How likely is human extinction?

Every species seems to come and go. Some last longer than others, but nothing lasts forever. Humans are a relatively recent phenomenon, jumping out of trees and striding across the land around 200 000 years ago. Will we persist for many millions of years to come, or are we headed for an evolutionary makeover, or even extinction?

According to Reinhard Stindl, of the Institute of Medical Biology in Vienna, the answer to this question could lie at the tips of our chromosomes. In a controversial new theory he suggests that all eukaryotic species (everything except bacteria and algae) have an evolutionary "clock" that ticks through generations, counting down to an eventual extinction date. This clock might help to explain some of the more puzzling aspects of evolution, but it also overturns current thinking and even questions the orthodoxy of Darwin's natural selection.

For over 100 years, scientists have grappled with the cause of "background" extinction. Mass extinction events, like the wiping out of dinosaurs 65m years ago, are impressive and dramatic, but account for only around 4% of now extinct species. The majority slip away quietly and without any fanfare. Over 99% of all the species that ever lived on Earth have already passed on, so what happened to the species that weren't annihilated during mass extinction events?

Charles Darwin proposed that evolution is controlled by "survival of the fittest". Current natural selection models imply that evolution is a slow and steady process, with continuous genetic mutations leading to new species that find a niche to live in, or die. But digging through the layers of rock, palaeontologists have found that evolution seems to go in fits and starts. Most species seem to have long stable periods followed by a burst of change: not the slow, steady process predicted by natural selection. Originally scientists attributed this jagged pattern to the imperfections of the fossil record. But in recent years more detailed studies have backed up the idea that evolution proceeds in fits and starts.

The quiet periods in the fossil record where evolution seems to stagnate are a big problem for natural selection: evolution can't just switch on and off. Over 20 years ago the late Stephen Jay Gould suggested internal genetic mechanisms could regulate these quiet evolutionary periods but until now no-one could explain how it would work.

Stindl argues that the protective caps on the end of chromosomes, called telomeres, provide the answer. Like plastic tips on the end of shoelaces, all eukaryotic species have telomeres on the end of their chromosomes to prevent instability. However, cells seem to struggle to copy telomeres properly when they divide, and very gradually the telomeres become shorter.

Stindl's idea is that there is also a tiny loss of telomere length between each generations, mirroring the individual ageing process.

Once a telomere becomes critically short it causes diseases related to chromosomal instability, or limited tissue regeneration, such as cancer and immunodeficiency. "The shortening of telomeres between generations means that eventually the telomeres become critically short for a particular species, causing outbreaks of disease and finally a population crash," says Stindl. "It could explain the disappearance of a seemingly successful species, like Neanderthal man, with no need for external factors such as climate change."

After a population crash there are likely to be isolated groups remaining. Stindl postulates that inbreeding within these groups could "reset" the species clock, elongating telomeres and potentially starting a new species. Studies on mice provide strong evidence to support this. "Established strains of lab mice have exceptionally long telomeres compared to those in wild mice, their ancestors," says Stindl. "Those strains of lab mice were inbred intensively from a small population."

Current estimates suggest telomeres shorten only a tiny amount between each generation, taking thousands of generations to erode to a critical level. Many species can remain stable for tens to hundreds of thousands of years, creating long flat periods in evolution, when nothing much seems to happen.

Telomere erosion is a compelling theory, helping to explain some of the more mysterious patterns in evolution and extinction. There are few data - partly because telomeres are tiny and difficult to measure - but new DNA sequencing techniques could soon change that. Studies have already shown a huge variation in telomere length between different species.

Other scientists are going to take some convincing. David Jablonski, a palaeontologist from the University of Chicago, says: "The telomere hypothesis is interesting, but must be tested against factors like geographic extent, or population size and variability, that have already been proven effective in predicting extinction risk."

Stindl accepts that more experiments need to be done to test his ideas. "We need to compare average telomere lengths between endangered species and current successful species," he says. "I don't expect all endangered species to have short telomeres, since there are clearly other extinction mechanisms resulting from human threats to ecosystems, but I would expect some correlation between extinction risk and telomere length."

If Stindl is correct it will have interesting implications for mankind. Although inbreeding seems to have been the traditional way of lengthening telomeres, there could be a less drastic alternative. Stindl believes that it may be possible to elongate telomeres by increasing the activity of the enzyme telomerase in the embryo. So humans could perhaps boost biodiversity and save endangered species simply by elongating their telomeres. We may even be able to save ourselves when our own telomeres become critically short, making humans the first species to take hold of destiny and prevent their own extinction.

Indicators for human extinction Human telomeres are already relatively short. Are we likely to become extinct soon?

Cancer: Cancer incidence does seem to have increased, but it is hard to say whether this is due to longer lifespans, more pollution, or telomere erosion. The shortest telomere in humans occurs on the short arm of chromosome 17; most human cancers are affected by the loss of a tumour suppressor gene on this chromosome.

Immunodeficiency: Symptoms of an impaired immune system (like those seen in the Aids patients or the elderly) are related to telomere erosion through immune cells being unable to regenerate. Young people starting to suffer more from diseases caused by an impaired immune system might be a result of telomere shortening between generations.

Heart attacks and strokes: Vascular disease could be caused by cells lining blood vessels being unable to replace themselves - a potential symptom of telomere erosion.

Sperm counts: Reduction in male sperm count (the jury is still out on whether this is the case) may indicate severe telomere erosion, but other causes are possible.

Ptolomaic astronomy brought ships home safely from the sea.

Well then, donh, from my perspective, Ptolomaic astronomy was true -- as far as it could go, given the limit of human ability to directly observe the Universe at the time, thereby to more deeply penetrate its secrets.

But still, it seems to me that Ptolomaic astronomy was true as far as it could go at the time: Law is law, from the principal level down through all the levels of the hierarchy of being. And whatever works, works. (The latter is sometimes called "evidence." I hear it is useful in scientific and other kinds of tests.)

Just goes to show you that divine justice -- not to mention divine faith in man -- is not fickle, is not a fluke. God keeps His pledges....

Just law is not the creature of Time.

Of course, human beings have been able to extend their ability to directly observe the Universe (by means of technical and noetic expansions) by a seemingly astronomical capacity in the centuries between then and now. Naturally, as new elements creep into the picture, man is challenged to explain them. And so science grows.

Ptolomaic astronomy went far enough for subsequent generations of scientists and other "motley" thinkers to profitability build upon. To enormous human benefit (or so it seems to me, denizen of the classical and Christian West that I am).

I believe God wants us "to do science." And thus the memory of Ptolemy lies at the foundation of science to this day.

He is hardly alone in this distinction.

Or so it seems to me, for what it's worth.

Thanks for writing, donh!

Forgive the length of this, I never know when to quit...

I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure

I often say the same thing. I don't pretend to know what I don't know. "Truth" is pretty big, and I won't have time to cover much of it during my sojourn on this earth. That does not make Truth unknowable, of course, it does mean that it is only progressively knowable. It means that we inevitably depend on the discoveries and understanding of our grandfathers, incomplete as it is, to which we add our own, and to which our grandchildren will add theirs. Hopefully we don't forget more than we learn, as happens occasionally.

It is good to note, though, that the mere fact that I don't know is not proof that the "men who are sure" are therefore necessarily ignorant. A little humility is always a good thing. I, of course, try to exercise as little of it as possible... (rimshot)

The truth is that the origin of what we call civilization is not due to religion but to skepticism.

There is some truth in this. Your impatience with the old religions is understandable, you may find to your surprise that many, not all, of the believers here are impatient with Religion. As in all things, there is religion, and then there is Religion.

In fairness, though, two things have to be recognized. The problem with primitive religion as you describe it is the problem with primitive man. It is rooted in a primitive understanding.

Our grasp of Truth is always approximate due to the limitations of finite humanity. As long as we understand that, as long as we leave the door open for further clarification we're fine. The moment our human understanding becomes doctrine, untouchable, the long journey toward "Truth" becomes high-centered and stuck in its tracks.

There are two approaches to Religion, for the purpose of this discussion; one views the received wisdom of our fathers as untouchable and complete; one regards it as a signpost pointing the way forward. You will find both kinds of people in any religion, in any academic setting, in any political party. Its a human thing.

You will find also that some believers love Religion for the embedded truths and are prepared to ignore or forgive its eccentricities. You will find believers who are skeptical of Religion for the tendency of some to use it to shut down the flow of Truth. Both are right, depending on the context.

The fear of God is the death of wisdom.

The love of God is something else. It pulls you forward into the search for Truth, it is the love of God that will draw you like a magnet toward love, toward creation, toward wisdom, toward the Good. If you are driven by a hunger to know, to build, to love, to search, the likelihood from where I sit is that God has his hook in you. You may or may not have put a name to it but God has your number.

This is what happens: someone discovers something, a piece of the Truth, and begin to spread the word. On a good day this discovery, or this epiphany, becomes the catalyst for further discovery. Occasionally though, with some people, it becomes a kind of mysterious artefact, only half-understood, to be stored in a glass case to be admired from afar, taken down and polished from time to time, but never examined too closely.

For others it is the same thing of beauty, just as admired, but fit for use, fit to be pulled apart and examined and reassembled for the sheer joy of it. Some people park their Corvette in the garage and never drive it for fear they may scratch it; others take it out and open it up on the gravel roads and mountain switchbacks and the joy of it overcomes the fear of getting it banged up.

Some people pin a picture of a Corvette to their garage wall but never imagine they could have one.

The difference is not rooted in the adherence to or rejection of some nominal Religion, but rather a different understanding of who and what God is, who and what we are, and who and what is our place in this life. The stories of the Pharisees is a good example, the priesthood that so completely dedicated itself to Religion that they missed the Christ in their midst.

You find the same failing among religious folk, scientists, academics, and ordinary people in every time simply because people are people. You can so admire your Grand-Dad's fly-rod that you never take it out of its case and never get it wet.

The modern world is the child of doubt and inquiry

The modern world is the child of the progressive discovery of Truth. It is the child of getting it wet.

Is this speaking of some esoteric mystical knowledge -- a gnosis, perhaps -- known only to the initiates?...

FWIW, I don't think so. I think it's a statement about all Truth. All truth derives/extends from the Creator God, the One by whom all things are created and constantly subsist.

This is an ancient and, may I say, eminently just, noble, and honorable insight.

As perchance "improved upon" by: Philippians 4:8 -- "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things."

The main point being (IMHO) that we humans can rely on the promise that God has made to us -- and IMHO continues forever after to uphold in perfect good faith -- from the beginning to the end, from the Alpha to the Omega....

Ultimately, whatever is, IS ALL in God (i.e., it lives by His Law, not "ours").

Either that or God is Nowhere, and "objective" law is impossible as a result....

My fellow human beings, "take your choose"....

It seems to me we humans have no reason to fear anything that is true. Truth has its origin and sustenance in God. And we humans are His children....

Anyhoot, if any part of this seems to do with gnostic purposes, I have seriously missed my mark this evening.

For "Hear oh Israel! The Lord thy God is One!"

Must stop for now. Thanks so much for writing, xzins!

Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom.

It seems to me that skepticism and doubt can lead to knowledge, but not to wisdom.

Wisdom is premised in moral order. Now if one intended to find out something about moral order, it is possible for study and investigation to disclose facts about the behavior of people. But the view is always of others, necessarily conducted "from the outside."

We really can't study ourselves "from the outside." Yet it has been said the beginning of wisdom is to "know thyself."

Wisdom requires a change from the inside, a "change of heart," a change of life. There's a crucial difference between observing something, and becoming something.

There's a crucial difference between fact and truth. One is a surface observation of a thing that has been corroborated. The other is the substance or essence of every something.

One deals with discrete existents; the other with the universal principles undergirding and ordering reality that, once perceived, may cause a reorientation of one's existence, a periagoge or "turning around" of one's life (as Plato called it) so as to conform one's manner of living to the truth perceived.

According to wisdom, whether in the classical or Judeo-Christian experience, the Universe is created, ordered, and sustained in love and truth and beauty and justice. But you would probably never draw that conclusion on the basis of mere observation. This is something that the mind and heart must see, or it cannot be seen at all.

Wisdom is the "cure" for skepticism and doubt. And it seems to me that wise people do not necessarily make bad scientists. It could be argued that Sir Isaac Newton, for instance, was an eminently wise man, in addition to being a world-class scientific genius. Certainly he was a deeply committed Christian who quite consciously regarded his brilliant system of mechanics as the descriptive elaboration of God's design of the world.

On the other hand, I could tick off a list of names of foolish people who IMHO are really, really bad scientists, LOL!

Hope this makes sense, rolling_stone. For whatever it's worth.

Humble people are not burdened by a desire to protect or promote themselves. Because they live above their own self-interest, they are more objective in seeking, receiving and processing information. But most importantly, humble people are particularly blessed of God. Those blessings may include exceptional discernment.

Wonderful insight, Alamo-Girl. I started reading an astonishingly fine work by Jacob Needleman (that Ronzo recommended – thank you, Ronzo!!!) last night (A Sense of the Cosmos). Needleman explores the point you raise here, that of humility, the ability to rise above one’s own self-interest, which he identifies as the attitude of “impersonality.” Here’s a small sample of his thinking on this profound subject:

“We need to remember that by the word ‘ego’ something much less hypothetical is meant … than what psychoanalysis intends by the term. The ego is the deeply ingrained picture I have of myself: of my qualities, my rights, my powers and my possible destiny….

“One might well equate the ego’s relationship to the body with modern man’s relationship to the universe. The body which is the universe of the false ‘I’ is a universe stripped of consciousness and purpose, devoid of living interrelationships, impersonal in the particularly modern sense of the word. And just as modern man sets off as a ‘conqueror’ of his impersonal universe, the individual ego likewise takes the bodily automatism as a field for ‘conquest.’ The pragmatic criterion of success is physical pleasure and the avoidance of pain and death. ”

Here’s where it really gets interesting, IMHO: This is a false picture of what “impersonality” is, according to the great traditions of antiquity.

“The ancient teachings regarded cosmic law as the ‘signature of God,’ the necessary pattern formed by the movement of divine, creative energy. The alchemists of the Middle Ages [see Paracelsus] applied this same understanding to the processes within the human body. For the authentic alchemists, the truly human struggle is to open oneself to the full range of energies circulating through the body…. The enemy [of this] is the ego, and its repetitive preoccupation with a narrow spectrum of these energies, its recurring, habitual postures of fear and desire. The ego cannot master nor even perceive these basic energies of the human organism; no more than man in an ordinary state of consciousness can master or perceive the fundamental forces in the cosmos. Now, the ego is my superficial sense of my self, of personal identity. These central energies of the human organism, therefore, which are neither obedient nor even visible to the ego, are impersonal. This is the main meaning of the impersonality of the natural and cosmic worlds in the ancient teachings. Reality is not amenable to my desires, my concepts, my efforts at control. But this by no means implies that consciousness, intention and will are not properties of reality. It means only that such consciousness, intention and will are inaccessible to the egoistic personality of undeveloped man.”

Contrast this with the “modern scientific view”:

“To the modern mind, impersonal law means law devoid of conscious purpose, therefore something less (though physically more powerful) than the human personality. For the ancient mind, impersonal law refers to a higher level of intelligence and purpose than the ego can know, thus something greater than the human personality….

“To be impersonal about reality does not mean to be without feeling. It does, however, demand a degree of mastery over feelings that are egoistic, such as self-pity, hatred and most forms of fear….

“When we read that the body is good, but the flesh is evil, we are being told that the body is designed to serve this quest for inner transformation….

"If the body of microcosmic man [i.e., the imago dei of Christian thought] is the servant of interior universal forces, then what can the body be in man’s unperfected state? The answer is: It must become an instrument of his search. From being the ally of the ego, the body must become a servant in the struggle for consciousness and understanding. But this can never happen if the body is prematurely regarded in an impersonal manner – as a machine for the production of pleasure and egoistic affirmation….

“[Modern] man persuades himself that he is free to choose his manner of relationship to reality that, in fact, includes him and influences him at every turn. But in order for an individual to relate freely there must be something in him that is free to relate, something separate from or independent of the body. This independent “something” is precisely that consciousness which is spoken of in the perennial teachings, and precisely that which unperfected man lacks.”

Earlier Needleman observed:

“Paul’s condemnation of the ‘sins of the flesh’ (sarx) is the condemnation not of the body, but of a wrong and self-deceiving relationship to the body, the submission of that in ourselves which is designed to rule to that in ourselves which is designed to serve. The body as such is for Paul a ‘servant,’ and good….

“Even the mediaeval monks who practiced ‘mortification of the flesh’ did not necessarily understand the body itself to be the enemy…the enemy was the tendency to form a fixed image of oneself based on experiences of physical pleasure and pain. This is the essence of the idea of sin for both Christianity and Judaism: the attraction to a false or incomplete picture of one’s own possibilities. In ‘sin,’ man sells himself short, as is illustrated in the biblical story of Esau, who forfeited his birthright because of an empty stomach.”

Alamo-Girl, you also wrote: “ …the proud are grounded by self-interest. By definition, they cannot rise above it. Their seeking, receiving and processing of information is only a subset of what it could be and is therefore biased to their own self-interest. Not only are they not blessed for their pride, God resists the proud.”

This is a kind of “editing down” of reality to one’s own level, instead of doing the “servant’s duty” that is laid on us of aspiring to the full truth. Needleman has this to say about that:

“The fact that we are bedazzled by the pragmatic successes of science shows us that when we pursue science our real intentions do not match what we sometimes claim to be searching for. We say we want knowledge about the universe, but we test our knowledge only by its logical consistency, its power to predict and its production of marvelous feats. Our real intention, therefore, is to satisfy our desires or allay our fears – desire for explanations, a sense of security, or material gain; fear of the unknown, death, pain and loneliness…. Knowledge in the service of our ordinary desires may produce a very different picture of the universe than knowledge which is connected to other motives. ”

In other words, the “reduced self” of the “autonomous ego” filters out those aspects of reality that it doesn’t want or need in order to answer the questions of the universe it chooses to propound for self-interested reasons. The result is grotesquely reductionist – since the scope of the inquiry is limited to our own needs, desires, and fears -- and usually utilitarian and “selfish” to boot.

This book is studded with extraordinary insights of a wise, just, “mature” man (in the Aristotelian sense) who brings a cross-cultural approach to the substance of the ancient teachings, the “perennial wisdom” that modern man seems determined to escape and forget.

IMHO, Needleman is a man of “exceptional discernment,” a thinker of extraordinary range and penetration. My reading is still “in progress”; I’m finding the book marvelous, delightful – I bet you’d like it, too, A-G! Hugs!!!

What I meant to say earlier, and in several hundred words did not quite say, is that it is not skepticism and doubt that built the modern world it was the hunger to know. And the hunger to know can't be separated from the hunger for God.

I see it that way, too, marron. Aristotle tells us that all men by their nature desire to know. Plato says that wisdom begins with self-knowledge. When we know who we are, then we become free to enter into relationship with God.

One theme of Needleman’s A Sense of the Cosmos is that all the great traditions of antiquity are premised in the idea of Man as microcosm, or in Christianity’s concept, imago dei. This is so regardless of whether one is speaking of the patriarchs and prophets of Israel, Gautama the Buddha, our Lord Jesus Christ, Socrates/Plato, the great traditions of China, classical Islam, others.

However, true knowledge is something one must work for, with God’s help. The means are faith, reason and (very importantly) experience. Self-knowledge is necessary, for we have to learn to see how it is we humans as thinkers tend to filter reality according to our own preconceived notions, habit patterns, fears, desires, and “will to power,” thereby “cutting it down to our size.” The Universe cannot be known as it is in its essential nature if, as thinkers, we are constantly subjecting it to “tests” supplied by deracinated ego.

God made the Universe to be eminently knowable, and Man eminently able to know it. But He does not hand us anything “on a silver platter.” Love of God is the impetus for the search for true knowledge: As sons of God, as imago dei, it is natural for us to seek out our Source, thereby to know ourselves as we truly are, and to give thanks and praise to our Creator, Our Father. It is only through love of God that real wisdom can grow.

Or so it seems to me. Marron, thank you so much for writing – as ever, so beautiful!

betty boop: Glad you found Needleman to be so enjoyable! The man & his books are an absolute treasure.

marron: you're posts have been supurb. I just love the Corvette analogy. So true!

BTW, this has been one of the BEST threads I've ever come across in my many years at FR. Thanks to everyone for your contributions!

betty: this one statement you make, for me, is the summation of this entire thread:

When we know who we are, then we become free to enter into relationship with God.

How true! Our converstion experience, whatever it may be, is often presented, especially by evangelicals, as having arrived. There's nothing more for us to do, except go to church, read your Bible, and pray. God's done it all, all we must do is except it.

However, the truth is much more interesting...

Our 'conversion' is only 'Step 1' in a long string of steps that will allow us to know who God is, and who we are. Both are necessary, but the starting point must be The Question: Who are we? Why are we here? (And so forth...) This process goes by the ancient name of sanctification, which is far more than just being morally good! The modern church teaches that God has done all the sanctifying for us; there's nothing more that we need to do. How different a teaching that is from scripture!

If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
(Paul's letter to the Phillipians 2:1-13 NIV)

God isn't quite done with us yet! Paul never tells us to relax, kick up our heels, and enjoy life for there's nothing more for us to do! He always encourges the recipiants of his letters to persevere, to 'work out your salvation' because God is still working in you...

As sons of God, as imago dei, it is natural for us to seek out our Source, thereby to know ourselves as we truly are, and to give thanks and praise to our Creator, Our Father.

Your entire post (and many of the posts from you and others leading up to it) have all been extremely helpful in confirming something I am learning to appreciate for the first time in my many, many years of being a Christian: we must know ourselves --our true selves, completely stripped of all ego, to fully appreciate and value our relationship to God. It is not enough for us to be told this relationship is valuable, or to hold on to the knowledge of it's value; we must be able to feel the value of it, to know it in the very core of our being. But to know it there we must first know who we are, and where this "core" is. One thing for sure: the ego is not it!

How much of modern Christianity, regardless of the tradition or denomination, is really just helping to prop up our ego, rather than helping us to destroy it?

You absolutely must get and read Jacob Needleman's book Lost Christianity. The point of the book is the same as so many of the fine posts on this thread: the church has fogotten Step 1: that in order for us to truly know God, and be transformed by that knowledge (or gnosis), we must first know ourselves. Almost all of Christianity starts from assuming that we know ourselves. But all we really know--and not even that well--is our own ego.

betty boop demonstrates something in her posts from Needleman's A Sense of the Cosmos that is true of all of his books: there's a tremendous amount of wisdom in that man's writings.

Get Lost Christianity: A Journey of Rediscovery. You won't regret it.

Thank you oh so very much for your excellent post and perfect selection of Scripture!!!

Our converstion experience, whatever it may be, is often presented, especially by evangelicals, as having arrived. There's nothing more for us to do, except go to church, read your Bible, and pray. God's done it all, all we must do is except it.

IMHO, many have come to this conclusion by such a profound belief in pre-destination that they have eliminated free will. IOW, He has already made you to become a vessel of clay or gold or whatever. “There is nothing you can do about it.” Thus, there is no need for sanctification.

But this reasoning is at odds with the Word and the Scriptures from start to end.

Without free will there is no persuasive explanation for why Christ had to die on the Cross, why evil exists, why there is a heaven and earth, why a judgment, why a new heaven and earth, why a person must be born again, why the Scriptures and Law exist - why there are commandments and admonitions.

There is a parallel among the metaphysical naturalists (atheists). Some of the "second reality" science theory precludes free will because it claims that consciousness et al is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. The theory presents a quandary for the rule of law. A murderer cannot be personally responsible for doing what his brain compelled him to do. The response to this claim is basically this (paraphrased): the murderer indeed has no personal responsibility but members of society must also likewise punish him to carry out their own physical brain functions. This is a form of strong determinism (predestination) based on a presumed causality in nature. But causality is not what it seems, especially with regard to space/time and superposition.

Meditating on these points of views – I see little practical difference between the religious and the secular who believe there is no free will because neither accept personal responsibility. One lays it at the feet of “nature” the other at the feet of God.

IMHO, escaping personal responsibility by either theology or theory is a self serving illusion – neither recognizing the power of God nor the nature of time.

I see little practical difference between the religious and the secular who believe there is no free will because neither accept personal responsibility. One lays it at the feet of “nature” the other at the feet of God.

How true Alamo-Girl! Determinism is a breeding ground for passivity and elitism, both in the church and without.

Here is an interesting thing that happened just tonight (Sunday) at a prayer meeting, and it speaks to that which you are talking about....

A dear woman just came back from a very powerful conference that focused on the love and compassion of Jesus. She was keeping us all enthralled with the stories of what took place at the conference, and all the things she learned.

She began telling us how God had predestined love and compassion for His elect (chosen), and that He had loved them before the beginning of the world.

I then asked her if this love and compassion was predestined for only the elect, or is it predestined for everyone?

She said "I knew you were going to ask me that!"

She went on: "God's love and compassion are predestined for every single person who has lived, who lives now, and who will ever live. He calls out to everyone, and sends His love, like rain, upon all men. It is His will that none be lost; that everyone be saved. His heart aches when He sees us doing evil to one another, even if it's nothing more than a harsh word. His heart breaks over every unkindness and every evil that proceeds out of us. His 'elect' are the ones who respond to His love."

Is there biblical support for what this dear woman told us? Yes, quite a bit! Here's a parable of Jesus that basically says the same thing:

Jesus spoke to them again in parables, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a king who prepared a wedding banquet for his son. He sent his servants to those who had been invited to the banquet to tell them to come, but they refused to come.
"Then he sent some more servants and said, 'Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner: My oxen and fattened cattle have been butchered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding banquet.'
"But they paid no attention and went off—one to his field, another to his business. The rest seized his servants, mistreated them and killed them. The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
"Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding banquet is ready, but those I invited did not deserve to come. Go to the street corners and invite to the banquet anyone you find.’
So the servants went out into the streets and gathered all the people they could find, both good and bad, and the wedding hall was filled with guests.
"But when the king came in to see the guests, he noticed a man there who was not wearing wedding clothes. 'Friend,' he asked, 'how did you get in here without wedding clothes?' The man was speechless.
"Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'
"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
(Matthew 22:1-14 NIV)

The invitation goes out to everyone, but only those who respond properly are "chosen."

So what is Jesus telling us when the poor guy was kicked out and punished for not wearing the proper attire for a wedding? Well, to understand that, one must understand another scripture--they shed light on one another:

"Let us rejoice and be glad and give him [God] glory!
For the wedding of the Lamb has come,
and his bride has made herself ready.
Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear."
(Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)
Then the angel said to me,
Write: 'Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!'"
And he added, "These are the true words of God."
(Revelation 19:7-9 NIV)

This certainly will mess with some people's theology! The clothes, both for the wedding guests and 'the bride' represent righteous acts.

But how could God demand "righteous acts" from his saints if we are saved by faith, not by "works" (righteous acts)?

Well, being saved does NOT mean that we don't have any work to do! Rather, it's only the beginning of our work:

For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
(Ephesians 2:10 NIV)

God has prepared us to do "good works," and we will only find out what those "works" are as we submit ourselves to Him, and His will. On the Last Day, we will all find out who submitted themselves to God's will, and those who thought "getting saved" was all they had to do.

But we must remember that God's will for us is wonderful! It is joyous! It is even fun! He will never ask us to do something that He won't also supply us with the means to do it. All He ask is that we be willing; that we choose to obey. In other words, we must choose to die to our own ideas of how to please God, and find out from Him what He wants! He certainly has a job for us to do, and we will always find that the particular job He has for us will bring unspeakable joy! If we are not finding joy in our work, we are either doing the wrong job, or going through a season of pruning.

I truly fear for the many leaders in the church who allow their people to get by every week without knowing this simple truth of scripture.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.