(24) Technology, Morality & Spirituality
Vern Peterman · Mar 26, 2006
Apologetics, No. 25
Holly Hills Bible Church
https://hollyhillsbiblechurch.org/teaching/messages/48262347271405

Transcribed from the recording by SermonAudio, so expect the occasional misheard word.

Today we'll finish up the last of the apologetics and we'll be looking at technological capabilities of human beings. We're running into an era where there are a great deal of technology issues. We have the capability to do things increasingly and decreasing, I would say a plummeting ability to determine is this a good idea or not. Our culture is kind of heading in opposite directions, and it's a moral collision course, if you will. There's a vast tension.

One of the passages we look at here comes right out of the book of Genesis at the Tower of Babel. And here it says in 11.6, the Lord said, Behold, there are one people and they all have the same language and this is what they began to do and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. It is a recognition that human beings, obviously it doesn't mean that human beings are all powerful, but human beings will progress on in ways that will actually be damaging. The Lord put a limit on the wickedness of man early in the chapters of Genesis with the flood. And it kind of hit the reset button with Noah and Noah's family. Now, what we see here at the Tower of Babel, just a few chapters later, is here is man with one language progressing on in such a way that it's self-destructive. Well, we're reaching that point again in perhaps a different way, but still the truth applies here.

The next passage that we show there is Romans 1.28-32, and this is part of a passage that I call a cascade of the sin nature. God gave them over, God gave them over, God gave them over, and each time it was further down the cascade.

And the phrase that jumps out of this is inventors of evil. He's got a list there of different things that become expressed there, especially in verse 29. And in the midst of this list going on into verse 30, it says, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil. What's this inventors of evil thing all about? What does that conjure up in your mind? People's minds are concocting new things that are expressions of evil. Is the sinful nature in human beings getting any worse? Is the sinful nature getting worse? No. Isn't it interesting? The sinful nature is not getting worse, so what is this? What's the difference? It's manifested in different ways?

Yes. Creative perversions, right? Now the ability to pervert things faster, you know, there's a kind of a joking things, you know, drink a lot of coffee, that way you get to do a lot of dumb things more quickly. This is sort of a joking way of putting it, but in fact what technology does is accelerates the rate at which we do wicked things as the human race proceeds on with this. We have, pardon? Makes it easier. Yeah. Yeah.

The advent of the personal computer combined with the internet, there's an ability to do things and create things more easily, more quickly. There's an ability to transmit wickedness more quickly. And as we're talking on beyond just computer viruses, I mean, you can transmit every possible wickedness and even invent new ones. In essence, the fundamental wickedness is there because it's the sin nature, isn't it?

All right. Now, I have what we call the leading edge of technology. We have a huge ability to, you know, compute and to transmit, to store information, to process information. And that ability is increasing. Now as a coupler to Murphy's law, which says that something can go wrong at will, we have Moore's law, which says that the computing capacity doubles approximately every 18 months. Every 18 months computing capacity just increases and increases and increases.

Now that doesn't mean that you have this hill and you're continuing to climb. It means because a doubling every 18 months, the curve goes like this, right? So essentially, if you project on that basis, look ahead another 10 years. What does this mean? This is a massive increase in the ability to compute.

Does man's moral capacity increase at that same rate? No. The sin nature doesn't improve any, right? Not in the least. The sin nature, continues to head down and all we've done is greatly increased the capacity of this in nature to express itself. Both in terms of the different ways it can, as Marilyn brought out, individuality in this expression and the ability to transmit that to other individuals, do things on a personal basis.

It used to be that computer people were trying to figure out how to get the computer into homes. I can remember a time when the adoption rate for computers was about 4% of the population, and they were scratching their heads, how do we get people to adopt this stuff? Well, now that we've figured it out, now we have a number of things that have come up. What is called the leading edge may not be all that leading. Now, we have the precipitous edge of morality, ethics, and things spiritual. Technology goes at a faster rate. What's happening to people's sense of right and wrong in our culture? What's going on there? Yeah, isn't it interesting? We studied in Isaiah not too long ago, you know, woe to the one who calls evil good and good evil, switches those two, and Isaiah had kind of three ways of stating this. and reversal of what's moral. And it's interesting, I mean, this was a long ago problem, 2700 years ago.

Today, we can clock that that rate is accelerating. Among those who claim to be Christians, less than half believe in absolute truth. One of the things we, you know, point out in here, among those who are in church youth groups, less than 10% believe in absolute truth in the United States. Interesting.

That's a statistic, by the way, of a few years ago, and the trend was plummeting down fast. So if that trend is continuing, then the number is far less than 10%. It's actually 9% when they did it a few years ago. So I don't know what that number is now, but I don't imagine it's getting better.

You remember a time, some of you might remember a time, when somebody said, boy, that's wrong. that people understood what you meant. Now we live in an era where there are people, if you say, that's wrong, they'll look at you like you're crazy, right? The general societal sense of what's right and wrong, or the ability to say objectively, this is wrong, this is right, has all gotten very muddy, very difficult. Now, for the Christian, What's the basis of our moral and ethical decisions? How do we decide what's right and wrong? Pardon?

The Word of God. Okay. Good. The Word of God spells out what's right and wrong. And is the Word of God God's revelation? He just decided, you know, let's see. Yeah, let's call this right and this wrong. Did you just throw a dartboard, you know kind of guess and say all right, we're gonna make this right.

Ah What we what we have here both from Leviticus 1145 in the Old Testament and 1st Peter 1 14th or 16 So it's interesting whether you're talking about under the law or under grace the basis for morality is God's character who is absolutely righteous and And that, of course, the world has lost complete sight of, haven't they? They have no basis on which to determine what's right or wrong. We've got different influences here. Secularism, humanism, postmodernism, non-Judeo-Christian religious views.

Remember, we talked some weeks ago, for example, about Hinduism. In Hinduism, how do you determine what's right and wrong and who decides? In Hinduism, is God fundamentally moral? No. In Hinduism, God is not fundamentally moral. There is no ultimate righteousness. There is a law of karma that will come back to you. There is no grace. There is no mercy. There is no forgiveness in karma. But ultimately, in Hinduism, God is not infinitely righteous. there is no ultimate right or wrong.

So this is radically different. As we get Eastern views spilling into the United States and into our own culture, it further muddies the waters in terms of the view of what's right and what's wrong and why things are right or wrong. We are in our culture losing any basis for declaring what's right or wrong. How about in a completely humanistic secular culture? There is no God, or if there is one, it's irrelevant. How do you determine what's right or wrong?

Alright, and that's been one of the things we've been hearing now for a couple generations. Yeah, if it feels good to it, or Marilyn said, each individual decides. Yeah, Tom? Okay, there's what the court says. Yeah, the laws. So then you end up getting a big battle to see who we can get on or off the Supreme Court, right? You end up getting this tug-of-war because it's basically what man says. How do we vote? Let's get some kind of a vote going and we'll decide that way.

It ends up being, what do people think? And what's happening, unfortunately, is people aren't. Yeah, people aren't doing that much thinking. As Cheryl brought up, if it feels good, you know, do it. The message that our culture has been sending is rapidly undermining any basis for determining what's right or wrong. Now, here's where we get into the really fun part. Leading edge meets precipice. So here are some examples and basically what I've asked are some questions, because these are the questions that the present level of technology has led recently, or is leading, or soon could lead us to. Let's go ahead and ask them.

Is it moral to produce a human clone or clones? What's the legal status of a human clone? Human or property? If property, whose? If not property, then what rights does a clone have? When should the spiritual needs of those clones be met, and if so, how? Can a clone be saved?

What substances may a human ingest or breathe or take in through skin contact? Are there different morals for human clones? Who decides? Maybe we make grades of genetic variation and intermixture between humans and other species. What legal standing do such creatures have? Can we make a human broccoli? Would you like to have a cross between your son and your pet?

Okay. Oddly enough, there are aspects of this that are now in the realm of genetic possibility. Yes. I mean, it sounds like funny, and I can do some strange things with photographs up there, but we're not talking pretend. These things are, Presently doable.

May we install multiple sensors into humans, clones, or variant human-animal hybrid beings, and also install monitoring, inventory control, and life termination devices in those beings. Which ones or how many of any of these? Who is qualified and authorized to make decisions about what is optimum for any of these technologies? How are we going to decide these things?

In Holland now, one case in point, it is legal for medical termination of life to take place. It's just a fact. We had recent running around in circles legally with the Kevorkian series of basically murders. But it was not something that they really established any solid basis for. Human beings did not have a good answer here in the United States. In other parts of the world, it's already proceeding along that you may decide to terminate people.

And it is demonstrable in some cases that the diseases that people had when they were killed were not terminal. So it was a decision not to end life early, but to end life. Okay, once the statistically probable life outcome is determined for each individual human or human-animal hybrid, is it permissible to pre-establish life termination points or set life termination criteria based on allowable investments versus economic output? This would be done, of course, to assure that each individual bio unit is economically cost-effective.

Tom. That's right. And it's just sort of, you know, hey, you know, it's been nice, you know, but you've reached your economic zero point. We've got to keep this thing on the up and up. So nice knowing you. Yeah. I mean, this this is and right now there is no reason technically why this can't be done. And and to some extent, we're having to make some of those kinds of choices in government programs. What will insurance fund? Those are those are the sorts of things that are being asked.

May we bring about human beings and or human-animal hybrids in a laboratory and managed environment outside of the typical home and family context? Sort of a high-tech womb and then raise the children under a clinical context. Should we do that? Once having determined the optimal diet and exercise level, I'm at the top of page three, for each advanced bio unit, should we regulate the intake and exercise of each so as to assure uniform and acceptable bio unit quality?

You get this much of this amount of nutrient and your prescribed exercise time begins now and it goes on to this point in time and obviously you don't cooperate with that. Well, we can fix that. You start seeing what the moral questions just keep rolling here.

If we have the capacity to substantially extend life by optimal management techniques, is there some age level or other parameter at which further life extension is denied? Who decides? If it could be determined that blood levels of certain substances served as indicators of an inclination to one or more prohibited behaviors, should those levels be remotely monitored and reported to authorities?

One of the things, for example, they found a very high incidence of criminal activity among people who have low levels of B vitamins in their blood system. So that might be a good reason just statistically to say, hey, you're out of the picture. It's too expensive to keep you up if you're not going to keep the B vitamins going. Or maybe we say, you know, you will get your B vitamins. We'll have police enforce that or bring it about in some other way.

If we were able to define a distributed set of genetically desirable characteristics, should the genetic parameters of the bio unit population be managed to conform to this definition? How should that take place? Plastic surgery can help restore function and appearance to those who have been injured or born with physical problems. And it can and has been used more recently to effectuate the external features of a change of gender, restoration to female virginity, the multiple successive changes in appearance and physical features.

Boy! Furthermore, we get presented in entertainment form these days. Hollywood is producing a lot of these kinds of things in obviously theatrical presentations. It is hypothetical, but put before us very visually. Sometimes it's in science fiction type movies and things of that sort.

But a lot of these questions have already been put out there, and some of them for a number of years. A lot of the issues have already been laid out there in terms of Hollywood entertainment. So the questions are very real. Most of the questions I've asked here have no technological limitations. Right now they are doable or very close.

In fact he made a lot of technological advances. He did all sorts of things that we would look at and say that's not right. He did a lot of experiments. You know, we hear about the Holocaust and the death of Jews, but many of the Jews were also subject to a number of ghastly experiments as well. But you're right. I mean, this is nightmare stuff. Yeah. And in some cases, what they do is they look at it and say, that's a great advancement in technology. even though we wouldn't do it that way. So we take advantage of it, even though we wouldn't necessarily proceed the way he did. Yes, Mark? We haven't, or you haven't yet, maybe you intend to, mention a transplant of organs that were living in the great advance of this medical Yeah, no, I actually haven't gone there and I didn't, you know, ask it. In truth, the list, you bring up the point, the list of technological questions is longer than we have time to even begin to address.

There are all sorts of issues. Years ago, I attended a lecture by some professors at Stanford and you know this was Dr. Shumway remember years ago he was the guy who was doing heart transplants and so some of these ethical questions were coming up in his time and obviously decades have passed since then but yes Tom Yeah, Tom's asking the question, who's to say when it's time to transplant? Is this person really dead? Do I jump the gun?

We run into questions like that. Alongside that, we also have the questions of who gets the transplant, who gets the organ. We have the ability also today with cloning, and it is right now technically feasible to produce a clone in order to produce an organ that you need from your own tissue to produce a clone to produce an organ that you need. That technology is available right now, okay, can be done today. Yes? I have in mind the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. With transplants, medical science comes in and the medical science giveth, for example, a heart. Yeah, ultimately that's where we run into trouble. Yeah, you had a question. Okay. Yes, yeah.

It is possible right now, and it has actually been proposed, that you produce a clone who is every bit like you, only it lacks a brain. And so basically, here's another you lying there, but with a fresh organ to transplant. So you can take off various organs as you like from that clone. Right now, the technology to do that available presently Randy yeah yeah yeah so they can get a selective organ replacement out of your own tissue that is just your you know, liver, kidney, whatever it is you happen to need.

That technology is available. Here's what's interesting is, you know, we come to the issue of creating life. Essentially, man still is not able to from or, you know, raw material to create life. We have not been able to do that yet. However, what happens is we take living tissue and can do all sorts of morphing with it. You know, we'll take a cell and replace the DNA. We will alter the DNA.

There's all sorts of things that we have learned to do to date that, again, just raise more and more issues. Marilyn? Oh, no. And I think that's where your point is well taken. This isn't taking God by surprise. Inventors of evil is God going, how did this happen? No, this is not at all in the Lord's, you know, area of some lack of knowledge. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. We have very limited revelation and other evidence to tell us what was present before the flood.

You know, there are different understandings of Genesis 6. As I've looked at it and talked with others, I'm increasingly inclined to think that the sons of God were indeed angelic creatures and that there was, here's again, something similar to what we have now. We're talking about a cross-breeding of different kinds of beings. So very interesting. Let's take a look here at the bottom of page three.

What is revealed is first of all personal for those in the church. And I think this is an important point because we run into all these technological questions. And where do we need to start looking at where we have a revelation from scripture as to what's right, what's wrong, what did God intend, where's the first point of application? And what we find in here as we look at Scripture, because we can examine, here's the Apostle Paul, he walks into Ephesus, and Ephesus is just a wonderful Christian town, right? No. Archpaganism, rank rotten raunch, okay?

Horrible stuff. He walks into Ephesus, On their Dionysius festival, they would have little kids all the way up to the older people involved in this Dionysius parade going down these lamplit streets. Here's these little kids involved in the Dionysius festival. The people would get just plastered drunk and while the animals, small animals were still alive, they would tear small animals apart with their hands as a part of their festival of Dionysius. tear them apart alive. Crazy behavior, little kids involved in alongside this, and so crazy stuff. You'd go to the marketplace and here's these statues of Artemis, as we've shown them when we studied Ephesians and Colossians, multi-breasted, multi rows of breasts of Artemis, and then a zodiac, you know, garland around Artemis' neck. They would have those on all the street corners, they'd sell them in the marketplace, sell them to everybody who came in and out of town, over a thousand temple prostitutes.

So what did Paul do? He went in and just cleaned the town up, right? No. What he did is he spread the gospel there, and he says in Acts 20, he spent three years teaching them, he says, I gave you the whole counsel of God. That's what I gave you." And who was he talking to? The elders. He says, I gave you guys the whole counsel of God. Then he says, be on guard, be on the alert, and now I commend you to the word of God.

So it wasn't a matter of him walking in and fixing all of Ephesus' moral issues. He didn't sit down and have classes with the doctors at Ephesus to be able to discern all the right and wrong things that they were doing. No. Those who became believers, he taught them the Word of God. That's how he laid it out. That's how he dealt with it.

So the first point there is that the priority of application of God's Word is, first of all, among believers. They are first and foremost. And the second one, Because if you look at it, the morality for Christians is, He is holy, therefore we be holy. We have a position in Him.

The world does not have that position. And our making the world Christian does not still give them that position. If we get everybody to act Christian, are they saved? No. As you see the priority, the priority here as we look at God's Word is not, gosh, we got to go around and get the laws changed and get in political positions and I got to be a lawyer so I can sue people and get some legal decisions made. And that's not where scripture puts the emphasis. It doesn't say that we cannot do such things, but that's just simply not the emphasis.

One of the things to observe, have you run into Christians who have that idea that that's their job to go around and start changing things? What have you seen? Any examples? Yeah, Tom? Pardon? Pat Robertson, okay. Yeah, you have that kind of a movement. Anybody else seen that kind of a thing where, you know, somebody feels it's their duty to go around and make the world Christian? Focus on the family is operating in that mode.

D. James Kennedy. Yeah, there are folks who work in this mode. There's a group called Reconstructionists. A lot of them are centered out of Tyler, Texas. They'd have this idea we're supposed to go out and take control of the world. Essentially what they're looking at doing is making God's kingdom on earth. A friend of mine that had a job where he traveled for hours with another fellow to this remote job site. And so they spent hours and hours talking to each other, day after day after day after day, going to this remote job site.

At the end of the time, he'd turned the fellow from a very liberal fellow into a more conservative fellow, but the guy wasn't saved. And he said, what have I done? Now I've got this fellow thinking conservatively, but it doesn't know good at all in eternity. And spiritually speaking, it really doesn't do him any good even now. So a part of the problem with that idea, we're going to go out and make the world, you know, Christian, is the change happens from the inside out, not the outside in.

Paul never, you know, walked into Ephesus and said, I got to go talk to the guys at the town council. There was a provincial governor there. He didn't go, I'm going to go talk to this guy and get some laws changed. We got to get Christian Rome here. No. Instead, he talked to people and Many of them were slaves. That's why he wrote to the church at Ephesus, and he wrote about husbands and wives, and he wrote about fathers and children, and then he wrote about slaves and masters. He didn't feel it was his duty to go on and change the slave system or something of that sort. They needed to believe that was top priority.

Now, did the believers in Ephesus burn a bunch of magic documents? Occult documents? Yep. Recorded in the Book of Acts. Lots of them. Did they go in the marketplace and grab all the ones there and start burning them? No. What they burned was what the ones the believers had.

So this isn't some sort of political censorship. This is believers saying, you know, I don't need to depend on this nonsense. So it's personal, not political. One other point to bring out here. Should Christians have any involvement in influencing the culture, influencing political systems, legal decisions, things of that sort? Okay, and in what way is that a valid thing to do? Okay, by your personal life, that's one way to have impact, good. Other thoughts on that? Okay, all right. In the political process, but only as the Lord leads you. Okay.

One of the things we see in the book of Isaiah, as we're going through that study, is we're seeing, and we'll see it here this morning again, there is a time coming here on planet earth, and it could be as close as seven years from now, when the Lord will reign upon the earth for a thousand years, and he will set things straight.

There will be no abuse of technology. There will be none of these nightmarish situations, things out of some ghastly science fiction movie taking place. It will be the Lord's righteousness carried out among people. It will be that way. Christians, however, will not bring that about prematurely by any efforts that they make, because it will not happen. until the Savior comes. And by then, we'll be out of here and brought back in resurrected bodies. Not doing it in our own strength, in our own power, in these bodies.

Now, what is revealed tells us what God intended. The very first chapters of Genesis, in other words, we go to the question, what should I be looking at here to make decisions about? And we saw that the primary priority. The priority is personal. It's clear from, and we see this from the early chapters of Genesis, and it is appropriate for us to look at it.

Remember, both Jesus and Paul and the other apostles, when they would write, would say, from the beginning, in the beginning, okay? They would look back. God made them. Those kinds of statements keep coming out from the very beginning. So it is appropriate for us to look at these.

One of them, blurring of distinctions or crossover of fundamental biology between man and animal was and is not God's intent. God made man a separate being. He didn't say, let us make man and broccoli in our image. Let us make man and the dog in our image. No. Let us make man our image uniquely.

So that crossover is not by God's intent. As we have personal choice, that's not an option we pick. The blurring of that distinction is not where we go. Blurring of distinction or crossover of fundamental biology between male and female human beings was and is not God's intent.

Some sociologists figured out there's something like 11 genders now. I don't know how you get that many. all the different ways of people picking their gender and crossing over and mixing up between this and that. The blurring of those male-female distinctions is not God's intent. We have the ability to do all sorts of incredible things.

They are technologically feasible. From God's standpoint, they are simply not His intent. What He intended was male and female. That was His intent from the outset. The Lord had different groups and deals with different groups in different ways that he brought about. He never blurred that distinction. Male and female from the beginning. Notice how Jesus answers the questions of the Pharisees. From the beginning, God created the male and female. That was God's intent. Technologies which diminish the value and uniqueness of human life, failing to recognize the spiritual aspect of human beings as created by God, are not God's intent.

We have technologies that will wipe out people, and our legal system is absolutely nuts. On the one hand, we've not been able to get through a partial birth abortion ban, and on the other hand, we'll prosecute you know, if a mother is murdered and the unborn baby along with is a second murder. Crazy, bizarre, legal. Who's thinking? I don't know. What were you thinking is a good question. Probably the answer is not.

External improvements to the bodies of human beings that ignore or place a higher priority upon the basic spiritual need of each human to place his or her faith in God's provision of salvation and not God's intent. I had seen an interview of one lady who had had over two dozen plastic surgeries. And Chris, we've got some famous people in the entertainment world who hardly look like what they started out. It is possible to carry out surgeries to the point where the person is barely recognizable as what they were. It's no longer what this technology started off as, You know, you've been in a bad accident or you've had a war injury or you've had some kind of a birth defect and we're going to fix it.

Now it's taking somebody, there's really nothing wrong with them at all and now we're going to continue to tweak and tweak and tweak and tweak. Really, is that person going to be better off spiritually? Is that person better off in terms of their family and personal relationships? We've gotten something way, way out of proportion. The priority is way out of whack when we've gone that far.

No technological improvement will displace the basic dependence of human beings upon who God is and what he has provided and what he has done. You can come up with human beings and you can do operations to make the appearance of changing their gender or making some new gender altogether. You can take human beings and do all sorts of alterations to them and inject things into them and pull things out of them. Does that change their need for the Savior? No. Not in the least. The sin nature is untouched by anything we do with technology. The need for the Savior is always there.

Let's ask this question. Is there anything we can do technologically that is going to improve upon our new body? No. No. We can spend tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars, put it in the millions, I don't care. There is nothing we can do to improve the new body that we have by operations or putting things in or taking things out here. Not going to happen.

The bottom line, God remains who He is, regardless of human technology. We can do some things wrong. We can do some things that are horribly out of God's intent. God is God. The sin nature is the sin nature. The need for the Savior remains just the same. I go back to the book of Romans here.

It says, When we were slaves to sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. Therefore, what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. And really, is any technology going to change that? No. But now, having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification and the outcome, eternal life.

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. When I was attending that seminar at Stanford, an assistant to Dr. Shumway was there asking questions. One person asked the question, well, is it feasible for us to think in terms of just continually replacing organs so that people can basically look forward to living forever? He said, no. Next question.

Bottom line, our technology is not going to get around the basic spiritual facts that are revealed. We have answers for what did God intend that give us personally the ability to determine what's right and wrong. We have the opportunity, and it may be limited, but we have the opportunity to have input into government decisions and court cases and things like that, although that's not priority. In the end, The issues that Scripture lays out will still be the issues that are there. In the end, man's need for the Savior remains. In the end, believers will need to walk by Christ's life, and not by any life that this world can inject into us.

Right? Fair? Yeah. Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Art? Oh, I'm sorry, Bud. Wrong hand there. Yeah, Bud brings up the point of looking at the rapture and what's ahead for the world. Yeah, a lot of these things kind of lay the groundwork, don't they? I'm glad you brought that up because it also brings up the question with all these technological capabilities, what is our hope? Paul wrote and said this is the blessed hope, the coming of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And that is our blessed hope.

No technology can change that. There is nothing they can do to this body to make it so that suddenly my hope is shifted from that blessed hope of Christ's coming. Nothing at all. Yeah, good. Thank you for that. Any other thoughts, questions? Yeah, Randy?

Technology is morally and spiritually neutral. which doesn't mean that it always remains neutral, but what that means is a technology is neither by itself fundamentally righteous nor fundamentally evil. It is in the hands of whatever people do with it to make it into something evil or righteous. We will use this to teach, the projector to teach and to put things up there, God's word and explaining God's word, We could use the same technology to put things on the screen that nobody should be watching. It's the same technology, the technology itself is neither good nor evil. It has the capacity as a neutral, morally and spiritually neutral thing to be used either way.

Yeah, good point. Thank you for bringing that up. Anything else? Yes. Yeah, so here we have the ability, I know I've been in communication with Eliska over in Czech, you know, and she's able to ask questions and get answers to things and it's a wonderful thing. We can do some great things with it.

The technology itself is not the evil. nor is it fundamentally good. You still come down to human choices, don't you? You still come down to where do people stand spiritually? And that's the bottom line. Let's call it quits, okay? And feel free to talk or ask, but for the sake of our time here, we need to call an end to it.

Lord, thank you. As we look to these things, there are some questions we could ask that are a little too real and close for us, for comfort. And they can even indeed be alarming and even frightening. And yet at the same time, we're thankful that nothing at all negates the truth that you've revealed for us in your word. That we can stand upon who you are, we can stand upon what you've done, on your promises, and you have prepared, in spite of any technology, good works that we may walk in them. Thank you, Lord, for what you have done. In Jesus' name, amen.