The Bible and the Dancing Doll

My beloved and I were sitting on the couch, enjoying some intimacy after switching off the TV, when, very unexpectedly, there was a sudden "clink". I turned round to see that an empty pint glass had apparently moved on its own and then fell to its side. Thank goodness there was no liquid in it. My immediate reaction was, Oh dear! Did I accidentally kick it? I looked down. My nearest foot was about a metre away from the glass, and I can't recall moving either my foot or the glass.

We both looked at each other in surprise. Memories came back to when our hi-fi system turned itself on during the small hours of the morning whilst we were both in bed. This had happened two or three times, and on each occasion, I had to creep downstairs, bleary-eyed, to turn off the unit. 

Okay, I have watched such phenomena on YouTube. But having the video camera already set up and running before the object moved has made me query its genuineness. After all, some people would do anything for a few minutes of fame by attempting to scare us out of our wits! A fine nylon thread or a length of white cotton on the white worktop can achieve miracles.

Or at a seance. If sitting around the table, things you expect to happen does happen, then the best thing to do is to ask for your money back. Trickery - such as bare-toe touching under the table - a stray foot and - viola! A supernatural occurrence! The same for any ghostly sound or music coming from behind the closed curtain or from the ceiling. You can guarantee that it's all fakery. You go home with a sense of uncertainty whilst the "medium" heads for the bank.

And there's always the story I once made up when I contributed to a website forum:

It's Halloween and you're at a funfair. The central attraction is the Haunted House, very similar to the Haunted Mansion that sits in the heart of the New Orleans section of Disneyland. As you walk through the gloomy corridors and enter musty rooms, you see the closed curtains move, hear weird noises coming from odd places, dolls whose heads turn as their eyes follow you as you walk past, the lid of a coffin opens, cackles, and so on. Suddenly, all goes completely dark and utter silence bathes the house. Nothing moves. Nothing is heard. Even the dolls now ignore you. Amidst the silence, a moan is heard. It came from the corridor wall right beside you. It was a moan of genuine distress. This time, you feel your blood running cold and your hair stand on end. No rotor or electric-powered gadget this time. The moan was too real.

You notice a faint outline of a door where the sound came from. You push on the door, and it flies open to reveal a couple of people in the control room, each sitting in front of a blank computer screen and moaning about the sudden power cut...

Not so unrealistic. During my late teens and twenties, I went alone to the cinema purposely to watch a horror movie. Movies such as Dracula and Poltergeist. The story might have been utter nonsense, but the plot contained some frightening scenes. There is something about desiring fright, especially among courting or married couples watching the film. One of the benefits of a scare is that both partners are in each other's arms - the one wanting protection and the other wanting to protect, hence enhancing the relationship - according to some psychologists.

But the end always provides relief. Like in the Dracula movie. In the end, the open coffin in which the Count lay was mistakenly left outside just as the sun rose. The camera zoomed onto the sun with the sound of a thunderous hum. And the body in the coffin wilted in the sunlight, turning to ashes, never to come to life again. The force of the powerful sun had melted away any fears I might have had, and I left the cinema feeling both relieved and entertained.

Back in the nineties, a group of us from our church spent a day at Thorpe Park, a permanent fun resort near the River Thames, and surrounded by lakes. The pre-teenage son of one of the elders wanted to ride on the Ghost Train. But his father refused to let him board the ride. I was walking nearby, and I said to him that it's nothing more than a group of plastic dancing dolls powered by hidden rotors, accompanied by sounds from hidden speakers. But the father was insistent. No ghost train rides.

I have, ever since, wondered how the son took it all. Did he grow up without ever considering a ride in the ghost train, and perhaps later, instruct his own children never to go near the ride? Or did he wait a couple of years, and then spent a day at Thorpe Park with his friends, and included a ride on the ghost train?

Perhaps it's much to do with temperament. Maybe with one child or adolescent, a genuine fear of such rides may keep him away for life. Or, as in my case, a sense of curiosity overriding any warning given, and boards the ride. Such is the curiosity satisfied. Or he may go away with a feeling that these "scare rides" was not as "cracked up" as first imagined. That was my thoughts after a ride on the ghost train at the Battersea Park funfair. The ghost train wasn't scary enough for me to come out shaking. Unfortunately, the funfair closed permanently in 1974 following a fatal roller-coaster accident in 1972. 

Thorpe Park has modernised since the 1990s!

I have read about Christians staying away from the cinema and hence, fulfilling their evangelistic duties. Perhaps the Christian parent at Thorpe Park thought that his son riding a ghost train would open the door for demonic influence. Maybe he had a point. But I tend to lean on the idea that temperament should determine whether one should ride a ghost train or watch a horror movie, rather than mere Christian restrictions. For example, a child or adolescent may prone to be fearful. He may or may not have Christian parents. Therefore, Dad should still advise him that going on the ride could do him some emotional damage. On the other hand, he could warn the older brother not to go to such rides "on Christian principles" - regardless of his own religious beliefs - but his son will go, nevertheless, and feel none the worse afterwards.

And so, with tons of fakery associated with stories of the supernatural, I have wondered whether, among all the stones on the stream bed, a lump of coal might just be discovered. Hence my perception of these ghost stories, photos, and videos. Mostly fake. I remember, when I was an adolescent, a photo of a ghost was apparently snapped inside the Newby Church of Christ the Consoler, North Yorkshire, in 1963. Furthermore, the spectre was actually posing at the camera in readiness. And so, the Sunday national newspaper headline blazed the question, Did the Reverend snap a ghost? across the front page.

Although an excellent work of art, even at a young age, I had some suspicions - although I also shook with fear at the time. Looking closely, the two eyeless sockets looked more like two holes cut in a sheet than that of a decomposing corpse. And the sheet - minus a nose and mouth - looked as if it was draped over a tall, rigid stand and dressed in monk's clothing. 

Later in life, as I grew in experience with photography, I have worked out how it could be done - the double exposure trick. The sheet, with the two holes for eye sockets, is draped over a stand, and it's then dressed in dark grey clothing. A picture is then taken of it with a black background. Then the inside of the church is taken without winding the film, hence, creating a double exposure. So convincing was the result, either the paper thought it was genuine, or knew of the fakery - and published it as a money-spinner. Good thinking! But how much of the nation actually fell for it?

Although with the case of our hi-fi turning itself on during the night, that is, around 2.00 am on each of the three nights, along with the sudden movement of the pint glass, were genuine cases or not, I prefer not to say. Simply, we do not know. However, history does tell us that John Wesley, during the middle of one night, woke up to see Satan sitting at the foot of his bed. Wesley then said, Oh, it's just you, rolled over and went back to sleep. His knowledge that the Devil was defeated by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ had released him from any fears. And when my wife showed alarm at the pint glass, I repeated the mantra: He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world - 1 John 4:4. 

This seems to confirm that the Bible supports the issue of discarnate spirits. Jesus himself had come across many of them during his ministry. And so did the apostles, especially Paul.

According to Creation Ministries International, the origin of demons were not actually the fallen angels themselves, but rather the discarnate spirits of the Nephilim  - the offspring between fallen angels and "the daughters of men", that is, human women alive before the Flood, as narrated in Genesis 6:1-6. As they carried only half of the human genome, that is, their mother's 23 chromosomes, and the other 23 from the fallen angel, hence, they weren't fully human. When Jesus Christ arrived, he came as fully human, apparently with just 23 X-chromosomes from his mother, and with just one Y-chromosome from God the Holy Spirit. This result in the hypostatic union - the eternal combination between human and divine, hence allowing humans to be redeemed through him. I have even read that St Augustine of Hippo believed and taught that the sinful nature of every human being is inherited from the 23 chromosomes in the father's sperm. Whether that is upheld by science or not, it does make a lot of sense!

The spectre at Newby Church, Yorkshire.

This goes to show the importance of accepting the record of the early chapters of Genesis. The Flood occurred just in time. Had the Messianic Line between Adam and Noah had been invaded by the genes of a fallen angel, even by one generation, then with the line spoilt, Jesus wouldn't be 100% human and thus, unable to save sinful mankind. I have wondered whether one of the real purposes of the Flood, other than to judge the antediluvians, was to preserve the Messianic line from Adam to Christ. After the Flood, there was to be no more mating between fallen angels and human women. And their offspring, discarnate since the Flood, were allowed to roam the Earth and influence mankind to deny the truthfulness of the Gospel.

Paul's belief in such entities had inspired him to write about our defences against these forces which he refers to as the rulers, the authorities, the powers of this dark world, the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Ephesians 6:10-18). He then likens our stand against them to that of donning the armour of a Roman soldier, quite likely the one guarding him as he sat in prison.

As for the fallen angels themselves, the Bible gives an answer. Apparently, according to 2 Peter 2:4, they are all confined to a special prison consigned to them, this gloomy darkness is known as Tartarus. It does look as though all the fallen angels are confined there except Lucifer, for only the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was able to defeat him.

Veganism - No, Not To My Taste.

I never forget watching Clint Eastwood play the part of the Good in the Big Screen movie Il Buono, il Brutto, il Cattivo, with such beautiful music accompanying the film, the music composed by Ennio Morricone. The title theme is most likely the better-known piece, however, The Ecstasy of Gold, from the same movie, is to my mind, one of the best tunes the music industry has ever offered. Whenever played from YouTube or from one of our CD albums, I can't help but associate this musical track with my hiking trips down into the Grand Canyon during the years 1978 and 1995 alike, walking, fully laden, down that dusty trail into the desert environment until reaching the Colorado River and beyond.

Colorado River, Grand Canyon, taken September 1995.

Although the story is set just after the American Civil War of the 1860s, the location conveys the idea of the Utah/Arizona area of western United States - hence my association with the Grand Canyon hiking experience. In fact, the movie was shot in Spain, at a landscape very similar to that of the western USA.

But I'm drifting off from my point here. Please excuse me for that. Anything to do with Travel and I can get so easily carried away. The point here is that one of the better-known actors who took part in the movie was Clint Eastwood.

Although I know of Eastwood, he doesn't know me and I guess he never will - unless he has faith in Christ as Saviour. Then we'll get to know each other in Heaven.

Celebrity is a subject I have touched on before. On one of my earlier blogs, Three Little Boys, at present standing at #3 on the most popular personal blogging list, I have gone quite deeply into the celebrity culture, specifying that my birthday was very close to those of Patrick Swayze and Christopher Reeve. Swayze was a month older than me while Reeve was a couple of weeks younger. Location of all three newborns was the only preventative from all three of us lying side by side in our cots, with me in the middle. Of us three newborns, not only was I the only one who had never made it to celebrity status but I'm also the only one of the three still alive, having outlived the other two by quite some years.

However, thanks to the internet, it's actually possible to send a private message to a famous person if that person has an active account on social sites such as Twitter or Facebook. But without doubt, the star has to shift through hundreds, if not thousands of messages each day or each week - my own message would be close to irrelevance. Or quite likely, my message may go unread for weeks, months or forever. For him (or her), I'm just another faceless one in the crowd.

As celebrities go, there is quite a number who is gathering fame on YouTube. Videos posted recently can gather a viewing rate of several tens of thousands in just a few weeks - a rate which compares more favourably than blogging, since I believe that watching a mini-movie is more illustrative than reading words. Could this be the reason why so many great films shown on the Big Screen and TV alike are adaptions of novels?

However, I doubt very much that YouTube celebrities will ever reach the status of an actor, pop artist or even a sportsman, such as a professional footballer. Actors such as Clint Eastwood, Christopher Reeve, Patrick Swayze, Michael J. Fox, and many others became famous by appearing on the cinema screens. In turn, singers such as John Lennon, Harry Secombe, Mick Jagger, Cilla Black and Sandie Shaw became famous through their sale of records. On the football field, Sir Alf Ramsey received a knighthood for managing the England team to victory at the 1966 World Cup final against Germany, with Geoff Hurst scoring three of the four goals in a hat trick which made 1966 the only year in international football history ever to lift the Cup.

Those are true celebrities, whose talent in their particular fields have made them pass through an otherwise impossibly narrow gate to stardom. However, it does look as though YouTube stars will never make it to the level of the names mentioned above, but many of these vloggers (I think I got that right) have a wide-enough audience to actually sustain their living. One of them, university graduate Gabriel Morris, better known by his screen name as Gabriel Traveler, makes his living by videoing his travels around the world and posting them on YouTube - and getting paid for his contributions from Google. And as such, there are many vloggers on YouTube who can be classified as "minor celebrities". 

But one vlogger, in particular, I would like to bring to the forefront here. His real name is Alexander J. O'Connor, known under a screen name of Cosmic Skeptic. Barely out of his teens, this Oxford undergraduate already has close to 300 subscribers and at present 24,040,703 views since joining the website on February 2nd, 2013. Being a student at Oxford is a huge advantage, as being an academic will add authenticity to his presentations. Like the long-haired and bearded Gabriel Traveler, O'Connor is always dressed in a crew-neck tee-shirt whilst in his own studio, and he wears an open-neck shirt when speaking to a live audience. The absence of a tie does not seem to affect his viewing statistics, nor his popularity.

Alexander J. O'Connor, aka Cosmic Skeptic.

O'Connor grew up as a Roman Catholic and he devoted his childhood to the faith, I believe, as an altar-boy. But as his disillusion with his faith began to grow, along with his faith in Evolution, he became a staunch atheist. And that is the main theme with all his presentations, with the words moral and morality, which, according to him, can be attained equally well in an evolutionary setting without the need for religion.

But one video he recently made was a talk delivered to a live audience at an auditorium in Tel Aviv. The subject was about why he has turned to be a vegan. In a half-hour presentation, he explains about the cruelty of animals and their slaughter in the abattoirs - just to delight our taste buds.

I do believe there's a difference between veganism and vegetarianism. The latter excludes meat and fish from the diet, but I think, milk and eggs, along with their products, are allowed to be consumed. But veganism excludes everything which comes from animals. Not only meat and fish but milk and eggs too. This would include all cheese, yoghurt, and all other dairy and egg-based products. Furthermore, according to O'Connor, veganism also excludes all clothing made from animal fibre, an issue which would make both winter clothing and footwear choice difficult matters. For example, this atheist speaks against wearing woollen jumpers, despite that the sheep which supplies the wool is not killed, but shorn alive - a procedure which actually enhances the health of the sheep.

To impose a self-made restriction on what I can and cannot eat or wear or even what I can have as a utility (eg, a leather wallet or briefcase) would make my life a misery. After all, I love chocolate, and here in the UK, confection such as Cadbury's Dairy Milk is as enjoyable as it could ever be, and Easter would be a nightmare for any vegan parents teaching their children what to enjoy and what not to eat, especially when the kids are escorted by Mum through the superstore displays. The same with Christmas, when confection is also high on the family's treats. More so at tea-time when parents make sure to buy biscuits without any chocolate toppings or chips.

But this is the very thing which upsets O'Connor. Why must cows endure forced pregnancy to supply milk for us humans? Then if the calf is female, it will be raised for her to produce milk in the future. If the calf is male, it too will be raised to face the abattoir for beef and veal production. But what really strikes O'Connor as particularly upsetting is the forced separation of the calf from its mother, causing her to suffer over the loss of offspring. If such sentimentality is promoted to make us feel guilty, then to some this might have an effect of converting to veganism.

And that is the central theme of O'Connor's preaching. To convert. And not because eating all animal-sourced products is bad for us. Rather, to convert to veganism from an omnivorous lifestyle is all to do with personal morals rather than nutritional benefits.

Therefore it's my moral responsibility not to touch turkey for Christmas, not to have roast chicken thighs each Sunday, not to accept a succulent roast lamb or stewed beef fillet whilst guests at a friend's home, never to have milk with my morning cereal, just soya instead which doesn't taste so good. And I'll miss eggs too, especially the omelette which my beloved knows how to blend with Red Leicester cheese to give such a tangy taste. And buy dark chocolate only, some, let's face it, taste awful! And if I want biscuits (or cookies), then I have to make sure that they are free from any milk chocolate chips or coating.

Indeed, living to vegan normality would not only be crushingly dull but on the verge of insanity! And I believe that this morality is based on two factors: the elimination of animal suffering, and a move to combat climate change.

Animal suffering in human hands of course! Because in this fallen world, carnivores have no empathy whatsoever for the feelings of their prey. Suffering is the very soul of this fallen world. A cheetah will chase a reindeer or gazelle until the latter is exhausted and then the big cat will bring it down. The meercat is on constant watch, out of fear and anxiety, for the approach of the hyena or leopard. In the ocean, a large school of salmon will hunch into a ball which is targeted by carnivores - whales, sharks, dolphins - and from the air, birds swoop down. Even the fossil record shows the constant suffering and violent death of prehistoric life, a very sobering story which contradicts any molecules-to-man evolutionary theories.

It was not always like this. At the beginning of Creation, all the animals fed on vegetation and all humans fed on the fruit of the trees, according to Genesis 1:29-30. It was the result of the Fall, the entry of sin into the world and death following sin, which brought a massive change within Creation, according to Genesis 3:17-19. Since that awful day, the whole of creation has been subjected to pain, suffering, sorrow and death. No amount of veganism will change anything. There will always be carnivores and there will always be prey, fear, pain and suffering within the animal kingdom along within humanity itself.

And the great Amazon rainforest of Brazil - it decimation is not so much for the breeding and grazing of cattle, as O'Connor would like to think it is. Rather, vast areas of forest are being cleared out to make way for farming, the sowing and harvesting of palm oil. After a while, the area is abandoned and becomes a wasteland. As rainforest provides a high percentage of global oxygen supply, I think it's of far more important for the health of our planet than veganism.