What is most important to you right now?  Your answer to that question is your god.  You may be asking: “I thought this post was about perspective.” Yes dear reader, it is.  All perspectives other than God’s are inherently flawed.  God is not limited in His perspective by time or space.  All time is now and everywhere is here.  God works all things for His good and His purpose.  This is one of the primary teachings of the book of Job.  Job’s wife and those who came to visit him and even Job himself for a while had the wrong perspective about his trials and tragedies.  They thought that God had cursed him for his sin.  They were wrong and Job eventually got it right.

“But he knows the way that I take;
when he has tried me, I shall come out as gold.”  Job 23:10 (ESV)

Often times in the Christian life we come across challenges, tragedies, and trials and we take a completely self-centered attitude about them.  I’m not even talking about big stuff like the things Job faced.  It doesn’t have to be a tribe of nomads stealing all of your livestock or your relative dying or some kind of disease.  Most Christians who have been Christians for at least a little while can tell you that when disaster strikes that the appropriate reaction should be to trust in God and rest in Him.  It almost seems easier to do that with huge problems, probably because we know that we can’t handle disaster on our own.   But what about some guy who never learned how to drive correctly causing a traffic jam that is making you late for work or an appointment.  Usually my reaction would be to get mad and rhetorically mock the ignoramus for his lack of driving skills.  Is that loving? No.  Does it matter, even though the ignoramus can’t hear what I’m saying? Yes.  It matters because it causes me to sin.  It leads me to ungodliness.  Philosophically I know that God is in control of the traffic jam, or the slow computer, or the lack of funds in my bank account, or whatever the situation may be.  However, my actions will always reflect the perspective from which I see the situation.  In this sort of situation, the usual response is frustration, which stems from a lack of belief that God is really in control.

Perspective is a more about the condition of one’s heart than the knowledge in one’s mind.  To have a biblical perspective is to have enact the belief that God is in control of every situation and that even the all too frustrating minutia is not in fact minutia.  What we consider minor, everyday tedium is just as important and just as filled with purpose to God as all of we issues that we consider to be so important.

The New Testament picks up on Job’s teachings.  When Jesus heals the man born blind(John 9), his disciples ask him whose sin had caused the man’s blindness.  Jesus answered that the man’s blindness existed for Jesus to bring glory to the Father.  The man had suffered for those years for the purpose of being healed.  Do you think that he whined about the reason after Jesus healed him. Nope.  The Scriptures tell us that he rejoiced, as did all those who Jesus healed.  The perspective was that of thanksgiving to the God who made them and who healed them.  What greater thing could the formerly blind man do with his life than to glorify God with it?  What greater thing can those of us who follow Christ do than bring glory to God?  This especially applies to when we all too often chase the little foxes that bend our perspective away from glorifying our Creator, Savior, and Lord God.

1 Peter 3:13-14

¹³Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good?¹⁴But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,”

….

{beautiful watercolor via keinyo white}

…

there exists a word that has me in chains, the same word that has been breaking me since september, been breaking me since i can remember.

this word took me on an adventure this quarter, an emotional one to say the least, and in the fullness of its definition this word led me to blame someone else for my folly. and for this, i am incredibly, incredibly ashamed.

this word led me to believe that i am allowed to expect things, that i deserve answers, that i can cookie-cut God into my life where I think He should show up.

this word has satan wrapped up in my mirror, leaving me desolate in a place of sadness.

and it breaks me – over and over again.

…

this word is pride.

…

but today i opened my notebook and was humbled by these divine words:

“our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
give us today our daily bread.
forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.”

Jesus is my purpose. His kingdom is my calling.  And His will — it will be done.
And in the process, pride shall be conquered and I shall be broken, because it isn’t about me.

…

“Not to us, O Lord, not to us
but to your name be the glory.”
[psalm 115:1]

There are only two voices in life: the loud, irrational, unloving, separative, fear-based, dualistic, illusionary, lower self, selfish voice of the negative ego and the “Still, Small Voice Within” of unconditional love, forgiveness, grace, omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. As you learn to deny and quiet the negative ego mind and learn to think and feel only from your Spiritual/ Christ/ Buddha/ Krishna/ Moses/ Mohammed/ Mighty I AM Presence/ God/ Goddess Mind, you will live and move and have your being in God’s grace, grandeur and love at all times. Your job is to be joyously vigilant for God and His Kingdom against the negative ego and to deny any thought not of God to enter your mind. If you do this, there is only one other voice that will hence be present, and this is the sweetest voice of all creation. It is the Voice of God/ Brahma/ Allah/ Dharmakaya/ The I AM THAT I AM, also known as the Voice of the Holy Spirit…

So let it be written. So let it be done.

© 2009 www.IAMUniversity.org

Even now, behold, my witness is in heaven, and my advocate is on high.(NASB) Job 16:19

Job stated God was his witness. God who dwells in the heavens. God who sees everyone and the things they do. God who is all seeing and all knowing was who Job appealed to, as his witness. He knew his record was on high. God had the records. God who was in the heavens was his witness. With God as his witness, Job was not even going to try to justify himself of the things his friends charged him with. Job’s friends could think what they wanted about him. God knew the truth. He could appeal to God’s omniscience concerning his integrity. More than likely Job who was under heavy criticism from his friends took great comfort that there was a God in heaven who knew his integrity and would eventually clear it up.

It is not very comforting when we are misunderstood by others either. When we have been totally misunderstood along with our motives being misinterpreted. Often times we are accused of things we are not guilty of at all. Ever have that happen? Someone totally misinterprets our thoughts, ideas, words and motives. They assign evil motives to our thoughts, ideas and words when this was not the case. But we have a witness in heaven! God knows the truth about us. This should be a comfort to us that God keeps records. He knows the truth. He knows what is in our hearts. The key is when people are coming against our integrity is to not even try to justify ourselves before them. Our goal is to let people think what they will of us. God knows the truth. Often times this is easier said than done not to justify ourselves and let people think what they will. However, with God’s help we can!

Does God need justification for creating a sentient being? If yes, then I can imagine that the justification can only come from God Himself, since everything that exists other than God is necessarily created by God, and so any answer other than God resolves to the absurdity of something that was created without justification that would somehow offer justification for God creating. In other words, justification for creating comes from God and cannot come from anywhere else.

An acquaintance posited a problem in this vein; why didn’t I have the choice to not be created?

The question itself is flawed, I think. The problem with me having a choice in whether or not I would be created is that, for me to make a choice would necessitate my being created in the first place, at which point the choice to be not created would be defeated. There is simply no way for the circumstances to be fulfilled, like a square circle.

My opponent might reply that, being God, couldn’t He know whether someone wanted to be created before He created them? I would of course, because of my commitment to God’s omniscience, posit yes. Nothing is gained, because the supposed argument;

1) God is unjust because He created people He knew wouldn’t want to be created

Is not the necessary conclusion, because it could very well be;

1′) God is just because He created no one who He knew wouldn’t want to be created

Of course, whether God creating someone who didn’t want to be created would make Him unjust is another question, but whether or not (1) or (1′) is true can, I think, be determined through the answering of other prior questions; Is God just? If the answer is yes, then (1′) is necessitated. If no, then (1) follows.

So, no headway against belief in God has really been made by the argument, since the question itself is silly.

Download the free MP3 of today’s message and music here.
You can also read the full text under the video below (video may take a few seconds to load).

Now we are pleased with the progress you have made
in focusing your attention on your heart center and allowing source to fill you with source energy
vibrations of love, passion peace and joy
we are pleased with your focus on gratitude and your ability to feel appreciation for what is
we are pleased with your ability to accept all that is with non-judgement
and to experience unwanted thoughts with detachment
yes
this is all very necessary in your realization of who you truly are and we are pleased with the progress you have and continue to make moment to moment
let your heart be at peace knowing that your commitment and desire for this process
will continue leading you down the correct path
for no decision you can make will bring you apart from the love and guidance of source
you are divinely protected indeed
and the more you realize that the easier your journey will be
for stress, as you know, is optional completely
your attention to love, thoughts and feelings of love
and your continued practice of what we have given you will bring you the freedom from conditioned thinking you deserve
the abundant life you most desire
and the rewards of living a life of light
that is bestowed among the most enlightened of you
yes
you become more enlightened by being your true self
being the extension of source that you truly are
letting go of social conventions that do not align with your true nature the essence of love
and allowing your self to truly unfold as your heart’s desires dictate
yes
this is your map to unfolding
and let your heart be the guide to seeking, moving and having your being in love
for the wisdom is there
the wisdom and connection the omnipotence
omniscience and omnipresence of source
is all within that heart center
yes
this is your nature
for source is equally present everywhere
and your connection to source is best experienced through the vibrations of love best interpreted from your heart center

yes
and so it is

- Morning stream of consciousness writing from John Stringer

Sign up to get these messages delivered to your email at http://snipurl.com/myrn

Ed Yong (via Pharyngula) reports on a cool study conducted by psychologist Nicholas Epley:

Epley asked different groups of volunteers to rate their own beliefs about important issues such as abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, the death penalty, the Iraq War, and the legalisation of marijuana. The volunteers also had to speculate about God’s take on these issues, as well as the stances of an “average American”, Bill Gates (a celebrity with relatively unknown beliefs) and George Bush (a celebrity whose positions are well-known).

The result: “In every case, [Epley] found that people’s own attitudes and beliefs matched those they suggested for God more precisely than those they suggested for the other humans.”

Ed says that Epley’s study shows that “relying on a deity to guide one’s decisions and judgments is little more than spiritual sockpuppetry.”  (A sockpuppet is a “false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person, like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet” — Wikipedia.)

I can think of at least one other plausible interpretation of this study.

If you believe in God, you probably think God is morally omniscient.  That is: you believe that, if any given action X is wrong, then God knows that X is wrong — and conversely, if God believes that any given action X is wrong, then X really is wrong.  (You might think God is morally omniscient because you are a theological voluntarist.  But even if you deny voluntarism, as many believers do, you probably still think God is morally omniscient, if you believe in God.)

But if you think God is morally omniscient, then you would be irrational if you believe that, say, abortion is wrong (or permissible, or whatever) without thinking that God shares your belief.  Given God’s omniscience, a given judgment is correct if and only if God agrees with it.  So your endorsement of any given judgment has the immediate implication that God shares your view.

The result is that, if you believe God is morally omniscient, then your moral beliefs also serve as conjectures about God’s attitudes.  Thus, in order to explain Epley’s results, we don’t need Yong’s “Sockpuppet Hypothesis,” as I’ll call it.  Epley’s results are precisely what we should expect if religious believers  consider God to be morally omniscient, regardless of whether religious believers treat God like a ventriloquist treats a dummy.

An analogy can help here.  Suppose I think that Dr. Smith, a famous scientist, knows everything there is to know about biology.  Then, if I believe that platypuses are not mammals, I should believe that Dr. Smith believes that platypuses are not mammals.  (After all, if I believed that Dr. Smith considers platypuses to be mammals, and believed that Dr. Smith knows everything about biology, then I would be crazy to think platypuses are not mammals.)  But this doesn’t mean  Dr. Smith is my sockpuppet.  If Dr. Smith were to tell me that platypuses are mammals, I’d believe him, even if I previously thought otherwise.

We can make similar points if we go deeper into Epley’s study (well — deeper into Ed’s summary of the study, which I consider trustworthy; I haven’t read the study itself).  Ed writes:

Of course, correlation doesn’t imply causation – rather than people imprinting their beliefs onto God, it could be that people were using God’s beliefs as a guide to their own. Epley tried to control for that by asking his recruits to talk about their own beliefs first, and then presenting God and the others in a random order. And as better evidence of causality, Epley showed that he could change people’s views on God’s will by manipulating their own beliefs.

[Epley] showed some 145 volunteers a strong argument in favour of affirmative action (it counters workplace biases) and a weak argument opposing it (it raises uncomfortable issues). Others heard a strong argument against (reverse discrimination) and a weak argument for (Britney and Paris agree!). The recruits did concur that the allegedly stronger argument was indeed stronger. Those who read the overall positive propaganda were not only more supportive of affirmative action but more likely to think that God would be in the pro-camp too.

These results do not support the Sockpuppet Hypothesis.  If God is morally omniscient, then a convincing argument for (or against) affirmative action is also a convincing argument for the view that God believes affirmative action is a good (or bad) thing.  Thus, we should expect precisely these results even if we assume that the Sockpuppet Hypothesis is false.

Epley’s study does contain some evidence for the Sockpuppet Hypothesis.  Apparently, when people are thinking about their own moral beliefs, their brains light up in a certain way (as shown by an fMRI scanner).  When they are thinking about God’s moral beliefs, their brains light up in a similar pattern.  But when they are thinking about other people’s moral beliefs, their brains exhibit a different pattern.  This makes it look as if your brain is doing just the same thing whether it is forming moral judgments or speculating about God’s beliefs.  This would be hard to explain without the Sockpuppet Hypothesis.

But I don’t think we should put much stock in the Sockpuppet Hypothesis on the  basis of fMRI readings alone.  I think we just don’t know enough about how brains work; and the inference “Pattern X occurs when doing mental task Y, and Pattern X occurs when doing mental task Z; therefore task Y and task Z are the same task” is obviously too crude.  But this does look like an interesting first step toward evidence for the Sockpuppet Hypothesis.

Here are some ideas for further experiments that could yield more evidence about the Sockpuppet Hypothesis:

(1) Find out whether people think God’s beliefs are consistent with the collection of all their moral beliefs.  Most people do not regard themselves as morally omniscient — if you ask any given person whether she has any mistaken moral beliefs, she’ll probably say yes (if she gives the question any serious thought).  Given this, and given the assumption that God is morally omniscient, you’d expect people to believe that some of their moral beliefs are inconsistent with God’s beliefs.  (Of course, they wouldn’t know precisely which of their moral beliefs are inconsistent with God’s beliefs — otherwise they’d abandon those beliefs.)  However, if the Sockpuppet Hypothesis is correct, then people might think that their beliefs are fully consistent with God’s beliefs (in the same way that a ventriloquist would expect her dummy to agree with her about everything).  So, if religious believers generally believe (and act as if) all of their beliefs are consistent with God’s beliefs, that would be pretty good evidence for the Sockpuppet Hypothesis.

(2) Ask people what the Ideal Observer thinks, and watch what their brains do in ye olde fMRI scanner.  The Ideal Observer, like God, is (in some versions) morally omniscient, but the Ideal Observer is a purely hypothetical entity and has no religious role or overtone.  Suppose that, when you’re thinking about the Ideal Observer’s beliefs, your brain lights up in a different pattern than when you’re thinking about God’s beliefs.  That might be evidence that the assumption of God’s moral omniscience can’t fully explain what’s going on when believers think about God’s attitudes.  In that case, you might need to go to something like the Sockpuppet Hypothesis.

Related articles:
Neuroethics: Ethics and the Sciences of the Mind
By Neil Levy, University of Melbourne (December 2008)
Philosophy Compass

Morality and Religion
By Tim Mawson, St Peter’s College (December 2009)
Philosophy Compass

Following God without Belief: Moral Objections to Agnostic Religious Commitment
By Samantha Corte (February 2008)
Philosophy Compass

Divine Omniscience and Human Freedom is a topic I have written on in the past. Initially, I wrote a post that was derived almost entirely from William Lane Craig’s The Only Wise God. Shortly thereafter, I wrote a second post that expanded slightly on the ideas. These garnered much discussion, though perhaps more on Facebook than on here.

In all of these discussions, I had a nagging feeling. I believe the viewpoint I hold is fairly well defended, but I felt as though I wasn’t defending it correctly. Questions kept arising that I was on the verge of having answers to, but was unsure of how exactly to explain. But as has often been the case in my life, I read more, learned more, and want to discuss more.

In my first post I outlined an argument that basically stated that while:

Argument A:

1. Necessarily, if God foreknows x, then x will happen.

2. If God is omniscient, God foreknows x.

3. Therefore, x will happen.

is true

Argument B:

“1. Necessarily, if God foreknows x, then x will happen.

2. If God is omniscient, God foreknows x.

3. Therefore, x will necessarily happen.”

is not.

The problem was in how to explain the fallacy in the second statement. After reading Plantinga’s The Nature of Necessity, (my review here... ever the shameless plug for my site!)  however, I started to figure it out. It was only today that the idea kind of sprung on me (divine providence?).

The fallacy is in confusing de dicto and de re necessity. The first syllogism grants de dicto necessity, but not de re, while the second argument unjustifiably concludes de re necessity from de dicto.

Of course, a definition of terms is necessary (pun intended):

De dicto necessity is: “a matter of a proposition’s being necessarily true”

While de re necessity is: “an object’s having a property essentially or necessarily” (Plantinga, V)

Here’s an example:

I am sitting on a chair (a comfortable one, I might add) as I write this. Thus, it is necessarily true that I am sitting (for x=x necessarily, I am sitting, therefore I am sitting). But this kind of necessity is de dicto. It does not follow that I am necessarily sitting in the de re sense, for if that were true, I could simply not do otherwise. I could never get up.

But let us return to freedom and divine omniscience. The first syllogism states de dicto necessity: If God knows x will happen, x happens. But the second syllogism argues for de re necessity:  if God knows x will happen, necessarily, x will happen. This is the fallacy. There is no de re necessity here. God’s knowledge of x does not assign x any essence or property. Rather, God’s knowledge that x will happen simply means x will happen. God’s knowledge of x does not assign any kind of necessity to x, but merely means that his own knowledge is true. God’s knowledge of x does not mean that x could not have been otherwise, only that it will not be.

Thus, we can reveal a few errors. The first is the error that God’s knowledge of some action x somehow makes x itself necessary. The second is the error of tying God’s knowledge of x in with his causation of x. Oftentimes, one can read works where people write believing that God’s knowledge of an event x somehow determines or even causes x to occur, and it could not be otherwise. While God may indeed choose to cause x, just because God knows x doesn’t mean it follows that x is necessarily true.

Perhaps another example might help:

Let’s consider the moon. God created the moon. He also knows exactly what interactions it has with other objects in the universe. But it seems quite obvious that God could have done otherwise concerning the moon. The moon could have been created with a smaller mass, a different color dust, an atmosphere. But to say that, as some would, Argument B is true would mean that the moon exists as it does, and because God knows this it could not have been otherwise. But this seems obviously false. There is nothing inherent in the moon itself that means it is necessarily true that it looks the way it does or has the mass it does. Rather, the only necessity, if any, that can be assigned to the moon is de dicto, not de re.

Thus, those who believe God’s foreknowledge of some action x determines x necessarily have committed the de dicto – de re fallacy. It is quite an easy error to commit, but on further examination it can be demonstrated fallacious.

——–

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author.

And they do not consider in their hearts that I remember all their wickedness. Now their deeds are all around them; They are before My face. (NASB) Hosea 7:2

It never entered Israel’s mind that the Lord remembered all their evil deeds. The bad things they did were all around them. They were right in front of Him. The people did not realize God was watching them. God saw all the sinful deeds around them. It did not cross their mind, that the Lord kept account of their every crime. He saw who they were and what they had done. The problem with Israel was they deliberately forgot that the Lord not only saw but remembered their sin.

People forget that God remembers. We are not going to hide anything from Him. Why do people think they are getting by with it? Have we forgotten? Others might not know our sinful deeds but God knows. Do we think the Lord does not see? Do we think the Lord is blind to our premarital relations? What about our adultery? Do we think He does not see the pornography we view on the Internet? Are His eyes shut to our drunkenness? There are untold numbers of church goers who believe the Lord forgets or never sees these sinful deeds, because they do them and then come to church and make a declaration of godliness, pretending those sinful deeds which they committed were never a part of their life. Good works and time are not enough to make the Lord forget our sin. We must come to God, through the atoning substitute of Christ who was crucified in our place. This makes the Lord forget our sin.

Deuteronomy 13:6-20 (New International Version)

 ⁶ If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, ⁷ gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), ⁸ do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. ⁹ You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. ¹⁰ Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. ¹¹ Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

 ¹² If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in ¹³ that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), ¹⁴ then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, ¹⁵ you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, ^[a] both its people and its livestock. ¹⁶ Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt. ¹⁷ None of those condemned things ^[b] shall be found in your hands, so that the LORD will turn from his fierce anger; he will show you mercy, have compassion on you, and increase your numbers, as he promised on oath to your forefathers, ¹⁸ because you obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commands that I am giving you today and doing what is right in his eyes.

2 Chronicles 15:12-13 (New International Version)

¹² They entered into a covenant to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul. ¹³ All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.

As I started to re-read the Bible with my new found sensitivity to the moral issues posed by God’s action I grew more and more concerned.  Yes many of these were in the Old Testament – but they were still decreed by God.  Does God’s morality change over time?  Is what is wrong right in one time and circumstance and wrong in another?  Is what is wrong for most right for a few? 

 I had been taught that God was perfect and unchangeable, that his morals had the force of unchanging laws.  That his morality was perfect and higher than humanity’s.  Yet here were acts decreed either directly or sanctioned by God, that would be considered grossly immoral if done by any government or group of people now.

 Now at this time I was still Christian and would remain so for  more than a year.  I did not go directly to atheism because of these questions.  Instead I looked for answers that would resolve them.  And being the bookish and rather shy (actually very and painfully shy) person that I was at this time (I am now only mildly shy) then I looked for those answers in books and articles. 

I  read and considered  all the standard justifications for the actions of God in the Old Testament.  And, unfortunately, found them lacking.  Some examples: 

 Justification:  For Joshua, that the inhabitants of the land were sinful and full of wickedness even to the point of sacrificing their children. 

 Response:  Fine. That is justification for conquering them – but to kill all even those who did not participate.   What of those who disagreed with their religion – kill them too?  To kill the children and babies?  To save the children from sacrifice you kill them?   It also did not address the seeming pettiness of God as he orders all the gold and silver be given over to him.  

 Justification:  For  Joshua – that all of the cities were offered peaceful treaties but rejected them. 

Response:  The same objection as above in regards to killing them all.  But again note that in Joshua 11:20 God hardened the hearts of those in the cities so that they would reject peaceful treaties because God wanted them exterminated – to the last man, woman, and child.   

Justification:  For Deuteronomy and the killing of those family members who believed differently than you do.  This was a special case for people who had dedicated themselves to God. 

 Response:  So there was no free choice?  No free will?  No one allowed to change their mind?  If so they should be killed?  I tried to apply that rule to modern day religious movements and governments and did not see that being accepted by human society as a justified and moral reason for killing someone.  Sorry, that did not hold up either. 

 Justification:  The New Testament changed the nature of the covenant.

Response:  Then God’s morality changes with the times?  Morality is not constant and unchanging?  That killing whole groups of people was right and moral at one time but not now?  Sorry, that didn’t hold true for me either.  It would mean a rather large change in God’s nature that did not sit well for me. 

 I could find no good justification for God’s actions as depicted in the Old Testament.  I could find no way to resolve the conflict between my belief in a moral and omnipotent God who cared for all of his children and a literal reading of the Bible.  My concern grew that I might find myself standing against God due to morality.   A rather ironic potential stance. 

 I also had to ask myself did I really want to pursue the questions.  Could I just take it on faith that there were answers and that God would answer those questions in heaven?  But I had problems on this.  Mainly how do I know which religion to have faith in? 

 Every religion has difficult questions.  And I know that for me at this time and most Christians the fact that these difficult questions exist for these other religions – Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism and others – and could not be adequately answered was a reason to reject them.  Yet if taking faith as the answer to the unanswered questions I had about God’ morality then why would not the same answer hold true for other religions. 

 So my question really came down to – Do I go ahead and take it on faith and have faith that my faith is correct or do I continue to pursue answers to my questions  and follow wherever they lead me?  Even if they lead me to reject a moral God or into some version of nihilism (short preview – I am not a nihilist and do believe there are good bases for morality even with an atheistic viewpoint;  or even because of being one, but that comes later)?

 I decided to have faith that there are answers that I could find that would allow me to remain a Christian, or that if there were not that I could deal with whatever I did find. 

Next more questions on other aspects of Christianity – and a start of my first answer.

While it may very well be that all that we are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot.

As of late, I have given some thought to the arguments of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Edward Wilson, Peter Singer and a number of other players in the current debates about God, morality, and evolutionary biology.  Their basic premise seems to be that what it means to be human or a part of nature can only be explained by evolutionary theory.  Moreover, this theory leads the to the inexorable conclusion that all can be reduced to an explanation as to how atomic physics have played out in the last however many billion years or so. (See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe ). Nary a thought is given to the real fact that all of us have an epistemological gap between us and the beginning of time, such that no present explanation of our world can suffice to explain it entirely.  God does readily fill that epistemological void.

While it may very well be that all that we (and the universe we have our be-ing in) are nothing but a cosmic soup of atomic matter, it certainly does seem that humanity has the unique ability to stir the pot.  This ability is seen nowhere else in the ‘natural world.’  Indeed, it is this very deviation from cosmic destiny, evolutionary theory, or even simple neuro-psychology, that uniquely defines what it is to be human.

Unlike the natural world, we are not dependent on the synchronicity of our coexistence with/in  the many moving and interactive elements of the earth’s evolved environment.  Ostensibly, we are readily able to defy what nature might otherwise dictate.  Singer and others have, rather oddly, concluded that behavior which defies nature is somehow ignoble or immoral.  Isn’t everything “natural,” in the sense that all that is must be derivative of evolutionary processes and atomic destiny?  What possible moral difference could stirring the pot of cosmic existence make, if we can only have derived our ability to stir the pot from the very substance found in the pot?  There has to be a clear distinction made between the subject and objects confronted by human existence.

As an aside, this does not mean that morality would have to be completely dependent on some traditional notion of God. It is simply a matter of distinguishing a difference between intentionality, conscious acknowledgment and the human experience of what is “moral,” from that which is simply a byproduct of evolutionary necessity and atomic structure. Whether these aspects are distinguishable from each other is the question that Professor Dawkins raises. The conceptual parsing done by Dawkins is actually quite admirable and necessary to the understanding of either side’s argument.

Moreover, it seems readily apparent that the process of evolution for the ‘natural world’ moves at the same pace as it has from the beginning of time (barring any natural disasters).  Animals and plants are not dependent on us for their existence in a natural state.  They only evolve at certain scientifically definable rates in accordance with the environmental variables which govern the process.

Simply put, humans command the ability to even deprive ourselves of the natural synchronicity with nature.  It is indeed arguable that we sometimes separate from nature and defy it.   At a minimum, we stand out from nature.  For example, a lion cannot simply redefine itself or make claim to an existence other than that which it has at its essence. A view toward’s Heidegger’s philosophy on death would also underscore the reality that humans are perfectly capable of  experiencing “unnatural” deaths.  Most lions and other creatures will die substantially the same way and of the same causes.  Humans, however, bear a capacity for defining even the parameters of our own deaths.  Certainly, our nearest alleged “relatives,” chimpanzees, can hardly lay stake to such abilities.  In other words, there is something about the human experience that can be completely differentiated from that of the animal experience.  Indeed, this statement can be made even without accounting for the unique capacity of humans to conceive of [a] God, to understand beauty, and to engage in the fine arts.

Nevertheless, we can rightly claim that humans engage in unnatural acts.  They engage in acts that defy natural selection and the otherwise undisturbed progression of the natural world outside of humanity.  Animals are not generally self destructive in any real way.  Humans, on the other hand, are completely competent to destroy themselves and everything else around them.  Indeed, humankind is readily able to change its environment quickly and drastically.  And, in so changing, it becomes apparent that we are the only creatures on earth that are capable of self-directed evolution, even to the point of destroying ourselves.   Seemingly, evolutionists are ready to deprive of humankind of this sacred and distinct attribute shared by no other living creatures.

Frankly, it seems inconsistent to stand by an evolutionary biology explanans for why things are the way they are, and yet complain about the seemingly out of control, or even allegedly  immoral, progress of humanity.  Morality simply has no place in a universe driven only by the predisposed nature of atomic structures and the rules of physics to which they are bound.  In a very important sense, the effect of human existence on the environment is no less evolutionary or atomically driven than any other process that is claimed to have arisen from a purely evolutionary beginning.  That is, if one believes that all must have come from simple existence which led to a graduated complexity.

In order to speak of “moral” behavior, one must first believe that there is some constituent part of the universe which can be moral or act in a moral way.  If we rely simply on the synaptic firing of our neurons, coupled with a genetic destiny, it simply does not make sense to incorporate a moral lexicon into human existence.  However, if one believes that moral behavior is a step above, or uniquely differentiated from, the coldness of evolutionary survival of the species, it must follow that one believes that there is a higher arche to the human existence.  Whether this is attributable to God or a higher being/be-ing (a template for higher being or a more complex nature outside of the natural rules that apply to all other creatures), or not, seems to be the real question.

There are a good number of evolutionary biologists and philosophers of our time who readily conclude that all of human existence can simply be explained by reference to the primordial atomic soup from which all has evolved.  They do not explain where the atomic structure/fabric came from, they do not explain the source of the energy driving all that is, they ignore or gloss over the origins of art and beauty, and they completely ignore the obvious fact that the human line of species significantly deviates from otherwise predictable genetic destinies or even basic natural evolution of the rest of nature and its evolving complexity.

At first glance, the basic problem with evolutionary biology is that it rests upon what appears to be a purely linear view of the time-space continuum.  This purely linear view adds an unnecessary viscosity to the stream of the cosmos and nature itself. The evolutionists view does not account for the fact that all matter, or representations of matter, derive from an admittedly common source and theoretical moment of being put in motion.  That is, all things that can be perceived in the real world are the same age by reference to atomic matter, interactivity, and movement of the cosmos.

The only difference between one atomic structure and another is the ‘present’ constituency of the thing perceived.  Under a non-linear view of time, it may just be the case that the “age” of things is a function of where they are in the movement of the “cosmic swirl.”  An evolutionist should not confuse the properties of age with actual age — if time can even be said to be a good structure for cosmology.  If there was a single moment of creation, moving forward, differing “ages” of the atomic world’s constituents are not so obvious as to merit the conclusion that the universe actually is 13.7 to 37 billion years old or any other specific age for that matter.  If, at the time the cosmos was put in motion, certain aspects of reality were given characteristics in their atomic structure that give off the impression of being “older,” it may simply be that the evolutionist has been fooled in much the way a purchaser of art might be fooled by the acquisition of a good faux painting.  The thing acquired or perceived has all of the characteristics, but is lacking in the need of its original creator and an understanding of the process leading up to the perceived masterpiece.

In other words, the moment of creation may simply have been a stirring of the pot by an Omnipotent and wholly self sufficient Primary Mover.  A cyclical or interwoven time structure is not the same as a linear structure which starts from a given point and brings us to something called “today.”  The ’swirl’  of the cosmic mass we call reality should not be confused with a purely linear view of reality, upon which evolution must rely (i.e., reliance on a Big Bang, primordial soup, then various periods of evolution/advancement of varying species).  Obviously, if linear time is the framework for the edifice of evolution, there is a strong likelihood that evolutionary theory is defectively constructed.

Additionally, it seems that the atheist opposition confuses their perceived improbability of God with ultimate exclusion from the range of all possibilities.  In the view of Dawkins and his company, it is nearly an absolute truth that God does not exist.  Were it the case that Dawkins could overcome the long standing objections that might be made by George Berkeley as to the importance of human perception in all of this, perhaps a better argument could be made.  However, Dawkins and his crew presuppose the validity and concrete values of their perceptions and just assume that a consensus gentium argument will carry the day because a vast number of other evolutionary biologists happen to agree on the notion that God, Creationism or Intelligent Design are improbable or altogether wacky.  Solipsism remains a strong enemy of confidence in the truth values of our own perceptions.  In fact it does seem that the utility and efficacy of certain “memes” bears out this very problem.  Cultural evolution is a product of passed on perception, without necessary regard to or of principles deriving from mathematics or physics.

In order for anyone’s argument to work with respect to great cosmological arguments, it does seem that the veil of basic human perception must first be torn and put aside in favor of an unobstructed view of reality.  Humanity has proven itself quite incapable of divesting itself from its condition as a status which depends purely on the senses and humanized logic.  Professor Dawkins and his ilk may be assured that just as great a number of scientific theories have fallen, after ready acceptance by consensus, as have arguments for the existence of particular gods or ontologies.  In large part, it seems that the human defect of limited perception is the cause of a great number of these many failed scientific theories throughout history. Indeed, it seems apparent that our singular or collective experiences limit the conclusions to which we may arrive.  Experience naturally limits the parameters of what we can actually know.  Admittedly, the breadth of one’s “experience” can be widened with knowledge/exposure to mathematics, physics, chemistry, theory of biology, philosophy, and other areas of learning.  However, the expansion of theory is dependent on the limits of our own personal knowledge and that of our colleagues in thought.  The limits of humanity do not give way simply because one believes in evolutionary biology.

Father Time has proven himself to be a bitter enemy to the life span of most scientific theories.  As human perception ‘evolves,’ scientific theories die.  Sometimes they die by the weight of their own complexity or the simply are shown to be inconsistent with the collective perceptions of an advanced humanity.  Oddly, however, the explanatory value of a higher cause or higher being has not died since the conceivable beginnings of human thought about the source of our being and the reasons for our existence.  This may be simply because a belief in God does provide a fabric to all that is.  Or, it may just as well be that the vast majority of humans have perceived something that can only be described as God.  For as many scientists and theologians as there have been in history, there have probably been nearly as many fools among them.

The pervasive perception of God, or the empirical basis for the use of a word such as “God,” cannot be simply disregarded.  Simply because Dawkins has not personally perceived something that might be called God does not allow him to summarily dispense with any Wittgensteinean objections as to the limits of our language and ability to articulate what we experience.  It is undeniably the case that the Judeo-Christian view of the world has rather successfully sufficed to unite an advancing/progressive group of humans, indeed the entirety of Western Culture, of which Professor Dawkins would be a participant.  The “memes” of, or which are, Christianity have proven to be a rather powerful force by any account.  See generally, John 1:1-4 (KJV).

It seems to me that the evolutionists of our time ought to give some minor consideration to the thought that the theoretical explanans and the actual explanandum of human existence are conceivably different.  If truth be the sum of its complete, necessary and agreed upon conditions, the evolutionary biologists/theorists have plenty of agreement, but could not possibly have a complete or necessary epistemological basis for the ultimate truths they espouse.  Admittedly, the same applies for a strict historical or epistemological view of Christianity.

In the case of both Evolutionary Theory and the belief in God, there is indicia of pure religion.  Religion requires certain elements, which appear to be:  1.)  A redemptive or explanatory story for what is;  2.) An explanandum/definiendum which outside of complete human perception or experience;  3.) Preachers and prophets of the truth or content contained within the explanans/definiens; 4.) A body of the faithful who simply may have no epistemelogical basis for a belief in what is explained or the explanation itself; 5.) A desire to operate by explanatory fiat or ultimatum.  Zealotry on behalf of any such religion can lead to discord and unnecessary viscosity in the stream of otherwise valuable arguments.  Certainly, both sides of the Intelligent Design argument seem perfectly capable and willing to lift the sword toward the other.

Or it may very well be that the enemies of God are simply asking the wrong questions even about their own existence and be-ing (Dasein) in the Heideggerian sense.  Perhaps it is just that they think it important to “stir the pot” in the proverbial sense.  But what sense does it make to stir the pot if you’re in it?

 

 

<a href=”http://www.forexchecklist.com”>forex trading online</a>

I approve of all comments people are going to post on my blogs but do you know what that means? That actually just means that majority of the comments in my wordpress blogs will be in Russian. Apparently, no one but spammers are interested in my posts, or are interested enough to actually post comments.

These spam comments on wordpress really weird me out. They’re not trying to sell me a product and they’re not trying to direct me to a website that wishes I subscribe and pay them. No, they’re just nonsense. Russian comments I can’t understand, a random praising and glorification of dofus karmas… It’s all just… odd.

But these spammers are everywhere. When I go to Wapeach to post a new article/video or to check on stuff posted by other Wapeach staff members, I’m always ammused to find new spam comments. 90% of them are in Russian so I have no idea if any of those comments are actually relevant to the posts but that makes me want to know, what the hell are they spamming about? They often don’t provide links so I don’t think they’re trying to sell stuff (or to give me viruses) but if that’s the case, why spam at all? At least on twitter, all those fake girls who follow me are there to have me go to their websites and pay money to them, but with these Russian spams and many other non-sensical spams, I can’t figure out why someone would take the trouble to visit all these blog posts and spam on them. Perhaps they need a better hobby. Or perhaps the spamming program needs to be tweaked and fixed a bit to actually make some sense.

20 Then he began to denounce the cities where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent. 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you.”

Powerful words of Jesus Christ. Jesus had done many signs and wonders among the people of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum. Yet these people were unrepentant and they were not changed by Jesus Christ’s declaration of “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” Jesus says to the people of these unrepentant cities that if the same mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, two pagan cities that they would have been well aware of, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.

Jesus goes on by saying that it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgement for that reason. This is a mind blowing statement. This assumes two things:

1. There are different degrees of punishment¹
2. God knows not only all things in the past, present, and future reality. But God also knows all things possible in the past, present, and future.

Let me begin with number one. As Jesus said in Matthew 11:22, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment. This infers that there are different degrees of punishment at the judgment. It seems to be linked to the amount of revelation revealed to and the response of the individual to what has been revealed unto him. So the more truth we have been exposed to the more we are held accountable in the eyes of Christ at the judgment. The ultimate destination is the same for all unbelievers, but the amount of punishment is seemingly determined by how much truth they were exposed to.

Along with this understanding comes with the understanding that God owes salvation to no one. Yes, Jesus Christ died for all mankind, but only those who humble themselves, repent, and believe who He is (the LORD and Savior of all mankind) are given gift of salvation. God owes this gift to no one. This is why missions is so important. The only way people will be exposed to the truth of the Gospel is if we tell them. As Paul put it in Romans, “How will they hear without a preacher? How shall they preach except they be sent?”² Understanding this aspect helps us understand this whole discussion.

Jesus even goes on to tell them them that because they would not repent that is shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for them. It was well known that Sodom was a land and of people of gross sin and immorality. Yet, Jesus says that if Sodom had seen the mighty works that these unrepentant cities had seen, Sodom would still be around because even they would have repented. This to me seems very powerful.

This brings us to number two. Not only does God know all realities past, present, and future. He knows all possible realities past, present, and future. This to me is phenomenal. God knows that if Sodom would have had the same things preached and had the same mighty works done in it, they would have not been unrepentant as were Chorazin, Betsaida, and Capernaum. Does this mean that God does not judge Sodom? No. He still judges them based upon reality. But this passage does seem to infer that he keeps in account all possible realities. Sodom finds themselves utterly demolished here on earth, and its inhabitants in hell. But perhaps the degree of their punishment is influenced by the possible realities.

One again, this brings back to understanding that God owes salvation to no one. So God is not doing any kind of injustice by judging Sodom for their sin even in light of the reality of not having these mighty works done within it. He judges them fairly based upon their reality of living in sin and immorality.

This helps us understand the role of missions in the world. If we do not tell the lost world about God, they will die and go to hell because they are natural born sinners. Without the hearing of the Word, then there can be no faith in the Gospel. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. There cannot hear the word except it be preached, for God has chosen preaching as his method for spreading the Gospel across this world to all peoples of all cultures of all countries. It is the duty of mankind to tell the world of God’s Gospel. If we do not then the lost die without hope of the Gospel of Christ and go to an eternal hell. If we preach to them the gospel, then they are now accountable to Gospel and they are given the opportunity to accept God’s message and experience life and salvation from hell. They will be given the privilege of an eternal, personal relationship with the Creator of the universe. We must go out and tell those who have not heard!

It is not the responsibility of the preacher/missionary to make sure that everyone he proclaims the Gospel to believes. Jesus Himself did mighty works and preached His word, and yet people still were unrepentant. Those who reject the message will be held more accountable and therefore will be punished more severely. It is not the fault of the preacher. The preacher is to do all that he can to encourage them to repent and believe, but ultimately it is a decision that every individual in this world has to make for himself.

So to bring things back home, how does this relate to us? Well, I look around me and I look to our history (Anglo-Saxon) and I see the Gospel presented fairly consistently. There were some high points and some low points in our history, but overall the Gospel can be found. There are thousands upon thousands of recourses such as books and websites which explain the gospel. There are thousands upon thousands of churches which proclaim the Gospel every week. And perhaps you can hear God say, “

“Woe to you, Chicago! Woe to you, Los Angeles! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Calcutta and Beijing, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Lima and Beijing than for you. And you, New York, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Bangkok, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Bangkok than for you.”

2. Rom.10:14-15

I am going to approach this blog somewhat differently from Bill, because I came to atheism in a somewhat different way. Bill was very rational– he explored everything and thought about it and analyzed it. I, on the other hand, came to atheism via revelation– when I was about twelve or thirteen I came to the realization that the entire idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god just did not make any sense whatsoever. I remember asking my mother about it one day, saying that it just didn’t make any sense that one being could have created everything and be watching over everything and do all the things he is supposed to have done, that I just didn’t see how it was possible. My mother’s response was something along the lines of, “But the wonderful things is that we just know that he did.”

That response was less than helpful, and so as time went by, I became more and more convinced that there just wasn’t anything there. I experimented with other religions for a while, realizing that I was very much in the minority, but finally became pretty thoroughly entrenched in atheism when I was about sixteen. I did make a light deviation when I was eighteen and thought I was in love with a boy who was very deeply Christian, but that lasted about as long as the romance.

Then I met Bill and in talking to him, found out that there was a perfectly good reason for my feeling that the whole god thing just didn’t make sense. Bill didn’t convert me to atheism, because I had already been an atheist for several years. But he helped me to understand the reasons behind my instinctive atheism, and has helped make it stronger for me.

Through the internet, all of history’s interpretations of the past, and all of science’s predictions about the future, are now available to us at any time and from pretty much anywhere. Blogger, Twitter, and Facebook plug us directly into the minds of people we’ve never even met. Blackberries and other super cell phones give us access to all this information even on the road. Wikis and iphones, netbooks, and web forums serve as portals to immense quantities of data about the world, connecting us instantly to up-to-the-minute expert knowledge about the entire universe. In short: omniscience–God’s power to know all–is slowly (or quickly?) becoming available to us through modern technology, the various sciences, and social media.

To be fair; the internet is filled with as much misinformation as actual knowledge–fiction rides the same road as fact–but what’s interesting to me is the existence of this complex network of roads, the availability of this international, high-speed highway of instant informational awareness, in the first place.

There may be some places not worth going, some bad information not worth consuming–but it’s good to know that it’s there if ever we need it. For example: If someone believes something, but is wrong–the internet helps you learn what they think and why–even if it’s hogwash–and it provides you with the opportunity, most importantly, to have a dialog with them that otherwise might be impossible. It’s important, therefore, that Al Qaeda and the KKK have their beliefs and goals posted online–even if they win over a few converts–because it gives everyone access to them and what they believe–from their point of view– just as it gives them access–whether they like it or not–to what everyone else thinks of their worldview.

So the internet is to truth as the interstate highway is to travel. Access may be cheap–not every car on the road is worth much–but once you have access, the road itself is priceless. It is all knowledge, or at least it (eventually) will be, and it’s all in one (“virtual”) place. It is God’s mind incarnate, and it is available to everyone…

Now if we can just figure out how to be all-good and all-powerful we should be all-set.

I have heard the question asked so many times, “If there is a god, and if this god is good, why does he allow evil?”  I guess I have even asked that question or one similar.  There are many questions that need to asked along with this:  Is God all powerful?  Is God all knowing?  Is God all present?  Is God unchanging?  Is God a god of love and mercy?  If you answer all of those from a Biblical perspective then you can answer the question of evil.

Let’s look at part of the prayer of the Psalmist and his concern about evil.

A prayer of the Psalmist.

“Break Thou the arm of the wicked and the evil man: seek out his wickedness till Thou find none.”  Psalm 10:15 (KJV).

One of the first things that comes to my mind as I read this is a question.  “Who are the wicked?”  To be extremely accurate about it, that would mean me, you, all of us.  Because God is holy, righteous, and just, and He cannot look upon iniquity, ie. evil.  Then He must rid the world of us.

I want to assure you that He has broken the arm of the wicked.  The arm of the wicked was broken when sin was put to death with Jesus on the cross.  “Boy, it sure doesn’t seem like it.  Look at what’s happening in the world, and in my life”.  Be assured that all sin has been paid for.

The way God has dealt with my evil and yours is by judging it on His Son Jesus Christ.  He paid the debt for our sin.  Ultimately there will be no more sin.  It will one day reach a height, and plunge into the eternity of nothingness.

When Jesus comes into our hearts to live, abide, and stay evil is banished.  You are no more evil.  That begs another question.  “Then, who are the evil?”  All those who reject the free gift of grace in Christ Jesus.

One day, and it may be soon Jesus will come and all evil will be eternally put away.  Even the lamb and the lion will roam together, and without threat to the lamb.  The small child will be able to play over the den of the serpent without any fear (See Isaiah 11).  There will be no more ruthless rulers in the world.  Jesus will rule in the hearts and lives of people the world wide.

-Tim A. Blankenship

To some extent we all feared the milkman.

Even my father, who’d fought Franco’s men, would wait until the white truck was down the block before he’d get our bottles off the front step. And our milkman wasn’t mean, not like an old teacher you avoided at the grocery store or a dentist with foul breath who always told you how thin you looked and how your arms were too hairy for a girl with such pretty teeth. No, our milkman had an intruding, strangely omniscient way of knowing what you were up to.

“Hey Wendy,” he’d say. “How’s high school?”

“Fine.”

“Well okay.”

He’d look at me, knowing that I’d saved the frog from biology and buried it under our maple tree for blessings from Khai the Amphibious, who’s goodness is plentiful. It was like I’d written it down on a sandwich board that said, “Frog Thief” on both sides, accompanied by a giant thought bubble above my head with the words “Can you smell the formaldehyde?”

And what kind of voodoo was he brewing? What blood had he spilled in his laundry room to gain such power? And why was he still delivering milk to families like mine, if not to find our stray hairs and the fingernails we piled neatly on our windowsills? And who would let such a man as Kirk Montgomery, father of three (not counting the polio cripple) put his hands and ancient evil on our milk? Who at the Honey Cow Dairy would allow this?

My mother’s fear was different from mine and my father’s since she’d meet him at his truck on Wednesdays in front of our house, ready with last week’s empties. At first I thought he’d bewitched her, but she didn’t make eyes at him the way she looked at our butcher, not like some girl lost barefoot in the mountains who’d come across a cobbler with two loaves of bread. She spoke kindly to him, and gave him a tip at Christmas. But she never shook his hand, and she always let him put the fresh milk down before she gave him our old bottles. Her rituals kept her strong, I imagine.

On the days when I was home alone, licking my father’s shoe horn, I could hear the clanging of glass bottles, the awful chug of milk pouring into a somewhere cup, and I knew the hexes were raining down on my house like spoons over Berlin. I protected myself, singing Cole Porter with a Dutch accent, breathing only through my nose; and both of these must have helped, since the color blindness only robbed me of yellow, which I never liked anyway.

Today I have two children and a husband who spends most nights with his mother.

I’m still here, Kirk Montgomery. I’m still here you son of a bitch.

“If you keep letting anger out and expressing it, it is very difficult for this to be helpful.  Since this behavior itself promotes more anger it will not bring about any positive result; it will only increase problems.  Under certain circumstances it may be necessary to take a counteraction to stop another’s wrongdoing.  But without anger the implementation of countermeasures is much more effective, because when your main mind is governed by strong afflicted emotions you may not take the appropriate action.  Anger destroys judgment, the capacity to think.  This is wrong.  And to investigate what the temporary and long term consequences of an action will be, it is necessary to calculate such circumstances before taking action.  Free of anger, the power of judgment is better.” ~The Meaning of Life, H.H. Dalai Lama

John 2:24-25 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.

John Piper comments in a sermon “He Knew What Was in Man”

Three statements. First, the sweeping general statement in 2:24: “he knew all people.” Second, the specific application of that statement to people’s private, inner life in 2:25: “he himself knew what was in man.” Third, the implication of that in 2:25: “he needed no one to bear witness about him.”

Jesus Knows All About All People

So the doctrine we may draw from this is that Jesus knows all about all people. No person is excluded from his knowledge, and no part of our life is excluded from his knowledge. He knows everybody—and everything about everybody. Here’s what Jesus will say in John 6:64: “There are some of you who do not believe.” And John adds, “For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.” The heart of Judas was open before Jesus. Jesus was not surprised when his betrayal came.

Let this truth about Jesus sink into your heart. If you have ever been impressed with any man’ knowledge about people or wisdom in discerning motives and explaining actions and predicting behaviors—if any character in fiction or person in history or living counselor or scholar has ever impressed you, the knowledge of Jesus should be infinitely more impressive.

No Secrets from Jesus

Perhaps the glory of his omniscience will come home to us more fully if we draw out a few personal implications. It means that there are no complete secrets in your life. You may have succeeded in hiding something all your life from everyone on this earth. But you have not hidden it from Jesus. The person who matters most knows most. The person whose judgment about you is all important knows all. Let that sink in. You are totally known. Totally. There is not the slightest part of your heart unknown to Jesus, at this hour, and every hour.

Therefore, there is always at least one person you must relate to who knows everything about you. You may be able to look at others in the face and know that they do not know  certain things about you. This shapes your relationship. But there is one who when you look him in the face sees totally through you. If you relate to him at all, you relate as one utterly laid bare. Utterly known. What an amazing relationship! There is one, and only one, who actually and totally knows you. Nobody else even comes close. Your spouse’s knowledge of you, or your best friend’s knowledge of you, compares to Jesus’ knowledge of you like first-grade math to quantum mechanics. You are fully known by one person, Jesus Christ.

One Human Who Knows

Therefore, you always have someone to go to for help in knowing who you are. One of the great longings of the human soul is to understand ourselves. Who are we? What is our nature? What sort of being are we? What is our deepest thought and feeling? What are our true and deepest motives? What are the relationships deep inside of me between knowing and feeling and willing and doing?

There is one human who knows the complete answer to all these questions: Jesus Christ. Do you recall Peter’s three answers to Jesus’ question after the resurrection, “Do you love me?” Jesus asked him three times, probably because Peter had denied Jesus three times. Peter said the first time, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said the second time, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said the third time, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you” (John 21:15–17). There is always one person who knows your heart perfectly. Knows it better than you do. Jesus Christ.

One Who Is Always Willing to Love You

Therefore, you always have a person who is willing to love you, knowing absolutely everything about you. The reason I say he is “willing to love you” is that Jesus has a special covenant love for those who trust him. He doesn’t love everybody in the same way. Listen to the way he prays in John 17:9, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours.” In other words, Jesus intercedes for those whom the Father has given him. These are his friends. These are his disciples. These are his sheep. These are the children of God. These are those who are born again. These are those who believe. And are you in that number?

“To all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God” (John 1:12). If you receive him, there will always be one person who will love you knowing everything, absolutely everything about you. You will say with the disciples in John 16:30, “We know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God.”

I pray that this glimpse of the glory of the omniscience of the only Son of the Father will move you to admire him more than anyone, and love and trust him and follow him.

O GOD WHOSE WILL CONQUERS ALL,

There is no comfort in anything thing apart from enjoying Thee

and being engaged in Thy service;

Thou art ALL in all, and all enjoyments are what to me

Thou makest them, and no more.

I am well pleased with THY will, whatever it is,

or should be in all respects,

And if  Thou bidst me decide for myself in any affair

I would choose to refer all to Thee,

for Thou art infinitely wise and cannot do amiss,

as I am in danger of doing.

I rejoice to think that all things are at Thy disposal,

and it delights me to leave them there.

Then prayer turns wholly unto praise,

and all I can do is to adore and bless Thee.

What shall I give Thee for all Thy benefits?

I am in a strait betwixt two, knowing not what to do;

I long to make some return, but have nothing to offer,

and can only rejoice that  Thou doest all,

that none in heaven or on earth shares Thy honour;

I can do of myself nothing to glorify Thy blessed name,

but I can through grace cheerfully surrender soul and body to Thee,

I know Thou art the author and finisher of faith,

that the whole work of redemtion is Thine alone,

that every good work or thought found in me

is the effect of  Thy power and grace,

that Thy sole motive in working in me to will and to do

is for Thy good pleasure.

O God, it is amazing that men can talk so much

about man’s creaturely power and goodness,

when, if  Thou didst not hold us back every moment,

we should be devils incarnate.

This, by bitter experience, Thou hast taught me concerning myself.

The Valley of Vision ( a collection of Puritan prayers & devotions by Arthur Bennett