On the other hand, most believers in these churches are meticulous about participating in the Lord’s Table every Sunday, and they miss participation only if there is something seriously wrong with them. Non-participation for a long period is often an indication that this person is a backslider.

The way Holy Communion is taken seriously in these churches is to be appreciated. Related to this is one question — who should be allowed to participate in communion. Should it be restricted only to members of a congregation?

Some do not allow outsiders to participate, even if they are believers in good standing in their churches. Others are so strict that even within their own church communicant members need to face strict conditions before they participate. The question is, what is the Biblical model. Is it that of a close communion or open Communion?

What do YOU say?

Free Theology | Free Courses | Archeology | Knol | Factoid | Free Bible

Some of them are finally able to conceive with the help of medical intervention such as corrective medication, corrective surgery, or medically assisted fertilization. Ultimately all of it amounts to medical help for a couple to get a child.

However, some of the couples are unable to conceive because the husband does not have proper sperm count, or has some other such defect that prevents him from fathering a child in spite of medical help and intervention. In such cases, many of them are advised to buy sperms from a sperm-donor and go ahead with medically assisted fertilization.

Many believers have toyed, from time to time, with these ideas of taking sperm from another person (mostly, anonymous donors). A few of them contact me, knowing that I speak on apologetic and ethics-related issues. They need a scriptural and logical counsel.

What do YOU have to say scripturally on this issue?

Free Theology | Free Courses | Archeology | Knol | Factoid | Free Bible

Some years ago I read about the inmates of a home for mentally handicapped. The directors, or someone of that ilk, decided to sterilize all the women inmates because they were repeatedly getting pregnant. The unscrupulous men who were forcing themselves upon these helpless women were not blamed because the directors, presumably, discovered that the act of getting pregnant was more serious than the act of rape. It also did not occur to them that sterilizing the men could have the same result. Even if that had occurred to them, they would not have dared to do that because imposing a punishment on normal people is not as easy as imposing a solution on hapless women.

The other day when private buses in our city went on strike for a small increase in the fare they can charge (which is strictly controlled by the government in the Kerala state), there was a big cry from commuters that all private buses should be nationalized. It never occurred to them that there are plenty of nationalized buses already in Kerala, and that their only contribution is to mock passengers standing at the bus stands because instead of stopping for them, the drivers vie with airplanes.

It is the private bus operators in Kerala who stop buses at every place and who are always sympathetic to the passengers, but the solution suggests that the helpless traffic system be eliminated so as to INCREASE passenger comfort. Idiotic solutions for real problems!

Coming to Compulsory Voting, pray tell me, what is the difference between the compulsory sterilization drive of the Sanjay Gandhi era, the coerced voting in communist countries, or forced emperor-worship in dictatorships?

What is more important, bringing reluctant people to the voting machine, or permitting them their freedom of choice. Why should a person vote if he does not feel like doing it. Why should the government make rules that all the people should take a bath twice a day so as to foster better health in the country? Or for that matter why should a government restrict the number of times a couple can cohabit per month so as to control population growth? What if one is forced to seek "government-permit" for such things that fall into the area of personal freedom!

Imagine the predicament of a surgeon on the day of election, who has to attend to five emergency life-saving surgeries that cannot be postponed, or the medical staff that attends to the procedures with him. What about the single mother or father who is attending to a very sick child. The pilot who is in the air, or all the people lying in a hospital, some on medical support systems. What about the tens of thousands who are on trains. What about people who are on shift duty away from home, leave alone those in the military or on the seas. Each one of them will be required to get a "clearance" from a bureaucracy that has already enslaved Indians from birth to death (and even after that). The number of new government departments and staff needed to handle clearance for the tens of millions who cannot vote due to genuine problems is mind boggling. It will open a new method to enslave free Indians. New methods to harass people, fine them,  new modes of corruption, novel ways to milk people out of their time and money, all will become a possibility through this kind of a dictatorial order.

Other than opposing and punishing moral/ethical wrongs, the government has no business interfering in personal freedom. There is no difference between compulsory voting and government/dictatorial coercion.  It is a kind of government fatwa.  Every enlightened person needs to oppose it with all his might.

Indian Coins | India Tourism | All About India | Guide For Income | Physics For You

While it is true that Truth shall prevail, and that ultimately only that which is true shall prevail, this does not automatically mean that things that are true and people that are truthful shall be victorious in the short run. Not does it mean that the declaration of the truth will automatically cause people to fall upon each other to embrace it. If the crowd rises to fall upon each other, it would in all probability to kill the messenger of truth, and the other way round.

Witness the countless reformers, social activists, and visionaries who gave away all they had for bringing some good to the society, where they were only met with hostility, violence, and even murder. A good example would be Mahatma Gandhi who was shot dead.

You might argue that the man who shot the Mahatma was enraged by a certain thing that the Mahatma did. Exactly! All the good that the father of our nation did was forgotten in a moment, and just one act on his part was deemed sufficient for a murder. It is this kind of irrational behavior on the part of masses because of which I said that Truth does not always prevail in the short run — more so if you do not know how to present or advocate the truth.

A good example would be the life of Madhaorao Scindia. (My review Goodness Alone Is Not Enough! introduces a book on him). The people of Gwalior worshipped Madhaorao. I used to address him as Maharaj or Your Highness though that was not required by him. I did so out of my respect for him and his father Jiwajirao Scindia, another great and benevolent ruler of Gwalior. I have known him closely because I was brought up in Gwalior. I have personally interacted with him on numerous occasion and found him a great thinker, patriot, and benevolent person. Corruption was totally alien to his soul. Yet he was not liked by many people in power. They even tried to implicate him in several false cases, all of which were thrown out eventually.

The reason why truth does not always prevail in the short run is obvious to those who analyze history, but most of us never do that and the truth evades us. Truth does not always prevail because people need to act on truth if it is to prevail. They act only if they are convinced. Unfortunately, the process of mental conviction is not that straightforward. Nor do people are convinced of things based upon their truthfulness alone, else the world would have been free of superstitions.

The process of declaring the truth, making people see the truth, inducing them to be convinced, and motivating them to action is a long drawn-out human process that requires a clear understanding of how people can be influenced for change and action. It also requires a clear understanding of the subtle (and the not so subtle) forces that interplay to oppose and support this process. It also involves containing the forces that might abort the process of positive changes.

Only a great leader with insight and perception into this intricate “game” can make truth to win. Since most crusaders and leaders are novices at this game, they fail in spite of truth and in spite of their sincerity. They lay down their lives (and all that goes with it) but end up disappointed, if not failures.

If you have been called to lead, and if you have been called to reform, do not fall into the trap of believing that truth alone is that matters in a campaign. Take care of the subtle facts. If you are not good at that, then join someone else’s crusade to help him. If that is below your dignity, then do nothing and dignity shall remain with you.

Free Courses | Free Apologetics Courses | Free Seminary Degrees

Every person can accomplish one or more things that he thinks is impossible — but most people do not know how to go about doing it.

Here is a 25-page (A4 size) ebook from Rich Dixon that explains the subject lucidly and an an extremely absorbing manner. Please click on the picture to download your PDF copy immediately.

Did you always want to be a writer but did not know how to do it? Do not worry! Here are 25 lessons written by Dr. Johnson C. Philip, the successful author of more than 70 books, reference books, Bible dictionaries, Encyclopedias and also the Chief Editor of the famous Ryrie Study Bible in Hindi. He has also successfully published more than 7000 articles in the fields of Bible, theology, apologetics, communication, archeology, physics, information technology, and numismatics etc.

There is practically no field in which he has not published, and you can now get an ABSOLUTELY free course from him. Just add your name and email to the “Automatic Admission Form” shown below and you will get all these 25 lessons absolutely free in your email. You do not pay a dime, study at your convenience, and learn the SECRETS of successful writers all from your home. We guarantee full privacy, and your email is never given to anyone else.

HURRY and join before this offer closes!! (If this form fails to work, then send a blank email to apply@freejournalism.emailaces.com  and our server will automatically add you to the course!)

I am talking of the late nineteen sixties. The Creation movement was still dormant, and books on creationism or apologetics were scarce. Most people did not know how to think critically and scientifically on evolution.  All what was available was evolutionary indoctrination that permeated all science books. Since there was no substantial challenge from the other side, evolutionist writers were often brash in their claims. They often attributed creative powers to everything conceivable.

Worse, “everything” was considered proof for evolution. If a monkey scratched his head, that was proof of evolution. If a gorilla was attracted to a bald spot on his body (this is an actual incident), that was proof of evolution.  There was no rigor in these evolutionist writings because there was no substantial challenge yet for objective demonstration.

One of the key words seen all around was “randomness”. Every evolutionist spoke or randomness and blind chance — for your are left with nothing else other than these two things once you say goodbye to the idea of God. We were indoctrinated in every nook and cranny of the science books that randomness and blind chance were great creators. They were the great gods of science. I was totally taken by this propaganda for some time. Then one day I read something and everything changed!!

I read about the Law of Biogenesis, which says in effect that  life comes ONLY from preexisting life. Pasteurization of food items and Sterilization of surgical equipment draws from the fact that the atoms in the food or in the medical theater do not just fall upon each other to become germs.

Starting from there it was a long way till my non-theist professor challenged me in public. Surprisingly, he challenged my atheistic presupposition. How thankful am I to him today!

In all these years one thing become clear to me — whether it is rats in a dark corner of your barn, or germs in your wound, life comes only from preexisting life. Blind chance and randomness do not create. Nothingness has only one creative power: that is,  “nothing”!! On the other hand,  Randomness and blind chance definitely “destroy” things.

Abiogenesis was a word coined to counter Biogenesis. The word remains as infertile (or more) today than when it was coined. All the laws of physics and chemistry go against Abiogenesis. Nothingness (randomness and blind chance) is not a creator. It is only a destroyer of order.

[Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a physicist, with expertise inter alia in Quantum-nuclear Physics, and has worked extensively on the inner quark-structure of Protons and Neutrons. He has also specialized in Christian Apologetics, Biblical Archeology, Journalism, Alternative Medicines, and several other fields]

On the appointed day he visited me at my home, and was unusually eager to talk. I once again asked him whether he was sure he wanted to argue with me, and he said yes. I then asked if he would keep his conversation strictly at the scientific level, seeing that is what he said the day before. He said he would keep his arguments strictly at the scientific level, and added that this would be the appropriate approach seeing that he was an Engineering student and I that I had a physics background.

Without delay I invited him to present at least one experimental or observational evidence that disproves God. He was suddenly possessed by silence. In fact he was dumbfounded. He had read plenty of publications written against God, and thought that these are all scientific arguments, but when confronted to support his contention that he would use science to argue against the existence of God, he was unable to advance a single evidence.

He than asked me to list my reasons for belief in God, and that he would refute all of them. I asked him whether such a refutation would amount to a “scientific” proof that God did not exist. He paused for a few moments and then accepted that such refutation would not amount to a scientific proof that God does not exist.

I then reminded that right from the moment he sought me out, he had been working on the premise that he would “disprove” the existence of God using “scientific proofs”. After much silence he asked my leave for a few weeks after which he said he would surely come back to me with such arguments.

The young man never came back. I still wait for him. I wait for him in vain because nobody has proved that God does not exist, though plenty of people claim that science has disproved God. The ball still remains in the court of the so-called “rationalist”.

[Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a physicist, with expertise inter alia in Quantum-nuclear Physics, and has worked extensively on the inner quark-structure of Protons and Neutrons. He has also specialized in Christian Apologetics, Biblical Archeology, Journalism, Alternative Medicines, and several other fields]

Guide For Income | Physics For You | Article Bank  | India Tourism | All About India | Sarathi

This was basically a time for exploration for me because I took almost 14 years of study and exploration to move from a kind of agnosticism to full belief in Bible and creation.  Thus in those days I would study a given topic, present it in an apologetic manner and interact with people, allow my stand to be questioned, and would then spend much time in reflection to make my stand objective.  What surprised me most during these years of exploration was the way people hostile to Bible reacted.

As a student of science, I expected people to react rationally. More so if they claimed (which most of the evolutionists and critics did) to represent the rational side of the argument. However, I invariably received two kinds of responses. The first one was from the audience that came with an inquiring attitude. They would sometimes keep asking questions for hours, and I would be delighted to interact with them because this would give me an opportunity to think through areas that I had not thought of before. It would also help me to look rationally at many subjects that had not crossed my mind.

The second type of response came from people who had already decided that evolution explains it all – any kind of evolution, be it naturalistic or theistic. To my surprise – who was an inquirer on my way to discovery – these  people would rabidly attack my presentation rather than ask questions. Of course, I knew that they were opposed to my outlook (an agnostic who was on his way to theistic outlook), but what I never expected, or never felt comfortable with, was the simple and plain hostility – totally contrary to the rational behavior that I expected from them.

One of the typical incidents took place in a place called Vidisha in MP (India). At that time I was into the second round of research (in fundamental physics, at that time) towards my PhD in physics. I had a one-day program among college students where I spoke about Bible, science, and evolution. I told them that I was only an explorer, and that I strongly felt that a theistic framework was able to offer a satisfactory explanation of the origin and purpose of human life.

Students asked numerous questions and I gave them theistic answers that all of them appreciated. Since I had gone through all these questions and doubts myself during the previous years of my quest, most of the answers came easy to me. At the end of the day a student representative thanked me for two things. First, for my clear and concise communication, and second for my honest admission that I myself was a seeker inching towards a theistic framework.

The meeting was about to close with prayer when a professor who worked in this secular college jumped up from his seat, shot to the stage, and simply grabbed the mike without asking for permission. Then in a fit of rage  he jumped up and down for the next ten minutes as through he had some kind of a possession. All what he kept shouting was “Students did not need so much information from you. All they needed was just a bit of enlightenment”.

The program was organized by students, and these were times of “student power” in India. So a (presumably) non Christian student and a representative of the student-union stood up, politely told the professor that he was wrong in his assertion that “Students did not need so much information from you. All they needed was just a bit of enlightenment”. He said these things are to be decided by the students,  and with equal politeness asked the professor to allow the meeting to proceed as per schedule. The professor immediately realized that this was a warning from the entire student body, and sensing their mood he quit the stage in a hurry. The students were very apologetic about this incident, and told me later that this man, a devoted theistic evolutionist, was hostile to anything that could be labeled as Christian apologetics.

Over the years I have spoken in numerous conferences. I found that without exception, people who are devoted to the evolutionary viewpoint of life often become disruptive as soon as the apologist seems to have delivered a powerful presentation. There have only been few occasions when they did not become hostile or when they did not oppose reason. Something seems touch a raw nerve when theistic truths are defended in a rational manner.

[Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a physicist, with expertise inter alia in Quantum-nuclear Physics, and has worked extensively on the inner quark-structure of Protons and Neutrons. He has also specialized in Christian Apologetics, Biblical Archeology, Journalism, Alternative Medicines, and several other fields]

Guide For Income | Physics For You | Article Bank  | India Tourism | All About India | Sarathi

From there it was almost 14 years of study — of Bible, history, archeology, the mathematics of probability, chemistry, and physics — before I came to the final conclusion. The conclusion was that a rational person needs to make a choice between evolution or creation based upon which of these models best fits the available evidence. I decided in favor of creation.

Dr. KG Bansigir, one of India’s most prominent physicist was the Professor and Department Head. The School of Advanced Studies and Research in Physics at the Jiwaji University was a centre of excellence at that time. Dr. Bansigir had seen to it that an atmosphere highly conducive for open discussion was created and maintained.

What the department called “Seminars” were a frequent event. In it a student or faculty member would speak for about an hour on a selected topic from Physics, and then the audience made up of MSc. students, PhD researchers, the professors, and (at times) specially invited subject specialists would grill this person for 3 to 4 hours on that topic.

Picture: A Michelson interferometer for use on an optical table

The seminar was never easy for the speaker, but it forced him to think through the subject and present it in the most accurate way. I still remember when I was speaking about the Michelson’s Interferometer. A couple of professors from the Engineering College and the nearby Science College were present. As the questions proceeded, they finally came to a question where I was supposed to get a white band of light. On being asked the theory, I explained it with surgical precision, and then dropped a bombshell that the band I got was dark instead of white. You should have seen the commotion, because what I got in the laboratory was just opposite to what the textbooks had been saying for around four decades before me.

I was only into the second month of my MSc., but instead of brushing aside the anomaly I reported, my professor made it a point to spend several hours with me in the darkroom studying the anomaly. He then presented a “Seminar” in which he explained how textbooks and researchers tend to neglect anomalies — though anomalies often help one to perfect the theory. He then went on to present the mathematical justification for this anomaly. That was back in 1976. But many things happened after that.

The most important development was the academic bonding that developed between me and my professor. We made it a point to challenge each other’s assertions in a spirit of research and were not content till the other person offered a satisfactory answer to the challenge.

Once when I mentioned the evolution of life as the result of random processes, he immediately challenged me in the classroom. That was a bit embarrassing, because he was known to be a non-creationist. But that challenge worked wonders. He was the most outstanding teacher of the mathematics or Probability. Thus with his help I started to explore the depths of probability and molecular evolution. This was an eye opener.

He, to the best of my knowledge, never became a creationist. But by challenging my leaning towards evolution he questioned me on mathematical-scientific grounds. Eventually he helped me to see the impossibility of molecular evolution through blind chance.

Objectivity, whenever it is directed to science, has to result in the conclusion that blind chance is a destroyer and not creator of order. [Picture from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer]

[Dr. Johnson C. Philip is a physicist, with expertise in Quantum-nuclear Physics, and has worked extensively on the inner quark-structre of Protons and Neutrons. He has also specialized in Christian Apologetics, Biblical Archeology, and several other fields]