Christian Peacemaking

"In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity."

Rupertus Meldenius

A Darwinist's Poor Attempt To Account For The Human Eye

• Discussion:

           -This article serves as a critique of Darwinist claims regarding the evolution of the human eye. It turns out that proponents of this dogma merely came up with a just-so story with vain imaginations of how this highly sophisticated organ (the eye) could develop. Following are excerpts from the author along with a critique:

           "Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints."        

           It has been asserted without proof what "natural selection" has done. It has been asserted without proof that the human eye is not the best one. By what standard is this claim made?

           "So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design."

           The eye functions properly because all of its parts are in a perfect order. This is also true regarding our photoreceptors. Consider the words of Sean DeVere Pitman, M.D:

           "To say then that the human eye is definite proof of a lack thoughtful design, is a bit presumptuous I would think. This seems to be especially true when one considers the fact that the best of modern human science and engineering has not produced even a fraction of the computing and imaging capability of the human eye. How can we then, ignorant as we must be concerning such miracles of complex function, hope to accurately judge the relative fitness or logic of something so far beyond our own capabilities? Should someone who cannot even come close to understanding or creating the object that they are observing think to critique not to mention disparage the work that that lies before them? This would be like a six-year-old child trying to tell an engineer how to design a skyscraper or that one of his buildings is "better" than the others."

           "Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through."

           The problem here for the Darwinist is the irreducible complexity of the eye. There is simply no explanatory power for how such structures could become so complex by blind and unguided chance. Also, how does one account for the widespread dissimilarities that exist among living organisms? Similarities among living organisms can equally serve as evidence for a common designer.

           "Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper."

           So, some thinking process called "random changes" (millions of random changes would be needed to get to where Darwinists want it) just fantastically created something so as to improve vision. We cannot have an intelligent designer, but we can certainly have a phantom "random change" create something! These observations about the human eye exacerbate the problem for promoters of Darwinism:

           "Saccades are important to prevent blindness, so that system has to evolve. But the brain must simultaneously evolve the ability to anticipate saccades, needing a second lucky set of mutations has to be selected. Both systems undoubtedly require multiple lucky mutations, but without them all working in concert, the animal cannot survive."

           "At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera."

           At the same time, the pit decided to just open to let light in. It made this decision all on its own.

           If a supercomputer is obviously a product of human intelligence, then how come divine intelligence cannot be the source of the brain and the eye? Both organs are intricate beyond human comprehension. Both organs contain countless volumes of intelligent information. Both organs have precision and design that transcend any creation of mankind. The aforementioned is true even about the structure of an individual cell. If scientists in laboratories can successfully carry out artificial selection, then there is no reason to believe that God could not have designed our bodies.

           "Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye."

           How could this evolutionary process take place? It has only been asserted thus far that it actually happened. The entire universe literally screams design, yet the atheist foolishly dismisses the wealth of evidence contrary to his views because of naturalistic biases. That is circular reasoning. Darwinism cannot explain how the beautifully complex, mechanical systems of the human anatomy came into existence.

         "In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."

           None of what has been found is part of any sequence of development. Eyes have always been highly complex and well developed. Darwinists just line all the types up into a chosen sequence (chosen by intelligence) which they think would be how it should change from one type of eye to another. It is then claimed that this is what happened. How quickly did this process take place? What mechanism would direct the changes? What steps would be necessary in the completion of the process?

How Does Darwinism Account For Sleep?

"We all sleep. From jellyfish to frilled-neck lizards to flying squirrels to humans, the need for sleep is universal. But the biological reason why sleeplessness ultimately leads to death has always been a mystery.

Now a paper from Bar-Ilan University published Tuesday in the journal Nature Communications presents a groundbreaking theory: that when we sleep, our nerve cells take a break from their usual function, freeing their resources to reduce DNA damage that was accumulated during wakefulness. Sleep makes no evolutionary sense in that it’s an insanely vulnerable time for the slumberer. You’re more likely to get eaten by a predator than when you’re awake. So why would we evolve to need sleep?

It’s well established that loss of sleep affects brain performance such as memory and learning, from fruit flies to humans. This strongly argues that sleep is biochemically essential, and that sleep deprivation causes some kind of gradual systems collapse in the brain."

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/why-do-we-need-sleep-israeli-scientists-solve-the-mystery-1.6995426

A Response To The Panda's Thumb Argument Against Intelligent Design

A standard objection to the argument for design is the "Panda's Thumb" argument – if we look at some living systems, they appear to have instances of poor design. Does this imply that God cannot have designed it?A quantitative standard of design helps in understanding this issue. Suppose I look at a Mercedes-Benz, and decide that the hubcaps are not aerodynamic enough. Should I conclude that the Mercedes-Benz is not a designed system? Or should I simply say that it is designed but does not have the highest possible level of design?

In the case of the Mercedes-Benz, perhaps I have missed some other function of the hubcaps. For example, perhaps they are designed for good looks instead of aerodynamics. In the same way, some authors have made much of the poor design of certain living systems without taking into account their other possible functions in a larger system. For example, peacock tails may make peacocks less efficient, but they have the function of pleasing people. Shade trees convert sunlight less efficiently than algae, but shade trees provide shade for humans, and algae doesn't.

It is possible for a system to have undetected design. If we do not observe the function for which something is designed, then we will not see its functional dependence on anything. A young child looking at a piece of scientific equipment designed to create nanosecond digital pulses may see nothing but a box with blinking lights and not see any function at all. We can therefore talk about "detected design." If we see no design, we cannot prove that it is undesinged, we can only say that we see no evidence of design. With a quantitative measure of design, we may also say that we see only a certain degree of design.

As Augustine of Hippo argued, no thing but God can be perfect in every way. Therefore every created thing has "imperfections" to some degree. We therefore can speak of a hierarchy of design, from inanimate objects to "lower" life forms to "higher" ones, with increasing quantitative measure of design. This is warranted, for example, by the narrative of Genesis 1, which sets mankind over animals, animals over plants, and plants over the rest. Jesus also said, "Are you not much more valuable than they?"

Finding something further down in degree of design does not imply that no thing has design. In the same way, finding a simple little ditty written by Mozart does not mean he was a poor composer. People make various things for various uses, and there is no logical reason why God could not do the same.

We must also distinguish between poor design and systems with good design but which have purposes that we do not like. A shark is a well designed killing machine. This raises the question of the problem of evil, which is a separate question. A well-designed, destructive system does not imply the lack of existence of design. It may imply a well-designed instrument of wrath.

David Snoke, Toward a Quantitative Theory of Design

Are The Roman Catholic Holy Days Of Obligation Biblical?

• Introduction:

          -The Roman Catholic hierarchy has invented an annual series of holy days of obligation for faithful adherents to observe, which comprises a liturgical calendar. Examples of such mandatory days for Catholics to comply with would include All Saints Day, Assumption of Mary, and Good Friday. These mandatory days of observance take place throughout Rome's liturgical calendar. The question that this article strives to answer is whether or not church government has the authority to command us to set aside specific days for penitential purposes.

• The New Testament Does Not Speak Of Holy Days Of Obligation:

          -While the Jewish people of the Old Testament participated in obligatory religious celebrations such as Pentecost, the Passover, and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (Leviticus 23), there are no such stipulations in the New Testament for Christians. In other words, there are no listings of, examples of, or any implicit or explicit commandments for a church hierarchy mandating special days of observance which are dedicated to specific people, events, or for a designated purpose found for Christians in the New Covenant Scriptures. If Jesus Christ intended for us to follow a universally binding liturgical calendar, then it is strange that the authors of the New Testament nowhere wrote down such instructions. Christ was the fulfillment to the Old Covenant celebrations. The priesthood, animal sacrifices, dietary regulations, and other aspects of the Mosaic Law were only "shadows" of the greater things to come (Hebrews 10:1). These things all pointed to His work on the cross.

• The Roman Catholic Church Goes Even Further Beyond The Teaching Of Scripture By Making The Observance Of Specific Holy Days Of Obligation A Requirement For Salvation:

          -The Catechism of the Catholic Church plainly says that willingly and intentionally failing to observe holy days of obligation is a mortal sin (CCC #2181). It is mortal sins that constitute an instantaneous loss of all saving grace (CCC #1861). But the Bible nowhere recognizes such an idea. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see people losing their salvation because they failed to observe a holiday mandated by elders in the church. We cannot merit our justification before God by making reparation for sin. We cannot merit our salvation by rituals and observances. If a person wishes to be saved, then he needs to approach God by faith (Romans 5:1; Ephesians 2:8-9).

• Comments On The Observance Of Ash Wednesday:

          -During Ash Wednesday, palm branches are burned. Then, the ashes are rubbed on the forehead by a priest in the shape of a cross. Sacramental graces are imparted to partakers because the ashes were previously blessed. That is heresy. What does make atonement for sins according to Scripture is the sacrificial work of Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53:11; 1 Peter 1:18-19). We must trust place our trust in His work alone for salvation. Moreover, Christ expressly scolded the religious leaders of His day for openly making known their times of religious fasting (Matthew 6:16-18). Placing ashes on one's forehead certainly qualifies as a violation of this warning against pride. Catholics should be giving up Lent during the Lenten season. Roman Catholic Ann Naffziger of Busted Halo confirms:

          "You won’t find a listing of the Holy Days of Obligation in the Bible because they aren’t there. They aren’t there because they weren’t instituted when the Bible was written and compiled. Like so many things in our Catholic tradition, the practice of celebrating Holy Days developed over a period of centuries as Church leaders reflected on the importance of particular events..."

• Mandating Special Days Of Obligation Is A Sign Of Apostasy:

          -The New Testament nowhere requires the observation of any "holy days of obligation." In fact, we have been given the liberty of deciding which days that we individually choose to observe to be specifically glorifying God (Romans 14:1-6; Colossians 2:13-17). We should be glorifying Him on a daily basis. We should always be serving Him. But mandating the observance of certain "holidays" on other members of the church is legalism (Galatians 4:9-11).

Did Roman Emperor Constantine Invent The Trinity?

Long before the Council of Nicea, people considered Jesus divine:

*Ignatius: "God Himself was manifested in human form" (AD 105).
*Clement: "It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God." (AD 150).
*Justin Martyr: "Being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God"; "Both God and Lord of hosts"; "The Father of the universe has a Son. And He...is even God" (AD 160).
*Irenaeus: "Our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King"; "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this" (AD 180).
*Tertullian: "Christ our God" (AD 200).
*Origen: "No one should be offended that the Savior is also God" (AD 225).
*Novatian: "He is not only man, but God also" (AD 235).
*Cyprian: "Jesus Christ, our lord and God" (AD 250).
*Methodius: "He truly was and is...with God, and being God" (AD 290).
*Lactantius: "We believe Him to be God" (AD 304).
*Arnobius: "Christ performed all miracles...the duty of Divinity" (AD 305).

James Garlow and Peter Jones in Cracking Da Vinci's Code, cited by Garry Poole and Lee Strobel, Exploring the Da Vinci Code, p. 90

Christian Interaction With The Problem of Evil

• General Points Of Consideration:

          -This argument is an attempt to judge God according to human standards. However, He is the One who is superior to us (not the other way around). His ways are not our ways. Our thoughts are not His thoughts. As finite creatures, we are not able to understand the thoughts and intents of God. He transcends our intellectual faculties. People often ask why God allows bad things to happen to good people, but the truth is that we are stiff-necked. He is not our genie. Why should our pain and suffering be stopped?

          -How come God does not instantly resolve all the problems of this word? He certainly has the power to do so. However, it does not follow that the human race would be pleased with His instantaneous solution. "...no one does evil for evil’s sake. We do evil to get good things, such as money, sex, and power. Take away pleasure and the incentive to do evil would vanish. But if God were to stop evil by ending pleasure, would the human race continue? If it did, would anyone like the pleasureless world that remains?" (Frank Turek, Stealing From God, p. 142)

          -God could simply refuse to pardon the iniquity of sinners and cast them into an eternity of eternal punishment. He could in the twinkling of an eye erase our existence. It is not as though He is indebted to us for anything. God could mechanically control us to make us serve Him. Nonetheless, He is patient and merciful. God is giving us an opportunity to repent of our sins (Acts 17:26-31; 2 Peter 3:9). We need to adopt an eternal rather than temporal perspective of things.

• A Consideration Of Free Will 

          -God allows us to make immoral decisions because He wanted us to have free will. He wanted us to have freedom and thus to lovingly come to Him on our own. He gave us free will because He loves us. He made us to be His children, not to function in the manner of robots or puppets. If He did the latter, then He would not really love us. We would not be autonomous. We would not truly be unique as persons. 

          -As long as we have free will in this world, evil inevitably remains a possibility. Free will is a greater good. The freedom to make rational decisions is a gift in and of itself. God created us with the intention of having a relationship. The tree of knowledge of good and evil serves as an object lesson. When He restores everything back to its originally perfect order, our sin nature will be removed. We will be so consumed by God's majestic glory and presence that we would never be tempted by sin, which utterly destroys the possibility of any future rebellion. Nothing will be lacking.

• Morally Sufficient Reasons For The Toleration Of Evil:

          -God may allow evil to exist as a way to test our faith, even though suffering oftentimes wears us down. It is because of our suffering that we learn patience, courage, and self-sacrifice (Romans 5:3-5; 1 Peter 4:12-19). The existence of suffering points to our inherent inadequacy and our need of God.

          -God may allow evil to exist with the intent of showing us that our poor decisions lead to negative consequences that are contrary to His will. What He really wants for us is goodness. He condemns murder, adultery, theft, lying etc.
          -So, the existence of evil is not inherently incompatible with the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, and infinitely good God. The existence of evil is a problem for all worldviews. How that issue is addressed depends on our worldview.

          -"Nagasawa gives an argument from evil against atheism -- or, more precisely, against what he calls "existentially optimistic" atheism, the sort of atheism which regards the world as a place worth being happy and grateful to be alive in. He argues that the fact that the world's evil and suffering seems embedded in basic systems (like evolution) is a problem for these existentially optimistic atheists, and so in a sense the problem of evil applies just as much to (existentially optimistic) atheism as to theism. Theists actually have an advantage in replying to the problem of evil, because of their view that there is so much more to the world than material reality that might factor into the balance of evil and good in the world." (https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/the-problem-of-evil-eight-views-in-dialogue/)

• Since God Already Knows Everything, Why Did He Create An Angel Who Would Defy Him And Corrupt His Creation?:

          -Satan, who was created without sin, became fallen in the same way that Adam and Eve became fallen. They abused the free will that God had given them by choosing evil instead of righteousness. Perhaps God has a plan in which He is even more so glorified with the entrance of sin into the world than without. There is much mystery surrounding the fall of Satan. God in His wisdom has chosen not to reveal how all that took place.

• The Problem Of Evil Is A Criticism That Backfires Because It Assumes An Objective Standard Of Good Which Cannot Exist If There Is No God: 

          -If objective evil exists, then, by definition, objective good must also exist. If there is an objective good, then there is a standard of morality that exists beyond humanity. It exists beyond nature. It is divine. This universal moral code governs the moral laws of each civilization. This moral law implies that there must be a moral law giver. It is philosophically impossible for evil to exist on its own as an entity, as it is a perversion of what is good. Evil and good can exist at the same time. Good can exist apart from evil.

The Book Of Job And The Problem Of Evil

          Job was regarded as the holiest man on earth in his day (Job 1:1; 8). He even performed sacrifices for his sons daily (Job 1:4-7), showing his obedience and loyalty to God. Despite his piety, God allowed very terrible things to happen to that man. Job ended up getting a bunch of sores and later lost everything that he owned to storms, including his family. In the end, however, God blessed Him with much more riches and also another family. While we are not promised full restitution of our losses in this life, they will be granted to us in eternity (Revelation 21:4).

          This trial of faith showed that Job was indeed a righteous man. He clung to God, despite losing everything. Job's world was turned upside down. In the end, Satan was proven wrong and saw that he was, in truth, a faithful man. God was proven correct in His moral assessment of Job. While suffering, his three closest earthly companions did the natural thing of trying to comfort him by giving possible explanations for all of the mishaps taking place in his life. They suggested that his problems were possibly a result of committing a wrongful action or having a sinful lifestyle. 

          Surely, they thought, Job must have done something worthy of divine retribution in order for his life to be made such a nightmare. All of this, however, would be utterly unsatisfactory to him. He would have none of their reasoning. Job knew in his heart that such claims were false. He knew from his own experience that he was innocent. He was, in fact, a righteous man in the sight of God. His ways were blameless or without fault. Thus, Job maintained the integrity of his ways by not calling into question the goodness of God.

          Job began to question and ponder why God would allow him to undergo all the pain that he was made to endure. He complained to God about his predicaments and pointed to the fact that he had done nothing worthy of condemnation (Job 31). What happened to him did not seem right or fair, and understandably so. Job demanded answers, but God gave no specific explanation for Him not preventing that man's suffering. Nor are we. Undoubtedly, he was confused and anguished.

          Job continually placed his trust in his Creator. In response to his plea, God reminded Job about the fact that He is infinitely superior to mankind in every way. After all, He created life. He would understand how it works. Job was but a small creation in a vast solar system. How could he even begin to understand fully its inner workings? This brings to light the deficiencies that human perception carries with it. Job could not even conquer the beasts of the sea. Who was Job to put God on trial and make Him answer for His decisions? What is earthly suffering compared to the bliss of eternity?

          Job was simply not able to understand how God works. All that could be done on the part of Job was for him to firmly rely on God. This story is very much relatable to us in the modern world. God's control over nature and His ultimate purposes are to be trusted no matter where they seem to take us. This story emphasizes the importance of trusting in God. His wisdom knows no bounds. Our will should be that His will be done. We are not promised a life without problems. Our troubles have their ultimate answers in God.

A Short And Sweet Refutation Of The Roman Catholic History Argument

          The Roman Catholic Church is known for making claims of possessing the fullness of God given truth, beginning with the Lord Jesus Christ bestowing the authority of the keys exclusively to the Apostle Peter. He allegedly carried that on in a chain of apostolic successors. These bishops are said to have preserved inspired oral tradition for the past 2,000 years. It is oftentimes claimed by apologists for Rome that the church fathers were unanimous in their acceptance of various distinctive Roman Catholic dogmas. Following are a number of points to keep in mind when confronted by such assertions:

          1.) Church history offers descriptions of what people have done in the past. Its purpose is not to prescribe what our beliefs ought to be. The only kind of apostolic tradition that has been reliably preserved for us is that recorded in the New Testament.

          2.) Longevity does not prove truth. Do Buddhism and Hinduism contain more truth than Christianity just because they are older religions? The fact that an institution has been around for a long time does not make its claims more valid or truthful. It can still be questioned. Heresy is still heresy, even if it was introduced early in church history or believed by a majority of professing Christians.

          3.) Even if we unanimously agreed to accept Papal authority, that would only eliminate doctrinal conflict in a question begging, tautological sense. That would still not reveal to us whether we should be in communion with Rome (i.e. whether we are right or wrong in our decision making). A case for Roman Catholicism would still need to be made.

           4.) Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches make identical claims of having been established directly by Jesus Christ, but maintain contradictory teachings. They dispute each other's claims to authority. In fact, not a single known patristic author can be cited as agreeing with every uniquely Roman Catholic dogma.

           5.) The church fathers sometimes contradicted each other, and even themselves. Therefore, we have reason to not put them on par with the authority of divine Scripture. These men, no matter how godly or theologically gifted, were not inspired by God. Sometimes church fathers made factual errors. Irenaeus, for example, taught that Jesus Christ lived to be more than fifty years of age, even though gospel tradition indicates otherwise (John 8:57).

           6.) Divine revelation exists independently of the writings of church fathers. They are not to be treated as a smokescreen to bypass exegetical questions. We do not have to accept everything that patristic authors taught without reservation. There is also the issue of who specifically gets to determine which early writers were actually church fathers? Whose writings are more authoritative than others on what topics?

           7.) Heresy was present among the people of God even during the first century (Acts 20:28-32; 1 John 4:1-4). Even people taught directly by the apostles sometimes abandoned the faith (2 Timothy 4:14). So the argument that we should trust the church fathers because they lived closer to the time of Christ is a false one. Scripture is the only safe and reliable guide existing for the development of doctrine.

            8.) We do not have every document written by each church father on every subject. Neither were we present in the early church to take surveys of what everybody believed. This point alone demonstrates the Roman Catholic claim of unanimous consensus in early church history to be vacuous.

God's Free Gift Of Justification

IGNORANCE: Do you think that I am such a fool as to think that God can see no further than I; or that I would come to God in the best of my performances?

CHRISTIAN: Why, how dost thou think in this matter?

IGNORANCE: Why, to be short, I think I must believe in Christ for justification.

CHRISTIAN: How! think thou must believe in Christ, when thou seest not thy need of him! Thou neither seest thy original nor actual infirmities; but hast such an opinion of thyself, and of what thou doest, as plainly renders thee to be one that did never see the necessity of Christ's personal righteousness to justify thee before God. How, then, dost thou say, I believe in Christ?

IGNORANCE: I believe well enough, for all that.

CHRISTIAN: How dost thou believe?

IGNORANCE: I believe that Christ died for sinners; and that I shall be justified before God from the curse, through his gracious acceptance of my obedience to his laws. Or thus, Christ makes my duties, that are religious, acceptable to his Father by virtue of his merits, and so shall I be justified.

CHRISTIAN: Let me give an answer to this confession of thy faith.

1. Thou believest with a fantastical faith; for this faith is nowhere described in the word.

2. Thou believest with a false faith; because it taketh justification from the personal righteousness of Christ, and applies it to thy own.

3. This faith maketh not Christ a justifier of thy person, but of thy actions; and of thy person for thy action's sake, which is false.

4. Therefore this faith is deceitful, even such as will leave thee under wrath in the day of God Almighty: for true justifying faith puts the soul, as sensible of its lost condition by the law, upon flying for refuge unto Christ's righteousness; (which righteousness of his is not an act of grace by which he maketh, for justification, thy obedience accepted with God, but his personal obedience to the law, in doing and suffering for us what that required at our hands;) this righteousness, I say, true faith accepteth; under the skirt of which the soul being shrouded, and by it presented as spotless before God, it is accepted, and acquitted from condemnation.

IGNORANCE: What! would you have us trust to what Christ in his own person has done without us? This conceit would loosen the reins of our lust, and tolerate us to live as we list: for what matter how we live, if we may be justified by Christ's personal righteousness from all, when we believe it?

CHRISTIAN: Ignorance is thy name, and as thy name is, so art thou: even this thy answer demonstrateth what I say. Ignorant thou art of what justifying righteousness is, and as ignorant how to secure thy soul, through the faith of it, from the heavy wrath of God. Yea, thou also art ignorant of the true effects of saving faith in this righteousness of Christ, which is to bow and win over the heart to God in Christ, to love his name, his word, ways, and people, and not as thou ignorantly imaginest....

Now, while I was gazing upon all these things, I turned my head to look back, and saw Ignorance come up to the river side; but he soon got over, and that without half the difficulty which the other two men met with. For it happened that there was then in that place one Vain-Hope, a ferryman, that with his boat helped him over; so he, as the other I saw, did ascend the hill, to come up to the gate; only he came alone, neither did any man meet him with the least encouragement. When he was come up to the gate, he looked up to the writing that was above, and then began to knock, supposing that entrance should have been quickly administered to him; but he was asked by the men that looked over the top of the gate, Whence come you? and what would you have? He answered, I have ate and drank in the presence of the King, and he has taught in our streets. Then they asked him for his certificate, that they might go in and show it to the King: so he fumbled in his bosom for one, and found none. Then said they, Have you none? but the man answered never a word. So they told the King, but he would not come down to see him, but commanded the two shining ones, that conducted Christian and Hopeful to the city, to go out and take Ignorance, and bind him hand and foot, and have him away. Then they took him up, and carried him through the air to the door that I saw in the side of the hill, and put him in there. Then I saw that there was a way to hell, even from the gate of heaven, as well as from the City of Destruction.

Excerpts taken from John Bunyan, The Pilgrim's Progress