On August 9th of this year, USA Today’s Jefferson Graham wrote, “You will get chipped. It’s just a matter of time.” I imagine many of you, especially those who are older, will respond to that statement, “Oh, no I will not!” But before we go into a state of apoplexy over RFID chips being implanted under the skin in humans, we might want to take a couple of moments to learn more about what is going on in an industry that is growing now - and will likely explode in growth in the next 3-5 years. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? For those of you who do not know about the RFID industry - you might want to turn back the clock a few years to the Veterinary world announcing that you could put a chip in your pet to verify that the pet was yours. Some, wrongly thought, this would allow a person to actually track their pet wherever it was going. This is not true if the tag used was a “passive tag.” That means that what was injected into your pet (which is about the size of a single grain of rice) does not have its own power supply (a battery of some sort). Instead it meant that if someone found your dog and took it to a Veterinarian, the doctor could detect the chip with an RFID reader - which would transmit the information in the chip identifying the dog as your beloved Fido - along with how to contact you about your pet. The news in the last 5-10 years has been that the RFID technology that has been used in animals was not able to be used in humans for various purposes. At first the vast majority of these applications involved identification or something like a brief medical history showing a patient to have a certain type of medical condition that needs to be communicated quickly if there is a medical emergency involved. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH BIO-HACKING? What is happening today, that is very interesting, is that there are those who see a whole world of products that can be developed as a result of what we know and are learning from what are now the basic and rudimentary elements of RFID technology. This is where the designation, “Grinder” comes into play. Let me take a few steps back first - and define some words for you. Bio-hacker - A bio-hacker is someone who endeavors to hack or use current technology in ways that will interface with the human body. Grinder - A “Grinder” is a “do it yourself cyborg” who is seeking upgrading his or her body without waiting for the corporate or financial world to say it is Ok to do so. There are now technologies that have been reworked (which is what is meant by “hacked”) so that we can move our hand in front of a locked door and have it unlock. Similar reworked technologies can allow people to open and unlock a computer screen, start a car, or even use a scan of the chip in your hand to put your contact information into a phone. When this kind of “chip” technology was introduced there was a strong reaction against it. Some of that reaction was due to people being concerned about putting something electronic into their bodies - while others, myself included - were concerned about biblical prophecy about a mark that would one day be required to be able to buy or sell in our world. But now such strong reactions have calmed somewhat so that more and more people are being chipped. Noelle Chesley, associate professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, said the following about the eventuality of being chipped in our world. "It will happen to everybody . . . but not this year, and not in 2018. Maybe not my generation, but certainly that of my kids." The idea of a chip the size of a grain of rice is gaining traction in our society. Yet even the world “bio-hacking” causes concerns and red flags to go up in our minds. “Are you saying that someone is going to be able to hack into my body - or my mind - and make me do things?” At the moment such thoughts are merely the musings of movie and television writers. But those who are attempting to do bio-hacking want to access the human body more and more to be able to interface electronics with the electrical systems (read nervous system here) of our bodies. While many of these experiments are relatively harmless - there are those who have tried to implant things in their bodies who have wound up with terrible consequences. One such grinder cut into her hand and later wound up in the emergency room with sepsis. But if you are wondering how close we are to having a real Iron Man - or the ability to hack into our own bodies to make us “spidey-like” or to be a cyborg with superhuman strength - such things are still flights of science fiction fancy. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MARK OF THE BEAST? Let me also be clear on another subject that will eventually be mentioned in regard to bio-hacking and the work of Grinders. The rice-sized chip they implant in themselves is not the mark of the beast - just like the ones they put in pets do not make them “pets of the beast.” The biblical passage about this in Revelation 13 And he causes all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free men and the slaves, to be given a mark on their right hand or on their forehead, 17 and he provides that no one will be able to buy or to sell, except the one who has the mark, either the name of the beast or the number of his name. Revelation 13:16-17 (NASB) As you can see the marks of the beast is something received on the right hand or forehead. It is something that allows one to sell or to buy. But we learn in chapel 14 that there is also a component to receiving it that involves worshipping the image of the beast. Since the antichrist and the beast have not even been identified yet - since none of these technologies can be used currently as a form of payment as of now - we need to realize that this is not the mark of the beast. Could it be some precursor to the kind of technology that will be used in that day? Maybe, but please try to remember that when credit cards first came out - that some people in the prophecy community said that they were the mark of the beast. What I am trying to say here is that we need to be wise and measured with our comments. When we react with absolute rejection of these technologies and call them the mark of the beast - we often have to eat a whole lot of crow later when they do not wind up as such. With that being said - I would like to send up a warning flag on the whole idea of “grinding” and “bio-hacking.” AMAL GRAAFSTRA, DANGEROUS THINGS, AND BIO-HACKING I recently watched a Ted Talk done by Amal Graafstra, the owner and founder of a company called, “Dangerous Things.” The talk was entitled, “Bio-hacking - The forefront of a new kind of human evolution.” If that title made you raise an eyebrow - it made me raise one too. Graafstra’s talk was fascinating, because it informed me as to what was truly happening in this area of study and inventive fervor. Graafstra is an inventor/entrepreneur who is trying to ride the wave of interest in bio-hacking by providing products and services for those who want to be inventors in this field. Dangerous Things may sound ominous, but it is just a marketing choice that enables Graafstra to have a name that is well known among grinders. His Ted Talk made me aware of much that was happening in the world of bio-hacking. Most of what he said was relatively innocuous, involving those who want to open doors, unlock computers, and even work of prototypes of implants in human ears that allow people to pick up sounds in similar ways that a bluetooth headset would allow someone to hear their cellphone or listen to music from it without the bother of an attached cord. It was also interesting to learn that the work of implanting these devices has begun to shift from the medical field to the world of those who do piercings for a living. SOOOO . . . WHY WRITE THIS ARTICLE IF THIS IS INNOCUOUS? That is a good question. Why am I writing this article and placing it in the “Prophecy/News Update” section of a website? It is because of the statement by Graafstra that this is the next step of human evolution. What I believe we are seeing is the beginnings of something that will have far darker applications in the future. There are currently experiments taking place that are attempting to have humans be able to see in infrared with their physical eyes. There are also others on the fringes of this movement who have as their desire then gradual movement toward cyborgs who are part human - part machine. This is distrurbing to consider. They dream of another step of evolution that will make a better human - by making it something eventually more and more inhuman. Now let me say that we are nowhere near the production of some kind of human/machine hybrid the likes of a Terminator. First of all - God was the One who created all life. We did not evolve to become human beings, we were made by a Creator God Whose purposes cannot and will not be thwarted by the desire to make us superhuman in some perverted attempt to advance the world beyond its “human stage.” Our current humanity is not the latest step in a never-ending evolution to higher forms of being. Our humanity is a gift from God and is the crowning work of creation. The reason things are so messed up on this world is because mankind chose and continues to choose sin and selfishness rather than submission to God and His will. Second of all, God’s purpose in making humanity was for us to be image bearers. We were to be the ones who are made in the image of God - and who reflect that image to God’s glory. His purpose since the fall of humanity into sin has been to redeem a people for Himself who will be transformed by the sanctifying work of the Spirit through the Word of God. All this is so that we would once again bear His image to His glory. REDEMPTION BY TECHNOLOGY OR CHRIS? The attempt at some grotesque man/machine hybrid is only a modern attempt at another tower of Babel, so that we could make a name for ourselves. The end of that road will not be pretty. If by some technological advance a direct link can be made into the human brain, we can be assured that the apocalyptic visions that movie producers and science fiction writers have considered will be the end of men controlled by technology (or worse - controlled by other men who are operating that technology). Do I mean by this come curse upon those who advance technology in our world? No, this is not my purpose. Electronics and technology will continue to advance in our world. But when men postulate that such technology will solve our problems and create a brave new world where we will evolve beyond our current human limitations. That is where I see little more than another feeble attempt to solve the problem of sin and selfishness by sinful and selfish means. It will wind up as just another tower built into the heavens to glorify man rather than God. May we not fall for the same lie yet again. Instead may we look to Christ and the cross - the only instrument of our redemption and the only way to fulfill the plan that WILL prevail to the end.
0 Comments
Dear Michael, Recently I read an article where you stated that you could no longer believe that God is directly responsible for the creation of the universe. I will have to admit that I read this from a facebook post which quoted a Christian news site. Having been burnt by this kind of “gotcha-journalism” before, I knew I needed to read your original blog from which this article quoted. Based on reading this entire post, I would like to respond to your blog entitled, “What Do We Believe?” Your article deeply concerns me – not just because of your lack of belief in the Creator and His revelation to us of how He created the heavens and the earth. My concern goes deeper than that. My greatest concern is on the way you cleverly dismiss the Bible as an authority because it is about belief, and yet tout yourself and modern-day science as a fitting replacement, Your arguments in this blog post take on the appearance of wisdom and ‘well thought out’ reasonings. The problem one finds while reading them is that, in the end, they are based on little more than a false premise that you are a free thinker without an ultimate authority. Your reason alone (informed by scientists who are smart enough to reject biblical creation and hold fast to evolutionary theory) leads you to your premises unlike those who hold the Bible as an authoritative book in all matters of faith and practice. You make an interesting statement early in your article. You state, “. . . pretty much everything is a belief because everything we know is built upon assumptions.” After this seemingly wise statement you speak of what happens when “some of what you built the words and concepts on – no longer exists.” From this dubious vantage point you begin to speak of God, the Bible, the book of Genesis – and eventually even whether what we believe about God is even important. What is fascinating is that you then use “your own words” to convince us not to judge or make distinctions based on what we may or may not believe to be God’s words (i.e. the Bible itself). Even though you seek to present some self-deprecating views of yourself, you do little more than replace one authority with another. What is truly fascinating when I read this article is that in the end – I become the authority over myself – just as you become the ultimate authority over yourself. You and I define our own words. You and I also choose to decide if our former definition of words were true – or were imposed upon us by others (in your case those who taught you the Bible in Christian school and church). You approach biblical authority with the greatest of skepticism while embracing current scientific theory as factual. What you have done in your really cool and open minded article is trade one form of authority for a different one. Whereas people like myself who CAN believe in a God-created universe – Adam and Eve – a 6000 year old earth – a literal world-wide flood – and personally my favorite, “naked people in a garden eating an apple being responsible for the death of the dinosaurs.” (Isn’t it interesting when you want to prove other people to be stupid – you not only denigrate their beliefs – you mock them by mis-stating them.) While we are held up to a very high-minded form of ridicule (notice the NOTE below), your particular views are help up as enlightened, gracious, and far more believable. We are seen as those who hold fast to defined words – while you are seen as one who is more interested in how someone lives. Your “healthy beliefs” are then given credit for leading to a “lifestyle” defined by caring attitudes about your neighbor, ministering and caring for the poor, and living according to James chapter 2 (which evidently IS God’s Word?). We are left thinking that we should reject the Bible as a literal authority (quite an authoritative thought, don’t you think) and be more loving and kind (at least how you define loving and kind – which considering the neighbor and poor stuff is hard to argue with – you know). What we actually get is a view where WE become our own authority – at least the “we” that agrees with modern scientific theory. I don’t hate you Michael – and neither do I know whether you are lost or saved at this point. All I’ve done is read your article – and yet that article concerns me greatly. It does because it presents the same lie that caused our world to end up in the mess it is in today. “Has God said?” is the lie to which I refer. The original lie was to distrust God’s Word – and instead decide that WE would make a much better god over ourselves. Isn’t that what Satan said to Eve? “God knows that in the day that you eat it – you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” How we live (which seems to be your way of determining what is best) is derived from what we believe to be truth. If truth then is solely in the eye of the beholder – because us-forbid we’d actually believe God’s revelation of Himself in the Bible – then isn’t it true that the beholder becomes God in the end? That is little more than a 6000 year old lie repackaged in really cool blog post. [NOTE: Yes, Adam and Eve were naked. No, they did not eat an apple – the Bible simply states it was fruit. Yes, the Fall of man into sin precipitated death in our world. No, the dinosaurs were not singled out in this judgment upon sin – and its effects on the earth. BUT . . . when lacing these facts and mental inventions together it does make the Bible accounts sound sufficiently stupid doesn’t it? How you state something truly does have an effect on how believable someone else views it. Imagine if I referred to evolutionary theory in a similar way. It is little more than believing that, “Everything came about as a result of nothing being done by no one for absolutely no reason at all.”] Lately, I’ve been noticing a lot of truly ridiculous statements being made – and not being challenged for the foolishness that they are. In an effort to expose these statements for what they are, I am going to institute a monthly award to be given out to those who make them. The name of my award is the “Doofus of the Month” award. It will go to the person whose statement truly exhibits all the very best (or worst, if you think about it) of doofus thinking.
The initial winner of the “Doofus of the Month” award is Richard Dawkins. Recently Dawkins was quoted in an interview with the UK Guardian as making the following statement. “Jesus was a great moral teacher and I was suggesting that somebody as intelligent as Jesus would have been an atheist if he had known what we know today.” Let’s look at why Mr. Dawkins deserves this award for his truly amazing “Doofus Thinking.” First of all, if we are going to take an honest look at Jesus, we can only do so on the basis of the teachings given to us in the Gospels. It is our original source material on Jesus Christ, what He said, and Who He is. The gospels assume – and go to great lengths to prove that Jesus is God Himself. There are numerous statements attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in which He calls Himself God. Therefore for Jesus Christ to one moment state that He is God – and in the next (at least in Dawkins' thinking) deny even the existence of God at all – would make Jesus Christ one of two things. He is either a spiritual schizophrenic, or worse, a charlatan of the highest order. This then pokes serious holes in Dawkin’s statement that Jesus was a great moral teacher. As C. S. Lewis asserted, if we take Jesus at His Words in the Gospels, we are left with one of three conclusions. Jesus Christ is either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. If someone is crazy enough to call himself God when he is not - even willing to die a horrendous death on a cross for it - he is not a good moral teacher - he is nuts. So, Mr. Dawkins, Jesus has to be one of the two - He is either insane or He is Who He says He is - God. Those of us who are Christians believe that His teachings, His works (miracles), His fulfillment of prophecy, and ultimately His resurrection prove He is the latter. The second thing that truly manifests “Doofus Thinking” of the first order is Dawkin’s comments that if Jesus knew what we knew, He would be an atheist. It is hard to decide if this is more “doofus thinking,” or just arrogance reaching to new heights. Truly this man sees himself as superior in his scientific thinking than the rest of us lowly unscientific serfs. Dawkins lifts the current world as superior in knowledge to any that ever existed – and evidently sees himself as high priest of such knowledge. This is how he can utter such absolutist statements about the intelligence of Jesus – and how it was inferior to our own. How else could a great moral teacher make such gargantuan blunders in advancing belief in God – when of course the enlightened ones of our current age have made such belief obsolete with their infallible science and its discoveries. The God revealed in the Bible is represented by that revelation as omniscient (Mr. Dawkins, that means He is all-knowing). Jesus manifest that omniscience by knowing what His detractors were thinking. We learn in Philippians 2 that Jesus, being God of very God, chose to lay aside His attributes. He emptied Himself and took upon the form of a servant, being made in human form. He did so to eventually bear the sin of the world – and pay the full measure of punishment and wrath due that sin. But in no way does that mean Jesus was just too simple-minded and dumb to not realize there wasn’t a God – and He wasn’t Him. Mr Dawkins also has a problem with his reasoning - because he asserts that there is a thing such as a "great moral teacher". That assumes that there is good moral teaching - or at least a set of morals that should be embraced as better than other morals. Unfortunately for him an atheistic evolutionary view of the world militates against even the existence of morals. Classic evolutionary theory is founded upon a world that has one moral code. That code is the advancement of superior species, and the ultimate extinction of inferior ones. It is even wrong to suggest that this is moral in any way - because this advancement of superior species is totally random and happens only because life is perpetuating itself. The existence of morals assumes someone who can speak with authority as to why one behavior or choice is superior to another. In Dawkins' atheistic, evolutionary model no such authority exists. It would be more consistent for Dawkins to say that Jesus was a bigoted, authoritarian, arrogant man who had the audacity to assume his moral positions were superior to what another person considered their own truth. If Jesus were a true atheist, the first thing he would shed would be the moral assertions of his own teachings. He could hold such a moral code for himself - but to assert that others should hold it as superior to their own thoughts and desires would be the height of arrogance and religious bigotry. Only a "doofus thinker" wants to have it both ways. Mr. Dawkin’s statement defies any kind of reason in its assertion. He simply is defining himself as the ultimate authority on God. His statements lack credibility because, as one who rejects absolute truth, he himself is making absolute statements about God. In so doing he is making himself “god” in the process (well at least god over all thoughts and belief systems about God). One has to wonder if one day in the future other, far more enlightened scientists will one day state that if Mr. Dawkins knew what they knew, he would not have held his own views in such high esteem – thus making him an “A-Dawkin-ist.” Congratulations Mr. Dawkins! You are our very first "Doofus of the Month!" |
What is the Prophecy/News Update?At Calvary Chapel of Jonesboro, we believe that history is moving toward fulfilling God's plans and purposes. In an effort to help us be prepared for His appearing - and also to chronicle news items you just won't see in the national media - this page is devoted to sharing those items and their possible significance to Thank you for visiting our website! Everything on this site is offered for free. If, however, you would like to make a donation to help pay for its continued presence on the internet, you can do that by clicking here. The only thing we ask is that you give first to the local church you attend.
Thank you! Archives
July 2020
Categories
All
|