The Cell That Binds Us

God gave us an intelligent mind to question and to explore the mysteries of His universe. He really left nothing to blind faith. As humans, we are free to be inquisitive about everything. And, why shouldn't we be? Given that we possess limited knowledge of any subject, we can expand our views or change them. Subjects large and small challenge our understandings. 

Consider the human cell. Often called the building block of life, the cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms and the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing. A typical human cell size is 10 microns of a metre (One micron is one thousandth of a millimetre.) while a typical cell mass is 1 nanogram. Some organisms are unicellular; others such as human beings are multicellular. Humans have an estimated 100 trillion cells. Still, we know very little about the complexities of the basic building block of the cell.

Hamlet, speaking of a human being, could be also referring to man's complex cellular structure in the famous quote: "What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet, to me, what is this quintessence of dust?" After all, human cells represent the origin of life. All  intelligence and other function spring from the lives of the cells.

According to their Greek derivation, two terms refer to the origin of life. Biogenesis is the theory that life originates only from pre-existing life; while the theory of abiogenesis implies that life may also spring from inorganic matter as such.

In the natural sciences, abiogenesis is the study of how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how groups of living things change over time. Many people confuse these studies. They mistakenly argue that abiogenesis and evolution are one and the same. In fact, evolution is the body of theory that seeks to explain how life got to be so diverse. It begins where abiogenesis ends.

Whether people believe life came to be in a primordial soup of organic broth, in small molecules as metabolism first, in alien microbe panspermia, in deep sea vents, or in the hands of the Creator, to this day no one really knows the answer. 95% of biologists in the National Academy of Science are either atheist or agnostic. (Nature, Volume 394, No. 6691, July 23 1998)

Study of Life 

So, should our government be engaged in official promotion of the exclusively secular, materialist worldview inherent in neo-Darwinian theory in our nation’s public schools, universities and research institutions? Why? 

A 2005 national survey by the Harris polling agency found that 54% of U.S. adults say they do not believe humans evolved from earlier species, while 64% believe that human beings were created directly by a god. 55% of American adults believe that evolution, creationism, and intelligent design should be taught in public schools. (The Harris Poll Interactive, www.harrisinteractive.com, July 6 2005)

No one can rule out the role of a Supreme God responsible for Intelligent Design.The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of anintelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.

Ben Stein in the film “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” rejects the notion that “the case is closed,” and exposes the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate, opposing scientific views to the reigning orthodoxy. (Ben Stein, www.expelledthemovie.com, December 31, 2009)

Stein presents a very apt question: "Should the enterprise of science somehow be treated differently from all other forms of human knowledge, and accorded a special privilege that exempts it from robust debate or inquiry, especially when such debate or inquiry may alter viewpoints that raise important questions concerning larger issues that extend beyond the limits of science itself?"

A Religious View

The Catholic Church (H. Muckermann, 1907. Biogenesis and Abiogenesis. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved December 31, 2009 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02571a.htm) stated the argument in the following manner:

"...assumptions are arbitrary. Scientific research has established the cell as the simplest and lowest unit of visible independent life. No living organism has as yet been discovered that did not contain at least two essential elements of great complexity: a granule of chromatin and some amount of cytoplasmic substance. Deprive of these constituents no cell continues to live. 

"Hence, if life ever originated from inorganic matter, it had to appear in the form of an organized cell. Invisible biophorids are no more capable of life than the visible chromatin granules, whose parts they are supposed to be. Even if such entities as biophorids could live independently, they could not have originated spontaneously; for however primitive an organism beimagined, it must at least be capable of nourishing itself, of propagating its kind, and of evolving into higher specific forms . But such a diversity of function supposes a differentiation of structure, made up of different chemical compounds of high tension and continuously unstable equilibrium. Besides, there must be in the most primitive biophorids aperfect correlation of parts and a purposeful anticipation of future ends, tending towards the gradual perfection of individual and species. 

"But crystals, as well as all chemical combinations and mixtures, show clearly that inorganic matter as such tends toward stability of equilibrium and homogeneity of structure. How, then, did those complicated chemical compounds of unstable equilibrium which composed the first organisms originate, especially since, at the beginning, the crust of the earth, totally burnt, was in the desolatecondition of perfect oxidation?

"Besides, it is hard to see how the energy of the sun could serve to reduce the ashes, since today that action depends on the presence of chlorophyll and similar substances, which again are products of cells. Even if some form of energy would at once commence continually to unite the atoms to such unstable and complicated bodies as the phosphoric proteids, there is still wanting a directive to build up, by means of existing matter and energy, the chemical compounds into correlated structures, and to make them active organisms. 

Matter, then, can never, not even under the most favorable circumstances, produce either living cells or living biophorids, and hence we conclude thatlife owes its origin to God, the Creator of matter and energy."

 

In Support of Intelligent Design

The truth is that a staggering amount of new scientific evidence has emerged since Darwin’s 150-year-old theory of life’s origins. Darwin had no concept of DNA, microbiology, The Big Bang, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or of the human genome. To simply accept Darwin's theory seems to deny new evidence related to his concepts.

Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).

Random events and random mutations are really not good explanations for the origin of life. If life is meant to be purposeful, the inherent function of life leads to the explanation of its formation by one Creator. According to Robert Deyes and John Calvert, "Natural selection may do a reasonable job of fine-tuning an existing population, but it is not a friend of innovation." (Deyes and Calvert, "We Have No Excuse: A Scientific Case For Relating Life to Mind," November 28 2009)


"What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world."  -- Albert Einstein

 

Eye Candy For the Soul

See Myself In You

"If I met you, on the corner,
Would I know you, as you are?
Would I take you, for a stranger,
And brush past you in the door?
If you called me, would I hear you,
Or would I walk away too soon?
If I lingered for a moment,
Would I see myself in you?"     

Written by Tom Kimmel and Tom Prasada-Rao
Recorded by Randy Travis

Don't we seem to seek some glimmer of our own reflection in most everything we seek to approve? In defense of a "likes attract better than opposites" theory, a study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found a strong link between how the individuals perceived themselves as a mate and what they looked for in a mate. For example, someone who ranked himself or herself highly on physical appearance also placed a high level of importance on finding that particular trait in a mate. (BBC News, news.bbc.co.uk, July 1, 2003)

In this study, participants rated the importance of various attributes they wanted to find in a long-term mate in four basic categories: wealth and status, family commitment, physical appearance, and sexual fidelity. Then, they ranked themselves on these same traits. The findings suggest humans use a "likes attract" rule when finding a long-term mate.

"The implication of this result is that in an open marriage market, individuals of low self-perception will find it hard to find and keep a satisfactory partner, because such partners will themselves be seeking individuals of higher mate quality," wrote researchers Peter Buston and Stephen Emlen of the department of neurobiology and behavior at Cornell University in New York.

The "Click" Switch

Research aside, don't most of us make "snap" judgments about some very important aspects of our lives? Our eyes see, our ears hear, and we quickly file new information based on our weak experience and our personally prejudicial generalizations. "Something about him just didn't feel right." or  "He had a certain look about him."  or  "What's up with that funny little comment he made?" We really have no clue about our uncertainties, but we choose to trust unreliable intuition and gut reaction. It seems that either the person or thing in question "clicks" our "switch" or not.

When we see ourselves in others, we tend to associate that person with trust that quickly ignites a safe, familiar understanding that pleases us. Intentional or not, a vibe enters the equation of human feelings. Anyone who has interviewed personnel knows the significant power of first impression. If we fail to find traces of ourselves in the eyes, voice, appearance, and manners of our subject, we lose initial connection. Nothing "clicks" our switch of approval.

Is it logical, then, to discard anything that we sense is different from us? Of course not, but we often choose avoidance as an acceptable behavior. We purposely cut ties and offer lame excuses for our dislikes. We all have been guilty of pushing something aside for no other reason than it fails to project a bit of ourselves. No matter what age or stage of life we occupy, we have been conditioned to believe our impressions are the right impressions.

 
In a Perfect World

If Nirvana did exist and all the fires of greed, hatred, and delusion had been extinguished, liberation of minds would flow with endless compassion. Humans would view each soul as essential to their own journey. But, we live in the real world of goodness mixed with evil intention. Life on earth is quick, flawed and unforgiving. We ride the carousel around a few times and desperately try to grab those things we most adore before our painted ponies expire. Failure creates desperation and confusion.

Do we honestly believe our brief exploration for mystical perfection will produce notable results? Almost every day  people hurry to position themselves in the scurrying patterns of human traffic to arrive, perform, and head back home, only to wash, rinse, and repeat the routine the next morning. The death trap of routine becomes comfortable to most. The most comfortable surround themselves with passions that "feel right" or "look right" to them.

Wide gaps between the "Haves" and the "Have-Nots" help isolate the groups and help justify reasons to hate. Axioms such as "You have to work for it"  or  "You made your own bed, now lie in it"  or  "There will always be poor and suffering people" provide fine insulation. Labels applied to others -- "disadvantaged" or "high class" or "trailer trash" -- identify friends and foes. Beliefs cause extreme controversy -- right wing, liberal, fundamental, radical. What side are you on, brothers and sisters? 

What Can We Do to See Ourselves in Others?

To be honest, I think most of us will do very little to expand our comfort zones of greater acceptance. Values we respect can be very unforgiving principles. It seems we would like to leave the sole responsibility for redemption to God. Like Pontius Pilate, we wash our hands of the ugly matters and declare, "I am innocent of this man's blood; you will see." History will make judgments at some later date.

Expanding our circles beyond family and a few close friends, we live and die. The best most of us can do for those foreign in our environment is to say, "I'm sorry" or "God bless you and help you with your misfortune."

Can you see yourself in each of these situations?

1. A pregnant woman standing with her four children in a line at the Welfare Office.
2. A forty-five year-old murderer who has already served twenty-five years, repentant and born again in Christ, sitting at a parole hearing.
3. A twenty-two year-old man, who had been molested by a priest from age 10-15, convicted of rape.
4. A Mexican illegal alien picking crops in California and paying no income taxes.

Polar Plunge 2010

OK, it's the time of year for all the area stout and hearty to take their annual dip into the Ohio River. Yes, welcome the 2009 Polar Plunge. Ryan Scott Ottney of the Portsmouth Daily Times reports, "The day will begin January 1 at the Blockhouse Bar, located at 1107 Lawson St., in Portsmouth (next to Portsmouth Little Theater), where divers will meet at about 10:30 a.m. for breakfast. Afterwards, they will all get into a caravan with Portsmouth Shriners, and drive to the Court Street Landing along the Ohio River. When the clock hands go up, reaching for noon, divers go down into the cold Ohio River." Anyone, from recommended ages of 8-to-80, is invited to the event.

The obvious question, of course, is "Why?" January and the Ohio River and humans aren't very compatible to most minds; however, a large group of freezing humans loves to perform this stunt. The Polar Bear Club of Scioto County is looking forward to their icy submersion. Sam Simon says, they’re “freezin’ for a reason.” Divers collect pledges ($5-$10) and sponsors to raise money for local charities. The Polar Bear Club has traditionally raised money for local Boy Scouts and Simon will continue that tradition himself this year, but divers this year are free to select their own charities.

So far, about 80 divers have signed up for this year's plunge. And, to assuage the timid, Simon reports not one person has gotten sick from the cold in past dives. He says, "It’s really, truly like a thousand needles hitting you at the same time. It’s exhilarating and gives you an adrenaline rush. It’s exciting. It’s not as bad as you think it is, and you feel really good coming out of that water.” All right, so some could skip the "needles" sensation, but think of the possible rewards of sympathy after the ordeal.

Just a Few Obvious Observations

1. Most divers will probably fill up with a little antifreeze before hitting the icy waters.

2. Bikinis and revealing dress seem to be very popular attire for the most daring.

3. The attraction, as pictured in the photo, draws largely from the young population.

4. The water contaminants, not the cold, would seem to be the most serious risk.

A Few Suggestions

1. Require trained divers, fire department, and EMTs on site for assistance with those who aren’t strong swimmers or for potential accidents.

2. Insist on mandatory waivers of liability that all plungers must read and sign for pre-registration.

3. Have all plungers under 18 submit a waiver signed by a parent or guardian.

4. Encourage all participants to dress in vibrant, creative costumes to create a colorful spectacle.

5. Don't plunge if you suffer from any serious heart or other medical condition.

6. Create teams to compete against each other for the honor of collecting the most contributions and to encourage team themes of dress and cooperation.

7. Have a photographer on hand for individual and team photos -- money goes to charity. 

8. Challenge all "tough-people" agencies such as police, fire, and union personnel to compete as teams.

9. Collect contributions to plunge local bosses and special personalities.

10. Possibly broadcast on the site with local media. Songs - "Cold As Ice" Foreigner, "In the Cold, Cold Night" White Stripes, "Cold Turkey" John Lennon, "Tenth Avenue Freeze Out" Bruce Springsteen, etc.

Plungers, have fun and be careful. Wear your protective shoes and don't foolishly endanger yourselves by being "tanked" or venturing too far from shore. Take a good, hot shower and scrub the river water off with some antibacterial soap. Maybe a local school could offer shower facilities? Here's hoping you raise a lot of money for charity. After all, the event is for good causes, and you could live in Canada -- brrrr.

Jack Greenberg Parties On... and On

I heard a great story on WLW radio last Saturday morning. It is so unusual that I marveled at the ingenuity and the thoughtfulness of the entire concept. The man who founded the idea was described by many as "considerate, personal, and creative." Jessica Brown (jlbrown@enquirer.com, December 25 2009) originally reported the story under the headline "For a Dead Guy, He Throws a Great Party."

Greenberg was a successful businessman, having operated several companies ranging from real estate, to construction, to aviation, to pizza. Now, he is garnering headlines for the wealth he accumulated from these ventures.

A 2006 article in Cincinnati's Jewish Living magazine described Jack Greenberg as a" mensch" - a Yiddish term to describe a good, admirable person. A normally private man, Greenberg was tickled when the magazine printed the feature article on him, Irwin Katzman, his longtime friend and an attorney for 60 years, said. So, Katzman decided to talk to the media about Greenberg's unusual trust. He thought Greenberg would get a kick out of the publicity.

Jessica Brown of the Cincinnati Enquirer reported the Jack Greenberg story: "Jack Greenberg, of Symmes Township, throws himself one heck of a birthday party every year: lunch and limousine service for 37 friends and their guests, a nice speech about himself, group photographs, and gifts of $1,500 for each invitee. But the party, which takes place today, has one quirk - Greenburg is dead." (December 25, 2009) And, to add to the irony, he never made a fuss about his birthday when he was alive.

At the age of 82, Greenberg died on February 9, 2008. An astute and successful businessman, he had amassed roughly $10 million through his various businesses and investments. He also established a very unique trust to pay for a special birthday annually for 20 years or until the $1.5 million in the trust runs out.

Attorney Katzman helped Greenberg create the trust and is trustee of the estate. "He gave it a substantial amount of thought," Katzman said. Steven Wilhelm, who handles trusts and wealth management for U.S. Bank agreed with Katzman. "I've seen some pretty unique trust provisions," he said. "This caps them all." Katzman and Wilhelm declined to release contact information for the guests, but, according to Katzman, Greenberg knew exactly how he wanted his money to be spent. Greenberg had been meticulous in his instructions for the Jack M. Greenberg Party Trust.

Here, from Jessica Brown's report (jlbrown@enquirer.com, December 25 2009) is how the party was (and is to be) celebrated:


1. Several stretch limousines picked up the invitees and their guests at the Marriott RiverCenter in Covington. They caravaned to the Love Brothers Cemetery, a Jewish cemetery in Price Hill, where the guests gathered at Greenberg's grave and placed a stone on his tombstone.


2. Then, Katzman read a letter from Greenberg. Guests posed for a group photograph at 12:30 p.m. on the dot, then departed via the limousines at 12:35 p.m.

3. The times were stressed in the paperwork because "time is of the essence," Greenberg stated.


4. Then, the group went back to the hotel to eat lunch and reminisce about the guest of honor.

Why did Greenberg create the uncommon trust? "Greenberg thought the memorial birthday parties would be a good way for his friends to get to know each other after he died," said Wilhelm. "He figured that he enjoyed each of them, so they'd probably enjoy each other as well," said Wilhelm. "He wanted to perpetuate the friendship over time." Greenberg was stubborn about the people to be included in the list.

"We had our fights," Katzman admitted. Katzman almost quit once because Greenberg kept changing his mind about whom he wanted on the birthday invitation list. Ultimately, Katzman had Greenberg put the names in a safe deposit box at U. S. Bank. Whenever Greenberg wanted to change the list, he went to the bank and did it himself.

In addition to the birthday party, Greenberg also donated:


• 20 fully-equipped ambulances - one a year for 20 years - to the American Red Magan David for Israel (ARMDI), Israel's equivalent of the Red Cross. The ambulances are manufactured in Indiana at a cost of $75,000 each. Last year Katzman arranged for the donated ambulance to park at the cemetery during the birthday cemetery visit. This year they will view a photograph of the vehicle.


• $75,000 a year for three years to the Jewish National fund, based in New York, to plant trees in Israel. The forest is to be named after Greenberg.


• $1 million to the Jewish Federation of Cincinnati for new construction at the Jewish Community Center/ A plaque in the fitness center bears Greenberg's name.

Postscript

Here are a few negative replies from readers of the Greenberg story. Of course, many positive comments were written too. I did not include the comments of praise from readers because much is said about the kindness of the man in the article. I'm interested to see what readers think about Mr. Greenberg. Since, I, of course, never knew the man, I do not include these reader comments to detract in any way from the memory of Jack Greenberg. Instead, I am interested in the human reactions to a real story.

"Any psychiatrist would be of the opinion that Jack had perfectly fit the prototype of narcissistic personality disorder. I knew Jack personally, but I am also speaking as a psychiatrist. People such as Jack have cognitive distortions which stem from endless grandiosity. It is no surprise to me that he would have left substantial funds for people to celebrate his life each year, for twenty years after his death, rather than leaving it all to charity and/or family." -- Psychiatrist

"Don't kid yourselves, Jack was a jerk who treated everyone no matter who you were like crap. If you knew the Real Jack then you wouldn't think he was a nice or generous man. The only people who can say this didn't know him that well. The only reason people come to his "party" every year is because they get paid to." -- Denise

"Speaking as his nephew, one shouldn't assume they know a person by reading a sensationalized newspaper story. Trust me on this. For example, although Uncle Jack and my dad Roger weren't particularly close, Jack never saw fit to notify us about dad's death when it happened. Perhaps it was due to the stigma of dad committing suicide, perhaps not, but heck, Uncle Jack didn't even CALL US or put an obit in the American Israelite paper. I received notice about dad's death two weeks after it happened from a friend of a friend who read about it. By then, we didn't even have a chance to give dad a proper Jewish burial because Jack had already had him cremated. To this day, I STILL don't even know where dad's ashes are. As for Uncle Jack's generosity, he never offered my dad any help at all (dad had very little), didn't call US for more than 30 years, and my brother and I weren't left a penny from Uncle Jack's estate." -- Randy

When you were a young child, you just didn't understand why people didn't do everything you wanted them to do. You definitely needed more attention in your youth; most others realized this, and they felt obliged to give into your wishes most of the time. In essence, you were spoiled. Most children are overindulged, and this behavior is commonly accepted and even respected as doting kindness.

Then, you began to mature, and you became less annoyed when others ignored your requests unless they happened to be in your close circle of friends. Still, while you were in the process of maturation, most of those closest to you frequently fulfilled your wishes as they understood your need for acceptance. They understood that in order to bolster your positive self-concept, they had to continue their contributions to your occasional whims and fancies. In fact, your best friends would often give in, regardless of their displeasure, to prove their allegiance.

But, somewhere along the line to adulthood and the forced responsibilities that accompanied growing older, you understood that fewer people shared your identical convictions and practiced your same behavior. As you became more independent, those around you began to judge you based on oceans of experience and familiarity. As your cradle became the classroom and suddenly the classroom became the world, you also began to understand that others saw granting your indulgences as less important. Human behavior and response followed their natural path as the gates to individualism swung wide.



One of life's hardest lessons became the old axiom: "Life doesn't owe you anything." And, this stark statement revealed its truth over and over until its ever-settling nature sank to its proper place on the bedrock of your ideals. Many other lessons about responsibility and initiative and justice soon tangled their lines of comprehension around this anchor of grim acceptance. You didn't really want to believe that loneliness was included in the bargain, and many didn't comprehend detachment's impact until their first touch of finality -- total rejection, tragedy, or death.

Grace and humility grew to become important, valued virtues after you became witness to the raw nature of your human condition. Displays of grace, freely given and often even unmerited, rekindled the spirits of favor and mercy seated deep within your system of values. The grace you received soothed many festering wounds that otherwise might have deepened; the grace you gave created new means of continued loving involvement.

However, humility was considered the first virtue inasmuch as it removed the obstacles to faith. It lessened your pride and made you a person subject to and a fit recipient of grace. And, humility prevented vanity from bloating your extended ego.While humility lowered these concepts of self-importance, it increased your wisdom and unity.

And, during the process of attending to the demands of increased involvement in the society, you decided to
solidify your plans for your personal satisfaction. At what point would you want others to do your will? How much of your dreams and hopes were you willing to call your own responsibility? And, what were you willing to sacrifice and endure to get what you wanted?

I believe people often use too much. They use excuses, resources, scapegoats, politics, religion, and other people for more instant gratification than at any other time I can recollect from my 59 years of memory. And, many people don't use these things in a communal sense at all. Their only measure of success is related to the power they can achieve through using the systems they instill in their lives. Success, to most, is measured in volumes of earthly attainments.

So many today look for a token of achievement or a reward of existence. They expect the "give me" for their choices. "Give me money, give me an easy way out, give me the answers, give me someone to complain about, give me an Amen for my religious fervor, give me anything I can manipulate for my own good." Aren't these people just like the infants I refer to in the first paragraph? Not everyone is going to be blessed with everything because they bleat like lost sheep. I've seen so much waste and so much mindless adherence that I wonder if the public can even reason without being prompted. Maybe a little personal responsibility would be a novel approach to the begging and blaming games.

Indeed, if you are poor, you are blessed. If you are lonely, you are blessed. If you feel you lack the benefits of privilege, you are blessed. Blessed also are the weak, meek, and mild-mannered. And still, humans somehow sympathize with those in these lesser states while stepping over them and carefully avoiding soiling their expensive garments in the process. Lip service blessings from those in positions above seldom drop to those closest to the cold ground. Maybe the true importance of life would be revealed to those above if the lessons of the disadvantaged could rise from the depths below.

Matthew 6:1-4
"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven "So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Throwing Words Into Spaces

In the past year or so, I have posted 423 times. Writing a blog is pretty lonely business, but I am inclined to indulge in solitary fancies, so I guess the composition habit fits my personality. People normally don't read the posts, so I find I basically entertain myself by increasing my understanding of different topics and issues.

To be honest, most would find this exercise quite fruitless and needlessly laborious. I understand their point of view, respect it, but continue to write, anyway. By this time, I am pretty stubborn about pounding out letters and words that seldom find human touch. Call these exercises "shots in the dark" or "echoes from a stoney canyon." If all they do is rattle around for a few days, then they seem to be worth the production.

Every writer knows about the importance of audience and the benefits of readership. Some writers must have a daily injection of feedback to operate efficiently; others see writing as more of an obligation to self. I am of the latter school of thought. Although I would love to share my posts with many, I still treasure what I learn about myself when I press the keyboard. A personal satisfaction flows from each piece I write.

If you have never felt this kind of release and recovery from your personal writing, you may question this pleasure. I can assure you, writing your own words is addictive and often time consuming; however, writing can cause a catharsis through releasing emotions.

Great minds since ancient times have debated the value of purging and cleansing emotions. For example Plato contended that poetry encouraged men to be hysterical and uncontrolled. Yet, in response to Plato, Aristotle maintained that poetry makes them less, not more, emotional, by giving a periodic and healthy outlet to people's feelings.Aristotle employed catharsis as a medical metaphor. He stated, "It is the human soul that is purged of its excessive passions."

"In real life," Aristotle explained, "men are sometimes too much addicted to pity or fear, sometimes too little; tragedy brings them back to a virtuous and happy mean." (F.L. Lucas, Tragedy in Relation to Aristotle's Poetics) Tragedy is then a corrective; through watching tragedy the audience learns how to feel these emotions at the proper levels. Some modern interpreters of the work infer that catharsis is pleasurable because audience members felt ekstasis (Greek: ἔκστασις) (ecstacy) (literally: astonishment, meaning: trance) from the fact that there existed those who could suffer a worse fate than them was to them a relief.

I find writing most enjoyable when fluency pushes the process toward discovery as emotions help fill the sails, thus making stronger the movement of the vessel. I seldom know where the journey will end. Still, new discoveries along the way sometimes feed my mind and alter my course. My perceived destination becomes secondary to the journey as I pick up small treasures along the way. In truth, this initial adventure never ends...I merely stop at some appropriate place. I wait there for others to comment and increase my own comprehension of the chosen subject.

Yes, I know "it's all been said before." Writing, like my other passion -- music, is basically practice copied from those who have mastered style and expression, and I am guilty of patterning composition. When I am fortunate enough to add something coined uniquely by my limited talents, I feel very blessed.

To me, creating ideas is really like hitting a baseball: the missed swings only remind me that I am one step closer to a sweet connection. To drive the pitch for a single or, very less often, for a home run increases my self confidence. The challenge is most exciting when the pitches are the toughest, and, of course, the rewards of swatting these balls are the most satisfying. Yes, I know about the .300 hitter and the number of times the Babe struck out. Hitting an idea squarely is never easy and no one is content to strike out.

Well, it's taken a long time to say exactly what I intended to say in this post. I don't know if a summary is necessary, but I feel the need to re-emphasize. If you want to process priceless, rich information, go to the library and check out the classic authors. Build your insight from the ideas of professional wordsmiths who excel at the craft. Push every understanding a step beyond simple comprehension. And, use your knowledge to make the world a better place.

If, however, you want to wander some twisty paths, occasionally enjoy the adventures of getting lost, and communicate with other humans like yourself, read blogs. As common and worthless as they may seem, blogs represent the faults and flounderings of  "word people." Some are explosive and loud with content. Others, like mine, exist mainly for self interest and for an occasional reader to stumble upon.

Better yet, start your own. I have earned a whopping $8.26 for my work on the blog. Now, let's see -- that is less than $0.02 an entry. So, you're probably not going to get rich writing a blog. Yet, I can at least say that I have got my two cents worth.

Do Souls Really "Fly Away"?

Maria Shriver's children's book called What's Heaven describes it as "a beautiful place where you can sit on soft clouds and talk... If you're good throughout your life, then you get to go [there]... When your life is finished here on earth, God sends angels down to take you heaven to be with him." What wonderful, comforting words for any child first contemplating the reality of death. But, most Christians believe the Biblical truth is very different.

Haven't all we good Protestants been taught as children that there are two permanent locations for our soul after death -- Heaven or Hell? And, when we were young, weren't we told that the rapid journey happened shortly after the death of the physical body? I think adults conveyed this concept of instant resurrection to children because of the children's fears, their poor ability to handle such a complex topic, and their lack of critical Biblical understanding. In fact, Hell was often totally disregarded when the final destination talks surfaced. Thoughts of the devil were undoubtedly unsettling to innocent minds.

Then, as we grew older, we began reading the real text of the Bible ourselves. We found that Christianity teaches that the soul is separated from the body and continues to exist forever.The term resurrection of the dead is generally used to refer to the idea that the dead bodies of all or some of humanity will be reformed and reanimated at the End Times, and ascension will commence as resurrection of the dead to face God on Judgment Day. It seems the qualities of the resurrected body will be different from those of the body laid in the grave, but its identity will nevertheless be preserved; it will still be the same body which rises again. Is it no wonder that clouds of confusion began to test our beliefs? To grasp this meaning requires critical reading and thoughtful contemplation.

What Does a Christian Believe About Resurrection?

The centrality of the resurrection is seen clearly by two references to it in the Nicene Creed, which contains two resurrection clauses within its short length:

*  Jesus "was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father"


*  believers "look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

So, naturally, we wondered just what was to be the end state of the resurrected person at sometime after the death of an earthly body. This point of contemplation led to these possibilities:

• only spiritual, a body adapted to the use of the soul in its glorified state, and to all the conditions of the heavenly state
• physical and spiritual resurrection
• glorious, incorruptible, and powerful
• like unto the glorified body of Jesus, based on the power and gift of His atonement 

Then, we turned to the most famous work of Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274), the Summa Theologica. It was intended as a manual for beginners as a compilation of all of the main theological teachings of the time. It summarizes the reasoning for almost all points of Christian theology in the West, which, before the Protestant Reformation, subsisted solely in the Roman Catholic Church. Here, we found that spiritual beings that have been restored to glorified bodies will have the following basic qualities: 

*Impassibility (immortal / painless) — immunity from death and pain
*Subtility (permeability) — freedom from restraint by matter 
*Agility — obedience to spirit with relation to movement and space (the ability to move through space and time with the speed of thought) 
*Clarity — resplendent beauty of the soul manifested in the body (as when Jesus was transfigured on Mount Tabor) (Father John A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism)

And, soon what began in our lives as "soft cloud conversation" became the greatest mystery of all time. Heaven and souls and afterlife and infinity? Many seek to jolt us into believing in a new existence with threats of hellfire. Others choose to ignore the parts disliked and calmly reassure us that God has prepared "our mansion in the sky." As Christians, we all realize the importance of accepting Jesus as our savior, yet we would still like an idea of who we will be and where we will dwell eternally. Not all Biblical scholars agree on those subjects.

 Heaven In an Earthly View

One of the most formidable figures in the world of Christian thought is N.T. "Tom" Wright. The Senior Anglican bishop and theologian spoke of “the idea of bodily resurrection that people deny when they talk about their ‘souls going to Heaven,'" adding: “I've often heard people say, ‘I'm going to heaven soon, and I won't need this stupid body there, thank goodness.’ That's a very damaging distortion, all the more so for being unintentional.” Instead, Wright explains: “In the Bible we are told that you die, and enter an intermediate state." This is "conscious," but "compared to being bodily alive, it will be like being asleep." This will be followed by the resurrrection into new bodies, he says. (David Van Biema, Time, February 7 2008)

Wright related that Paul speaks of "the redemption of our bodies" (Rom. 8:23). He is convinced there is no reason to doubt what Paul means: God's people are promised a new type of bodily existence, the fulfillment and redemption of the present bodily life. He is confident that the rest of the early Christian writings, where they address the subject, are completely in tune with this. Again, redemption of "our bodies."

According to Wright, "Never at any point do the Gospels or Paul say 'Jesus has been raised, therefore we are all going to heaven.' They all say, 'Jesus is raised, therefore the new creation has begun, and we have a job to do... ' What the New Testament really says is God wants you to be a renewed human being helping him to renew his creation, and his resurrection was the opening bell. And when he returns to fulfill the plan, you won't be going up there to him, he'll be coming down here." (David Van Biema, Time, February 7 2008)

The Future Body

The risen Jesus is both the model for the Christian's future body and the means by which it comes. Wright stated, "The clearest and strongest passage is Romans 8:9–11. If the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jesus the Messiah, dwells in you, says Paul, then the one who raised the Messiah from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies as well, through his Spirit who dwells in you." (N.T. Wright, "Heaven Is Not Our Home," Christianity Today, March 24, 2008)

Addressing Jesus' words in the scripture "there are many dwelling places in My Father's house," Wright contended the word for "dwelling places" in the verse, monai, is regularly used in ancient Greek not for a final resting place, but for a temporary halt on a journey that will take you somewhere else in the long run.

Resurrection itself then appears as what the word always meant in the ancient world. Wright said, "It wasn't a way of talking about life after death. It was a way of talking about a new bodily life after whatever state of existence one might enter immediately upon death. It was, in other words, life after life after death."

And Science Co-exists Naturally In the "Hands of God"


John Polkinghorne, believed to be one of the greatest living writers and thinkers concerning science and religion and a truly world-class scientist turned priest, stated, “Is not a mere happy accident, but it is a sign that the mind of the Creator lies behind the wonderful order that scientists are privileged to explore.” In short, “the activity of science is recognized to be an aspect of the imago Dei. (image of God)” He has described the process this way: "God will download our software onto his hardware until the time he gives us new hardware to run the software again for ourselves."

Polkinghorne's views covered two things nicely: that the period after death is a period when we are in God's presence but not active in our own bodies, and also that the more important transformation will be when we are again embodied and administering Christ's kingdom. (John Polkinghorne, "How the Resurrection Makes Sense," March 4 1999)

Of course, according to Polkinghorne, as far as embodiment in the matter of this world is concerned, the individual pattern that is the human soul will be dissolved at death. It makes sense, however, to believe that God will hold that pattern in the divine memory and then reembody it in the environment of the new creation at the resurrection of the dead. In this manner, He rules as a re-creator.

Wright agrees and contended that The Wisdom of Solomon, a Jewish text from about the same time as Jesus, says "the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God," and that seems like a poetic way to put the Christian understanding, as well.

Polkinghorne agreed that "the real me is certainly not the matter of my body. That is changing all the time, through eating and drinking, wear and tear. We have very few atoms in our bodies that were there five years ago. What provides the continuity is the almost infinitely complex pattern in which matter is organized. That pattern is the soul, the real me." The soul is piece of the Holy Spirit that completes existence.

An Incorruptible New World

God's future inheritance is the incorruptible new world and the new bodies that are to inhabit that world.The deceased are already kept safe, waiting, so that they can be brought to birth in the new heavens and new earth.

The mission of the church is in the outworking power of the Spirit, of Jesus' bodily resurrection. The Church works for the anticipation of the time when God will fill the earth with his glory, transform the old heavens and earth into the new, and raise his children from the dead to populate and rule over the redeemed world he has made.

Have many Christians have been on a journey of long-term schizophrenia? Wright said, "The split between saving souls and doing good in the world is not a product of the Bible or the gospel, but of the cultural captivity of both. The world of space, time, and matter is where real people live, where real communities happen, where difficult decisions are made, where schools and hospitals bear witness to the 'now, already' of the gospel while police and prisons bear witness to the 'not yet.'" We must get on with the work at hand.

So, maybe the Church is here to claim earth in advance as the place of God's Kingdom. If that is true, the whole world is now God's holy land, and people must not rest as long as that land is spoiled and defaced. No single individual can attempt more than a fraction of this mission to save the heaven of the future. It is central for all to take care of the Kingdom.

"When the church is seen to move straight from worship of God to affecting much-needed change in the world; when it becomes clear that the people who feast at Jesus' table are the ones at the forefront of work to eliminate hunger and famine; when people realize that those who pray for the Spirit to work in and through them are the people who seem to have extra resources of love and patience in caring for those whose lives are damaged, bruised, and shamed—then it is natural for people to recognize that something is going on that they want to be part of."  -- N.T. Wright

We Don't Give Many Big Gifts

Not any meaning disrespect, but I laugh a little at all the stress and frustration shoppers suffer during the Christmas season. I do remember those days when our children had specific gift requests, and we tried to find as many of the right toys, etc. that our budget would allow. I still think Christmas gifts are mainly for children, and we still try to find the grandchildren their hearts' desire. Yet, now, living on a limited budget, we have given priority to holiday spirit and togetherness over expensive gift giving.

For example, neither my wife nor I buy each other a Christmas gift, unless it is one of "passing party" variety with little cost. We would rather use that money in different ways during the holidays. And, the families do not exchange expensive gifts anymore. With age comes a definite sensibility of the practicality and draining expense of "giving a wonderful present." In truth, many gifts make people feel as if they must reciprocate with something of equal value, and this is not in the true spirit of Christmas. Maybe it is the true spirit of Visa or MasterCard, but oh, those payments.

The Three Wise Men and the Christmas Story

What does the Bible say about the tradition of Christmas gift giving? Reading scripture may surprise most people. The Gospel of Matthew doesn't say how many wise men came from the east, doesn't mention their names, doesn't say they were kings, and doesn't provide any detail about how they made their journey. The gospel does confirm that the wise men followed a star to Bethlehem to find the Christ child. And, Matthew 2:11 makes mention of three gifts: "...they presented unto him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh."

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, reports, "It (Matthew's gospel) says they (the Magi) are astrologers, wise men, priests from somewhere outside the Roman Empire, that’s all we’re really told.” Anything else was legend. “It works quite well as legend,” the Archbishop says. For good measure, he added, "Jesus was probably not born in December at all. Christmas was when it was because it fitted well with the winter festival.” (Ruth Gledhill, "It's All a Christmas Tall Story," www.timesonline.co.uk, December 20 2007)


Most decidedly, the essential part of the Christmas story is the baby. God came to earth in human form, as part of creation and absolutely integral to it. That is the heart and essence of it. To Dr. Williams, the first few verses of John's Gospel about the incarnation of the "Word" is the most vital part of the Christmas story. "We are also told that there were witnesses from the fields, shepherds taken by surprise by the news from the angels, rushing down from the hillsides, wondering in awe and then going back to their sheep, transformed by the coming of the baby," Dr. Williams says. And the wise men? They go back transformed too.

Matthew 2:11

Much discussion exists about this passage from Matthew 2:11: "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him ...." Many biblical scholars insist that the wise men simply did not visit the night of Christ's birth. Instead, these scholars believe they saw Jesus for the first time in a house, not a manger, as a young child, not a baby, so the encounter must have been more than a year after Jesus was born.

Incidentally, the Gospel of Matthew also relates that the Magi first went to King Herod's palace and inquired about the birth of the young Messiah (Savior) asking,"Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come worship him." (Matthew 2:1)

The deceitful Herod, at once, became worried about being dethroned. He directed the three wise men to continue their journey and to inform him if they could trace the birth of such a young king. Evil intentions were definitely afoot. King Herod had one thing in mind -- to destroy the Christ child. That is why he drew the wise men into the situation. 

Herod deceitfully told them, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him." (Matthew 2:8) This information would seem to confirm that the visit of the Magi did not take place at Christ's birth, but rather a year or more beyond that time.

After visiting with Jesus and giving Him their gifts, the Magi were warned in a dream not to go back to Herod and they returned to their country by another route. "When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. 'Get up,' he said, 'take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him.'" (Matthew 2:13)

"When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi." (Matthew 2:16) Then, later, after the death of King Herod, Joseph returned to Nazareth with Mary and Jesus. And, Jesus grew up in Nazareth.

The amazed wise men carried the fire back to their own country and built a magnificent cathedral around it so that the people could worship it. Later, they were baptized and, giving all their possessions to the poor, they went about living a life of poverty and preaching the Gospel of Peace until their martyrdom in India.(wiki.answers.com)

The Significance of Gifts

And what about the significance of the expensive gifts brought to Jesus by the wise men? The gifts may have been sold to sustain Joseph's family while in Egypt. Many sources see them as appropriate gifts for Jesus that reflected the aspects of Christ's nature: gold to a king, myrrh to one who will die, and incense, as homage to a God.One story even has the gold being stolen by the two thieves who were later crucified alongside Jesus. And yet another tale has the gold being entrusted to and then misappropriated by Judas.

To me, the gifts could have been anything. As the gospels tell their timeless story, the Magi were the gift of conversion that helped to save the young Jesus' life. As they represented some of the first disciples of the "Word," they helped build a Christian foundation for the church. Their material gifts were thoughtful, well-chosen, and pricey but really meant very little. The gift they received from Jesus as their hearts changed to "gold" was the important transfer of the exchange.

So, anyway, we don't put much time, effort, or sweat into giving gifts at Christmas now. Commercialism, crowds, expense, and brief satisfaction all weigh in this decision. And, I guess, the older we get, the more we appreciate simple pleasures the year around. Still, I do remember the malls, the sales, the rush, and the search for Christmas present treasures with a fond, older heart...no, not really. There exists a great simplicity in the true meaning of the season.

Life Elsewhere? Some Contemplation...

It's almost Christmas, the season of miracles. One long-standing question contemplated by every thinking human being on the planet is: "Is there intelligent life on Universal bodies other than planet Earth?" How miraculous would the discovery that life exists elsewhere be? The study and theorization of extraterrestrial life is known as astrobiology, exobiology or xenobiology. Speculated forms of extraterrestrial life range from life with the simplicity of bacteria to sapient beings (insightful and wise) or sentient (conscious) beings. Intelligence is a term involving a wide range of knowledge and reasoning.


The Universe is huge, billions of light years across. Hundreds of billions of galaxies exist, and each one contains hundreds of billions of stars. Life happened here on Earth, and with countless other stars out there, it would be logical to think life would have arisen somewhere else. And yet, scientists have no credible evidence there's any other life in the Universe. If life is common in the Universe, where are all the aliens? No hard evidence to date supports their existence.

 
The Fermi Paradox

The Fermi Paradox is "the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterritorial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations." With the age of the Universe and its vast number of stars, typical life like that on Earth, should be common. (Carl Sagan, Cosmos,1985)
Sagan, himself, supports the theory of exploration. To put it in Carl Sagan's words: "The search for extraterrestrial intelligence is a search for who we are." (www.richardbell.net, 1997)

Fraser Cain ("Fermi Paradox, " www.universetoday.com, September 10 2009) reported, "The Fermi Paradox was first described by the physicist Enrico Fermi. Even if we aren't visited by aliens, we should see some evidence for them out in the Universe, or be able to detect their radio transmissions. And yet, scientists haven't found a single piece of technology that wasn't created by humans, or found a life form doesn't share a common heritage with all life on Earth. There hasn't been a single intelligent signal detected from the Universe."

And although astronomers and scientists have been working to solve the Fermi paradox, the easiest way is disprove the finding to just find evidence of alien civilizations. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI, involves scanning distant planets to detect alien signals. This research has been going on for decades, and no clearly intelligent signals have been discovered.Thus, the simplest answer is that Earth was just just the first body to give rise to an intelligent civilization. This is the belief of many who choose to root themselves in present-day evidence.

That's seems unlikely, but maybe civilizations are so rare that there's only one for every few million galaxies.

Perhaps intelligent civilizations are doomed to destroy themselves. They reach a certain level of technology, develop weapons of mass destruction, and bring about their own extinction. Or maybe intelligent civilizations will attempt to destroy each other.

Or, could other intelligent civilizations choose not to interact with Earth. Perhaps Earth is some kind of galactic zoo, and the aliens have agreed to leave us alone until we reach some point in our evolution. Or maybe they're just too alien, and we couldn't understand them if we tried. Speculation abounds.

Hypotheses regarding the origin(s) of extraterrestrial life, if it exists are as follows: (1) Life may have emerged, independently, from different places in the Universe. (2) Panspermia (or exogenesis) contends that life emerged from one location, then spread between habitable planets. These two hypotheses are not mutually exclusive.

 
Drake Equation

In 1961, astrophysicist Dr. Frank Drake reported an equation showing the astoundingly high probability of finding extraterrestrial life in the Universe. John Carl Villanueva reported, "He (Drake) factored in parameters like the rate of formation of suitable stars, fraction of stars containing planets, number of Earth-like worlds per planetary system, and a few others. If the Drake Equation holds, there should be 10,000 planets containing life with the capability of eventually communicating with us." ("Life in the Universe," www.universetoday.com, August 21, 2009)

A new paper published by a scientist from the University of East Anglia suggests the odds of finding new life on other Earth-like planets are low, given the time it has taken for beings such as humans to evolve combined with the remaining life span of Earth. Professor Andrew Watson believes that the age of the universe is working against the odds of understanding the likelihood of complex life and intelligence arising on any given planet.


"At present, Earth is the only example we have of a planet with life," Watson said. "If we learned the planet would be habitable for a set period and that we had evolved early in this period, then even with a sample of one, we'd suspect that evolution from simple to complex and intelligent life was quite likely to occur. By contrast, we now believe that we evolved late in the habitable period, and this suggests that our evolution is rather unlikely. In fact, the timing of events is consistent with it being very rare indeed." (Nancy Atkinson, "The Odds of Intelligent Life in the Universe," www.universetoday.com, April 19 2008)

The late Stephen Jay Gould, the preeminent Harvard University evolutionary biologist and paleontologist, wrote that the creation of intelligence was a freak occurrence, requiring a number of specific events to occur that could never be replicated again.

 

 

A Different Look

Hillary Mayell, reporter for National Geographic News (November 14, 2003) stated, Seth Shostak, a senior astronomer at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute (SETI) and co-author Alexandra Barnett, an astronomer and executive director of the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland, California, contend astronomers on Earth will make contact with alien life by 2025. In their book Cosmic Company,they base their predictions on a number of factors

 

The factors include the billions of years in which extraterrestrial life could have evolved and the abundance of planets and stars elsewhere in the universe that are likely to mimic environmental conditions found on Earth.
"It's a matter of statistics, really," said Barnett. "Depending on who you talk to, the universe is 12 to 15 billion years old. Humans have only been around for 40,000 years. We really are the new kids on the block. It would just be too tough a pill to swallow to believe that nothing else has evolved in all that time and space." (Hillary Mayell, "Alien Life? Astronomers Predict Contact By 2025," National Geographic News, November 14 2003)

In 1924 astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that there are many more galaxies beyond our own. "More than a half century later, the Hubble telescope has shown that there are at least 100 billion such galaxies," said Shostak.

Our galaxy, the Milky Way, is home to at least 100 billion stars.

Planets are also plentiful. Since 1995, when the first Jupiter-sized planet outside of our solar system was found, astronomers have been able to identify about 100 more planets, all of them around 300 times more massive than Earth.

"Planets really are as common as phone poles," said Shostak. "Right now, we know that there are planets out there [orbiting] ten or twenty percent of the stars we look at. So far, only huge planets have been found, but it would be a big surprise if there were only big ones. I don't think anyone expects that to be the case." (Hillary Mayell, "Alien Life? Astronomers Predict Contact By 2025," National Geographic News, November 14 2003)

Shostak and Barnett believe, until now, the search for intelligent life has been somewhat hampered by inadequate technology—too few stars surveyed at too low a sensitivity by Earth and space-based telescopes. "There's a growing realization that there may be some other biology in our solar system," said Shostak.

News From the Vatican
 

And, finally, news from Carol Glatz, reporter for the Catholic News Service, from Vatican City (2009) where dozens of scientists gathered at a Vatican-sponsored meeting to fit together emerging pieces of a puzzle still waiting to be solved: whether there is life on other planets.

Father Funes (head of the Vatican observatory) said that even though the study week looked exclusively at scientific evidence and theories, it was "very important that the church is involved in this type of research" looking at life in the cosmos.

He quoted Cardinal Giovanni Lajolo, president of the commission governing Vatican City, as telling participants that "truth from research cannot make us afraid; what is to be feared is error."

Science opens up the human mind to new knowledge and contributes toward the fulfillment of humankind, the cardinal said, according to Father Funes.

When asked whether God would have to be incarnated elsewhere if there were intelligent life on another planet, Father Funes recalled the parable of the lost sheep.

God's incarnation in Jesus Christ was a singular and "unique event not only in human history but in the history of the universe and the cosmos," he said.

The existence of evil and original sin on Earth meant God, the good shepherd , had to leave behind his entire flock to go get his one lost sheep, he said.

"Humanity would be this lost sheep and in order to find this lost sheep (God) became man in Jesus," Father Funes said.

Impey said that whether there is extraterrestrial life or not, either scenario "is staggering."

"If the universe is abundant in life there is companionship in our future," he said.

But if space exploration after several decades turns up nothing, then it will help remind people that "this planet is rather special and so with that will come an extra obligation even if we didn't already feel it to care of this place and this special thing that happened here."
 

Merry Christmas to all, and may this post enlighten the minds of those everywhere as Christmas resounds not only with "Peace On Earth and Goodwill To Men" but with "Peace In the Universe and Goodwill to All." Religion, the Universe, Mankind -- all spring from a mighty creator. Earthlings, we may not be alone in our struggles to hang onto a spinning, dying planet representing a minute part of the scheme. After all, faith is the key to all the great discoveries unlocking just another tiny grain of the strand of heavenly mysteries.