laws are often considered repressive, but just think about the awful consequences resulting from freeing ourselves from the strict rules of sexual conduct. The inevitable effects of breaking the norms of stable societies such as ours are serious. Social experiments can lead to truly awful, tragic destinations. Freeing society from biblical norms have served neither us or the truth well. They merit the condemnation of God, and that condemnation, hated though it will be, should be preached by the Church. Among the greatest crusades fought against the moral values of Christian teachings have been those relating to the exercise of sexual freedoms. These are exemplified by 1967 Abortion Act. Feminism had its greatest triumph, emancipation from the curse of an unwanted child. In an age of human rights and care for the victimised the most silent and vulnerable are stripped of their humanity and denied the chance of life. If we could look back and see the trail of devastation left behind we might begin to think in terms of repentance, which is the first step on the way back. It does not matter what we have done, God is there for us; but we have to confess we have done wrong once we have come to realise that while we have human rights, these do not condone acts against what God has ordained. And the deliberate killing of another human being is against God’s law. The doctor in the following video had killed 1200 unborn children. He knows what he is talking about.
For well over a thousand years marriage has been known as a union between a man and a woman. This view aligns with nature, the combination of male and female is the common and only practice among the higher mammals.
The union of man and woman is the only natural way to procreate. All through nature you can see the good sense and order in this arrangement. The female is fully and beautifully equipped by nature and instinct to nurse and feed the offspring. She seems, as if by design, the superior and natural carer, a conviction born out by studies on the known differences between the sexes. The male partner during the period of childbearing and nurturing into adulthood tends to provide for and protect both mother and her young. These are necessary roles and each sex seems perfectly adapted to fulfil them. It has taken social engineering on a grand scale to muddy what were once crystal clear waters, reversing roles, masculinising females and emasculating males.
Incredibly, this picture of family life is seen as a shameful exploitation of the female due to this apparent empowering of the male over the female. In order to correct this appalling injustice feminism chose to fight against this and every other perceived ill visited by the brute male on the downtrodden female. Another cause celebre that has undermined our society and thrown it into multiple disorders which continue to reverberate through every level of male/female interactions. The result: huge numbers of disorientated and broken families. This victim mentality has permeated our country, becoming an increasingly vicious battle for rights causing division in every sphere of life.
Here are some verses from the Bible relating to the covenant relationship between a man and a woman.
Genesis 1:27-28: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’ ”
Ecclesiastes 4:9: “Two are better than one, because they have a good return for their labour: If either of them falls down, one can help the other up. But pity anyone who falls and has no one to help them up. Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone?”
Genesis 2:24: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
Mark 10:9: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Ephesians 5:25-33: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church…”
That last scripture could not place women in a higher place, because Jesus is the lover of the bride, and his love cannot be surpassed.
In our society the commands and decrees and wisdom of our creator God are being overthrown, but at what price? Marriage was once a well understood institution; the bedrock of society. A safe haven for the nurturing of children, in good marriages one in which the father and mother provide positive role models for their children. The disintegration of this model, which began in the 1960’s, if put into a graph would I believe reflect the incremental levels of confusion and breakdown seen in relationships over the last half century or more. If you can find a good and loving partner and join together in marriage then your chances of happiness are hugely increased. Marriage was created by God for us so that we can discover in the other person more about love, life, self sacrifice, give and take, fulfilment and joy. In the bible there is in the book of Revelation the picture of marriage, a love affair between a bridegroom and his bride. It describes Jesus, the bridegroom coming for his bride. This picture is in so many ways based on a Jewish marriage and its procedures. The bridegroom goes to prepare a place for his bride. Jesus said to his disciples that he was going to prepare a place for us.
John 14 v 3
“And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.”
Below is a Jewish view, not on marriage specifically but on having an encounter, engaging in a relationship with someone who should have been very remote to him. Dr. Dauermann is a lovely, kindly, gentle presence.
God or gods are many and varied, from local to universal. If there are many then the choosing between them becomes a virtual lottery with not much at stake. Get it wrong and what can happen? The probability is nothing will happen, the god you have chosen is likely to be an invention, a myth. Do all gods fall into this category, or are there a few who could be real, possibly watching or listening or taking an interest in us? So, could the list be fewer still? Three religions make the claim that there is one supreme God who created everything and everyone, including you and I. These three Gods can be reduced to two, since the God of the Jews and Christians are one and the same. The difficulty between Judaism and Christianity centres around the claimed divinity of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. Christians would claim that the God of the Jews in the Old Testament is the same as the God worshipped and loved in the New Testament. And that the Godhead includes Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
It may come as a surprise to you that Islam, the last of the three monotheistic faiths, claims the same God, but states that His name is Allah, and his prophet Mohammed. According to Muslims he was spoken about in the Bible as the last prophet, greater even than Jesus. On this religion I spend a lot of time because I believe it to be false from beginning to end. For Judaism I have great respect since Christian roots are sunk deeply into the religion of the Jews and we share the Old Testament.
All three of these global religions agree about one thing: God was the Creator of all things. He may have chosen to do it through the evolutionary method, guided the process or left it to its own devices. Or God may have done it as is stated in Genesis chapter one: by a series of spoken commands. That is what I believe, and I am not alone. Scientists and philosophers from both the past and the present hold this to be the Truth about Creation.
Science is the field of study concerned with discovering and describing the world around us by observing and experimenting. Biology, chemistry, and physics are all branches of science. Good science for centuries opened up the wonders of creation and was honoured for its services to mankind and for explaining what had for so long seemed inexplicable. Showed us how nature and the cosmos worked and defined the universal laws which underpinned all things, from the microscopic to a universe so large it beggared our imagination. The foundation upon which this was built can be summarised by the humble saying attributed to Johannes Kepler:
“Thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”
This German astronomer died in 1630. He calculated planetary orbits in great detail through careful observation and painstaking mathematical modelling. He used the scientific method shown above. He also said this:
“The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order and harmony which has been imposed on it by God and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.”
Kepler represents a large number of the greatest names in science: those who laid the groundwork for very close to all scientific endeavour were believers in God and His Son Jesus Christ. Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics was a monk. James Clerk Maxwell, a devout Christian, was the father of almost any modern electronic device you could name.
Over the last 150 years this heritage has been abandoned to be replaced by outright rejection of these roots of Western Science. This has been the work of scientists and philosophers, some of them having attained celebrity status through the media rather than their scientific contributions. Most of them, certainly the more humble among them, would no doubt freely admit they are minnows in comparison to Kepler, Mendel and Clerk Maxwell. And yet the God these three greats of science attributed everything to has been erased from the modern script by the lesser men. It is these who have promoted and broadcast the current version of science which now rules over explanations of nature and the universe.
Please do not misunderstand me, modern science has much to commend it, not least in areas of technology and medicine. But it’s attempts to draw deductions about prehistory and how creation came to exist in all its vast and wondrous variety is altogether another matter. My contention throughout has been that to abandon the Creator of all things as an explanation for life and the cosmos is like following Alice in Wonderland down the rabbit hole. It is madness and leaves an intellectual void filled by whatever can be found, and that has proved to be a problem. The explanatory well is dry to the point of aridity without the design intuition.
At the beginning of this article I spoke about there not being much at stake in getting the God question and the choices between true or false, or this god or that god wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth since nothing matters in comparison. Missing that truth and getting everything else right is not good enough. When it comes to the end you need to know Jesus and believe he died for your sins and rose from the dead. You have no excuse not to know that Jesus died because very few biblical scholars, whether believers or unbelievers, doubt that Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem around 30 AD. No-one escaped death from that form of execution. Jesus was brutally flogged before carrying his cross to the execution site. While nailed to the cross if you not push up with your legs at regular intervals for breath you died of suffocation. When a victim ceased these regular movements it was the end, faking death was not possible.
Don’t doubt, believe, because it really happened. What happened subsequently, the resurrection, is founded on evidence just as compelling.
You can find a video giving the evidence widely accepted by most biblical scholars, both Christian and non Christian at the foot of the article titled: What Kind of God Goes This Far For You?
