The Nature of Time

.

W

e have all heard the expression, “time flies.”  We have oftentimes asked, where does the time go?  On the other hand, we sometimes experience time as going by very slowly.  These are all subjective measures of time, based on our feelings of patience or impatience, etc.

      Is there any objective, empirical measure of something we might call, the “speed” of time?

      At first the question may not make sense, since speed incorporates both space and time.  We cannot validly measure something against itself.

      We measure the speed of a race-car by measuring how many miles, of road, the car travels per hour.  The road is considered stationary, the car moves relative to the road.  We cannot, however, measure the speed of time against anything.

      Or can we?

      Most of us have an intuitive “feel” for the passage of time.  We know that some things take a long time, some a short time.  There are two ways to measure time, then.  One of them is objective or mathematical.  The other is subjective, based on how we experience time.

      For us, the experience of time involves our brains, the transmission of signals along our neurons and across our synapses.  These brain activities can process the information about events which take time, and we must understand that the processing itself takes time, so that there is a form of loop, a self-referential quality to our experience.  Our physical activities are included among these events.  For example, the act of walking across the street takes time, and during this time, the brain is actively involved, not only in the walking, but in measuring the time it takes.

      Compare this processing by the brain, to the processing of data by a computer.  Whereas the brain may take a few seconds to complete a particular calculation, the computer can perform the same calculation millions of times faster than we can.  I recall reading some old science fiction story in which a conscious computer found itself impatient with the slowness of communicating with humans.  In effect, the computer had to wait “computer years” for each human response.[1]

      Time is also measured with mathematical objectivity.  In physical nature, there is no such thing as a “long time” or a “short time.”  These are purely human perceptions of time.  Nature never gets impatient or bored.  Subatomic events that take place in the realm of pico-seconds are no different than pan-universal events that span epochs.  An event that occurred 14 billion years ago is not ancient to nature, and an event that occurred just a moment ago is not recent, as we think of it, not to an unconscious physical universe.

      There is a saying that for humans, the days are long and the years are short.  This demonstrates that we have multiple ways of experiencing the passage of time.  For a small child, the interval between Christmases is very long.  For adults in their later years, the Christmas seasons seem to fly by in a staccato.

      Humans experience the span of their own lifetime as a sort of individual eternity.  Our earliest memories seem very long ago, and our acknowledgment of eventual, inevitable death is pushed beyond our experiential horizon to some far flung future date that, while we know it must eventually occur, feels as if it never really will.  Few humans feel that they are a part of history in the same way that we feel our today is part of this week.  Once in a while we confront the task of providing life insurance or estate planning for our heirs after we are gone, but this is not quite the same as our making plans for the upcoming weekend.

      Were we to be as conscious of the brevity of our life-spans as the mathematics require, our entire attitude toward life might become very different.  We might all regard ourselves as the ephemeral creatures we are, flashes in the pan so to speak, giving us perhaps a greater sense of urgency, and a greater appreciation of each moment.  On the other hand, could we handle all that without being overwhelmed by panic?

      In nature, it may be that there is no such thing as the “passage” of time.  Nature may not experience (so to speak) time as past, present and future.  It may be all of a piece, a single fabric, a weave of all events.

            In regard to that, let us insert a side note here.  It is sometimes said that if time is all of a single weave, that therefore, the future is carved in stone (so to speak), inevitable and unchangeable.  If so, this fact would indicate that we do not have free will.  However, this way of thinking is in error.  A simple example is that what you did yesterday is now unchangeable, and yet, at the time you did it, you exercised your free will.  Eternity is taken to mean unchanging, and yet it could also be very dynamic.  Our brains never experience such things, and so we have no way of comprehending the strange properties of time.

      The Big Bang Theory requires us to consider a paradoxical question, the question of what was there “before the Big Bang.”  It is paradoxical, because if time and space came into being at the moment of the Big Bang, then therefore there was no “time before” the Big Bang, since there cannot logically have been time before time.

      It is also interesting to consider that the age of the universe may not be measurable.  We might have nothing to measure it against.  Physicists speak of the first tiny fractions of a second after the Big Bang, but what is the “clock” (so to speak) by which that time could have been measured?  Did a measurement standard of time exist then, or does physics merely reconstruct it retroactively?

      If we somehow discover space aliens, will their experience of time be comparable to ours?  Will they have enhanced, super-fast thinking modes that make us seem, to them, intellectual snails?  Will, to them, the wings of a hummingbird in flight be seen in ponderous slow motion?

      Beyond our own universe, whether in the multi-verse or in a spiritual level of existence, what is time?  Is there time there?

      And what of this paradox?  It is always now, it is never now.

T

ime has been considered a mystery for, well, for a long time.  In the preceding section, we introduced the importance of distinguishing between mathematical time and consciously perceived time.  Let’s go a little further into that.

      A simple diagram of time demonstrates both our understanding of time, and our misunderstanding of it.

      Such a diagram, a “timeline,” is perhaps the most simple of all diagrams.  It is often drawn as a single line, horizontal, with an arrowhead at the right end, signifying the passage of time from past (leftmost) to future (rightmost).  Of course other conventions can be used, but let’s use this one.

 

past                                  present                                      future

 ---------------------------------X------------------------------------------>

      In addition to past and future, our diagram also contains a place somewhere near the middle, a point which indicates the present moment, or “now.” 

      The concept of “now” presents a paradox.  The paradox is that any instant in time to which we can point as the “now” instant, immediately becomes a part of the past, as soon as we point to it. Indeed, because our brains perceive according to the transmission of electro-chemical impulses along our neurons, and because those transmissions take much more than an instant of time, we are inherently incapable of sensing a “now” instant of time.  Thus we have the paradox which says that it is always now, it is never now.  So how can we ever perceive a “now” moment?

      The answer is that our brains redefine “now.”  Instead of sensing the present as an infinitesimally short span of time (perhaps a grain of Planck time?), our brains define “now” as a finite segment of time.  Indeed, we have several levels of now, depending on the length of the segment and its context.

      Let’s use an example from carpentry.  If a carpenter is using a hammer to drive a nail through two boards, then that is what he is doing “now.”  He is nailing two boards together.  That task may take only a second or two.  However, if we ask him why he is nailing those two boards together, then he may answer that he is putting a door frame together.  That task may occupy a half hour or more, but that half hour is the answer to what he is doing “now.”  On a wider scale of time, the carpenter may say that he is building a house, a task which takes days, in which case, his “now” occupies those several days.

      “Now” can be an even broader period of time, including “this present generation,” this lifespan, or even the era of nations.

      Were the brain to conceive of each “now” only as the tiniest instant of time, then we might have no sense of continuity. We might not connect the instants into a coherent series.  If so, then there would be no music, because music must have melody.  We do not hear music note by note, but as a continuum.  Indeed, when we hear the same music a second time, our “now” may encompass the entire musical composition, because no matter where we are in the composition, we are mentally placing each note into the whole.  We are remembering the notes already played, and anticipating the notes yet to come.  In a sense, the musical piece becomes timeless for us, partially outside of time.

      Certain brain disorders connected with hearing actually may have the effect of a person being unable to connect the notes of a piece of music into a continuum, unless the person has heard that music before.  This demonstrates that hearing is not merely a function of the ear, but a complex processing of auditory signals inside the brain.  The neural structure for accomplishing this process is not complete at birth, but is developed over a period of time through maturation and experience.  It can be damaged, resulting in various degrees of impairment, some of which may result in failure to recognize music, or even spoken language.

      As we can see, the concept of time as we perceive it is not exactly the same as time measured mathematically.  This is an important point to make, because it may answer the question of whether the Bible contradicts science when it comes to the age of the universe.

      Many Biblical scholars tell us that the genealogy accounts in the Bible place the creation of the world as being only six thousand years ago, whereas calculations by astronomers place it at 13.7 billion years ago.  Who is right?

      Here is a proposed answer to that controversy.

      At the moment when the first man consciously perceived the passage of time, then it was that time as we perceive it began to “flow.”  Up until then, time had existed only as a mathematical abstraction, the abstraction of numbers.  The word “abstraction,” does not mean nonexistent, nor unimportant.  Another term for it, as used here, might be, outside of experience.

      What difference does that make?  As we discussed in Chapter 8, it bears upon the controversy between the Biblical calculations of the age of the universe, and the astronomical calculations.

      Our timeline diagram might now take on a distinctly different character.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X--------------------------------------->

Mathematical time  . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . Consciously Perceived time

       The dotted line at the left of the timeline represents time that is calculated retroactively, a time that was never experienced by any conscious entity.  The solid line begins at the moment that time was first consciously perceived, a time which may be in accord with the six thousand year figure proposed by some Biblical scholars.

      Time may not be at all what it seems.

---

[1] Sir Roger Penrose, by the way, disconnects the concept of calculation from the concept of consciousness, suggesting instead that some yet-to-be-discovered principle of natural law is required to explain it.  The God Paradigm agrees with his basic idea, but whereas Penrose awaits a natural-materialistic explanation, the God Paradigm asserts that consciousness does not arise from natural law, but is a foundation of it. Clearly though, the passage of time is experienced consciously.

The Monism versus Dualism Question in Idealism

.

Monist Idealism holds that only consciousness exists.  Dualism holds that both mind and matter exist.  Is there really a conflict between these ideas, or is the dispute a distraction?

 

The discussions of Idealism seem to regard Monism and Dualism as an either / or issue.  While I understand that ultimately, everything is unified, this unity exists only on a level that is forever and fundamentally beyond our grasp.  This is not the monism of Idealism, in which the only thing that exists is mind.

 

There are both monist and dualist aspects to reality, among other aspects as well.

 

A loose analogy would be the human anatomy, in which the body (the organism) is a unified whole, but one that cannot dispense with its separate organs and tissues.  One cannot begin with a body and subdivide it into organs; nor can one begin with organs and assemble them into a functioning body.  The organism is holistic.  It is an interpenetration of unity and fragments.

 

The Idealist concept of Mind-at-Large (in some schools of thought) is that it alone exists, that is to say, it is the ultimate existence.  It perceives itself, and creates fragments of itself and perceives them.  Thus, monist Idealism does not conceive of anything higher or more fundamental than Mind-at-Large itself.

 

In a sense, this is to place the Monist Mind-at-Large in the role of God, surely a matter of high emotional contention, if one takes that literally.  I do not.  I might be called, a Christian Idealist.

 

Consciousness itself is a fundamental reality, but there are higher, more fundamental realities.  Reality exists as a system of hierarchy.  If Mind-at-Large is consciousness, then one might ask, what is it that is conscious?

 

To say that consciousness is itself conscious, and conscious only of itself and of its self-divided parts, is to miss out on other fundamental realities, such as life and free will, such as good and evil, such as love and indifference.

 

The Hindu-Buddhist tradition expresses well why the search for ultimate reality and ultimate meaning are futile.  The tradition holds that nothing can be said about the ultimate reality, not even this.  In more physicalist terms, when we seek to explore the ultimate reality, we arrive at a singularity, where all definitions fail.

 

Idealism has much to offer, both to philosophy and to science, both to psychology and sociology.  It displaces physical reality as the source of mind, and shows physical reality to be more the product of mind—but not an illusion of mind.  Physical reality and immaterial reality are interpenetrating realities.  In this respect, they are one and the same, but that is more a semantic evaluation than an empiric definition.

 

In the end, Idealism will benefit by demoting the monist/dualist argument to a side issue.  Mind does not arise from matter.  They are interactive with each other.  Physicalists have yet to accept that.

 

= = = = = = = = = =

 

My opinion here is restricted to a narrow scope.  It is that Idealism need not overly concern itself with monism / dualism.  The concepts are too ambiguous, and do not lend themselves to practical consequence.

 

Some Idealists seem to be of the opinion that practical consequences are irrelevant, that instead, what is relevant is reason that gets to the truth.  Well and fine, if one actually could get to the final truth, and do so through reason.  I do not think we can.

 

In the intermediate range, I think that some religions do tend toward both, toward truth as far as we can know it, and toward practical applications that help us to overcome our worst instincts, and become a benevolent, altruistic society.

 

Hindu--Buddhist-Eastern philosophies contribute much to the contemplation of inner reality, and have the beneficial aspect of encouraging humility and peaceful benevolence.  It is no coincidence that monasticism is common to both Western and Eastern religions, and resemble each other remarkably.  They are both on to something.

 

In my opinion, Evangelical Christianity, despite the abysmal failures attributed to many of its proponents, does the same as Hinduism, and has enormous potential to do better.  It relies less on reason than on divine revelation, but once divine revelation has set the course, reason is enhanced.  (This idea was eloquently expressed by the late Bishop Fulton J Sheen.)

 

However, this brings us full circle back to the discussion of practical applications.  Once the discussion of monism versus dualism has played its limited role, it should be placed to the back of the classroom, so that the more important and practical consequences of Idealism can be formulated and put into action.

 

One of the great enemies of philosophical progress is secular materialism, a philosophy that regards humans as mere chemicals without an inherent spiritual nature.  Such a philosophy, once it displaces religion, will necessarily tend toward technological barbarism, a society in which humans will be seen as mere tools of the powerful, expendable commodities, disposable at their convenience.

Opposition to that trend is a worthy endeavor, even noble.  Idealism has great potential to undertake that struggle.

.

Why the God Paradigm?

.

        The God Paradigm asserts that, a purely physicalist view of nature, would misdirect the evolution of society toward a technologically empowered barbarism, unprecedented in human history.  The Bible’s final book, The Revelation, foretells that society and its consequence.

        The God Paradigm is neither science nor religion.  It is not science, but it is supported by the scientific evidence and by reason.  It is not religion in that it claims no special authority, and no special revelation except that which is available to everyone.  It is Bible-based, and of course the Bible is superior to it.

        The God Paradigm is a worldview which contradicts physicalism, and which when accepted will help to direct humanity toward fulfillment of our true nature, both individually and collectively, both physically and spiritually.

Only by acknowledging a spiritual basis for physical reality can science ever progress to answer its great questions.

.

Angels (and Demons)

Chapter 16

Are Angels Real?

 

Have you ever heard someone tell you a story that might have been easily dismissed as untrue, but the person telling it could not possibly have been untruthful?

 

There was an elderly lady in her eighties (or maybe nineties) who recounted the following story when she had been asked if she had ever encountered an angel.  I will repeat it as best I can from my fallible memory.  The details are shaky, but the gist of the story is memorable.

 

One Friday afternoon, her gas stove stopped working.  She called an appliance repair service.  The person who answered the phone informed her that, since it was late in the day, and all the repairmen were out on calls, no one would be available until Monday morning.  The person on the phone said, don’t use the gas stove until then.

 

The lady said she was upset, because she lived alone, and would not be able to cook until Monday.  Resigning herself to her fate, and looking forward only to cold meals for the weekend, she hung up the phone and went to her pantry.

 

Just then, there was a knock on the door, and when she opened it, there stood a man with a toolbox and wearing a repairman’s garb.  I’m here to fix your stove, he said.

 

At this point, you had to have been there to see the lady’s demeanor as she seemed to relive her confusion.  But, she said, I was told that no one could get here until Monday.

 

Well, I’m here now.  Can you show me the stove?

 

So, she said, she took the man to the kitchen.  He then pulled the stove from its position at the wall, looked downward, and said, well, there’s the problem right there.  It’s the regulator.  I’ll replace it for you.

 

Kneeling down, he opened his small toolbox.  The only thing it contained was a new regulator, and the two or three tools needed to disconnect it.  Soon, the job was finished.  He pushed the stove back into its position, and tested it.  It worked perfectly.

 

The lady then said, how much do I owe you?

 

The man said, well, wait until you get the invoice.

 

He then left, and the lady enjoyed the weekend.

 

Monday morning, there was a knock on the door.  When the lady opened it, there stood a different man than before, with a toolbox, and wearing a repairman’s garb.  I’m here to fix your stove, he said.

 

Oh no, she replied.  It was repaired last Friday afternoon.

 

Again, you had to have been there.  The man, the lady said, had a confused look on his face, and said, did you call another repair service?

 

No, but right after I hung up the phone, someone was at the door, and he fixed it.

 

As the lady told this story, I got the impression that she did not realize that the repairman either did not believe her, or else, he thought she was mentally confused.

 

So he said to her, well, would you mind if I have a look, just to make sure that the stove is safe to use?

 

She then led him to the kitchen, and allowed the man to pull the stove from its place.  There, the lady said, she noticed that the previous repairman had left the old regulator on the floor, near the newly installed one.

 

The repairman then picked up the old regulator, and said in amazement, I haven’t seen one of these in many years.  I don’t think they even make them anymore.  It’s a good thing he replaced it when he did, because a gas leak from this could be dangerous.  Where did he get it?

 

The lady replied that the previous repairman had had it in his toolbox, with only the necessary tools.

 

I got the impression (from the way the lady told it) that the repairman either did not believe her, or thought she was confused.  He remarked how unlikely it was to have this rare item, and only those tools, in his toolbox.

 

He then asked her where the previous repairman had come from, what company?  The lady said she did not know, but that he had told her to wait for a billing invoice.

 

When you receive the invoice, the man said, could you give me a call?  I’m really curious to talk to this guy.

 

The lady promised to call, as soon as she got the bill.  And I would have, she said, but no bill ever came.

 

Chapter 17

Angels and Demons

 

Angels (and demons) are the subject of much misunderstanding.  In order to clear up those misunderstandings, this chapter will rely on the Bible, as taught by the Baptist Faith, and by sources attached to the Roman Catholic Church^[1] and Jewish tradition.  Any errors in this chapter are mine, not those of the sources.

        The first misunderstanding to clear up is to understand the similarities and differences between humans and angels.

        Angels are not human, and never were.  No human ever becomes an angel, and no angel ever becomes a human.  Angels are of spirit, not of material substance, although some of them can, at times, assume physical appearance, perhaps even to the point of eating material food.  Humans are spiritual beings with a physical component.  Upon death we are temporarily separated from our bodies, but after a future event called the Rapture, we will become forevermore both of spirit and of physical substance, although that future physical substance will be incorruptible.

        Like humans, angels have life, consciousness and free will.  Unlike humans, angels are of several different kinds, and these ranks and choirs, as they are called, are very different from each other, vastly more different than are the races of humans.

        One vital fact to recognize is that one-third of the angels rebelled against God and are as a consequence fallen, having transfixed themselves permanently into evil.  The other two-thirds of angels remained loyal to God, and are now permanently sanctified such that no sin can ever corrupt them.  They are eternally and forevermore, sinless.

        It is important to note that angels are never to be worshipped.  The fallen angel, Satan, sought to be worshipped in place of God.  Angels loyal to God refuse to be worshipped, and instead, themselves worship God and only God.

        How many angels are there?  The Bible tells us that there are myriads of them, but this does not reveal to us a precise number.  It is believed by some scholars who study “angelology” that the number is so large that it is beyond counting.  The question of whether there are an infinite number of angels is perplexing, but the reference in the Bible to one-third of the angels makes better mathematical sense if the number of angels is finite rather than infinite.  In any case, the number of angels is likely beyond human comprehension, possibly greater than the number of grains of sand on the earth, and possibly orders of magnitude greater than that.

        Angels are neither male nor female.  They do not reproduce, nor do they die. The names by which they are referred to, may sometimes coincide with the names of men, such as Michael and Raphael, but this does not mean that the angels themselves have gender, at least nothing that resembles human genders.

        The angels are classified by scholars into three levels, called spheres, and within each of the three spheres, there are three levels called choirs.

        The three spheres are not given specific names, except to order them by number as the first (highest) sphere, the second sphere, and the third (lowest).  Within each sphere there are three choirs, and these are named as follows, from highest to lowest rank:

1.       Seraphim

2.       Cherubim

3.       Thrones

 

4.       Dominions

5.       Virtues

6.       Powers

 

7.       Principalities

8.       Archangels

9.       Angels

Other names for the ranks of angels are used by some scholars.

        The ranks of angels have been diagrammed by some as consisting of circles surrounding God, with the highest order of angels (the Seraphs) being closest to the throne of God, and the lower ranks farther out.  While the higher ranks might be assumed to have authority over the lesser ranks, it is probably incorrect to equate this with earthly authority.  Instead, each sphere and choir has a separate purpose and function in the hierarchy of heaven.  For example on earth, a high government official may have authority over a low ranking technician, but the prime minister does not tell the jet engine mechanic how to do his job, at least not if he intends to safely fly on that aircraft.

        In heaven, the angels have been sanctified, eternally perfected by God Himself, and therefore, no jealousies or conflicts ever arise between angels.  Of course, they never question God, and they worshipfully obey His every command, based on the mutual love between them.

        The God Paradigm diagrams reality as an outer circle, an inner circle, and the center.  The outer band (a doughnut shape) represents the physical world, and also represents, very loosely speaking, the realm of Jesus, who took on physical form to save humans from self-destruction.  I speculate that this outer band is also the realm of the third sphere of angels, which are the Principalities, the archangels and the angels.  I must emphasize that this speculation is only a very loose analogy, for of course Jesus is not restricted, and the angels of any rank go where God directs them.

        The inner disk of the diagram is then, by very loose analogy, the realm of God the Father (who is not restricted), the realm of natural law, and if I may speculate, the realm of the second sphere (Dominions, Virtues and Powers). 

        Finally the absolute center of the diagram, a center which itself has no center, that is, neither a beginning nor an end, represents (very loosely, I continue to emphasize) the Holy Spirit, the Alpha and the Omega, and the realm of the first sphere of angels, the Seraphim, Cherubim and Thrones.

        Although scholars have arranged angels into nine categories, it should be noted that Fr. Pariente taught that each angel is personally unique, not merely in minor detail, but in the very core of its being.  He said that one might go so far as to say that each angel is its own kind of angel.  The spheres and ranks merely group the angels into functions and duties.  Also, there is no possibility of overlap among the spheres— they are as widely separated from each other as is the highest mountain top from the lowest depths of the ocean, and more so.

        Now for a very unpleasant subject, that of the fallen angels, the demons.  We shall touch only on a very few points, ones that in my personal and biased opinion should be important to every Jew and Christian.

        The obvious and painful question is, how was it possible that angels, living in heaven, could rebel against the God who created them?  Even if they thought that such a rebellion had a chance of success, why would they ever even consider it?

        I must begin by saying that there is no answer.  Only those who do rebel against God can give any answer, and certainly that answer must be irrational, and worse than irrational, beyond comprehension.

        The rebellion seems to have begun with Lucifer, and Lucifer seems to have been the highest of all the angels.^[2]  As such, he was closest to God.  Tradition holds that Lucifer was overcome by avarice and jealousy, by a hunger for power that led him to attempt to usurp God and seize the throne for himself.  While these motives may be common among humans who are close to the seat of power in their nations, my suspicion is that Lucifer was not led by temptation, but actually tempted himself.  His free will alone, his decision, his choosing, led him to do the unthinkable, to rebel against the loving God who had given him everything he could ever legitimately desire.  Again, there is no understanding of this, and frankly, I hope never to understand it.

        Just as with Lucifer, those who joined him in the rebellion were not the victims of Lucifer’s powers of persuasion, nor by his powers of deception.  They victimized themselves, each seeking to aggrandize himself with whatever perceived benefit they had deceived themselves into coveting.

        Since heaven exists outside of space and time, there is probably no human way of expressing the events of the rebellion.  We tend to think in terms of, first this happened, and then that happened, which finally led to this result.  In the spiritual realm, however, these might not apply, at least not in any manner we can comprehend.  Nor need we to comprehend any sequence of events, but only the Biblical account.

        After his defeat in heaven, Satan had not learned anything.  He had already transfixed himself into eternal, irreversible evil, and therefore, placed himself beyond ever accepting God’s forgiveness.  He came down to earth, and continues to wage war against God, even knowing that he can never succeed.  One preacher I listened to explained this by saying that although Satan knows that he can never undo the work of salvation by Jesus, although he can never take away our salvation, he can deprive us in this lifetime of the joy of that salvation.

        Imagine if you had been informed that a month from now, you will inherit a billion dollars, but imagine also that nobody believed you when you told them.  Therefore, you could not borrow against the inheritance, nor enjoy any monetary benefit at all from it until you actually get the money, and that there was no possible way to get around these conditions.  You had to live, financially speaking, just as you always have.

        Even though you had not yet received the money, you would probably be overjoyed just knowing that in a short time, you would have all the money you could ever have dreamed of having.  That month might seem like a long time, but even so, you knew that your every financial need would be taken care of.

        This is by no means a perfect analogy, but it represents what every saved Christian should experience, the joy of eternal salvation.  We have an inheritance in heaven that is worth far more than all the money in the world.

        Imagine then that some spiteful person brings great suffering into your life, ruining the joy that you otherwise would feel, making you even forget the promised inheritance, perhaps even causing you to doubt that you would ever receive it.

        That spiteful person is Satan.

        Satan cannot cause you to lose your salvation.  Jesus already paid the price.  Salvation is yours forever.

        Only the saved person himself can cause him to lose his salvation, and that is by accepting the mark of the beast.  This sin is also called, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.  It is not a sin that is easy to commit.  It requires exact knowledge of what one is doing, it requires persistence over a long period of time, and it requires a strenuous act of free will.  During that process, the soul will, figuratively speaking, howl and shriek and try everything to prevent its eternal damnation.  It is easier to walk slowly into a raging furnace than to accept the mark of the beast.

        Even so, many people will accept it.  Why?  Again, no one can explain it.  The self-damning soul must reject God, must reject His love, must refuse His forgiveness.  There is no answer, except that some people will do it.

        Satan may think that it is he who is doing this to so many humans, but he is not.  They do it to themselves.

        The angels in heaven will rejoice at each and every soul who repents of his sin and accepts Jesus as his savior.  The demons will rage and weep, because they know that they can never destroy a soul who has loved Jesus.  When you willfully accept Jesus as your savior right now, Jesus ensures that you will never accept the mark of the beast.  Please pray to Jesus now, to forgive your sins, and to seal you forever as His own.

 

        In heaven, as we said before, the angels know no strife among themselves, but instead, fully cooperate in every way to serve God, and to do His will.  The heavenly angels seek nothing for themselves.

        In Hell, by contrast, the fallen angels, and the condemned humans, have no such motives.  Not only do they hate God, they hate each other.  Not only is Satan jealous of God’s throne, but so is each and every demon and fallen human— jealous not only of God, but of Satan as well.  Each seeks only for himself, each seeks as much as he can get, and each will be satisfied with nothing short of everything.

        They have deprived themselves of every spiritual nourishment, and so they are in a constant state of hunger, but hunger for that which they detest:  love, faith, and charity.  Spiritual needs can be satisfied only by God, only by joyful worship of Him, only by seeking to please Him, even at the cost of one’s own life.  Without these, the human soul is in a state of eternal starvation.  The condemned soul is in a wretched state, and yet it forever refuses redemption.

        Rejoice in your salvation, in the salvation of your brothers and sisters, and in the love of God.

 

---

[1] The Catholic source primarily used here is the book, Beyond Space, by Fr Pascal P Pariente, TAN Books and Publishers, Inc, Rockford IL 61105, ISBN 0-89555-053-9 copyrights 1961 and 1973.

[2] There is some dispute about this, since in Ezekiel 28:14 there is a passage that seems to identify Satan as a Cherub, the second highest rank of angels.  One attempt to explain this is to say that Cherubs were formerly the highest sphere, now superseded by the Seraphs, but to me this seems awkward and unlikely.  In any case, I will not attempt to resolve this issue, as it seems clear that Lucifer was the highest of all angels.

Élan Vital and the Life Force

.

From my very early years, I was interested in the question of, what is life? What is it really?  Not, what does it look like, or what does it do, although I was interested in those also, but what actually, in its essence, is life?
 
I (quite naturally) thought that I might find the answer by studying the science of biology.
 
I imagined that the process would be something like this:  look under a microscope at living cells, until one day, the actual thing that is life could be identified.
 
Needless to say, it doesn’t work that way.
 
I came across a quote from an established biologist who must have had the same attraction to biology that I had had at the beginning.  He said, the more I studied life, the less life I found.
 
What biology scientists have concluded is that life is not a thing; it is a process, a chemical reaction.  However complex that chemical chain reaction is, it is only that, and nothing more.
 
Somehow, I could never believe that.  It seems to me that I am something more than a chemical.
 
At some point, I came across the theory of Élan Vital, the life impetus, more commonly known as the life force.  That, I believe, is what I was looking for.

The trouble is, biologists reject the theory.  And because it is traceable back to the year 1907, and much earlier than that, in many forms, perhaps the idea needs to be updated.


 
My notion is that the life force is what sparks, guides and sustains the chemical reactions associated with life.  It is not an emergent phenomenon of physics, but is better thought of as a fundamental force, but not really a force in the sense of nuclear forces in an atom.  Life is fundamental to nature.
 
To those who decry the notion, we might argue rhetorically that the universe itself is a life force.  After all, the very structure of the universe, from the largest scale to the smallest, is precisely configured to support life.  Moreover, it supports not only primitive life forms, but indeed humanity, with its civilization, technology, science, and all the meaningful activities we associate with life. 
 
Life is closely associated with consciousness and our free will, neither of which can be traced to physics.  Indeed, the inward experience of consciousness cannot be defined adequately, and free will is forbidden by physics.
 
These three, life, consciousness and free will, are at the foundation of physical reality.  Without them, the universe could not exist.  Among those who say it could, even they ask, what would be the point?  
 
Growing evidence points to an intimate connection between those three, and physical reality.  In particular, consciousness, the inward perception of reality, cannot be defined by physical reality.  Peculiarly, consciousness perceives not only outward reality, but even itself.
 
Free will, according to physicalist reality, is impossible.  Free will violates a stated basic property of physical reality, that of cause and effect.  Free will makes us sovereign entities, capable of actions not forced by strict causation.  Also, free will is based neither in determinism nor in randomness.  It is its own thing.
 
Yet, the triad of life, of consciousness and of free will, is what give us our basic identity as human beings.  The attempt to reduce them to the status of happenstance effects of an uncaring universe fails on its face.






 

.

Are Paranormal Phenomena Compatible with the God Paradigm?

 

      For thousands of years, there have been reports of what today are called, paranormal phenomena.  These reports include a wide array of topics, including fortune telling, communications with spirits, extra-sensory perception (ESP), telekinesis (moving of objects by thought), reincarnation (memories of previous lives), mind-reading and various others.

      To this day, many people believe, to one degree or another, that “paranormal” events do occur, at least sometimes.  Anecdotal evidence is abundant, in terms of what people report to have experienced.

      Natural-materialist scientists, however, are exceedingly skeptical.  In many cases, what was (at first) thought to have been strong evidence for paranormal events has been explained as coincidence, optical illusion, and even downright fraud.  Scientists have looked into the matter, and have not produced any compelling, scientific reasons to believe that paranormal events are physically real.

      How is the ordinary person to decide?

      Of course if you have personally encountered such things, for example “ghosts,” then you might be inalterably convinced that spirits of the departed can inhabit (or haunt) a house.  The problem is that, simply being convinced, however firmly, is not proof, unless you can persuade skeptics, based on hard evidence.

      One of the best arguments against believing in fortune telling (to use one example) is that no fortune teller has ever become a millionaire by predicting the outcomes of horse races.  For that matter, none of the reported paranormal phenomena have been useful in any way as far as producing consistently reliable, productive results.

      By contrast, science has produced useful results that are astounding to such a degree that only a few decades ago, say in the 1700s, one might have been burned as a witch for demonstrating the technology that today we take for granted.  It was not ESP that sent men to the moon, or produced microwave ovens.  We do not need merely to “believe,” nor to rely on isolated reports, to credit the rules of science for producing the magnificent gadgets we use every day.

      Why, given all that, do so many people continue to believe in the paranormal, and why do most scientists adamantly reject it?  Are people ignorant?  Are scientists stubborn?  Or are these simple cases of misunderstanding?

      I am an example of someone who has personally encountered paranormal events.  I cannot explain them in “normal” terms, yet at the same time, I understand that there might in fact be a “normal” explanation, although I doubt that there is one.  In that sense, I am somewhat of a microcosm of society in general, and in another sense, in the “no man’s land.”  What am I to think of these experiences?

      As a Christian, I turn to the Bible.  The God Paradigm accepts the Bible completely, and is totally subordinate to it.  Everything in human affairs is best understood in the context of Bible teachings, beginning with the Creation, continuing with the Golden Rule, and finally culminating with our eternal destiny.

      What then, does the Bible say about the paranormal, and how does it compare with what science says?

      In the Bible, the First Book of Samuel, Chapter 28, deals with what today would be called a spiritual medium, someone who communicates with the spirits of the dead.  On the eve of a great battle, King Saul of Israel, in disguise, consults the medium of Endor, and asks her to summon forth the spirit of the deceased prophet Samuel, who had anointed Saul as king.  The medium is very reluctant to do so, for Saul himself had strictly enforced the Jewish law against the summoning of spirits (i.e., divination).  When she relents, and summons Samuel, the woman becomes greatly distressed, for then she perceives that Saul is the one in disguise— but he calms her fears, and commands her to proceed with the séance.  Samuel, for his part, is not pleased at having been disturbed from his place in the spirit world.  Saul then asks Samuel what he should do.  Samuel responds with bad news, predicting that in the battle, Saul and his sons will die, a foretelling which comes to pass.

      In the New Testament book, The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 8, verse 9, there is a further account of divination: “But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:”

      These are two instances (there are others) in which the Bible seems to accept the paranormal as a matter of course.  At the same, time, we must bear in mind this passage:

      Leviticus 20:27 - A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood [shall be] upon them.

      This is the passage which refers to the Jewish law that Saul had enforced, and for which reason the medium at Endor was vexed, in 1 Samuel 28, which we recounted a few lines ago.

      Deuteronomy Chapter 18 deals with proscriptions against divination in the context of the Israelites entrance into the Promised Land, which includes modern day Israel.

      These Bible passages (and others) give us an important picture of how we are to think about the paranormal.  First, the paranormal is real.  Second, we are to steer clear of it.  We are to avoid involvement with spirits of the departed, with fortune telling, and with magic.

      The physical world is connected to the spiritual realms through two avenues of access.  One of them is evil, the other is good.

      In the New Testament book of Matthew, Chapter 4 presents the account of Jesus being tempted by Satan.  Here is an excerpt.

      8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

      9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

      I think that an important point being made in all of these passages is that evil things appeal to our selfish nature, and that when we seek to obtain the false promises of evil, we must worship false gods, thereby losing our souls to evil.  It is vital, then, that we avoid involvement with the paranormal spirit world, and instead restrict ourselves to the physical world, except that we pray to the one true God, and no other.

      If we do happen to encounter the paranormal, how are we to know whether it is good or evil?

      In 1 John Chapter 4 we find this:

1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God; 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.…

 

      Natural-materialism rejects the Bible, and is therefore a false philosophy.  It is leading science astray, and impeding its progress.  Divination is evil, and also leads us astray.

      The third way is God’s way, and it is our only productive path.

Purpose (Does Anything Matter?)

.

When a prominent physicist was asked, does the universe have any purpose (?) he responded, I don’t think so.

That is a strict physicalist viewpoint, and even among many non-physicalists, it is the predominant opinion.

Among other people, for example, Creationists, the universe does have a purpose.  It is to provide a habitat for humanity (no reference to the house-building charity of the same name).  The habitat is not merely a house, but a complex environment which permits civilization, technology, art, and all the other meaningful activities of human beings.

The question of whether the universe has a purpose should not be lightly dismissed, not even by strict physicalists.  How we characterize reality has a direct bearing on how we perceive ourselves.  That, in turn, strongly influences how we treat others.

Does anything matter?  Life is exceedingly short.  It has been said that if humans were somehow to truly understand how ephemeral we are, how our lifespans are almost an unnoticeable flicker in the span of the universe—then we would either be in a panic, or else, frantically hastening to achieve something worthwhile while yet there is time.

If the universe has no purpose, if life has no empiric meaning, then all of reality is a moral wilderness.  If so, then there are no moral laws, no noble principles, except those which we arbitrarily contrive.  We contrive them for what purpose, if there is no purpose?  To comfort ourselves during our infinitesimal instant of a lifespan?  To justify our existence?  To excuse our deeds?

If there is no purpose, if we have no soul, if life is the “brief candle” mentioned in Macbeth after which there is nothing but “a tale told by an idiot,” then on what grounds do we pretend to be anything more than a molecule that soon dissolves?  Under that circumstance, all our pontifications about what is right and wrong, who is right or wrong—all that reduces us to the status of pompous asses, hypocrites making noises that are meaningless and futile.

On the other hand, if we do have souls, then there are indeed meaning and purpose in life, and we had better seek them and act accordingly.

.