Are Encounters with Aliens True?

You may know someone who has been abducted by aliens. Since the late 1940’s tales of personal encounters with alien beings have circulated across America. Some accounts are entertaining, some strange, some disturbing and some terrifying. The widespread accounts of meeting aliens challenges the conclusion of those who deny the existence of intelligent, extra-terrestrial life. What is happening to these people? Can the accounts of alien encounters be explained? 

Since aliens do not exist they cannot be appearing to people, hovering overhead in strange craft or kidnapping hapless humans. Explanations of these events are possible without involving creatures from other planets. The possible explanations are as varied as the tales. Without doubt some of the stories can be written off as intentional lies intended to profit the teller in someway. Whether it be to sell a story or to impress friends some people have created alien abduction stories for their own purposes.

Another probable answer to some of the alien encounter stories is simply mistaken identity. Bright lights, weird shapes and strange noises can all be misintepreted as seeing an alien creature or vessel. A steady stream of alien stories, television shows and movies has primed minds to assume any strange or unexpected sight is an alien. Even those who don’t believe in aliens look at strange sights in the sky and wonder if they are seeing a UFO. Many alien sightings are nothing more than the result of someone leaping to the wrong conclusion. 

Other answers are not as simple to address, but are nonetheless plausible. Some stories of alien abduction have to be chalked up to various mental problems. Hallucinations, vivid dreams, mental handicaps and mental health disorders  explain some of these stories. The use of mind altering substances can have sufficient impact on a person’s senses that it creates false sensations- visual and auditory hallucinations or the inability to distinguish dreams from reality.

Mundane phsyical possiblities are not the only explanations for alien encounters. Satan is actively working on this earth to deceive people. Nothing says that Satan and demons cannot appear to people like strange alien creatures. Satan hates mankind. He desires to keep people blinded to the truth of the gospel. (2 Corinthians 4:4) He delights to add to humanity’s sorrow and confusion. (1 Petre 5:8) Satanic manipulation through demonic manifestation is a possible explanation for some experiences with aliens. This is not to say that all descriptions of alien encounters are demonic. Nor does this mean that those who see aliens are demon possessed devil worshipers. However, the spiritual realities of this world cannot be ignored. Satan is a crafty enemy of man who will stop at nothing to bring additional misery and trouble upon mankind. Any lie will suffice if it causes people to question the truth of the Bible. (Genesis 3:1-5)

Man does not know all there is to know about the heavens or the earth. Discoveries will continue to be made that will astound humanity. Though the universe is filled with strange wonders, theological and practical considerations lead to the conclusion that man is the only intelligent physical creature inhabiting the universe.

Finally, we must remember how easily the senses are deceived. Hunger, fatigue, stress, emotional disturbance, mental problems, drugs and alcohol all affect the perceptions of individuals. Experience should be supported by verifiable, reliable evidence. All experience must be examined and interpreted by the truth of God’s revealed Word. 

Advertisements

Is Belief in a Historical Adam Necessary for Salvation?

One of the major issues facing the church today is the debate over the creation of the universe. Much of this conflict centers around whether or not the earth was created by God in a span of six days less than ten thousand years ago. Sometimes this discussion focuses on the existence of a real, historical figure named Adam who was the first human being and the paternal ancestor of all other humans.

In order to be saved does someone have to believe Adam existed? This is no trivial question. The existence of Adam has a direct relation to the story of creation and is applied to key teachings about salvation. Believing in the existence of a historical Adam is not in the same category as believing Gideon led 300 Israelites in successful battle against 135,000 Midianites.

The Bible does not teach that a positive confession of six day creationism or the existence of a historical Adam is necessary for a person to be saved. One can be saved without having given great thought to the genuineness of the existence of Adam.

What about one who denies the existence of a historical Adam? The one who believes God used evolution to create all things is not necessarily excluded from salvation. One may believe Adam is an allegorical character used in the Bible to teach of the awfulness of sin. One may believe that Adam and Eve were the first hominids to be given a soul. One may believe Adam is pure myth and still be saved. However, major theological problems arise when a person denies the existence of a literal Adam and a literal, recent creation.

Romans 5 says that “by one man that sin entered into the world.” The Bible traces the guilt of humanity back to Adam. Because of Adam’s sin all humanity is condemned in sin. If Adam did not exist as described in Genesis the entrance of sin into the world has no explanation. The common sinfulness of all mankind has no basis. If Adam is not a real, historical figure the Biblical truth of sin is undermined.

Adam is a picture of Jesus. (Romans 5:14) Adam pictures Jesus in this way: he acted as the representative for all humanity. In 1 Corinthians 15 the saving work of Jesus is shown to be directly related to the condemning deed of Adam. Just as by Adam’s sin were all men made sinners and brought under the consequences of sin so by Jesus’ death and resurrection all those in Christ are made righteous and given life. If all men were not actually in Adam then the death and resurrection of Jesus is insufficient to redeem all men.

Jesus is the last Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:45) Like the first Adam Jesus stands in the place of all humanity. He is able to be mankind’s substitute who suffers the punishment of sin in place of men because He is the physical descendant of Adam and shares the same humanity as all mankind. If there is no literal Adam the doctrines of man’s sin and Jesus’ substitutionary atonement are compromised.

How did Kangaroos get to Australia?

The flood of Noah and its immediate aftermath is described in Genesis chapters six through nine. Those familiar with the story know that God determined to destroy every man and beast on the earth with a flood. Noah and his immediate family were the only humans to be saved from destruction. God instructed Noah to build a large boat in which his family and two of every animal kind (That’s not a typo. Two of every animal kind, not two of every kind of animal.) were to be saved. Noah built the ark, the heavens opened, the earth flooded and the earth was buried under the waters. A year later Noah opened the door and everyone ventured out into a very different earth. From the Middle Eastern mountains of Ararat man and animals spread across the world.

This raises many specific questions about how plants and animals could spread to every corner of the globe. How the animals spread from the Middle East across the European, African and Asian continents is easy to understand. Since a land bridge existed between Russia and Alaska it is easy to see how wildlife could reach the American continents. Australia is separated from the rest of the continents and poses a more difficult challenge.

In Genesis 10 the Bible tells a little bit about the dispersal of humanity but says nothing about the spread of plants and animals. The Bible says nothing about the continent of Australia. Does this prove the Bible is unreliable in guiding our understanding of the earth’s history? Of course not. No Christian believes the Bible teaches about every subject. Those who uphold the authority of the Bible believe that when the Bible does speak about a subject everything it says is accurate.

Starting with the premise that the Bible’s description of world events is accurate then an explanation can be formed that provides a reasonable means for kangaroos to hop to Australia. In Genesis 8:17 God commanded Noah to bring all the animals out of the ark, “that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth”. God intended for wildlife to spread and multiply across the entire world. He worked in the world to fill the entire globe with all manner of wildlife.

But what about the kangaroos? How did they get to Australia? Some have suggested that animals floated to Australia on large rafts of plants and trees. The flood waters would not have buried all every piece of refuse torn up during the flood. Possibly large rafts of logs and debris were floating on the oceans of the world. Such rafts would have helped transport animals to more remote places. Others have suggested that man brought animals to Australia with him when he colonized the continent. These are both plausible suggestions, but another one seems most reasonable.

The cataclysm of the flood caused significant changes in the atmosphere and the ocean waters. These changes resulted in the ice age. During the ice age huge quantities of water were trapped in the ice sheets lowering ocean levels and exposing significant land bridges. One such bridge would have extended from southeast Asia to northern Australia and provided a thoroughfare for kangaroos to hop to Australia. While this may not be what happened, it gives a plausible explanation that lines up with what the Bible teaches. The presence of kangaroos down under does not undermine the Bible. God worked through natural mechanisms to spread animals across the globe even the funny animals of Australia.

Why does the Bible have two creation accounts?

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

The famous opening line of the Bible summarizes God’s creation of the universe. The first two chapters of Genesis record the creation of everything. Genesis 1 describes the creation of light, dry land, oceans, plants, the sun, the moon, stars, fish, birds, animals and mankind.

Genesis 2 tells of God’s seventh day rest from the creation work. The second chapter then goes on to describe how God formed Adam out of dirt, planted a garden in Eden, placed Adam in the garden, instructed Adam to name the animals and then made Eve.

The differences between Genesis 1 and 2 form the basis of claims that Genesis contains two separate and different creation accounts. The perceived contradictions between the two chapters are presented as evidence that Scriptures is not a reliable historical record. How do Christians, especially those who believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old, explain the problems between these two chapters?

Like many supposed contradictions in the Bible the problems of Genesis 1 and 2 are not problems at all. The differences between the first two chapter of Genesis are not contradictions. Genesis 1 provides the overview of all of God’s creative work. Genesis 2 focuses on God’s work to create man and a suitable habitation for mankind. Genesis 2 adds detail to the record of man’s creation.

At this point a reader may object that Genesis 2 says God caused the trees to grow after He made Adam. Genesis 2:8 answers the objection. “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden.” The trees growing in Genesis 2 are only the trees in the Garden of Eden not all trees on earth. God planted the garden by causing specific trees to grow out of the ground where He wanted them to grow. God could have made the garden by transplanting trees from other places on earth. He did not. The trees He desired to be in the garden of Eden He commanded to spring up in their proper place. God’s creating trees in the Garden of Eden on the sixth day does not contradict the Genesis 1 description of God creating plant life on day three.

What about when Genesis 2 says that God made the animals and birds after He made Adam? Genesis 1 says all the flying creatures were made on the fifth day of creation, and it says God made the animals before He made man. How could that be true if they were created after Adam? In the King James Version Genesis 2:18-19 is translated, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air.” At first glance it looks like Genesis 2 is describing consecutive events: God made Adam, and then God put him in the garden, and then God said it is not good for man to be alone , and then God formed the birds and beasts. This is not the case. The word translated formed is expressing an action that had occurred in the past. Genesis does not say, “And then God formed every beast of the field.” Genesis says, “And God had formed every beast of the field . . .” The action had already occurred before God created Adam. God brought the already created animals to Adam for him to name.

Genesis does not contain two creation different accounts. Genesis 1 and 2 complement one another by providing additional details about what God has done. The creation account gives the wide angle view of the whole work of creation and then zooms in to describe specific events surrounding the creation of man.

Why doesn’t the Bible mention the Ice Age?

The ice age was one of the most significant events in the earth’s history. Those who hold to an old age for the earth (4.5 billion years old) say the earth has gone through multiple ice ages over the eons, and we are currently in the middle of an ice age. The Bible says nothing about the earth ever experiencing an ice age.

The evidence for an ice age is significant and apparently beyond dispute. The ice age had a significant impact on the entire globe. Since the Bible includes stories of men since the beginning of creation why does it not mention the ice age?

Evolutionists and creationists are in agreement about the extent of the global ice coverage during the last ice age. At its peak the ice age locked a third of the world in snow and ice. In the northern hemisphere ice sheets crept down from the pole to cover most of Canada and reached into the northern American states. Some portions of the ice sheet stretched as far south as Iowa and Indiana. Northern Europe was covered with ice that spread into France, Germany and Poland.

The location of the northern ice sheets provides a clue to why the Bible never mentions the ice age. Scripture is not intended to be a complete history of the world. The Bible says nothing about most of the events that have taken place in the earth’s history. The Bible was never designed to tell everything significant that happened in the world.

Scripture does not say anything about the catastrophic eruption of Mt. Thera in 1600 BC. The volcanic eruption was relatively close and effected the climates of Palestine and northern Egypt. The Bible is completely silent on the Minoan eruption. The Bible’s silence on this and other historical matters does not reveal deficiency of information but precision of purpose.

God’s Word is concerned with the history of God’s working to redeem to Himself a people who will eternally praise Him. In relating the story of redemption the Bible touches on much human history with complete accuracy.

Most of the Old Testament is focused on God’s chosen people, the Israelites. The fathers of the Israelites lived in the region of Palestine which was 1,500 miles away from the ice sheets. The weather of that era would have been different from the weather in Palestine today. The summers were cooler and storms probably were more severe, but Abraham and his offspring would not have know they were in an ice age. Glaciers were not forming in the Negev and woolly mammoths were not roaming the hills of Galilee.

The world’s climate at the time God called Abraham out of Ur is not important to the story of the Bible. What is important is God’s promise of a kingdom, of worldwide blessing through a descendant of Abraham and of righteousness to those who believe Him.

How old is the earth?

The question of the age of the earth is a huge point of disagreement between Creationists and Evolutionists and between Young Earth Creationists and Old Earth Creationists. The battle is easy to describe. Young earth creationists believe the earth is thousands of years old. Evolutionists and Old Earth Creationists believe the earth is billions of years old.

The differences about the age of the earth are so large no possible compromise can be reached. For example, neither side would be willing to admit the earth is 1 million years old.

The young earth creationist view believes Genesis is an accurate historical record. As a result the description of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is a correct account of the beginning of all things. God created the earth, the universe and everything that exists in six days (also called six solar days, six 24 hour days and six literal days).

Because Genesis is a real history of the world the age of the earth can be estimated by a simple process of addition. Adam was created in year 0, lived 130 years and had a son named Seth. Seth lived 105 years and had a son named Enos. Enos had a son and so forth. The generations after Adam are recorded in Genesis 5 up to the time of Noah. By adding up the ages of the men when they had a son and then adding in the age of Noah at the time of the flood the reader discovers there was a span of 1,656 years between creation and Noah’s flood.

After the flood the same process of addition can be followed. Based upon Genesis 11 the reader discovers that Abraham was born about 390 years after the flood. A definite year for Abraham’s birth cannot be determined because the Bible does not say exactly how old Abraham’s father was when Abraham was born.

The same process of addition can be applied throughout the Old Testament. By piecing together various genealogies the length of time between creation and the birth of Jesus is determined to be approximately four thousand years. Since this is the year 2016 the age of the earth can be estimated to be a little over 6,000 years.

Some legitimate questions have been raised about the genealogies. Some of the genealogies possibly have gaps of several generations between one name and the next. Instead of them being all father-son, some maybe grandfather -grandson. If there are gaps in the genealogies then the age of the earth would be increased possibly by as much as several thousand years.

Because the Old Testament is an accurate account of the history of humanity, most young earth creationists accept the age of the earth to be between six and ten thousand years old.

Where did Satan come from?

The Devil, Beelzebub, the prince of darkness, Apollyon, Lucifer, the evil one. Satan.

In the Christian worldview Satan is seen as the chief enemy of God, the first rebel and the instigator of sin in humanity. Those with a Biblical background see Satan at work in the serpent that tempted Eve to sin in the Garden of Eden, as the spiritual being working through the antichrist in the last days and as an active agent for evil throughout history. Satan accuses Job, afflicts Jesus and prowls about like a roaring lion seeking for his prey.

Where did this evil being come from? Did God create the father of lies?

Satan first appears on the Biblical stage in Genesis 3 in the guise of a serpent. Though Satan is not named in the book of Genesis, the book of Revelation states that the serpent in the garden was the Devil. John sees “that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world:” (Revelation 12:9) I believe Satan possessed the serpent, like demons would later possess men and beasts (Matthew 8:31), and used that creature to deceive Eve.

The Bible does not specifically tell of Satan’s origins. Other statements of the Bible direct us to an answer. Satan is a created being. Everything that exists owes its existence to God. Colossians 1:16 specifically mentions the creation of angelic beings, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:” Because nothing exists that was not made by God we can be certain Satan was created by God.

Everything God created was perfect. Genesis 1 describes God’s act of creation. Though the opening chapter of the Bible does not describe the creation of angels (and in fact, the Bible does not anywhere describe the creation of angels), the reasonable assumption is that God created all angelic beings sometime during the creation week. I believe God created the angels on the first day when He created “the heaven and the earth”. Regardless of when God created angels, He created them and He created them perfect. Psalm 18:30 says all that God does is perfect. At the end of the creation week God examined all His work and declared it “very good”. All of creation, including the angels, was perfect and exactly as He intended it to be.

Satan was created by God as a perfect creature. The Bible speaks of Satan’s sin and rebellion. In Ezekiel 28 God pronounces judgment on the King of Tyre. The judgment includes the earthly ruler of Tyre (vs. 1-9) and the spiritual power behind the wicked king- Satan. (vs. 11-19) Satan sinned, was cast out of his exalted position and condemned to God’s judgment.

Ezekiel 28:15 sums up the origin and sin of Satan, “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.”

Does Carbon Dating Prove the Book of Genesis Wrong?

A literal reading of the book of Genesis results in the conclusion that God created everything over the course of one week. Using the Biblical record of births and deaths the week of creation has been dated as occurring about 4,000 BC. While there may be some room in the Biblical record for some additional years, most conservative theologians conclude the Bible indicates the age of the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

Scientists have developed multiple methods for determining the age of fossils on earth which show the earth is millions, even billions, of years old. The most familiar of these methods is carbon dating. Carbon dating routinely returns ages for fossils several times older than the Biblical age of the earth. Doesn’t this prove the Bible, and especially the book of Genesis, is wrong about the ancient history of earth?

Carbon dating is the process of measuring the decay of carbon in organic material. All living organisms contain a carbon isotope known as Carbon-14. Carbon-14 is naturally unstable and at death it begins to decay down to Nitrogen-14. This process takes place at a known rate and is calculated in terms of half-life. The half life is the amount of time it takes for half the atoms to decay. The half-life remains constant no matter how many atoms are involved. The half life of Carbon-14 is 5,730 years. If an organism died with ten Carbon-14 atoms in 5,730 years half will remain and 5 Nitrogen-1 atoms will exist in their place. In another 5,730 years, 2 1/2 Carbon-14 atoms (yes, I know you can’t have half a C-14, this is just an illustration) will remain and there will now be 7 1/2 Nitrogen-14 atoms. Scientists measure the amount of C-14 remaining in an object and are able to develop an estimate for when the organism died.

Think of a large hour glass in which it is known exactly how many grains of sand fall from the top to the bottom each second. By counting the grains of sand remaining in the top the observer can tell how long ago the hourglass was turned over.

The process sounds simple enough, especially in a very simplified explanation like this one. Carbon dating, and all similar dating methods, have serious problems. Carbon dating has been repeatedly shown to produce inconsistent results. The same object tested multiple times has resulted in widely different dates. Also, tests of modern artifacts in which the date of the organisms death was known have produced results off tens of by thousands of years.

The biggest problem will all decay based dating methods is the assumptions made. Carbon dating assumes the amount of Carbon-14 present in the organism at death. The amount of Carbon-14 present at the death of a fossilized organism cannot be known for certain because no scientist was there to take an initial measurement. While the assumptions may be very plausible scientists do not know the amount of Carbon-14 present in an organism at its death.

If the imaginary hourglass had less sand in the top than was assumed then the measured time interval be greater because of the error in the initial assumption.

Carbon dating sounds like a very scientific and accurate way of determining when a fossil died. Christians are tempted to believe the organism lived many thousands of years ago because smart men have worked out an ingenious and complex method of measuring time.

Carbon dating does not measure time. Carbon dating is a very accurate way of measuring how much carbon and nitrogen isotopes are contained in a particular specimens at the time of testing. The time measurement is speculation based on certain assumptions whose validity cannot be tested or proven. Don’t let smart sounding words shake your confidence in God’s Word.

What is the cosmological argument for the existence of God?

In classical apologetics two major arguments for the existence of God are based upon observations of the natural world. The teleological argument argues that the evidence of design in the world is evidence of a God who created it all. The cosmological argument argues that because the universe exists it must have a beginning and a Being who brought it into existence.

The longer form of the cosmological argument begins with the statement that the physical universe exists. Everything that exists in the physical realm must have a cause. The cause cannot be the universe itself. The cause must exist outside the universe and have the ability to bring the universe into existence. The cause that brought the universe into existence is God. Because the universe exists, God exists.

This argument finds support in the observations of science. No natural mechanism is known by which something can arise from nothing. The normal arrangement of the world shows the things that exist in the physical world have their source in things with an earlier existence. Everything we observe is contingent upon an ancestor or a creator. The first law of thermodynamics seems to support this argument with its declaration that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Since the physical universe exists and it could not have risen from nothing it must have a source great enough to bring the universe into existence.

Like other arguments from classical apologetics the cosmological argument is primarily a philosophical argument. The proofs offered by this argument are not based upon physical evidences for an act of creation, but upon the logical necessity of a causative agent bringing the universe into existence. This argument is easier to understand and explain than the ontological argument because it is based upon premises which are more familiar to the average person. This line of reasoning may be reflected in Psalm 19, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament sheweth His handywork.” All creation speaks to the necessity of a Creator. Because this universe exists there must be One who brought it into existence. To know the nature of this Creator a person must turn to the Bible. Genesis 1:1 simply states, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The reality of God can be glimpsed in creation, but the character of God is only found in the Bible. He has revealed Himself clearly through His Word. God’s command to all men is to believe His Word.

Should Christains call transgender people by the pronoun of their choice?

Those who make the transition between genders often begin the transformation by changing their name and asking others to call them by a pronoun mathcing their newly chosen identity. This is a difficult issue for Christians who believe gender is a biological constant anatomically determined an unchanged by sexual, emotional or mental preferences. Some who advocate calling transgendered persons by the pronoun and name of choice have presented this as a matter of respect. We respect those who change their names by calling them the new name. If a man changes his name from “Tom” to “Zoltar the Great” most people respect his wishes despite their personal Those who make the transition between genders often begin the transformation by changing their name and asking others to call them by the pronoun of their choice. This is a difficult issue for Christians who believe gender is a biological constant anatomically determined regardless of sexual, emotional or mental preferences. Some who advocate calling transgendered by the pronoun and name of choice have presented this as a matter of respect. We respect those who change their names by calling them the new name. If a man changes his name from “Tom” to “Zoltar the Great” most people will respect his wishes, though they may think his choice of names is ridiculous. In many cases this is a matter of no consequence, and Christians can readily comply with the persons wishes on the matter. In some instances there are moral and theological issues with the name chosen. If Tom decides to change his name to Jehovah the Christian is going to refuse to address him by that title reserved only for the God of heaven.

What about honorifics? We respect someone’s preference to be called Doctor or Reverend instead of Mister or Missus. We do not reject as immoral the recent change in English grammar to use “they” as a generic pronoun instead of “he”. Should we not also respect someone’s request to be called Miss instead of Mister? The Bible presents God’s creative work as consisting of two distinct, unchangable genders. The willful rejection of ones biological sex by replacing he with she, or with the intentionally uncertain “xe” is a moral issue. In this case the choice of a pronoun reflects a rebellion against that which God created. This is a matter of acceding to a morality contrary to the Bible. The demand that we respect a person’s pronoun of choice is a demand we submit to their immoral worldview. Christians must not do so. We must submit to the Bible’s morality, even at the cost of offending someone we deeply love.

For obvious technological reasons the Bible does not address those who would surgically change their gender, but it does clearly address those who would attempt to make themselves appear to be a member of the opposite gender. The Bible unequivocally condemns such behavior. Ones gender is not a function of the mind, it is a product of biology. Despite what some today seem to suggest gender is deeper than ones external sex organs or ones perception of himself. The organs are attached to the body in such a way that changing their appearance does not their underlying functions. A transgender woman will never get pregnant and a transgender man can never father a child. The basic realities are unchanged by some creative cutting and pasting. God created maleness and femaleness. These are not arbitrary designations, but expressions of a reality defined by God and built into every person. The gender of a person is not liquid or malleable. It is fixed. In a bizarre, Dr. Moreau-esque fashion we are now able to reverse engineer biological parts to give the appearance of something else. No matter how much one changes his appearance or says to herself, “I am a man”, just like Dr. Moreau’s unfortunate experiments, the created order will win out. Self-deception will remain a lie even if all of society joins you in proclaiming a lie.

A lie repeated often enough and long enough may be believed by the majority of people, but it is still a lie. To treat gender as if it were multiple choice is to deny crucial aspects of God’s creation. To deny the binary nature of gender is to deny what it means to be an image bearer of God and to dishonor the person. It is not loving to help another live out self deception. The Christian should no more call a transgender person the pronoun of their choice than a doctor in a mental ward should call his patients by the name of the person they fantasize themselves to be. Calling a transgender person the pronoun of their choice does not show them respect. It disrespects them with the most callous disregard for their soul.