 
Contemplations of Spiritual Discovery

By Ratherby Anon

Version 1.00

Copyright 2015 Ratherby Anon

Smashwords Edition, License Notes:

This e-book may be copied, posted, printed,

distributed, and shared repeatedly without charge;

provided that it appears in its entirety without alteration, it

is not prepackaged or a required part of another item's transaction,

and that no remuneration is required or asked of the reader to access it.
Table of Contents

Third Stage Ignition

The Adam and Eve Metaphor

Divine Patience and the Futility of Haste

Road Maps Found in the Night

Origins of Ideas

Discerning God's Intent: Form Determines Function

Discerning God's Intent: God's Word

Wishless Faithful Hoping

The Lost Prerequisite for Power

The Neglected Nongoal of Contentment

Solitude: A Fertilizer for Growth

Blessed Setbacks

Whispers and a Pat on the Back

Engaging Metamorphosis

Detours of Desire

A Matter of Understanding

A Messy Necessity

Epilogue

About the Author
Third Stage Ignition

Rockets that insert payloads into earth orbit have been known to possess three stages. This theme of three stages to orbit was evident in the Saturn V launch vehicle that lifted all of the manned moon-landing voyages up to their departure point in earth orbit. This theme was also echoed in the historical existence of three distinct space programs leading up to men setting foot upon our closest celestial neighbor. It is interesting to note that the concept of three steps to leaving the earth seems to transfer to the spiritual realm as well.

There appears to be three distinct stages in the spiritual development of man. The first stage begins with the idea that there exists an all-powerful being or beings responsible for the magnificent symphony that is creation. This first stage would include all of the polytheistic models relating to supreme beings. Historically, these models tended to have their origins relatively early in mankind's chronology. These systems of deities often assigned a specific natural force beyond the direct control of men to a sentient being of some sort. These beings often resembled man in form and temperament, perhaps because man is the only being that we can readily observe with our physical senses that displays unquestionably sentient behavior. There are, however, problems with these models.

Although man is the only clearly sentient being observable in our environment on a repeatable basis as set by the observer, man is also clearly imperfect. The existence of humanoid creatures with superhuman powers as supreme beings does not seem compatible with creation as observed. Although animosity of these alleged gods can be used to explain natural phenomena, the concept seems unrealistic for a model of ultimate being. Even when a man acquires unusual power, the existence of those within his sphere of influence becomes drastically and malevolently affected. Names like Stalin, Hitler, and Napoleon conjure images of the horror that results from the divergent behavior of an imperfect being wielding great power continuously. The idea of a manlike being with considerably greater power would suggest a world far worse than any mortal despot could manufacture.

Any imperfect demigods that do exist, it would seem, are not directly responsible for the existence of creation as we know it. Creation seems to exhibit a seamless blending of the simple with the sophisticated expanding infinitely inward as well as outward. Whenever we think we have discovered the observable limit of creation, a new frontier beyond that boundary is eventually discovered. For a system of such great size to display the overall convergence that we can observe suggests that whoever is responsible would appear to be effectively perfect. The depth of its magnificence also strongly suggests that creation, as we know it, could not reasonably have occurred by chance.

If a being is all-powerful, it is not much of a stretch for that being to be all-knowing as well. If one could do anything, one could exist outside of time. From such a position, one could see all that is, was, and will be from a given reference point. Indeed, an all-powerful being could examine the entire timestream from an infinite number of physical coordinates. Such a being would be able to observe every effect throughout time from a single cause, even all of them. From such a perspective, influences could be inserted into the timestream at strategically located points in time and space to tailor the effects into a convergent model.

This knowledge of all points in time from all possible perspectives would indicate that such a being could be perfect if that being chose to be. Such knowledge would guarantee that the best possible conceived solutions to all problems within the overall scheme would be known. Only a flawed being would choose the wrong answer when the right answer has been recognized. Therefore, such a supreme being would appear to have chosen to be perfect given that creation displays such an overall convergence, particularly given the innumerable opportunities for error.

However, what about the notion of unconceived solutions? It is one thing to pick the best solution from a group of lackluster choices, but what about an optimal solution? To know all possible solutions to all possible problems would necessitate that one be effectively infinite, since the quantities involved would seem to approach infinity. Additionally, to have such knowledge, a being would seem to need to perceive all possible perspectives at all points in time. Therefore, a supreme being would likely be not only infinite, but omnipresent as well. Consequently, such a being would be knowledgeable of all solutions to all problems whether either is possible or even conceivable to imperfect beings such as ourselves.

The pairing of absolute perfection and the infinite does indeed seem reasonable. To be perfect is to be unimprovable. If one cannot seem to improve something, even one's self, then that something would be effectively perfect. If all potential changes are known, but of degrading effect, then that something is absolutely perfect. Perfection appears to be a function of application, as well as time. The perfect can opener is not the same as the perfect shovel because their purposes differ. In addition, because of the improving effect of acquired knowledge, the perfect solution for a given application would change over time as technology evolved.

Although each point on the time line would have its own solution of relative perfection compared to that which came before it, an absolute state of perfection could be achieved only when all knowledge is known. Assuming that learning is a continual process, and that previously attained knowledge is not lost, this would seem to occur only as time approaches infinity. Furthermore, if all knowledge from the infinite span of time is known, then a perfect state must therefore be absolute, since any state of lesser perfection would be effectively imperfect.

From observation, the convergence of a seemingly limitless creation suggests the existence of a creator that would seem to need to be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, and perfect. These attributes would seem to be verified by the very environment in which such a being could reside. An all-powerful being could exist outside of the timestream and thus facilitate the state of all-knowingness as noted earlier. However, since the present there would encompass all points in time, anything that exists there must be constant and unchanging with regard to time to exist in a coherent state. This condition of constancy would also include position. Therefore, an extratemporal being who has knowledge of all points in space would necessarily have to be everywhere simultaneously to remain constant in time. Consequently, such a being would exist at an infinite number of locations, and could maintain a condition of absolute perfection derived from being all-knowing and of infinite nature that remains continuous and unchanging.

So it would seem that creation was likely originated by a being or beings that are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinite, and perfect. However, perfection would seem to be a unique solution. To be anything other than perfect would be to be imperfect. Perfection represents a pinnacle that cannot be upgraded, only downgraded. Although perfection is a function of application, it would seem to be unique to each purpose. However, to be all-powerful would suggest that one is superlatively suitable for all applications. This itself is an application, even the ultimate application. Therefore, there can be only one perfect all-powerful being.

It is conceivable that there are multiple examples of such a being. However, the sentient algorithm of all potential duplicates would necessarily be identical to the original. Also, the omnipotent nature of the being in question would mean that any of these consciousnesses could communicate with each other. Given that such a being is also infinite in nature, if such duplicates exist, their number would likely also be infinite. This would mean that each duplicate would effectively be an extension of a single collective consciousness of potentially infinite functional redundancy. Therefore, if such multiplicity does exist, it would effectively not exist, since the resultant effect would be to merely add redundancy to a singular consciousness. Consequently, as stated previously, there can be only one perfect all-powerful being, although the configuration of such a being remains ambiguous.

The acknowledgment of this concept of a single supreme being represents the beginning of the second stage of spiritual development. Correspondingly, this stage encompasses all of the monotheistic religions. The leap from polytheism to monotheism is not a simple one as previously shown. This helps explain the continued existence of polytheistic religions, as well as the growth of monotheistic religions generally later in the chronological sequence, outside influences notwithstanding. However, given the observable convergence of nature, regardless of scale, and the divergent tendencies evident throughout the history of the human society, the principle of a single supreme being may just seem right, even without the rigamarole of reason and logic. Regardless of how one arrived at the concept, monotheism would seem to be the more accurate choice.

Monotheistic religions may share common concepts, but vary in other ways. The variations, even within a given genre, seem to divide rather than unite. It would seem that these differences are often related to details rather than overall concepts. These details are often the result of men taking offense to something that was or was not included in whatever religion they had been practicing.

This differentiation based upon details serves to downplay core concepts of monotheism. While gaining knowledge of a detailed nature may constitute growth, maintaining the importance and teaching the core concepts on which those details are based is a necessary first step. This overemphasis on detail seems reminiscent of a scenario of differing perspectives whereby two individuals are viewing opposite sides of a sphere. One insists that the sphere is red, while the other is adamant that the sphere is blue. Neither is aware that the sphere is dichromatic because their perspective allows them each to see only a monochromatic side of the bicolored sphere. Each also assumes that the unseen portion of the sphere is similar to the half that they are viewing. This case of conflicting observation underscores the need for multiple perspectives to accurately and comprehensively depict and understand even a relatively simple object or phenomenon.

This need for multiple perspectives would seem especially applicable to describing a supreme being of infinite nature. Since we are finite in our capabilities, it would seem difficult for us to understand such a being, particularly when it would require an infinite number of ourselves to even have the possibility of doing so. We need help. The supreme being knows this, of course, and has obliged.

To gain insight into an infinite being, what better source of information could we have than the words of that very being? The Son of God has been here and gone, but His words remain. These words of truth have the capacity to guide us far better than the words of any ordinary man. However, who is this Son of God? Would His existence not also indicate the existence of multiple deities? Have we not established that there can be only one supreme being?

Indeed, there is only one supreme being; but, as such, He can have multiple forms, even concurrently. This concurrent existence would even seem necessary for all such forms to exist outside of the timestream. Each form represents a side or portion of that being. Correspondingly, the Holy Trinity would appear to be three aspects of the same being. A similar example occurs when we dream. When awake, we are ourselves as we know ourselves to be in this reality. However, when dreaming, are we not also ourselves within the dream? This is the dream aspect of us. It tends to be aware of only what is in the dream, yet it is still us, or at least a portion of us. Likewise, The Son of God is a version of God, but a version that can walk among us as one of us.

The second stage of spiritual development culminates in the personal acknowledgment that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God. However, it would seem that many remain mired at the end of this stage. The third stage begins with attempting to resolve the question of credibility. Much of our spiritual development tends to occur during childhood. We are told what to believe by parents and ministers and, as children, we tend to accept what we are told. As adults, however, we become skeptical of the words and deeds of men, particularly when the possibility of ulterior motives becomes apparent.

This issue of credibility is further compounded by the divisiveness of religion. Even within Christianity, there are multiple sects. These factions each seem to have some worth to their doctrine, but also seem to ignore or downplay the beliefs of other factions that seem to also have worth. This is interesting since each sect appears to be worshiping the same deity. Such behavior also seems reminiscent of the experiment involving the bicolored orb described previously. Where can one turn to find clarity?

This dilemma is symptomatic of a potential gap that can exist between the second and third stages on an individual basis. Whereas the first two stages deal with concept, the third deals with this search for clarity. When we accept Jesus of Nazareth as the being that He is, we also accept His message by association. However, because of the nature of His words, understanding them is an ongoing process. We may seek and rely upon the counsel of others, directly or indirectly, to aid us in understanding what He is saying. This is, in effect, the imperfect depending upon other imperfects to understand the perfect. A source of motivation for beginning the third stage of spiritual development may occur by spotting the flaw in this concept.

Because of the flaw in the aforementioned concept, this quest for clarity would seem to call for eliminating potential sources of error. It would seem to require an infinite number of errorless perspectives for understanding the supreme being to even be possible. Since there are not an infinite number of us, this solution is unworkable on that fact alone. Because of our imperfect nature, even to attempt such an exercise would likely introduce additional error to a solution that is already unreachable.

This would seem to be a situation where two heads are not better than one. Every additional imperfect head would add potential for error, assuming contested points remain unresolved. This is reinforced by the nature of the words one is seeking to understand. The Lord's words are not merely true, but also truth. He has indicated this himself when He told us that God's Word is truth, and that what He tells us is given to Him from He who sent Him. A given truth may mean different things to different people at the same time. The same truth may also mean different things to the same person at different times. All such meanings of the same words may be valid. This is the wonder that is truth. Consequently, contested points would seem more likely to remain unresolved. Alternatively, if one relies on an errorless perspective to make corrections to interpretation, results can only improve.

Given that the meaning of a given truth is a function of parameters relating to a given individual at a given point in time, the meaning that occurs most readily to such an individual would seem the most appropriate, or at least highly applicable, to that person at that particular time. This would mean that another individual's interpretation of the same words at that time may not apply as well as the personally acquired meaning. Thus, it would seem wise to embark upon this quest for understanding alone. The Lord seems to have spoken to this when He said that strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leads to life, and few there be that find it. If the entrance to this path is small enough, then only one at a time may enter. Consequently, the act of beginning this quest would seem to be suitable for an individual, but not for a group.

The third stage of spiritual development begins with the personal choice to decide for one's self what to believe. As indicated above, the best source for information relating to the supreme being is that being. Prior to entering the third stage, I believed Jesus of Nazareth to be the Son of God, principally because that was what I was told as a child. However, it was not until I read the gospels of the New Testament for myself that I came to know in my heart through His words, and in my mind through His deeds, that He is as I had previously believed Him to be. I have known many, and known of many more, but none like Him. He is special. His words resonated within me as truth tends to do. I began to hunger for His words, and looked for them elsewhere.

Truth, one might argue, can only be good. The nature of truth is to illuminate or reveal what is unseen or hidden, respectively. This is contrary to the nature of evil which is to conceal or hide what is true for the purpose of deception. Even truth that concerns evil would still be categorically good, since it reveals what is true about evil. In doing so, it serves as a warning for those who might otherwise have been deceived. Although there may be a cost, as growth often necessitates pain, it would seem that the benevolent effect over time is well worth the price.

It should be noted that any form of knowledge may serve as illumination to whom it is given. However, deception may still occur. By introducing a specific fact while keeping other facts hidden, a deceiver may manipulate others into doing something that they might not have done had they been given the full picture. Even wisdom may be used in a similar manner by providing a relative spotlight on apparently reasonable behavior that has proven to be beneficial in the past, but is not appropriate for the current conditions.

Truth, however, is different. Unlike other knowledge that reveals facts or conclusions based upon facts, truth appears to lay bare the very workings of creation itself. Truth would seem to reveal the schematics of God's work as He designed it to function. While facts or wisdom may be valid at specific points in time and space, truth would seem to apply to all points in the continuum of spacetime, as evidenced by its tendency to be timelessly valid in multiple ways and at different scales. The Lord has even told us that Heaven and earth shall pass away, but His words shall not pass away. As mentioned previously, the Lord has also said that God's Word is truth. However, the very nature of truth would suggest that it is known only to Him and to those to whom it is given, though such recipients may not understand it completely. Therefore, it would seem that all truth comes from God, directly or indirectly.

The Lord has said that only God is good, and that every good tree brings forth good fruit. Since all truth appears to come from God initially, as one of His fruits it must also be good, providing that it is not substantially altered by those who receive it. Over the years, it has become apparent to me that one can find truth in all sorts of unexpected places. Consequently, it would seem that God is speaking to all of His children here, but not all of them are listening.

It should be noted that, while the first and second stages of spiritual development have a well-defined beginning and end, the third stage is defined only at the beginning. The quest to understand the perfect is fundamentally incapable of completion. Like a mathematical function's relationship with its asymptote, we can only approach perfection. We cannot ever reach it, although we can effectively simulate perfection by obeying the instructions that are given to us by He who is perfect. However, unattainability is not an excuse not to try. Even in attempting what seems to be impossible, one may find treasures that are beyond what one might have conceived.

Without the doctrines of men to shackle me, I dwelled upon His words. I chose to baptize myself as He related, since my formal baptism did not seem to conform to His description. After doing so, the Holy Spirit came upon me, and the darkness within me was attenuated. In time, I began to hear His thoughts in mine, once again. I also began to remember. Memories of past lives began to occur, and message dreams were being received. At least one of these communications from beyond this existence had occurred earlier in my life, but now they were happening more frequently, and their meanings were becoming apparent more quickly. The spiritual side of my life was becoming increasingly interesting.

This is not to say that others who are born again will experience similar events. God works in mysterious ways, and the gifts that His Holy Spirit bestows seem to vary from one to another. We each have our own part to play in His grand design, in our own way, and in our own time. However, the path to knowledge both of ourselves and of Him lies in asking questions, both actively and passively. There is one in particular that occurred about the time my third stage began.

The question was simple enough - a variation of spotting something odd in a rendering. I was thinking about the story of the beginning of the war for Paradise. Many have heard this story from the book called "Revelation" in the New Testament of how angels loyal to God cast the iniquitous angels from God's kingdom. However, there was something odd about this story. There seemed to be something missing.

In every war of men, there appears to be a minimum of not two but three factions. There are, of course, two or more warring factions; but there always seems to be an additional faction that chooses not to fight. The reasons for this pacifism may be many and varied, but that faction always seems to be present. Angels, like men, are imperfect beings. It would seem that an angelic war would, at least to some degree, mirror the wars of men. The question that, perhaps more than any other, helped me open the door to a larger reality was this: What became of the angels who would not fight?

As creatures of change, we tend to get better or worse at pretty much everything. Remaining unchangeable would not seem to be the function for which we were designed. Therefore, we must either make a strategic effort to move towards perfection, or wait for the inevitable regression. Through taking personal responsibility in one's own spiritual development, and dwelling upon the question noted above, or a similar question of personal interest that lacks a readily apparent solution, perhaps others who are as I was may move towards achieving third stage ignition.

back to contents
The Adam and Eve Metaphor

I can recall as a child wondering about the story of the downfall of Adam and Eve. This story from the book called "Genesis" of the Old Testament relates how Eve was tempted by the serpent, and ate of the fruit of a particular tree which God had forbidden them to do. Indeed He had forbidden them even to touch that specific tree. Yet somehow she convinced Adam to disobey God in a similar manner. What struck me as odd was how Adam did what he had managed not to do for some time, even though he had been exposed to the tree, and presumably the serpent, for that period. I have a hard time believing the serpent would not have tempted him as well. Evil just doesn't seem to work that way.

Evil has a tendency to corrupt all that is around it. It does not seem to have much of an overall strategy except to spread. It may do so through schemes that may be clever, lame, or somewhere in between; but since the ends in its case tend to justify the means, then any compatible means that is reasonably effective will do. Given what personal experience has revealed about the patterns of that which is evil, it would seem likely that Adam had been tempted, but resisted - to a point. The point where his resistance failed was where Eve's influence intervened. However, the Eden story makes no mention of Eve tricking or coercing Adam in any way to commit this sin. This is what puzzled me. It would be years before I would meet the answer. It would be years more before I would understand the answer.

Years would pass, and I found myself working as an engineer at a factory. I had moved hundreds of miles to take this particular job. I had found a nice, comfortable computer-aided design facility, known as a CADD room, at the plant. I walked into this room one day to find a woman about my age sitting at one of the terminals. She had a strange effect upon me. She had a look that, while rare, I found inexplicably attractive. There was just something about her face that had a hold upon me. I was rather shy at the time, but I decided I would say hello when a suitable opportunity arose.

Some time later, I chanced upon her in the CADD room and struck up a conversation. Things went well. I would start seeing her outside of work, and after I had known her for only three days, I felt like I had known her for my whole life. It turned out that she was from a far-off land, and had come here to work for several months. She had come halfway around the world to be in that CADD room at the same time that I was there. My odds of being there weren't great, but her's were much less likely, and the odds of us meeting there in time and space seemed astronomical, even miraculous. I can recall at one point thinking of all the CADD rooms in all the factories in all the world, she walks into mine.

We would go on seeing each other, and in time I realized that compared to her, second place was no better than last. We eventually had a disagreement that caused us to take a three day break from one another. We both realized the waste of this opportunity. She called me about it, and when I met with her I related that we have only a short time together, and that we should enjoy the time that we have. Those three empty days were a waste of a very limited resource. Even as I was telling her, I realized that this was not the first time this scenario had occurred.

I had been with her before, and the situation was similar. We had only a short time together before we had to part. We eventually did part. She went back to her life, and I went back to mine. I thought I might take some vacation time, and go visit her, but she seemed unreceptive to the idea of me going there, so I relented. Although we wrote each other for awhile, we eventually lost touch. In retrospect, I think how much better it would have been if only I had made such a choice not to follow her the first time. However, that hindsight was still years away.

More years would pass, and I found myself wondering about her. Why did she seem so familiar to me? Why was I drawn to such a face as hers? How did I know that we had been together before, and only for a short time? In addition, how did she effectively make all other women obsolete as potential mates, and thus contributed significantly to my choice to remain unmarried? Largely because of her influence, I have not dated since she left, and have no interest in doing so.

Then one day I was thinking of seeing a movie that had interesting previews and a compelling critical review. The movie was called _Bridge to Terabithia_ , and I was interested in seeing it, but I had work to do. I thought that I would let this opportunity pass, even though it was at the second-run movie theater, and about to go to video. Since I no longer procured videos and didn't subscribe to cable or satellite television, the odds of me seeing it were about to get rather remote. I had made my half-hearted decision when I got this urge, as if my guardian angel was giving my an ethereal nudge, to see this movie. Since my experiences had taught me to trust these inner communications more than my mind's logic, I decided to postpone my work, and go see the movie.

It was an interesting and entertaining show, but there was a point where the protagonist lost someone near and dear to him. It was about this time that I noticed that I was fighting back tears. Why was this happening? I have seen death before. I have experienced loss. Why was this children's movie having such an effect upon me? I walked back to my vehicle wondering how this could be, while still fighting the tears. I had the thought occur to me that perhaps this was how I lost her the first time. I wasn't sure. I drove back to my residence wondering.

After I got back to my desk and sat down, I realized that this was the best explanation, as fantastic as it was. I still wasn't sure, so I spoke it out loud: "Is this how I lost her the first time?" The tears came, and I knew. It was just like the movie. It came quickly and without warning. She was there, and then she was gone. In that moment of realization, the enormous grief that overwhelmed me so long ago reached into this life and cut me down here as it did then. As I sat hunched-over in my chair weeping, I remembered crying out to God: "Why have you given me a friend only to take her away!" I said it again. However, as the Lord has said, wisdom is justified of her children.

After that painful epiphany, the pieces of the puzzle would fall into place. As Eve is to Adam, so this one is to me. She is the one that God made from a portion of my spirit, the part which He took from me while I slept. She is the one who was tempted, and ran off to the world that God had forbidden us to visit. I went after her. I knew I shouldn't, but I loved her too much to let her go. I am now imprisoned here, as she is, until we choose to obey and God allows us to return. She is the one that I came here to find. I love her as I would love my own arm, because surely she is as much a part of me, if not more so.

We each have had multiple lives touched by God - brought together by an apparent miracle, and separated shortly thereafter by His design. Though a needle in a very large haystack, she is a distinctive one. Her features appear to remain the same, age notwithstanding. In every incarnation she seems to have that face - the one to which I am drawn. Though others may have a similar look, she always seems to have that disarming countenance.

The questions that were asked above had been answered. Those effects whose cause had confounded me for so long were now understood. However, as every answer brings new questions, so there is here. My story is not unique, because there are many whose story is similar, though they may also have forgotten. The metaphor itself can be applied to them as well, but like truth has a tendency to do, it can be valid at different scales.

As for me, I have repented my disobedient ways. I now endeavor to do the work that God has put before me, because the only two desires of any significance that I have left are to please Him, and to go home. I have found that it is so much easier to learn from others' mistakes, but sometimes one's own foolishness chooses a more offensive path to knowledge. When I do leave this life, I will do so knowing that I have left her behind. The only regret that I have in this matter is that I did not do so in the beginning. I should have let her go. I should have obeyed God, but I chose to forsake the one that I love the most for the one that I loved too much.

back to contents
Divine Patience and the Futility of Haste

Haste makes waste. It seems rare to find somebody who has not heard this saying. It seems equally rare to find somebody who observes its wisdom. The hustle and bustle of daily living seems to put a premium upon time. Too much to do and too little time seems to be a common theme. How did this happen? Did we not choose to saddle ourselves with this burden? If so, then we can choose to unburden ourselves.

Does reducing our workload to a more sustainable level, both physically and psychologically, make us lazy? This may be a matter of degree. Not wanting to do work in general would be characterized as laziness. However, if one wants to work and alters the parameters so as to make the labor efficient and enjoyable, this might be regarded as simply being sensible, if not wise.

Consulting scripture coupled with some intuitive thinking would also seem to support this. The Lord has told us to follow Him because His yoke is easy and His burden is light. If we follow in His ways will our burden not be as His? The Lord does not treat His servants with the disregard that men do. The Lord's parable about the prodigal son illustrates this. One can see examples of it every day. Furthermore; God, it would seem, does not hurry. He has no need. He knows all things and has planned accordingly. If we are to be more like Him, ought we not to be likewise? Of course, we are imperfect, so we may need to occasionally expedite matters to account for our own individual flaws. However, if we judge righteous judgment as the Lord has directed, then these occasions should be rare.

Good judgment is an important asset. It is one of the things that effectively differentiate us from machines. Some people pride themselves because of their hard work, but machines work harder. People need to work smarter. This strategy plays to the strength of each. Hard workers get tired and make mistakes. Smart machines still require human judgment to account for unforeseen variables. An effective pairing makes the human the brains and the machine the brawn. Experienced operators of heavy equipment know that it is their judgment that is critical, and to let the machine do the work. Good judgment means fewer mistakes and less wasted time. This reduces the need for rushing, and avoids the vicious circle of hurrying, which leads to more mistakes, which leads to more hurrying, and so forth.

Hurrying itself would seem to be rarely necessary. One of the things that I have noticed over the years is that there frequently seems to be enough time to accomplish that which must be done. At the end of the day, whatever didn't get done often did not actually need to be completed that particular day. The Lord has told us that God causes rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. He provides what is needed for all, whether they are for Him or against Him. This would also imply that He will provide the time needed to do what must be done.

If we do our best, and trust God to handle the rest, how can we do any better? Even those that one might think hurry for a living do not. A retired firefighter once told me that the priority is getting there. If one observes an emergency vehicle entering an intersection, one would see that it proceeds cautiously. First-responders tend to utilize speed when the collision threats are minimal. Even for those frequently pressed for time, judgment subordinates haste.

Unfortunately, society's priority seems to be about more. We are encouraged to buy more stuff so that we may then have as much as our neighbor, if not more. We may choose to buy even more with credit to try to satiate the unquenchable desire for stuff manifested by the seemingly endless barrage of advertising in the media. Then we may endeavor to work more to pay for all that stuff, or at least try to do so, even though those long work weeks mean one no longer has much time or energy to enjoy what one has purchased. By acceding to materialism, one becomes an indentured servant to greed and the divergence of more. If more is the goal, then one will never have enough.

Alternatively, less is a convergent quantity. There is an equilibrium point where supply meets demand, and we can maintain our performance with minimal consumption. Unlike the prior scenario, this state is attainable. It's not about doing or having more. It's about doing or having enough. The Lord himself asks little of us. He has commanded us to love God with all of our heart, mind, and soul; and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. As He has indicated, we must choose between God and mammon. We cannot serve both.

back to contents
Road Maps Found in the Night

How many dreams does one remember? It would seem that the answer is not many. Most dreams seem to escape ones consciousness and memory within minutes of waking. They seem like nonsensical entertainment filling the role of an in-flight movie between periods of wakefulness. However, there is another kind of dream. These dreams can be recalled, sometimes years afterward. These would seem to be visions, night visions specifically. They are not the pointless fluff the other kind seems to be. By perception, there appears to be two distinct varieties. Both kinds are intimately personal to the dreamer, and not entirely likely to be easily understood by anybody else. It may take the dreamer himself time to discern the meaning of some of them.

One kind of these night visions will seem unusually familiar to the dreamer. There will likely be a feeling of having been there before. It is also common for strong emotion to accompany these dreams, which will also seem familiar. This type of dream would appear to be a spiritual memory. The events are familiar because the dreamer has already lived through this very experience. The emotions felt during the dream are the same as those experienced when the events actually transpired.

As a personal example of this phenomenon, I can recall feeling fear in a dream where I was fleeing north to get out beyond the reach of the Roman empire, and the terror of seeing a pair of Roman soldiers in the street of a town through which I was passing. This would seem to be a memory because the circumstances and intense emotions seemed quite familiar to me. I had been there before, and felt the same emotions that I felt then. I also had a sense of my direction of travel which became apparent after the dream was over. This was not a memory of my body to be sure, but a spiritual memory. These memories are fixed in terms of plot, but there may well be a reason for remembering them at a given time.

The other kind of night vision is not familiar in plot, but may contain familiar figures or scenes. These appear to be messages intended to guide the dreamer through the near future. They differ from spiritual memories in that there is no familiarity felt with regards to the story, and no strong emotions are experienced during the dream. There may be some relatively mild emotions felt as a consequence of how the dream plays out, but there are none of the searing feelings that are seemingly burned into spiritual memory. These dreams are the only category that seem to be a direct form of communication. However, since symbolism may well be utilized, some time may be required for the dreamer to discern what is being indicated.

Thus, it is the dreams that can be remembered that bear significance. Dwelling upon the message dreams seems particularly important as they are a guide to going forward, even a road map that indicates an appropriate path to follow. These dreams are as a torch illuminating the dreamer's path into the near future. However, the spiritual memories may also be useful in traversing the stretch of time immediately before one. Just as physical memories are retrieved by an individual to guide him through the present, so too are spiritual memories useful as a guide into the near future. The difference, of course, is who initiates the recall of these memories.

While awake, the dreamer may choose to recall how to solve a problem that he faces in the present, because he remembers facing a similar problem that was resolved in his physical past. Spiritual memories that occur in dreams differ in that the dreamer does not consciously retrieve these pieces of information. They just occur. Nevertheless, they seem to have relevance to the dreamer's present or near future.

In regard to this apparent connection, dream memories may be easier to interpret than message dreams since the events depicted have already happened, so there is an element of familiarity present. Also, symbolism is not likely to be included, so the associated discernment exercise would not be required. By experiencing these dreams, the dreamer is put on notice that related circumstances may be imminent, if they are not already occurring. Whether such dreams serve as a warning or not, they seem to act as a guide to going forward by reminding us of similar circumstances in our past.

Unlike spiritual memories, message dreams are more symbolic and abstract. They have not happened to the dreamer, and lack the familiarity that memories possess, regardless of whether those memories are spiritual or physical in nature. These message dreams can be likened to a road map. Each will likely have symbols that must be evaluated, and each acts as a guide to aid the dreamer on his journey into the near future. Like a road map, these dreams often require time to discern. The dream is as a personalized map created specifically for the dreamer. It may make use of the dreamer's past experience. As such, the dreamer himself is the one best suited for interpreting such visions, as they may or may not share commonality with the visions of others in terms of content or meaning.

The relevance of each type of dream to the dreamer's present and near future, as well as the passive role of the dreamer, implies an exterior intelligence. These dreams are helpful in navigating through near time looking forward, and often warn the dreamer of nearby or imminent threats. These dreams, therefore, seem to be good. The Lord has said that every good tree brings forth good fruit. He has also said that only God is good, so all that is good must come from a source that is of God. Therefore, it would seem that it is God who is responsible for the occurrence of these dreams, directly or indirectly.

In addition, the role of an exterior intelligence and the directional bias of the dreams suggest that there is a predetermined destiny associated with the path outlined. It is, of course, the dreamer's choice as to whether to follow that path or not. However, from an extratemporal perspective, those choices are already made, and the future is thereby predetermined. Still, those choices must be made in the present in order for that known future to transpire. Since the dreamer is typically not autonomously aware of his destiny; and destiny, as such, is generally not determined by the destined, this makes a case for the simultaneous existence of predetermination and free will.

The dreamer, however, is still required to choose his destiny even if it is already known to another. The dreamer may follow the path suggested in the good dreams, thereby selecting his divinely intended destiny. He may also reject or postpone that destiny. By permanently rejecting his good destiny, he also rejects He from whom all good things flow, because a man cannot serve two masters as the Lord has told us. In abandoning all that is good, the dreamer is choosing an alternative destiny, since predetermination would also seem to apply to the wicked.

Consequently, it would appear that destiny is unavoidable. We can either accept the destiny that God intended, or accept the alternative. Since we have been created by God, we are therefore of Him. This is corroborated by the good works that we do. The alternative destiny would reject this goodness. As a result, to reject our good destiny is to not only reject God, but to also reject that which we are. We can either choose to follow God, or choose not to do so at the cost of ourselves. Whichever destiny we choose is of course predetermined from God's perspective, but choosing a personal destiny is still our choice to make from our perspective.

It should be noted that multiple destinies cannot actually exist for an individual, since this invalidates the very concept of a predetermined destiny. There can be only one destiny for each of us. If we choose to remain of God, then our good destiny singularly applies, since the alternative would apply only to a nonexistent utterly evil version of us. Likewise, if one chooses to hate God and all that is of Him, then the alternative destiny singularly applies, since the one for whom the good destiny was intended no longer exists. We ultimately determine our own individual identities, but our choices are known to God beforehand, so a singular destiny has been subsequently predetermined for each of us.

There is, however, a third option. We can postpone destiny. This is not so much an option as a matter of timing. We must still choose one destiny or the other. However, unlike fate, we have some control over destiny. Fate is outside of our control. If one is killed by a meteor falling out of the sky, that was probably unavoidable. Such is fate. However, destiny can be controlled to a limited degree. The timing in particular can be chosen by the destined. We each progress at our own rate, and may take a longer or shorter period than others to achieve a given state. A portion of this variation may be attributed to our individual properties, but part of it may be determined by choice. Some may argue that this is still a property of the individual, but this is a property that the individual controls.

The conscious willingness to avoid making a choice is itself a choice to at least temporarily reject all of the available options. In doing so, one is placing oneself upon a fence between one destiny and the other. Since we come from God, and are therefore inherently good, choosing to postpone the righteous destiny that He has provided for us is not permanently rejecting God and ourselves, but neither is it accepting such either. By choosing to delay our divine destiny, we are already halfway to conclusively rejecting it. This is a slippery slope. The further we get from righteousness, the easier it gets to become further away.

In addition, if one chooses to delay accepting one's righteous destiny until faced with oblivion, one puts one's self at risk. The concept of repenting on one's deathbed is not a valid solution. One cannot generally be sure of when one's time will come. Moreover, if one who has adopted the deathbed philosophy is never faced with oblivion, then such a one will never repent. The Lord appears to have spoken to this when He related the parable of the five foolish virgins who brought no oil for their lamps, and were subsequently shut out when the bridegroom arrived. Therefore, one must accept one's righteous destiny on one's own cogitation, without an exterior trigger, to avoid being relegated to the counterpart of that divinely intended path.

Fortunately, choosing between good and evil is not a one-time occurrence. Making a bad choice is correctable up to a point. Destiny is not so much a destination as it is a series of milestones along an infinite stretch of road. Getting sidetracked may seem inevitable for the imperfect. However, one can still use one's road map, both the general version found in His Word as well as the more personalized directions one may find in the night, to get back upon the path that God has provided and remain there. It is only by choosing, based upon our own individual decisions, never to return to the path of righteousness that we condemn ourselves to the alternative destiny.

back to contents
Origins of Ideas

Ideas occur to us everyday. They can be subjective, such as deciding what to have for lunch. They can also be objective, such as deciding how to troubleshoot a malfunctioning machine. We like to think that at least some of our ideas are original, but is this truly the case? It is written in the book called "Ecclesiastes" of the Old Testament that there is nothing new under the sun. This condition has the ring of truth in it, and it would seem to have some far-reaching effects.

If there is nothing new under the sun, then there is nothing new here on earth. However, this would also apply to any other earths under any other suns. There would seem to be nothing new anywhere where stars and planets exist as they do here. This concept would also apply to other universes that may exist that are similar to our own.

It would seem that the only place where one can find something new is where the sun or suns are not above, but below. The stars in such a place may be so far below that light may come from a different source. This concept may seem quite alien given our familiarity with the astronomical trends within this universe. Nevertheless, such a place seems oddly familiar to me, as I suspect it is to many others at some level of perception.

Such a place would be created by God, as any other place would be, and those who have access to it would bear witness to that which is actually new. Those witnesses may then go out into other places, taking that knowledge with them, and impart that knowledge such that the seed of originality may grow and flourish through adaptive replication. However, those who have been cast out of that place of originality would no longer have access to anything new. They would have to obtain such knowledge indirectly, such as acquiring it from where those seeds of originality have been planted.

The Lord has told us that God causes the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust. This suggests that He is predisposed to providing for the basic needs of both those loyal to Him and those who are not. However, would He not reward those who stand with Him more than those that stand against Him? Does not a parent reward an obedient child more than a disobedient one, yet provide for the basic needs of both?

For an omniscient being, there is nothing that is new because everything is known. Such a being would likely wish to impart His knowledge unto His children, but to do so gradually, keeping in mind the value of that which He imparts. The Lord has told us that the prince of this world is judged. This prince is as a disobedient child, but worse. It would seem reasonable that the parent of such a child would give less to that child than what would be given to the parent's obedient children. This restriction of privilege would also likely apply to all that is directly associated with the misbehaving child, even the place over which that child has domain.

Consequently, it would seem reasonable for God to reward His obedient children with knowledge of that which is new, but withhold such knowledge from the disobedient ones, even those that He has cast out of His house. This condition would seemingly necessitate that what is thought of as human imagination is actually a construct of personal memory, be it physical or spiritual, or a suggestion from elsewhere that is also based upon memory.

This imagination of memory is readily explained by the combining of elements. A useful example is the purple refrigerator. Virtually nobody has ever seen a purple refrigerator, yet we may visualize this abstraction by using the superposition of physical memories. Most have seen the color purple, as well as a refrigerator that was likely white or black. We simply superimpose one memory upon the other to create the abstract image in our minds. This would also apply to spiritual memory. Nobody in this world has seen a fire-breathing dragon or a unicorn here, but many seem familiar with such creatures. Ideas may come from this ethereal memory as well.

Ethereal suggestion is another potential source of ideas, and one that may be more common then one might think. Words and concepts may seem to come to mind from out of the blue, yet there is no perceived personal connection of familiarity that is prevalent with memories. One may get an urge sometimes to do something somewhat out of character, or a thought may come to mind that just doesn't seem compatible with one's normal thought process. These may be ethereal suggestions. Even indirect ethereal suggestion can occur when a person receives such a suggestion, and speaks about it in conversation with the intended recipient nearby. Throughout this process, the receiver of the thought being transmitted seems to remain consciously unaware that they are relaying a communication.

This phenomenon may be detected while listening to others talking in a manner that is uncustomary for them, while remaining just outside of intimate conversation range. The message being transmitted may have multiple meanings to those involved, and the intended recipient may get the sense that the spoken words are not just coming from the person who is speaking. It is this sense of a duel origin more than the relative oddity of the perceived conversation that indicates ethereal communication may be taking place. This perception of displaced origin may also become more apparent after the conversation is over.

Some might regard this phenomenon as coincidence, but that which one feels in one's heart tends to have more value than what the mind's logic deduces. In addition, it would seem quite unlikely that a perfect supreme being would allow a meaningless brushstroke to pollute the masterpiece of His creation. Assuming this relaying of messages is actually occurring, it becomes a matter of what suggestions one chooses to follow. Which sources can be trusted?

Ethereal suggestions may be good or evil, leading one to postulate a dichotomy of sources. As the Lord has said, we shall know a tree by its fruit. Using one's heart to discern righteousness is a form of judgment. This ability would seem to be an inherent trait of those who still have a part of God within them; and, from personal experience, tends to yield better results than the mind's logic. Logic, like any tool, has a time and a place; but not every time, and not every place. How many times have we done what seemed reasonable even though it didn't feel quite right, and the results were significantly different from that which was logically surmised? When an idea is suggested from any source, it may be filtered through our internal discriminator and, if it feels right, may be suitably implemented.

It is important to realize that these ideas are not originating within the thinker's consciousness. The thinker is merely receiving them from another source, even if it is the thinker's memory, manipulating them through superposition as needed, and implementing them as appropriate. The thinker is in effect an intelligent conduit through which these potential realities flow. After judgment has been applied, the unsuitable concepts may be discarded or tabled, and acceptable elements submitted for application. Logic and reason may be integrated into the process at this stage as tools for superpositioning the core concepts, providing judgment is still utilized to override them as necessary. In effect, judgment becomes an inlet valve, logic becomes a wrench, and final judgment is the outflow valve. This sequence of judgment and logic may be repeated as necessary to further iterate upon a more optimal final solution.

The biblical reference noted above that pertains to unoriginality would also apply to these sources of initial concepts. Physical memory would be constrained to prior points in the thinker's current lifetime obviously, and would thus be made up of concepts that have already existed here. Spiritual memory, however, may include concepts not common to the thinker's body, and thus may seem original. This is, nevertheless, a false originality since it must have occurred at a prior time but potentially a different place. This would mean that such concepts could be new for this world, but not for the world from which the memory stems. This creates the illusion of originality, but the biblical precept is still valid. An idea may seem new to this world, but it has existed before here or elsewhere, and is therefore not, in fact, new.

This principle of unoriginality would also apply to the category of ethereal suggestion. Any suggestion that is offered would be coming from the memory of the one suggesting it, with one exception. It is possible that a series of suggesters could relay an idea to the destination mind by each remembering what was suggested to them, but the idea itself would be a memory of the initial suggester, unless that suggester is the source of all knowledge.

For an omniscient being existing outside of the timestream, where all points in time coexist in an instant, memory would not be needed. All knowledge of all points in time would be known in that instant; so memory, a fabrication that effectively requires immersion in the timestream to function as well as to exist, would be unnecessary. A similar analogy would be a computer that has such a large RAM capacity that the long-term memory of disc space becomes superfluous, providing the unit is not deactivated.

A shaping phenomenon may also occur in communicating an idea whereby a suggestion reminds the destination mind of a similar memory, and the idea is then altered to incorporate the memories of both suggester and receiver of the idea. This may result in constructive or destructive interference, but the end result will have been known to He who exists outside of time, and He would have accounted for any such variation.

With the prince of this world having been judged, it is not unreasonable to expect this world that he has been given to rule to acquire its glory in an unethical manner. The previously cited local falseness of originality implies that all that is introduced here in this world has effectively come from somewhere else. Since this requires some sort of spiritual memory to manifest a locally-new physical reality, and those who have such memories may not be completely aware of their origins, what masquerades as originality could well be a device of thievery.

A person may get an apparently original idea not knowing that it is actually their memory of another place in a prior time, and may act on that idea in order to exhibit some form of it here. Such a person has become in effect an unwitting pawn enabling this world to steal its glory from him, and whatever worlds he may have visited. Since this type of idea would necessarily have come from the victim's spiritual memory to be considered new here, it may have been a concept of personal intimacy such that the victim was effectively handing a thief one of his own prized possessions unknowingly, and not merely acting as an oblivious spy for this world against others.

The Lord has said that for one to enter a strong man's house and spoil his goods, one must first bind the strong man. Of chains that bind, perhaps forgetfulness is the most effective. If one has forgotten one's own identity, then such a victim might readily aid a thief to steal the victim's own belongings, even his knowledge. The victim would not even be aware that he is being robbed, and might even be thankful for the paltry reward that might be given to him for introducing such knowledge to this world at the expense of another. That fleeting glory will soon pass, but the damage has been done, and cannot easily be undone.

It would seem wise to be mindful of the origins of one's ideas, and to value those gifts. Such things are very likely worth more than this world would be willing to pay for them. This would seem evident given that, as the Lord has related to us, the prince of this world has nothing in Him, and is therefore no longer of Him. This would mean that this prince no longer possesses those attributes that are associated with God and those who are of Him, such as truth and goodness.

It certainly seems probable that a condemned ruler that does no good would deceive his world's transient inhabitants into exchanging their knowledge of other worlds and associated glory for little or nothing of value. In providing what seems like a meaningful reward for concepts that are undervalued by his forgetful victims; he can, and likely will, continue to rob them again and again, because they have been deceived into thinking that they are being treated in a sufficiently equitable manner.

Some time ago, a dream showed me that I have been a target of this insidious form of thievery. In conjunction with the Lord's parable of the tares, it would seem that a tare that had been sown in a body that had been a part of most of my life had been suggesting that I develop something unusual based on existing technology. It appears to have done this repeatedly since I was a child, but not so often as to arouse suspicion. The godly spirit that inhabited that body might have enabled the communication to take place because the deception remained undetected, and the associated thought seemed to be encouraging me to pursue a field interest.

A spiritual memory that came to me within a dream indicated the object of the tare's plot. It was a machine such as this world has not known. Although such contrivances do not exist here, my perception is that they are something of a symbol for the world from which the memory stems. Although some might regard such a dream as a flash of inspiration, another spiritual memory that was part of the same dream confirmed that it is indeed just a memory, and is therefore not something that could be considered original. Through deceptive encouragement, the tare had been attempting to manipulate me into reverse-engineering one of my own memories.

The path that the tare had encouraged me to follow would seem to make discovering this memory only a matter of time. The commonality of the principles involved, as well as the nature of the problem itself, would seem to lead to a solution that would constitute a number of memory triggers that, in time, would coax this spiritual memory to the surface of my consciousness. Had I succumbed to the tare's influence, the apparent discovery might have seemed like a break-through that perhaps would herald a new dawn in technological development, yet I would not have known that it is only a memory, and the actual recipient of the ill-gotten gain would have remained concealed.

What is particularly unsettling is that the tare seemed to know me to some degree, because it knew where my consciousness had been, and thereby what it could potentially steal from my mind, or rather what it might get me to steal from myself. Although the nature of this place appears to cause its guests to forget that which isn't in their present lives here, the prince of this world and his minions would seem to be unaffected by this phenomenon. This apparently fabricated condition would seem to create a fertile environment for thievery if ever there was one.

The Lord has told us that those who seek will find. He did not specify any restrictions upon the applicability of His statement. This would suggest that it applies to the wicked as well as the righteous. He has also told us to love our enemies, that we may be the children of our Father. This is compatible with His commandment to love our neighbors, even the wicked ones, as ourselves. Therefore, it would seem that He provides for all sentient beings, regardless of their ethical leanings. Consequently, it would seem that, though God may not give as freely to the wicked as He does to the righteous, that for which the wicked search will be eventually found. After all, if we would have our quests be successful, would we not have those of our neighbor be likewise, regardless of their moral orientation? However, there are categorical restrictions with which to contend.

The Lord has told us that every good tree brings forth good fruit, and a corrupt tree brings forth evil fruit. He has also indicated that a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, and a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Therefore, if the schemes of those who are evil fail to acquire that which is sought, it would seem necessary for the iniquitous to receive that for which they search by another means, even such a means that is good. However, that which is good accomplishes only that which is good, as the biblical tree reference indicates. Therefore, it would seem that good may give unto evil that which evil has failed to take, but not as evil would have it. This is because good only does that which is good, and such works are counter to the very nature of evil.

If God asked it of me, I would give my knowledge of the targeted apparatus freely to whomever He would indicate. However, if such is to be done, it must be done His way, which is to say the righteous way. Although the Lord has instructed us in behaving in godly ways, with regard to unusually important items, it would seem prudent to acquire His specific counsel concerning such. The item of interest within my mind may yet see the light of day in this place, but it will not be as the prince of this world would have it.

back to contents
Discerning God's Intent: Form Determines Function

There is an old saying within the field of biology: Form determines function. Animals that have molars but few if any incisor or canine teeth are very likely herbivores. This is because their teeth are able to grind, but there is little capacity for the cutting or puncturing operations that are quite helpful for the consumption of raw meat. This maxim may also be applied to other fields. An engineer is not likely to put working wheels on a structure that is intended to remain static. It would be a waste of time, effort, and expense to add such a needless subassembly. However; biology, like all other natural sciences, is the study of God's handiwork. Form determining function would seem to be a theme within His work. Since we are of Him, perhaps this is why it appears to be a theme within our work as well. However, since we too are a creation of God, that theme may also be applied to our very selves.

God created man in such a way that man lacked what other creatures of this world possess. Yet we still have dominion over such creatures because of what we do possess, or rather have been given as indicated in the book called "Genesis". Man is not the largest, or the strongest, or the fastest of land animals. If man were to face any such creature, one on one, in a battle to the death, with only his physical form to serve him; man would very likely lose. It is man's ability to design, build, and operate complex tools effectively, along with plentiful natural resources, that put mankind at the top of the food chain on this earth.

Our bodies reflect this association with technology. A hand may be utilized as a weapon, but it is more effective and efficient at wielding a tool, such as a crafted weapon, that can do many times more damage. Our form defines our function. We are designed for utility. We are able to adapt to a wide range of environments, as well as counter naturally-occurring threats as they arise. Our technological prowess, of course, has its limits at any given time; but it has served us well over the millennia.

However; man, with all of his operational capability, still lacks the natural abilities of creatures over which he has control. Man does not possess wings or gills, so it would seem that our function does not include flying, or traveling great distances underwater. The lack of any creatures in this world that can be ridden aloft or effectively piloted beneath the sea underscore this apparent intent. Our own history shows that we have no need of these abilities to propagate our species. Nevertheless, man has chosen to provide himself with these new abilities.

In considering the issue of manned flight, I can recall something about the Wright brothers being told that if God had intended men to fly, He would have given them wings. When I was much younger, I initially regarded such a comment as the prejudice of one too set in one's ways. However, as the years passed, my opinion of the matter has changed. It eventually occurred to me that most, if not all, good works that are done by manned aircraft can be effectively accomplished more efficiently by another means. Human flight is a luxury, and an expensive one at that. There is no need for men to fly.

However, God did give man the ability to swim because of need. Mankind throughout history has needed to traverse bodies of water, so the need has been justified. Mankind augmenting his own ability as requirements increase would appear to be keeping with God's intent. This is because the need has been established, the capability for improvement has been provided, and the timeliness of knowledge acquisition and construction material availability has been suitably molded to reflect the requirements of chronological necessity. There was no need for steamships thousands of years ago, but there would be a need eventually. The progress was made as it was required, thus making practical use of available resources at any given time and place in the continuum. Seagoing ships, it would seem, are consistent with God's intended design. The Lord himself traveling by ship when He walked the earth corroborates this.

Conversely, traveling by submarine does not meet this criteria. For doing good works; manned submarines, like their airborne counterparts, are expensive, relatively impractical, and unnecessary. Military applications of these self-given abilities exist, but such applications would not seem to fit within the realm of good works. The wars of men rarely possess divine authorization, and such campaigns invariably entail the slaughter of many. Therefore, military use cannot generally be regarded as being a good work. On occasion though, war appears to have been authorized from above. However, in that regard, ought not any such wars be fought in a manner that is respectful, or at least not disrespectful, to He who sanctions them?

There may be some who would argue that God gave us the ability to give ourselves additional abilities. However, God also gave us the ability to choose wickedness over goodness. Such a choice would seem contrary to His intent, since a parent would almost certainly not have his own children turn against him. Nevertheless, we have this ability. Just because we have an ability does not mean that we must use it when it ought not to be used.

If it is wise not to use some abilities which we have been given at times, how much more ought we not to use abilities that we have not been given? Should we not acquire good judgment for utilizing what we have before moving on to what we do not have? Is not a parent the one that decides when an adolescent transitions from a tractor to an automobile? Likewise, should not God be the one to give us additional abilities when He deems it appropriate, such as perhaps when we have mastered what he has already given us, or rather have mastered the judgment necessary to utilize our given powers properly? After all, is it not prudent to acquire good judgment for using the abilities that one has before being granted those of greater consequence?

Having a God-given ability implies need for that ability. However, like all tools of men, such abilities can be misused. The ability for men to give themselves new abilities would seem to stem from the ability to augment that which God has already provided. Augmentation would appear to be keeping to His intent, but ability creation would not seem to do so. Indeed, man giving himself that which God saw fit not to give, to any significant degree, would seem to be blasphemous.

In acquiring a self-given ability, it is as though man was stating through his actions that he knows better than God what he needs; and will give himself that which God, in His infinite wisdom, saw fit not to give. It is as though a parent thought an adolescent was not ready to transition from the tractor to the car, so the adolescent chose to rebel. The adolescent took the car in full view of the parent, and went off to do as he desired. This would seem, at the very least, unwise and disrespectful on the part of the adolescent. The parent deserves better, as does God.

One of the things that I have come to realize about myself is that what pleases me the most is pleasing God. This means doing what He intends for me to do, and not doing what He does not intend for me to do. Discerning intent comes from meeting the action of an authority with asking the question of why such an action was made. In this regard, the question is not intended to be disrespectful to the authority, but rather to serve as a means to gain understanding into the intent of the action. Through gaining knowledge and comprehension of this intent, one may better comply with that which the authority seeks.

Answering this question of intent may be somewhat more complicated, but is nevertheless an exercise worthy of effort. Has not the Lord told us to be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect? He knows, of course, that we are not perfect; but is asking us to try. Although we can never be without flaw; we can, like a curve approaching an asymptote, come close provided we make a suitable and persistent effort.

When I think of that person who bothered the Wright brothers now; it would seem plausible, if not likely, that it was a guardian angel speaking through his charge. The comment that was made just seems like the kind of thing that one might think an angel would say. I am no longer willing to travel by aircraft or submarines. It is my perception and belief that it is God's intention that men don't do such things. Although this perceived intent appears reasonable, it seems to lack certainty. However, as my perception allows, I would that I be as God intends for me to be at every point in the timestream that I know as my present.

This matter of validity, however, may be clarified by elevating the criteria. Instead of relating the noted behavior to divine intent, let us compare it to divine command. Are these modes of transportation compatible with God's commandments? On initial inspection, they might seem acceptable. After all, there is no commandment stating that man shall not fly or travel great distances underwater. Indeed, there appears to be no mention of such things in either the Old or New Testament sections of the _Holy Bible_ , as well as other scripture. However, in the New Testament there is an implied reference that would seem to apply.

The Lord gave us some new commandments when He walked the earth. Two of these were to love God with all of our heart, mind, and soul; and to love our neighbor as ourselves. He has indicated that there is no other commandment greater than these two, and upon them hang all the law and the prophets. These would seem to supersede the prior ten from the Old Testament, not only because they are more chronologically current, but also because they effectively include them, as well as many other issues of behavior. Indeed, everything that God has told us to do throughout history would, to one degree or another, seem to fall under these two edicts. In giving ourselves that which God had chosen to withhold; it would seem disrespectful, at the very least, to He who is worthy of the highest respect. To be willfully disrespectful to God is not compatible with loving Him to the degree that He has indicated. Therefore, such behavior would appear to be a violation of this commandment.

Even if one disregards the scriptural reference, such disrespect would seem to be offensive to God in much the same way that the above-noted parent of the rebellious adolescent would be offended. If a parent's command is disobeyed, is offense not taken? Even if the offensive behavior was not willfully committed, does not offense still occur? Sin appears to be more than disobedience. It is causing offense. Has not the Lord spoken to the question of how often one should forgive a brother who has sinned against one, but without correcting the nature of the question as asked? A brother is as an equal, and what equal would command a fellow equal? Sin would appear to have been committed in such an instance without a command being given.

So it would seem that traveling by aircraft or submarine is disrespectful to God, and therefore offensive to Him, thus making it sinful behavior. This is underscored by the incompatibility of such behavior with the Lord's commandments. Though it might seem possible to act against God's intent without sinning against Him in an explicit sense, it is the implicitness of His commands that encompass His intent. Commands are, after all, given to serve some purpose or purposes in each individual case. To ignore intents but regard commands fails the purposes of these commands, which are to uphold their associated intents. We must be mindful of the underlying purposes for which God's commands are given. It is through recognizing these specific purposes, and through those the broader intents behind them, that we can better obey the commands that God gives us, as well as the ones that He doesn't.

back to contents
Discerning God's Intent: God's Word

As creatures of judgment and, particularly in this place, beings that have learned to be distrustful of others; we tend to accept our own answer to a problem instead of that which we are told by another. However, if we understand the other's reasoning, and agree with their conclusion, then we may choose to accept their solution because we have reasoned it out for ourselves. Although the deductions were made by someone else, if that template fits our own individual logic model, then it is as if we had done the initial reasoning ourselves based upon the same parameters, and thereby accept the associated solution as we would accept our own judgment. Granted, it is far easier to accept a complete and valid solution than it is to arrive at one from scratch, but if that solution is one that we might have surmised on our own if we were given enough time, then it is as if we had done the work ourselves as far as establishing the credibility of that work to ourselves.

Furthermore, understanding of another would appear to be important in the facilitation of obedience, where applicable. As suggested by that noted above, it would seem easier to comply with a command if one comprehends and concurs with its purpose or purposes. A small child may find it difficult to obey his parents when they tell him not to touch the stove. However, once he understands the reason for the command, perhaps from a painful bout of disobedience, he will likely find it easier to comply. This phenomenon has an even broader benefit if the intent behind each specific purpose is understood, and its validity acknowledged.

Over the centuries, God has told us to do and not to do certain things. Understanding the intent behind these commands would likely aid us in keeping them. Agreement with such intent in this context is assumed since who among us but the faithless would question His righteousness and wisdom. Indeed, one of the best jokes that has ever occurred to me was asking myself if I thought that I knew better than God.

With concurrence a given, understanding the intent of God's directives would seem to be mutually favorable, since it appears that much of what He does is for His children. This understanding, however, is not entirely necessary in the short term as faith can suffice. In addition, these periodic exercises of faith seem helpful since faith, like a muscle, seems to grow when stressed and diminish when left unutilized. Thus, repetitively exercising one's faith may cause it to grow over time. This would seem beneficial since faith appears to be one of the very few things that can always be improved without detriment, regardless of the quantity that is present.

In the long term, however, understanding would seem to be helpful. We are creatures of judgment. As such, we seek to understand that which we do not know so that our judgment may become more perfect. Through learning we may gain understanding. It is through this learning process that our own reasoning may be altered by our newfound understanding so that our judgment will be more perfect in the future. Therefore, comprehension would seem to be a complementary counterpart to faith.

One can potentially infer intent from actions, such as commands, if one has some insight into the mindset of the one taking the action. However, this tends to work best if the subject being studied is unaware of the observer so that the phenomenon of dueling minds does not take place. It also helps if the subject possesses a simpler algorithm than the one conducting the investigation, since it would seem difficult to completely comprehend one that is more complex than one's self.

These conditions, however, do not apply in this case. God is infinitely more complex than we will ever be. He also knows every choice we will ever make, as well as the choices we will not have to make, since He is the one who defined our programs. He knows us better than we know ourselves, and has already woven our anticipated actions into the magnificent tapestry of His creation. Any inferences that we can make with regard to His intent would, therefore, seem rudimentary and incomplete; though such endeavors may yield some degree of accuracy.

An example of this can be seen in scripture. The Lord would that we forgive, repeatedly. He has also indicated that He would have mercy and not sacrifice. Mercy and forgiveness are related, and would appear to point to an underlying intent of tolerance. This would seem reasonable since some degree of tolerance would constitute a potential equilibrium state, and be part of the middle ground between the societal extremes of absolute peace and total war. The collective behavioral attributes of forgiveness and mercy would, in effect, make up a system of dampeners to resist perturbation from such a condition of equilibrium. Along with a system of springs made up of various phenomena, this would seem to create a backdrop for a stable and convergent society.

However, The Lord has also pointed out a lack of difference between telling a man stricken with palsy to get up and walk, or that his sins are forgiven. Although our simplistic analysis would seem to have some validity, there certainly appears to be more to forgiveness than mere tolerance. Inferring intent from God's Word may give us some finite amount of insight into God's infinite mind, but it would seem that an infinite amount of this insight is needed to have any chance of accurately and comprehensively discerning His intent from action.

A more direct approach may be a better solution. Why not just go to the source? The Lord has on occasion told us God's intent. As He has indicated, He would have us be perfect as our Father is, so we can rely on His actions as they pertain to us, and really all of His actions because of His nature, to be righteous even if we do not understand them. One such instance of intent occurring in scripture is when the Lord reminded us that a man will leave his parents, cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This metaphor of one flesh appears indicative of the act of sexual intercourse, as well as the offspring that may result. Although He has also indicated that it is better not to marry through His saying regarding eunuchs, for those who choose not to resist their desire, marriage is an acceptable outlet. In this regard, any sexual activity not compatible with the aforementioned metaphor would appear to be contrary to His intent. This is echoed in the book called "Leviticus" of the Old Testament where unacceptable sexual activity is outlined.

Another such instance of His intent being communicated verbally occurred when He explained the allowance for divorce. He indicated that divorce was not God's intent from the beginning, and that it is not for men to part that which God has joined. Even so, because of the hardness of the people's hearts, an allowance for divorce was granted. This does not make divorce righteous. Divorce was granted because the people would not accept that which is righteous. Those who divorce may or may not be committing adultery, but they are clearly acting counter to God's intent, even an intent behind the commandment concerning adultery.

Furthermore, when He indicated this behavioral waiver, He used the past tense, as the time of the Old Testament and its hardheartedness has been superseded. When the Lord walked the earth, He elevated two concepts mentioned in the Old Testament to commandment status. One of these is to love God with all of our heart, mind, and soul. If we love God this much, to intentionally act counter to His known intent would seem to be sinful, since such a disrespectful action would be contrary to loving Him to the degree indicated, as well as likely causing offense by failing to acknowledge the righteousness of He who is perfect. Thus, divorce for we of the time of the New Testament would constitute sinful behavior, since our hearts should be soft enough to accept His new commandments, and all that they entail.

Scripture, however, is not the only way that God's Word can communicate intent. His intent may also be transmitted in a more personal manner. Some time ago, I had been wondering why I have had a fascination with a subject that, on the surface, seemed incompatible with my personality profile. At some point, a telephone conversation brought up a scenario that touched on this subject, and thus initiated a chain of events that that would eventually reveal the answer.

After hanging up, I realized that there was no known device for efficiently resolving such a given condition in a quick and concise manner - and then I thought of one. It only took seconds; yet, in retrospect, this seemed an unusually long time, as if the process would normally have been nearly instantaneous without the encumbrance of this well-worn suit of flesh. A long-forgotten subroutine deep within my program had been called. The solution utilized existing technology, but in a combination that has hitherto been unused. The beauty of the solution was not that it fit the problem so well, but that it was not limited in its usefulness to that particular application.

Not long after that surprising skill was unveiled, a thought occurred to me that I believe did not originate from me, but from the one who imparted this ability to me. The thought that occurred was this: Your gift was not intended to serve those who fly a flag. I took this as a reminder regarding the intended use of the skill that I had been given. This thought also helped me to recall the circumstances surrounding its impartation; and, in so doing, additional conditions regarding its intent.

The presence of this unusual ability also explains the affinity that I have long had for the field that seemed so unusual for me to take an interest. It was as if that forgotten piece of software, the one which seems to have been hard-wired into my very soul, had been passively working in the background of my consciousness all these years, while I was yet unaware of the subroutine itself. In hindsight, it has become apparent that this running of background tasks provided data that augmented the effectiveness of the core subroutine when the time came for it to activate.

Although this gift seems out of place on the surface, I know that God works in mysterious ways. In a broader sense, its presence in me makes sense over the long term since being inherently averse to the potential results of its misuse makes me especially unlikely to abuse its capabilities. Through a single thought pertaining to intent, I have gained a greater understanding of myself, and my role in the worlds of His creation.

The rediscovered subroutine has not activated since that evening following the phone conversation. Although I did not consciously call it into operation, I would that it not become active again until such time as it may fulfill its intended purpose. This kind of power ought not to be handled too frequently. It will be there when it is needed. As the Lord has said, it is enough to deal with the evil of the day, and I have no need of it today.

So it would seem that going directly to the source is a more accurate indicator of God's intent than inference from His directives. It also becomes apparent why His intents are thus when we witness what transpires after some choose to act in opposition to them. However, it is important to acknowledge that the behavioral model to which He is guiding us is for our own good, whether we understand the model or not. Like the child who wanted to touch the stove, we can either learn the easy way by heeding His Word, and seeking comprehension of His intent; or we can learn the hard way, as the less faithful do, who think that they know better than God.

back to contents
Wishless Faithful Hoping

Hope, it would seem, has two aspects. One is quantitative while the other is qualitative. The quantitative variety involves specific items or circumstances of desirability. This objective orientation differs from the more subjective aspect. That qualitative facet addresses concepts of a more general and abstract nature. Both of these perspectives include wants of the individual affected by hope, but differ in other ways.

The subjective side of hope would better be described as hopefulness. This is an expectation that things in general will remain or move toward a pleasing state within the indefinite future. Since this type of hope is predicated upon the one hoping being powerless to cause the desired state to occur, an outside force that has such power must be present for the desired state to come to pass. This in turn necessitates that the one hoping has some degree of confidence that this outside power exists, and has such capability, as well as the will to use it. In this context, the confidence is effectively faith. The hope that the external power will cause the desired outcome as defined, albeit qualitatively, of the one doing the hoping is therefore an effect of this faith. Faith is the cause, and hope is the effect.

The objective variety of hope, however, is more specific and timely. The hope is that a particular circumstance will occur sometime within the near term. The timeliness of this variety of hope would seem to be related to our perceived event horizon. We tend to have a more detailed perception of the near future based upon events transpiring around us within the present, and thus can be more specific in our desires for this interval. The distant future, however, is a much foggier picture; so we have less information on which to base more intricate desires.

This timely aspect of hope makes it similar to wishing, since wishing tends to address an alternate reality that is more or less in the present. Hoping, in this instance, would amount to a more emphatic wishing. Although wishing can include things that are regarded as impossible, objective hoping tends to focus on the more probable. One can wish for animals to talk, but one tends to hope for things that are of greater impact to one's existence, and of an increased likelihood, such as finding a job.

The comparable state of hoping to wishing is a concerning one. Wishing, it would seem, is inherently unfaithful. Assuming that things are as God would or allow them to be, any deviation from that path would be contrary to His intent or will, respectively. Thus, wishing for a reality that is not related to how things are or are likely to become would indicate a lack of confidence in God's judgment.

This faithlessness would seem to be the primary difference between hoping and wishing. One tends to wish for the blatantly unobtainable because the wisher does not know of an authority that would grant such a condition. Although the Lord has told us that all things are possible with God, if something seems quite unlikely for Him to do, one can still wish for it knowing that it will almost certainly not happen. This is a wish and not a hope because there is no faith in God, or man, or anything else to create the desired condition. For this reason, wishing would seem to distance us from God. Consequently, wishing would not seem to be a righteous activity for the faithful of God.

There is, however, a special case concerning the seemingly impossible. What about miracles? Miracles are events which God tends not to permit, but implements under special circumstances. This mandatory divine involvement means that there is an authority that can grant the impossible. Therefore, one does not wish for a miracle, one hopes for one because one has faith in God to make it come to pass.

Consequently, objective hoping can include the apparently impossible, but what about the more probable aspects? A higher likelihood of something occurring implies a greater faith in whatever powers are necessary to cause its occurrence. In the example of finding a job, the one hoping has some control over the outcome based upon the amount of effort expended to attain it. However, there is still some reliance upon an external authority to grant the desire. This implies faith in such an authority to provide that which the one hoping cannot.

A higher probability of success can be achieved by maximizing that which one can control. For example, studying to obtain a related degree would improve the odds of finding a job in a given field. However, there is still some reliance upon an outside authority to award the job that is sought. The hope is, therefore, based upon faith in that external authority. Once again, faith is the cause, and hope is the effect. Otherwise, one is just wishing.

This close relationship of hoping to wishing implies that the unrighteousness of wishing can be applied to hoping as well. Just as one may wish for that which is against God's will, one may also hope for such providing the external authority where the required faith is placed is not God. For example, one can hope to become a professional assassin. One could even train oneself in a variety of disciplines to improve the odds of the desire being realized. The hope, of course, would be based on faith in an illicit employer to grant the desire. Since murder is a sin against God and man, such a sequence of events would seem quite contrary to God's intent. With the faith placed solely within the wicked, but not God, a faithlessness of the divine is a result. This is underscored by the contradiction of the root desire to God's Word. Hope, therefore, would seem to be a tool that, like any other instrument of mankind, can be used for good or evil.

Consequently, hope would seem to be righteous only if the external powers in which faith is placed includes God or that which is of God. In so doing, the desired outcome is dependent upon it serving God's intent or will. While God may allow some unrighteousness to occur for a time by His will, it is not His intent. The difference between intent and will in this case is the freedom of choice of imperfect beings, such as ourselves. An apt analogy would be a parent allowing a child to make a mistake so that the child may learn from the consequences. The parent's intent is that the child act wisely, but the parent's will is to allow the child to learn by trial and error as necessary within certain parameters.

Consequently, if we put our faith in God, and allow Him to be the deciding authority, our hopes would appear to have a reasonable chance of success provided they are keeping to God's intent. This reasoning is based on the supposition that God would be more likely to grant that which He would have us be over that which He would not have us be, but He would tolerate for a time. The existence of His Word would seem to attest to this preference, because without it there is much that we would be forced to learn the hard way.

So it would seem that hope is a psychological tool that can be used for good or evil. To utilize hope righteously requires faith in God or that which is of God as a power necessary for the hope to be realized. However, since God is omnipotent, one need only put one's faith in God, because He is over all other potential powers that control that which the one hoping cannot.

Considering all the unrighteousness that characterizes human existence, a self-chosen attribute since we are of divine creation, it seems ironic that righteous hope appears to be a dominant aspect of our lives as a society whether or not we are consciously aware of it. The suicide rate would likely be much, much higher without this background hope occurring. However, for any righteous hope to exist requires faith in God, either directly or indirectly; but this same faith is a quantity which the Lord himself has pointed out that we lack. Therefore, to better harvest the benefit of the hope that characterizes our civilization, we must first grow our faith in God.

back to contents
The Lost Prerequisite for Power

When one considers the necessary requirements for empowering an imperfect being such as man, a number of things spring to mind. Qualities of character that indicate the power will be used righteously are important. Also, qualities relating to wisdom are desirable to avoid the potential for well-meaning errors being committed. However, there is one personal preference that is needed to safeguard all these other properties. Unfortunately, it is with rare exception conspicuously absent from the affairs of men.

For me, awareness of this attribute came through watching a particular episode of _Gilligan's Island_ , of all things. It was the only episode of the series in which Thurston Howell III got a pie in the face. Although a memorable event, and itself a clue, this was not what struck a chord in me. What affected me was the end of Gilligan's dream in the show. His dream ended with him taking off his crown and stomping on it while repeating, even out loud as he was awaking, the emphatic statement: "I don't want to be king!" There was something about that scene, that sentiment, those words that made a connection with me; but I just couldn't put my finger on it.

In time, the solution to this mystery would become apparent through a vision of sorts. It was a flashback to another time and place. It seemed to be a spiritual memory from a time long past, and a place far removed. The memory was of a time when I was yet still in the kingdom before coming to this place. I was at the ceremony where I was to receive my crown. As my superior was about to lay the ring of light upon my head, I looked up and said: "But I don't want to be king." He looked down upon me and replied: "But that's why you have to be."

He was right, because this is the way of the kingdom, and a wondrous way it is. Who is better than one who would not be king to take up the power only when it is needed, and even then with reluctance? Who is better than this to lay the power down again when it is no longer required? Has not the Lord said that the last shall be first, and that many that are first shall be last? This is the way of the kingdom, and the way of God. Indeed, every archangel got his title because he didn't want the job, because this is the way of He who empowers them.

The arguments that men make against this policy seem reasonable at first. It would seem to be a waste to let the power go unused when it could be utilized to make things better. This, of course, assumes that one knows what is better. How many times throughout human history have improvements made by the powerful lead to degradation? Man's foresight is not what his pride would have him believe.

Those who take up the power may believe that they can do a better job with it than their predecessor. They have seen the mistakes that the powerful have made, and intend not to repeat them. This may work for a time, but it does not last. Regardless of noble intentions, the empowered seem to inevitably become not unlike that which they have replaced. It is as though the power was controlling those who would claim to wield it.

Here, in this place, anybody who wants power can have it. However, those who want power, and are willing to pay the price, never seem to be satisfied. They always seem to want more. Since their desire is divergent, only unlimited power will satisfy them. Because only He that is perfect has such power, those who hunger for such will continue to want. However, there are worse things that befall those that lust for power than mere eternal dissatisfaction.

Power is corrosive to one's spirit as well as one's physical appearance. The old adage of might making right seems to inevitably come true. In time the personal attributes that made for righteous use of power are eroded away by handling it. If one is powerful enough, what need has one for compassion or wisdom? Who is powerful enough to resist such a one? This seems to be the logic of those infected by the virus that power seems to be.

The sickness has also been known to cause a surface corrosion of a sort. However, unlike rust on iron, this corrosion is often gold and the like with which the infected adorn themselves. Vanity would seem to be a symptom of the disease. However, like any other virus, the root goal of this disease would seem to be simple multiplication, the rather noticeable side-effects notwithstanding.

Of course, unlike many viruses that are lethal to the body, this one that can be lethal to some of a person's nonphysical attributes may well go unnoticed by those infected. Others close to the one afflicted will likely notice the signs, but the one who is contaminated may well meet their concern with distrust and eventually paranoia. Unlike other sicknesses, the victim will likely want to keep personal possession of that which causes the disease, and even seek to augment its potency.

Since the disease affects judgment in time, the means of maintaining possession and amplifying the infecting power will likely grow ever more wicked. Thus, the victim's behavior may grow increasingly divergent and evil, with the accompanying distrust leading to isolationism. Left unchecked, the disease could eventually consume all that is good within the infected spirit.

The Lord's way is the best way, even the only way for optimal existence of the imperfect. For this reason it follows that those who desire power should be left wanting. An example of what happens when this is not done can be seen in the political arena. By this divine policy, virtually all candidates for elected office in this place are effectively unqualified. They, with extremely rare exception, all want their respective jobs. Their unsuitability is evident in the historic tendency for government to seemingly work best when its members cannot agree to do anything. Unfortunately, as long as an electorate is willing to settle for such, things are unlikely to change from within this type of institution. Change from the outside, however, is another matter.

The faithful believe that the ungodly ways of this place will not last forever. God's way will prevail eventually, as it must for any that are and remain of Him. Until such time, the faithful must abide in God's ways, and do the work that He has put before them in their own manner. Some of that work may entail relearning what one once knew, but has forgotten. This seems especially applicable here, in this place, since there is something about this world that causes one to forget. However, as the Lord has said, the Holy Spirit will help one to remember, so it is important to be born again of water as He has directed so that one may receive the Holy Spirit.

It is also important to ask questions so that, in time, we may acquire the answers for which we search, as the Lord has indicated by telling us that those who seek shall find. There are things in this world that give us pause to consider, but we must take the necessary time to do so. It may be a line from a movie, or a song lyric, or even a scene from an old television show. It is through wondering about such things, and asking questions even of one's self, that the Holy Spirit may illuminate the solutions in time. When I see that episode of Gilligan's Island now, and Gilligan wakes up from his dream proclaiming his desire not to be king, it is not unusual for me to respond, even out loud: "But that's why you have to be."

back to contents
The Neglected Nongoal of Contentment

Contentment seems to be a largely abandoned concept in today's society. The alleged values that the world impresses upon the individual act to attenuate that which is reasonable and faithful such as being content. For all its rareness, it is not a difficult state to achieve. Unlike goals that require effort of note, contentment is more of a choice. The choice, however, is not so much to be content, as it is to cast off the shackles of material desire. In doing so, a state of inner peace can be reached from lack of want.

Desire permeates to the very core of physical existence. Whatever we may have, we are taught to want more. How frequently are the often wondrous words of a child nothing more than "I want it!"? Regardless of what we may achieve or acquire, it is never enough. Such is the divergent nature of desire. It is never satisfied for long, if at all. It is comparable to an unquenchable thirst. No matter how much one drinks, it is never enough.

As undesirable as desire appears to be, the achievements that it leaves in its wake are not left unspoiled. What we achieve is often held up as an offering to our own pride, even as we want for something more. Do we not seek to have that which our next-door neighbor hasn't; and, once found, hold it up for all to see, even as we seek for what nobody in our town has? Is not every human achievement nothing more than the embodiment of the statement "I'm better than you because...."? Does not the book called "Ecclesiastes" indicate that all works done under the sun, which would seem to point in no small degree to the collective endeavors of humanity as a whole, are vanity and vexation of spirit?

Contentment offers an alternative state. The divergence of material desire is absent. What need has one for more if one has enough? It is humble. What one has tends to be what one is given, either outright or in exchange, and not what one took by force. Static, however, it is not. Some might argue that contentment is a static state where little or nothing is gained by force of will. They might cite the historic tendency for people to change rather than to remain the same. Consequently, if one is not moving forward then one must inevitably regress, they would likely surmise. While such logic seems sound, the application in this case is erroneous.

Contentment is static only in a relative sense, but not in an absolute respect. Those who are content and faithful have curtailed their material desires to what may be considered an equilibrium range, but are responsive to the will of the one that they serve. God is the one who gives and takes away. He is also the one who has provided a path, a destiny, even a purpose for all that He creates. We each have a part to play in His grand design. Those who are content and faithful know that they will be provided what is needed, when it is needed. They have but to walk the path that is before them, even the one that had been prepared for them before their journey had begun. Did the Lord not ask one of His apostles if He should not drink of the cup His Father gives Him? Will we not do the same?

Contentment may thus work well for the faithful, but what of the faithless? In this context, those who are not faithful either don't believe that God exists, or have little or no confidence in Him. They must therefore put their confidence in that which is not God. Any undivine being in which they would place their trust would be imperfect, so their confidence in such a being would seem uncertain, if not tenuous. This misdirected faith would also be in no small way ironic, because the relative power of any perceived benefactor of theirs comes from above, as the Lord has indicated when He told Pilate where his power originates. Furthermore, history shows that any material object or worldly principle in which the faithless might put their confidence cannot be entirely relied upon to deliver the results that they may desire. Since whatever or whomever upon which they depend cannot always be trusted to succeed, contentment for the faithless would seem to be a much more difficult proposition.

Since the faithless cannot truly depend upon anyone or anything completely, they must maximize what they have to carry them through periods of hardship. They tend to dwell upon their material needs, collecting and hoarding whatever may have value of a physical nature. Some may be so convinced of the nonexistence of the nonphysical that they regard themselves as being nothing more than the vessels that they inhabit. Therefore, they would tend to live only for their bodies; because, in their minds, when their bodies are gone, so are they. They have forgotten that which they are in terms of identity and definition. It would seem difficult indeed for any such creature to ever be content for more than a passing moment, unless and until they choose to recognize and acknowledge themselves for whom and what they are; and, in so doing, whom God is. They must find their faith in God to have any reasonable likelihood of achieving lasting contentment.

Although divine faith, it would seem, is required for lasting contentment; there are other parameters which contribute to this state. It is difficult to savor and appreciate what one has, not to mention attaining inner peace, while one is being offended. Therefore, eliminating offenders from one's existence to the extent that righteousness allows would seem helpful. We can often eliminate offenses from without by simply avoiding them, but offenses from within tend to be more persistent.

The Lord has told us that if one's right eye causes offense unto one, pluck it out, and cast it from one. He has also said that if one's right hand causes one offense, cut it off, and cast it away. Indeed, He has warned us about causing any offense at all. He would seem to be telling us that if there is something of one that is nonvital in nature and causes one offense, then one should get rid of it. This can apply to any valid part of the one offended, even personal behavior. Such an attribute of one's being may have seemed right or proper at one time, but if it causes one offense, then that time is past, if it ever existed at all. If someone hates their job, they will likely end up hating whoever is causing them to work it, even if it is themselves. It would be better for them to cast off the offending behavior, and replace it with something that does not offend them, even if that something is not immediately apparent.

By context, the Lord has indicated that we should not offend God when He told an adulterous woman that was to be stoned to sin no more. He has also effectively told us not to offend ourselves as noted above. This implies that God will provide a solution that will meet these criteria. Therefore, if one is faithful and patient, a solution will become apparent in time. This underscores the importance of faith, but also introduces another useful element. Patience, like faith, is a quantity that would seem to be more important than one might think.

God, it would seem, does not hurry. He has no need. God is also the only one who can make just-in-time-delivery work every time. He can do these things because nothing is unknown to Him from His vantage point outside of time. We can also depend on Him to do what He says because His Word is true, even truth. The Lord has told us that God's Word is truth, and that what He tells us comes from He who sent Him, even our Father. Those with ears to hear and enough years behind them can corroborate the validity of His words. Therefore, to be faithful would seem to necessitate patience, since a divine solution may not become apparent until just before it is needed.

Patience is also the enemy of impulsiveness, a quantity strongly related to desire, and detrimental to wise action. Indeed, impulsiveness is a reaction to outside stimuli with little or no thought involved. Allowing impulsiveness to rule one's behavior effectively cancels any wisdom that could be applied, except retroactively. A more efficient solution is to eliminate the impulsiveness. Patience can effectively accomplish this in practice, since it would tend to cause one to hesitate before taking action. This pause would allow wisdom the opportunity to take hold, and guide that action.

So it would seem that contentment, and the satisfaction and inner peace that it can provide, is a state worthy of being found and maintained; though not so much by striving as by choosing. Removing offenses from one's existence would seem to benefit this undertaking. The underrated elements of divine faith and personal patience also would seem to play a part in achieving lasting contentment. However, contentment has a much more famous sibling.

Happiness is an attribute that many want but fail to find. It cannot be bought, or acquired in trade. It cannot be inherited or won. It also cannot be forced. One cannot simply choose to be happy. This is just lying to one's self. However, it is like contentment in that it is a state of inner peace worthy of finding and maintaining. Indeed, happiness would seem to be an elevated state of contentment wherein one is quite satisfied to maintain things as they are. From personal experience, I have found happiness to occur during periods of relative contentment, when a grievous burden is removed from one's life. This harkens back to the benevolent action of removing offensive influences, which may be involved in the acquisition of contentment. However, in this case, it is something much larger. It can occur through personal choice or act of God, but the happiness transcends the contentment when the great offense is removed.

The concept of pursuing happiness is well known; but, it would seem, seldom accomplished. Many may seem to be happy, but this behavior may be joy or excitement that is misinterpreted. Some may simply pretend to be happy in order to put on an appearance; perhaps to validate some part of their lives that, because of their pride, they refuse to admit is a failure. It is ironic that, with so much effort expended to find happiness to some degree or another, if one can find a lasting state of contentment; happiness may find you.

back to contents
Solitude: A Fertilizer for Growth

Solitude seems to be a misunderstood and misrepresented state. All too often it is regarded as a punishment, and something to be avoided. This may indeed be the case for some, but it would seem that those who have such regard perhaps have other issues that they are trying desperately to avoid facing. Solitude is an opportunity to learn. One can potentially learn the most in an empty classroom, and solitude is such a classroom. Without the noise and other distractions of physical companionship, one can dwell effectively upon personal questions that may well persist until answered.

The essence of solitude is to be alone with one's thoughts. This may terrify some, but for those who have the courage to face themselves, it can be quite a rewarding experience. One can dwell upon questions that matter to the individual, instead of committing hoards of trivial facts to memory, as might be specified by others. The seemingly eternal questions concerning identity and purpose are there to be considered, but they are not alone. Anything that comes to the mind of the individual is fair game. Nothing is off the table. The topics are only constrained to the limit of one's own curiosity, although this inherent inquisitiveness appears to have a dynamic boundary in the form of each individual's level of awareness.

Simply being alone, however, is not enough. Thinking just for the sake of thinking does not always yield worthwhile results. What seems to help considerably is performing a mindless activity in a peaceful environment. This introduces dynamic external stimuli that one can observe while contemplating a potential solution to what could be a related question. Being in peaceful surroundings helps one sense that which might be filtered out or attenuated in a more hectic environment. These more subtle perturbations in one's perception can potentially lead to meaningful and perhaps startling results.

One such subtlety is the perception that some sayings have more to them than meets the ear. One might sense that such words have greater meaning than the contextual definition of the moment. These occasions are opportunities to acquire greater knowledge, even wisdom, but time must be allocated to dwell upon such things. As words often have multiple valid meanings, so too do some larger groupings of such. This is the nature of truth. It is not merely true in the singular sense, but has a plurality of validity. These morsels of truth can seemingly be found everywhere. They are in movies, songs, and literature, as well as conversation. Solitude gives one the opportunity to wonder about such words that beckon for greater understanding.

Solitude also makes one more perceptive to one's own thoughts, even if all of one's thoughts are not always one's own. One case in point is what happened to me after being born again of water. I had been having pretend conversations with God wherein I would answer for Him in a manner that I thought befitting. After I was properly baptized, however, I found that on occasion those conversational answers from Him were no longer coming from me. Since these responses seemed to be compatible with His nature, I believe that they are coming from Him. Those answers that were not my own seemed good and righteous. Because the Lord has said that only God is good, this would seem to provide confirmation of my belief regarding the origin of these thoughts. I have since perceived that this was not the first time that I have heard His thoughts in mine. I have also recalled how unsettling it felt when I first set foot in a strange place without His thoughts to guide me. His thoughts are once again my companion, and aid me in traversing this peculiar and offensive place.

However, to hear Him well, it behooves me to keep my mind quiet. The noise of reactionary logic that emotion often is tends to shout over the subtlety of thought. Solitude helps significantly in removing exterior stimuli that may elicit emotional responses. Divinely inspired mental control is also helpful in attenuating such noise stemming from interior sources, such as unpleasant memories or visualized threats. By suppressing the mental noise, one's abstract perceptions can be heightened, and ideas can flow more freely. In providing a fertile ground for ideological thought, one can achieve a greater understanding of one's surroundings and, more importantly, one's self.

Solitude, however, is more than being physically alone. It is isolation. One can be alone in one's vehicle, but on a congested street the effect is lost. However, one can still take measures to minimize emotional catalysts. Avoidance and lowered expectations can provide noticeable results in what amounts to an exercise in anger management. Staying out of the maze while the rats are running is one such strategy. Expecting to be offended, and letting it wash over one when it inevitably occurs, is another. This can potentially introduce a feeling of pleasantness when an invitation for road rage fails to materialize. However, a lonely country road would be a better choice, if circumstances permit.

Although a pleasant drive in the country affords some opportunity for contemplation, it might be better to choose an activity that requires less physical concentration. Pacing the driveway after dark can be a productive alternative. The activity itself takes little thought, and the beauty of the heavens can aid in considering ideas concerning one's existence. By engaging one's attention on some sort of natural phenomenon, and reducing one's awareness of the physical self, metaphoric constructs can be more easily detected. The patterns in God's creation seem to have a tendency to repeat. By contemplating one thing, one may gain understanding of another. In deliberately not focusing on the object of question, the answer one seeks may be found more easily somewhere else. In this fashion, one can gain a perspective of the forest without the trees getting in the way.

Once a pattern is detected, it may then serve as a key for unlocking other solutions. Just as parables can provide insight into making good personal choices, so too can such patterns give us a better understanding of what may prove to be answers to other potentially bigger questions. Once the configuration of a solution is recognized, one may attempt to apply it to other questions of a similar nature. It may just fit. By engaging in such an exercise, one might gain a sense of understanding relating to the answers of questions that have little or no other means of solving by traditional methods. Through engaging in such a pattern-fitting exercise, and endeavoring to search for a larger or an obscured but perceived meaning, one might just find an epiphany lurking behind the details.

As useful as solitude can be in plying the depths of ignorance, or perhaps amnesia, it must be limited to a temporary status. The nourishing fruits of knowledge that it yields must be shared. The Lord has told us that those who are great among us are those who minister unto us. Thus, it would seem pleasing to God for us to share these fruits that we acquire. In addition, the Lord's parable of the talents would also be applicable. It is God who gave us these fruits, since that which is good must come from Him, directly or indirectly. Like those who were given the talents, it would seem that He expects us to multiply them through dissemination, and not to bury them in such a manner that they are filed away from others for safekeeping.

Consequently, it is the duty of those who acquire knowledge, particularly of the spiritual variety, to give it unto their brethren who are without it. We must each share what we have learned with those of the light who remain ignorant, in our own way. However, the Lord has also warned us not to cast our pearls before swine, so care must be taken in spreading the knowledge that we acquire. Even those who are of the light cannot always be given the fruits of knowledge directly, since such information may be too incredible to accept readily from others.

If knowledge is the fruit, then truth is a seed, and solitude becomes a viable fertilizer for life, which is the dirt in which the garden grows. By planting kernels of truth, the fruits of knowledge may, in time, grow. Such fruit may effectively yield more seed to be planted elsewhere so that even more fruit may be grown, and thus the knowledge spreads. In so doing, it is each one in whom the seed is planted that, through the opportunity of solitude and time, may become aware of the associated knowledge and believe, because each has discovered it through their own reasoning and judgment Even if a seed does not grow, the effort was made, and the relatively barren soil in which it was planted may then be evaluated, and dispositioned accordingly. Thus, it is the planting of these seeds that matter, and not so much the results. Whatever the effect of the planting may be, each effort will bring the harvest day a little closer.

back to contents
Blessed Setbacks

Into each life some rain must fall. This well-known saying from Henry Wadsworth Longfellow's poem "The Rainy Day" may be viewed humorously based upon the perceived location of one's metaphoric life, such as a tropical rain forest. However, the average amount of this rain of negative connotation, regardless of magnitude, would serve as a benchmark for the affected individual. It is the relative downpours that one tends to remember throughout one's life. These deluges often mark the loss of something of great personal value, such as a favorite job or a treasured friendship. Not all such events, however, pertain to items that one possesses.

Some of these memorable emotional troughs apply to things that were never obtained. Failure and rejection are the mechanisms in this case. Personal failure, if frequent or critical enough, can potentially cause significant damage to one's self-worth. Rejection is a special case of personal failure that places the judging authority exterior to one's self. Even one instance of this type of failure can cause severe damage to one's self-worth that can last for some time, and be remembered for years to come. This increased severity appears to be caused by an elevated state of desire which would seem to amplify the associated emotions that, in turn, seem to strengthen the unpleasant memory. Fortunately, such apexes of want have a lower frequency of occurrence compared to generic failure, thus allowing one more time to recover from one's stumblings.

Regardless of whether these desires are associated with acquisition or maintenance, they all seem to stem from within the individual. We want them because we want them. However, it is important to recognize that they are only wants, not needs. They are, therefore, expendable quantities; even though we may not view them as such at the time. Through the clearer lens of hindsight, one can see that these losses that seemed abysmal when they occurred were beneficial in a larger respect. After enough years have passed, it becomes apparent that we would have been more detrimentally affected had we gotten what we wanted. It also becomes noticeable that the intensity of a given desire is temporary, not unlike the emotions connected with it. Given enough patience, emotions will wane, desires will subside, and those seemingly monumental setbacks will likely be revealed to be blessings in time.

It seems comical how we repeatedly try so very hard to have something that will later prove harmful to us in some way. However, we are often saved from our untrustworthy desire by something exterior to us. Whatever this benevolent force is, it seems to consistently save us from ourselves despite our best efforts to get what we think we want. This force can, therefore, be considered good when one chooses to view the action from a larger perspective. The Lord has said that only God is good. Consequently, this force that watches over us all of our lives would seem to be coming from God, either directly or indirectly.

However, God's influence in our lives does not seem confined to the harmful effects of desire. When one looks back over enough of one's life, one cannot help but notice the innumerable instances when catastrophe was averted. However, the awareness of impending doom often came only after the danger had passed, if at all. Granted, the probability of occurrence may have been low; but, given the multitude of opportunities, surely some of them would have occurred. Maybe some did. However, did their occurrence not benefit us in some way, particularly when viewed with hindsight from a distance? It would seem that God is there again, not unlike a mindful parent watching over a naive child.

It thus appears that the pattern of our lives is beyond our direct control. Of course, we possess the freedom of will to change some things. However, it would seem that what we can change predominately affects only our rate of progress through an existence of another's making. Like a student in school, we determine the effort put forth, but the curriculum is largely defined by another party. That course of study may not be what we might have chosen, but do we not benefit from that design which we do not define? This inherent benevolence would appear to be God again, helping us to become more than we, in all likelihood, would have chosen for ourselves.

This is not to say that we are effectively powerless, and should therefore do nothing because our existence has been entirely predetermined. Our existence is predetermined from an extratemporal viewpoint. However, that known future is predicated upon the choices that we make in the present. If one were to travel forward in time to see what the score of a given sporting event would be, the outcome of that game would be known. However, the game must still be played for that future to transpire. The players could not just stand around waiting for that outcome to occur.

Furthermore, it would seem that those who make choices in the present would need to remain generally ignorant of that known future to prevent such knowledge from altering their decisions. If the players knew that they would lose a game embarrassingly, some might choose not to play. Likewise, we must make our own choices even if we do not know their outcome, because the known future depends upon them.

The known future is more than choices made in the present, however. It includes that which is associated with those choices, as well as what is not. Those choices may be thought of as being made by characters on a stage complete with props and scenery. Since the playwright has created the characters, every choice they will ever make is known, as well as every choice they will not have to make. Taking each character algorithm into account, the playwright has created a script that weaves a magnificent tapestry of wonder when performed. That wondrous tapestry, however, is dependent upon each integral element doing what it was made to do, which may or may not be what it was meant to do.

This introduces the ambiguous attribute of purpose. One of the seemingly eternal questions of mankind pertains to purpose, both for the individual and collectively. However, if the design of our lives is created by another, as it would seem to be; then purpose would, therefore, be implied by the existence of such a design. This would apply individually, as well as collectively, in much the same way that a part may be designed for specific uses, but then that part may be incorporated into a larger subassembly that provides for a wider range of applications.

At one time or another, we may each have wondered what our purpose is in this perceived reality. However, if we are each a part of an overall scheme, then our function would already be determined by the one who created the design. This curiosity regarding self would be like a wrench that a mechanic is utilizing to turn a bolt contemplating what it is made to do. Likewise, we are already doing what we are made to do, providing we follow the guidance of He who fashioned us and designed our existence.

To this end, there appears to be a design benefit to fabricating tools that possess free will. By allowing an instrument to choose whether or not to function in a given application, the designer introduces a safety mechanism that prevents an enemy, such as a rogue instrument, from utilizing tools that are loyal to the designer to undo the designer's work. We are each able to choose when to do what we are made to do. If the cause seems righteous, we may choose to work. On the other hand, if we sense an iniquitous purpose, then we can refuse to work.

This apparently symbiotic relationship between the parties that are directly associated with predestination and free will also seems to have spiritual applications beyond this physical existence. By choosing to follow the Lord, we become receptive to conditions that are favorable for doing so. He who designs our existence seems to be aware of this, and would appear to have worked it into the overall scheme, as the personal experience below might attest.

The Lord has said that strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leads to life, and few there be that find it. This indicates that there is a sparsity of travelers who will reach that destination. The Lord would seem to have confirmed this outcome when He said that many are called, but few are chosen. However, a narrow path is also associated with a certain restriction of circumstances throughout the course. Those who navigate through a constricted passage tend to experience the same things in their trek. This procedural commonality may occur little, if at all, in the event of the path being sufficiently broad.

Because of this commonality of experience, those who endeavor to follow the Lord may find themselves undergoing experiences similar to what He endured when He walked the earth. I have, on a number of occasions, looked down to find my feet standing in His footprints. I initially found this to be unsettling, since I regarded myself as being unworthy to be standing in them. What was interesting is that I did not generally notice the footprints until I was already in or beyond them. It was as if they had been put before me, because what I sought was the destination and not the milestones.

I have also noticed His footprints lying before me, though this happens more rarely. In these cases, reaching them does not seem to be morally attainable on my own, if I can reach them at all. However, the fact that they potentially lie ahead on the path that I travel, even the path that appears to have been put before me, is encouraging since their presence seems to indicate that my journey is progressing in the right direction. If my path intersects these points, it will be by the will of another, even the one who seems to have laid this path for me to follow.

At present, discovering that I have stood, or am standing, in His footprints no longer seems to precipitate quite the same feeling of uneasiness as I had previously encountered, though I still do not regard myself as being worthy of these experiences. The increasing number of these occurrences may be a reason for this perceived decrease in sensitivity. Although sharing His experiences is encouraging because they help bring me closer to Him, they also bring a sense of dread since His life was not a pleasant one. It has also become apparent that those footprints are there because they are part of that rather narrow path of which He spoke. Any who travel this road would seem likely to encounter them.

This is not to say that those who follow the Lord may expect to live a duplicate life. However, their experiences may be similar to His. Even crucifixions can still occur, albeit metaphorically. In following Him, we are endeavoring to be like Him, in our own way. As our Father is well-pleased with Him, so may He be pleased with us as we become more like Him by persevering in our journey. However, it is God who determines the design, and what we encounter along the way. In so doing, it is He who sanctifies us, because we cannot sanctify ourselves any more than a traveler can clean his soiled boots with a dirty rag.

So it would seem that the fabric of our lives is woven by another. However, the weaver is a good and trustworthy being. He loves each of us more than we will likely ever know. As long as we are that which He made us to be, all we need do is walk the path that He puts before us; and, in time, we may become that which He meant us to be. Even when that road seems somewhat rocky and unpleasant, it will likely prove to be to our benefit in time. Consequently, when those seemingly inevitable setbacks occur; one must have faith that, in time, they will be revealed to be blessings. That metaphoric rain that seems to periodically darken our lives, it should be remembered, also helps us to grow.

back to contents
Whispers and a Pat on the Back

When we pray, we direct words to God. These words may be spoken out loud, or thought solely in our minds. Even the spoken words must be thought in order to be spoken. Since it was God who defined the algorithm of each of our individual consciousnesses and, directly or indirectly, is the source of all stimuli that make up our perception of reality; it stands to reason that He, in His infinite nature, is aware of our every thought. Thus, whether we think or say what we would have Him hear, it seems reasonable to expect that He is indeed aware of what we would have Him know. Consequently, if He is aware of our every predetermined thought, then He is aware even of that which we might be inclined to keep to ourselves. This seems to be a good thing, since we then have a perfect, omnipotent, and loving being aware of our every notion; and thus He may more accurately guide our imperfect nature.

However, what about the other direction of communication? Does God send messages to us? History and reason would indicate that the answer is affirmative. The New Testament, as well as its predecessor, mention many instances of God communicating with humans, directly or indirectly. His awareness of our imperfect thoughts and subsequent communications suggest that divine guidance is necessary at times to maintain the convergence of His design, as well as to keep us from ourselves. Given our predilection for questionable behavior, His direction would seem to be required, but how is it transmitted?

It would seem reasonable that any means of communication known to mankind is known to God, and is therefore at His disposal providing that it is suitably righteous in nature. These forms of communication may utilize any of the five physical senses, as well as less tangible varieties. It would seem reasonable that God is aware of all forms of communication that can take place, whether mankind is aware of them or not. It would, therefore, seem prudent to be open and attentive to all possibilities regardless of how outlandish they may seem.

One such seemingly unorthodox means of communication is telepathy. This, however, is not as bizarre as it may appear. As mentioned previously, we may choose to direct our thoughts towards God as a form of prayer. Is it not reasonable to anticipate Him communicating in a similar fashion? Keep in mind that this form of telepathy is not the act of reading another's private thoughts, but directing one's own thoughts towards another mind so that those thoughts may be made manifest to that particular consciousness. We do this frequently using speech or writing, but this method of communication omits the unreliable nature of physical conveyance.

If one thinks of God as a spirit of infinite thought, then when one accepts His Holy Spirit through being born again of water, one is accepting into one's self some portion of His being, even His very thoughts. This does not mean that we can then read God's mind. However, with His Holy Spirit residing in us, He may choose to share His thoughts with us individually as He sees fit. Since the thoughts that He may choose to share appear to be a direct communication from His mind to ours, such thoughts may exhibit a ministerial theme on a personal level.

It may be difficult at times to differentiate His thoughts from our own. Thoughts from different sources within the same mind do not appear to possess a personally identifiable property, like the relatively distinct sound of an individual's voice that allows the listener to discriminate the speaker from others. However, some thoughts just seem to be coming from beyond ourselves based upon the nature of their individual contents. In addition, some of His thoughts may have a discernible emotion associated with them that is detectable to the recipient. However, such emotion would not be personally felt by the target mind, so its origin would appear to be from elsewhere. This emotion is perhaps distinguishable in part because of the words chosen, and the interval taken between and about them. However, since there are no voices with which the frequency and amplitude can be varied to create a change of tone and add inflections, such additional features that add depth to communication would need to be transmitted by a different means.

Since the tone changes of a voice are controlled by the thoughts of the speaker, such thoughts would be marked with a given tone quality without the actual tone being present. It seems reasonable to expect that such a tone marker would be discernible to the receiver of the associated thought in a form similar to that which was constructed within the mind of the one who transmitted that thought. This concept of a transmittable attribute marker would also apply to any inflections that are utilized. The recipient of such a directed thought could conceivably receive the full cognitive instructions that the body of the one directing the thought would receive if a more physical form of communication was being used. This means that all of the nuances involved in face-to-face communication could be transmitted telepathically. Such attributes might include the effects of underlying emotion and even facial expressions, as well as any conversational tone changes and inflections that could be applied to a spoken voice, though none is used.

It should be noted that the recipient of a thought does not see the face of the one transmitting it, or experience their emotions. The recipient merely receives the data encoded within the thought that is transmitted. Such data might allow the recipient to discern the facial expression and emotion that are associated with a given thought by the one sending it. Through such a process, thoughts could be transmitted with precision; but, without a voice to provide an identifiable personal sound, the one transmitting the thought may remain ambiguous.

One may wonder how many of one's thoughts are one's own. It seems reasonable to assume that any nuts-and-bolts reasoning, such as performing mathematics, comes from us; because, being creatures of judgment, that is what we do. Reason has its place, but there is more to judgment than cold, calculating logic. The Lord has said that we will know a tree by its fruit. The thoughts that suggest an action that appears to be righteous may well be coming from Him, directly or indirectly. Those thoughts that tempt us with an action of an iniquitous outcome are likely coming not from Him, or even us, but from the darkness that is within each of us in this place. This darkness is as the tares that have been sown beside the wheat in the Lord's parable. These received temptations may come from the projected thoughts of our own personal tare, from the tares of others who have succumbed to dark suggestion and have effectively become an intermediary between their tare and us, or from our memories of such things that occurred in the past. Thus, it would seem wise to examine the probable outcome of what a thought suggests, and morally judge it by such, with no small degree of intuition included.

It is this heart-felt intuition that may be the critical parameter in identifying divine communications. On occasion one may get the feeling that words are not just coming from the person speaking them. In listening to a love song on the radio, one may sense that it is the Lord himself speaking directly to the listener through the singer. Not all love songs, or all of a love song, may accomplish this; but it is the perceived sensation pertaining to the message's origin that makes the connection happen.

Although words in one form or another are a standard means of communication, divine messages are not limited to such. One established nonverbal communication is historically referred to as ecstasy. This may come on somewhat subtly at first. It may feel much like that shiver one gets along one's spine when confronted with a mass of cold air, except that no cold air is present. In its strongest form, the physical reaction may resemble that of being exposed to a defibrillator discharge. This phenomenon may also occur singly, or in a series of jolts. The cause of these generally pleasant sensations, however, is not physical, but mental. They seem to be in response to thoughts that one has to which God is indicating encouragement or agreement.

One may wonder why God would do such a thing when He could just place a thought in our minds. However; some, such as myself, do not like to be ordered around. God knows this, and it would appear that He permits us to figure some things out for ourselves, with His guidance. I have found that He knows me pretty well, unquestionably better than I know myself. I have also found it comforting to experience these pats on the back when I'm getting something right. It is important to me to know that God is pleased with me, and the work that I do. Indeed, it is that rare time that He seems to leave a choice entirely up to me that makes me uneasy. I know He's right, whereas I only think I am, and only part of the time.

It is possible that ecstasy and divine thought projection may occur together on occasion. If a thought placed in the recipient's mind is one that is not obviously coming from elsewhere, then the recipient may think that it could have originated with them. In such a case, the ecstasy portion of the communication would effectively constitute a verification of the message through divine agreement, although the thought came from the same source. However, such instances may be difficult to discern from those where the thought comes from the one receiving the ecstasy, and that phenomenon would thereby indicate God's agreement or encouragement with their conceived notion. Regardless of a thought's source, any associated ecstatic addendum would seem to indicate God's approval, and that such a thought should be treated with a corresponding level of importance.

So it would seem that divine communication can potentially come anywhere, anytime, and in any form. Therefore, it would seem wise to expect the unexpected. It would also seem prudent to remain mindful that words may not just be coming from the one speaking them. It is that feeling or sense of displacement that words we hear, physically or mentally, are coming from someone else for which we should remain vigilant, and grant such words extra attention. They may well come during an activity when time is limited to dwell upon them. In such instances, it would seem advisable to file the words away, and dwell upon them during a less hectic period. That secondary meaning may have primary significance, and could conceivably be the most important thing learned from that day.

Divine communication may have the impression of being obvious and distinct, like a booming voice coming from above. However, such instances would seem to be the exclamation points in a series of transmissions where periods seem to be more prevalent. It is this subtler form of communication that appears to more often apply to the daily life of the individual. Messages such as these may be overlooked as the hustle and bustle of the day tends to take priority. However, given the potential originator, these items merit a higher standing than the relative trivialities with which they are mixed. Messages of great importance may come from these whispers; and, if our potentially related thoughts are of suitable merit, then we may also receive a concurring pat on the back.

back to contents
Engaging Metamorphosis

Every once in a while, our existence changes drastically. We move beyond the life that we had been living, and into what lies ahead. Sometimes we choose to make these changes, often because the life that we had has become unacceptable, and it cannot reasonably be modified into that which we would accept. However, these changes may also be thrust upon us, such as being maimed in a tragic event that is not of our doing. What is interesting is that sometimes these sources of change seem to combine, and we involuntarily force change upon ourselves.

This phenomenon seems to be rooted in our nature. We tend to change with time. Our propensity to grow and develop so that we may become better than we were means that we have little inclination to remain the same. This is compounded by our transient environment. Our surroundings also change with time, sometimes by our doing, sometimes not. Nevertheless, we must adapt to this dynamic background with which we interact. Though it is the environment that changes, with each adaptation, we also change ourselves.

Sometimes these changes occur without us realizing it. Like a child outgrowing a favorite toy, we may move beyond what we once found pleasing because the charm has been lost. However, it was not the thing we enjoyed that changed. It was ourselves. These changes from within seem to be especially disconcerting when they occur abruptly from our perspective. For example, we may take an extended break from that which we find to be pleasant because of environmental factors, but return to find that something is different. That which we had found to be pleasing, even exciting, has lost its allure. The zeal with which we once engaged that particular activity is gone. In such an instance, it is as though we have outgrown that which we once favored while we were away. We changed during our absence, but without being aware of the change taking place.

Something like this happened to me when I last visited my hometown. I would come back to visit about once a year or so, but this time it was different. There had been no small amount of changes since I had lived there. It was becoming less and less recognizable as the place where I grew up. I was walking down the main street in a residential area when I noticed a paperboy going by with the name of the local newspaper printed on his bags in bold, faded letters. He appeared not unlike how I must have looked years ago. Regardless of all the changes, the surroundings still seemed familiar to me. However, I got the unmistakeable feeling that I no longer belonged there. I felt like a ghost.

During my stay, I took a look at my childhood home, where my dad still lived. I walked through the house and around the grounds. Though it too looked familiar, it was not the same place that I grew up. Much of the vegetation was gone. It had the look of a playground of a recently abandoned school. The appearance was that of a place where life had once been, but that life was now largely gone.

I think my dad sensed that I would not be coming back. Our goodbye was unusually poignant. He walked me to my vehicle, and hugged me. After I had gotten inside, he waved and went back inside the house. After I had pulled out of the driveway and was starting to head down the road, I glanced over at the house. He was in the kitchen window with the light above the window on, clearly illuminating him. He was waving goodbye. It was like an entire part of my life was bidding me farewell.

During my return trip, I mulled over that ghostly feeling that I had gotten. My life had seemingly moved on without my direct involvement. I decided not to come back again unless I was summoned for some reason. It was as if I was on a conveyor belt. I could interact with that which was going by as I saw fit, but the movement of the belt was not under my control. I had moved on without choosing to do so. I had only chosen to accept that which had already happened. To do otherwise would be like walking backwards on a moving sidewalk. Such an activity would seem rather foolish and relatively fruitless. The very image of doing so just seems silly. Like all who are confined to the timestream, I had been carried off, leaving what I had known behind.

This involuntary modification of ourselves strongly suggests that we are, at least in part, defined from the outside. This raises doubt as to just how much we define ourselves through free will, if at all. Even without our input, we appear to be made to exhibit a predetermined configuration at any given point in our personal timeline. Perhaps personal choice is effectively the repeated choosing of the binary answer to the question of accepting or rejecting ourselves as we were made to be.

However, if we truly accept our identity, then it is the present definition of ourselves that is embraced. The past consists of memories of presents that no longer exist, and the future is made up of presents yet to be. We are not that which we were, or even that which we will become, but that which we are. All too often we focus upon the future, and ignore the present. We want to make things better, so we toil for an artificial future that never comes. That future is like a carrot on a stick that we can perceive, but never reach. We may achieve a portion of that for which we work, but there always seems to be something more to be had, so the process never ends. In effect, we sell our present to acquire a man-made future that will never completely arrive.

In sacrificing the quality of our present for a user-defined future that remains stubbornly out of reach, it may be tempting to take refuge in the past. The past may seem alluring because of the discoloration of our memories with time, as well as the comforting lack of the unknown. We tend to remember things long gone as being better than they actually were. This good-old-days syndrome seems to stem from the nature of how we remember. We tend to recall that which was unusual, as well as those things to which we were frequently exposed. Consequently, our memories have a tendency to be positive since the unusual may be viewed in a favorable light because of its uniqueness, and the things that were familiar were generally neutral to positive in nature, since we would have likely rejected and avoided such things had they been anything less.

In addition, the multitude of little torments that make up everyday living, and sour the taste of those things that we find pleasing, tend to escape our memory. They are not particularly unusual in general; and, although we are exposed to them often, they typically differ from each other enough to prevent them from being committed to memory uniformly. It would seem that those positive things which we recall have a high enough quality of experience to be remembered, while the negative things that often escape our memory have a higher quantity, thus making the present times that are now past not nearly as pleasant as we might remember them.

The past is not the refuge that we may be tempted to make it, and the making of an elusive artificial future tends to ruin the present, so with what are we left? The obvious answer is the present, particularly since it is the only place that we can be. Even if we were to travel in time, we would still be in our present regardless of the period outside of us. The present is where we are; and where, it would seem, we will always be. It would seem prudent to regard our present as a most-valued possession, because within it are all of our other possessions, both tangible and intangible.

However, our present is not static. It is moving forward in time without our interference. This suggests that the present, and at least some portion of that which is within it, is expected to change to some degree; since there would seem to be no point in causing time to change if nothing else does. This implied requirement for a dynamic present is compatible with experience. As noted earlier, people change with time, both voluntarily and involuntarily. However, it would seem that it is the involuntary changes that are to be trusted more than the other variety.

These changes which we undergo, but do not consciously choose for ourselves, would appear to be inherent to our design to some degree, depending on whether they originate from within or from without. Even the changes that occur from the outside would seem to be in accordance with a plan that is beyond our comprehension, though we may become aware of its existence and gain a partial understanding of it over time. Thus, these modifications would seem to be what our designer would have of us at any given point in the flow of time. We can choose to reject the inherent attributes; but, in so doing, are we not also rejecting ourselves? It would seem wise, particularly given the wondrousness of the designs that surround us, to accept what we are destined by design to be, and to simply float down the timestream allowing these changes to take place.

We can also choose to fight the changes that occur to us from our environment; but, in doing so, are we not also resisting our own development? Like a boat in a river, in order to move downstream, ought we not to let go of the ties that hinder our movement? However, severing these ties to the past may seem daunting. Recalling our past accomplishments can help give us confidence in going forward. We may keep mementos of these past triumphs to remind us of our ability to be successful, even to remind us of the identity which we may think we still have. However, these souvenirs that we retain are the very ties that hinder us from moving forward. It is by holding onto these symbols of our past within our present that we impede our progress into the future.

Furthermore, these physical reminders represent a prior version of ourselves that must inevitably be replaced, if it hasn't been already. These things that we cherish are a trap. Our inherent inclination for change means that if we are not moving forward, then we must eventually regress, since we cannot seem to remain static for long. Perhaps it is, at least in part, our positively-biased memories and antiquated self-image that cause us to cling so tenaciously onto that which must be lost. However, in doing so, are we not also losing our future selves as we are intended to become?

To be that which we are meant to be means that we must let go of the past, and that includes letting go of that which reminds us of our past. It is not as difficult as it may seem. Some time ago, I left the life I had known for years because of external factors. I did not know what I would do next, but I thought that taking some time off to travel would provide the opportunity to resolve this problem. Before leaving, however, I decided that in order to move into this new future, I must let go of the past.

I decided to get rid of my college textbooks. I had occasionally used them for reference, but they represented a life that I had abandoned, and I did not intend to go back the way that I had come. After the trash truck had departed, and I was wheeling the empty container back, I was surprised to find that I did not feel badly, as I had expected, about casting them off. I actually felt good about it. It was as if a small weight had been lifted from my shoulders. These books that I had valued had been holding me down. They had been like ballast that, when jettisoned, allows an airship to ascend.

I have since jettisoned other monuments to my past. The effect was not as noticeable, perhaps in part because I was now expecting it, but I have not felt remorse for giving up any of them. I still have my memories to establish a knowledge base, but those trophies of past accomplishments are no longer there to remind me of my past identities, and their associated restrictions. I am now more able to engage that which lies ahead as the new, improved me that is no longer tied to past states of conformity.

Part of this decidedly beneficial exercise of discarding cumbersome baggage from the past is the act of forgiveness. The Lord has told us that if we forgive men their trespasses, then our heavenly Father will forgive us, but we must forgive to gain His forgiveness. This may seem to be a challenging task. As logical, reasoning beings, accounting would seem to be integral to our nature. Furthermore, as beings that, at least in part, seek righteousness; we have a tendency to seek justice against that which is unrighteous. However, the Lord has also told us not to judge lest we be judged ourselves. It is not our place to judge our neighbor in this manner, or even ourselves. This is God's prerogative. The Lord has said that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness shall have their fill. If we have faith in Him, then all we need to do is wait, and the justice that is required will be administered.

As for the matter of personal accounting regarding offenses committed against us, there seems to be little point in the exercise. The substantive issues will be resolved with time. The problem for us individually is to scrap the unnecessary memories that may pollute our present with bothersome emotions when recalled. In that regard, forgiving seems to benefit the forgiver more than those that are forgiven on an individual basis. Keeping track of a multitude of debts; most, if not all, of which will likely remain unpaid, is a large and seemingly useless task. There is a noticeable sense of relief when one takes that mental ledger, and tosses it into the representative trash bin that is the oblivion of consciousness. It's not unlike the pleasing effect of taking a desk piled high with paperwork, scooping up all of that annoying documentation, and taking it out to the dumpster. That nice clean desk devoid of paperwork is like a fresh start.

However, forgiveness is an ongoing activity. We mustn't let our individual desks become cluttered as before. Perhaps a helpful habit to develop is to periodically take the time to remind oneself that no one owes one anything. Such an outlook is like that of a farmer who plants an orchard. He may come to expect a certain yield from his planting, but if the trees fail to meet his expectations, or offend him in some way, he does not think of them as owing him anything. God will take care of any justice that is due. Even if we are grievously offended to the point of our lives being materially affected, God will provide for us. He also owes us nothing, but will not the good shepherd, who sacrifices himself for his sheep, also provide for them? God will not force us to do what He has told us not to do. We choose to do such things out of our own faithlessness. As long as we hold fast to our shepherd, we will be alright.

However, does forgiving also mean that we should forget the offenses committed against us? The Lord has also given us this answer when He told us to rebuke those who trespass against us, and forgive those who repent their action. In this case, the forgiveness seems to be a deeper sort that wipes clean not only the debt, but also the tainted reputation of the debtor. This means that the first level of forgiveness regarding the debt is completely up to us, but the second level is contingent upon the repentance of the individual whose debt is forgiven. Therefore, forgiveness would seem to play a role in letting go of the past, but forgetting may not.

This brings up the issue of forgetting in general, which might seem to be a useful activity when one is moving on to new pastures. However, memory is vital to the retention of knowledge. It is through the acquisition and storage of knowledge that we tend to improve over time, mental and physical degradation notwithstanding. Some knowledge, though, is expendable. An elderly man may not need to know how to do tasks that have long been discontinued, but the wisdom gained from performing those tasks may yet be of use, particularly for enlightening the uninitiated. Consequently, selective forgetting might seem useful, but this happens automatically over time. We cannot consciously remove information from our memory, but time tends to fade that which is no longer utilized. This appears to be another attribute of our ourselves that is not defined by ourselves, but is it not better than that which we might have provided?

So it would seem that as we age, we change, and thereby grow. Sometimes the changes are by our own choice, but sometimes they are not. As sentient imperfect beings, it would appear to be only a matter of time before we change ourselves, but it is the involuntary changes that can be the most unsettling, although these changes would appear to be more worthy of trust. We may mourn the loss of that which is taken from us, even if the change seems to come from within. However, does not experience show us that a disaster can be a good thing in the long run? With the benefit of hindsight, even a personal tragedy seems to have a favorable effect, if we wait long enough for the bigger picture to develop. It would seem that any change that befalls us will prove to be beneficial in time, regardless of how we may view the change at the time of its occurrence.

Since we appear to be in an ongoing period of transition, perhaps a mindset that takes this condition into account would be helpful. If we savor the pleasant things that each day offers, knowing that they will not last, then we may get more enjoyment from our existence, and perhaps be better prepared for the time when those things will be gone. Indeed, by embracing a transient existence do we not also embrace ourselves? However, this means acknowledging the relative transience of everything else, and choosing not to attach one's self to anything, except that which will always be there, and never change, even God. Although our perception and understanding of Him may vary with time, He is the unchangeable constant upon whom we may lean as we transform into whatever we are to become.

Furthermore, it would also seem helpful to shed the baggage that we collect over time that we may use to bolster our self-confidence, as well as to remind us of our past selves. This baggage effectively serves as a hindrance to moving forward because it ties us not to our present identity, but to an identity from the past. With these encumbrances gone, we would then be more able to freely engage an unknown future. Though there is something uncomfortable about facing the unknown, it is where we are going; because, as beings confined to the timestream, we are subject to its current. Although we can attempt to fight that current, such a strategy would seem to be folly. As beings of change, we cannot seem to remain in one state for long, and the Lord has warned us about returning to a house that we had previously abandoned. As long as we follow our good shepherd, we can take comfort in where we are going, and not where we have been.

back to contents
Detours of Desire

We each walk a path through life, a path of our own choosing. However, there appears to be a path set before us by He who created us. Indeed, would not He who designed us also provide a design for the use of His creations? Our free will, however, has the potential to hinder our progress along this route. So often, it seems, we allow our desire to be what we are not to interfere with that which we were intended to become. We appear to have a tendency to prioritize our wants above our needs.

Perhaps mankind's greatest accomplishment to date has been to travel to the moon and return. We wanted to fly like the birds, but then that wasn't enough. We chose to travel to a place beyond where even the birds go. This was a tremendous boost to the pride of our species, but how long will it last? What's next, and what will it cost? How much hunger could have been alleviated and goodwill created with the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on even one lunar excursion? The moon missions were a monument to man's pride, but also to his foolishness for putting the wants before the needs of his own kind. Such actions could be found on a path that leads to extinction in exchange for fame. However, if we are gone, who then would be left to acknowledge our legacy? In effect, are we not in the process of sacrificing ourselves for our own vanity?

This phenomenon also appears to occur at the level of the individual. As children, our parents tend to provide for our needs. However, as we are introduced to the world around us, we begin to want some of those newfound things. Our parents may provide us with some portion of those objects of desire, but there frequently seems to be something more to be had. Our desire starts to act like a narcotic. Regardless of how much we have gotten in the past, we want more.

As we grow older, we are taught that we must obtain money to buy those things that we want, so we go to work. At first, it may be relatively innocuous tasks like mowing the lawn, or doing the dishes. However, as our wants and the associated requirements for currency grow, so grows our willingness to offend ourselves to obtain them. In time, we may not only begin, but make a habit of spending entire portions of the day doing what we would rather not do. In effect, we are selling a little less than a quarter to more than a third of most weeks to buy those things that make what time we have left somewhat better. Discounting a reasonable period for sleep, we could be selling more than half of our waking hours, but is the remaining half twice as pleasing as it would have been without us offending ourselves? I have been one of those poor wretches. It got to the point where I disdained overtime. The time was more valuable to me than the money. After all, what good is selling a sizable chunk of one's life, if one has little time or energy left to enjoy the fruits of one's labor?

Furthermore, excessive devotion to an exercise tends to erode enjoyment. Even if one likes one's job based on the activity, what may be enjoyable for a few hours a week becomes a chore when one must do it forty hours a week or more, especially if one is not in command. It would seem that the primary difference between work and play is not necessarily the activity, but how much time is taken, and who decides what along the way.

This descent down the hill of diminishing returns is bad enough, but it is the strategic decisions made in the process that cause us to lose much more. We tend to strive to be that which we want to be, but not necessarily that which we are. We may choose education and career paths that balance our personal desire to be this or that against physical needs. We may or may not utilize our apparent strengths to this end, because it is what we think we want that is the driver, with the issue of physical needs being a primary requirement. It is as if a screwdriver decided one day that it wanted to be a hammer. Perhaps it was because the work appeared to be enjoyable, or that there seemed to be significant prestige in being a hammer, but the screwdriver elected to strive to become that which it was not made to be out of its own desire.

There are, of course, problems associated with this course of action. A screwdriver would have to work harder than a hammer just to do a comparable job, and would be hard-pressed to do exemplary work. Furthermore, those around it would be expecting a hammer to do a hammer's work, and might be resentful of that which did not look or behave like a hammer, especially if its work was not superior enough to justify them suffering its idiosyncrasies. In addition, operational incompatibility applies not only to hardware, but also to any software inherent to a device. The screwdriver may suffer from internal maladies that stem from its choice to be that which it was not made to be. It may be dissatisfied with its work and career progress, especially given the likely lackluster performance in exchange for a relatively large effort. It may suffer from identity disorders, given that it has chosen not to be what it is. In time, that inherently depressing path of desire forces another choice. The being in question must eventually choose to accept itself for that which it is, or abandon itself entirely.

God, being good, creates good things. Has not the Lord told us that only God is good, and that every good tree brings forth good fruit? As God's creations, we were good as He created us. It was when our imperfect judgment began to operate autonomously that we corrupted ourselves. Even good fruit will slowly spoil once it has fallen from the tree. It would seem that it is this initial good condition that represents our ideal selves relative to the modifications that we choose on our own to make. In rejecting this initial good state, would we not also be rejecting ourselves? Rejecting that which is good does not necessarily mean that one is evil; but, given that one begins one's journey in a good condition, is not such a one on the path to becoming evil, and moving in the wrong direction?

It would be a tenuous place, indeed, to have lost the good that one had in order to obtain a perceived greater good that remains out of reach. Furthermore, how can we expect ourselves to reliably and accurately discern that which is a greater good? We are hardly the best authority on the matter, and He who is the best authority chose to make us as He did. To consciously choose to be other than what He made us to be certainly seems disrespectful to one who is worthy of the highest respect; and, given the profoundness of His wisdom, foolish would also be a fitting description of such behavior.

If we choose not to reject the good with which we have been endowed, and remain respectful to He who created us, what then are we to do? We have lost that initial ideal state, but we can effectively reacquire it to some degree by keeping God in our thoughts. By integrating His communications into our judgment process, we can become fruit that is connected to the good tree, but still separate from it. We can then mimic our ideal state while retaining an internally imperfect judgment.

However, there is more to being as He made us to be than effectively reestablishing our initial state. When one creates something, there is normally a reason or purpose involved to justify the effort and expense. Things are typically not made merely to exist, but to fill a role. Merely existing might be enough to fill that role, but the requirements are set by the one doing the creating. We too have purpose, though we may not be aware of it in its entirety, if at all. However, we may not need to know. All we need do is be what we were made to be.

When a ship is built, the builders then launch it so that it may be about its task. The ship is not built, and then left to its own devices to find water in which to sail. So it would seem to be for us. He who created us appears to have also created a path for us to follow, and set it before us. Such a path would seem relatively easy for us to accept; since we, as individuals, were made specifically to traverse the particular route that is presented to us. Following this path would also appear to be the only legitimate method to improving ourselves beyond our initial good state. However, our desire gets in the way, and provides detours that deter our progress along this path of development.

There is, it would seem, a way to discriminate these detours from our destined path. From experience, a detour tends to begin with something that piques our desire. Its pointer is not merely a sign. It is a billboard. It grabs one's attention, and plants a seed in the back of one's mind to make that turn, if one hasn't already. Such pointers tend to be eye-catching and loud, but then they would need to be to quickly create enough desire for us to override our individual core programs. Some pointers may be less ostentatious; but, in order to make the sale, they may be applied repeatedly over a longer period of time, since the seed that they plant may fail to immediately influence our actions.

Another indication that one is dealing with one of these billboards is the lack of information pertaining to cost. These temptations are quick to tell us what they offer, and paint such things in a flattering light, but they often mention little if anything regarding the price that one must pay. An informed trade requires knowing exactly what one is giving, as well as what one is getting. That which caters to desire tends not to align with this model. Since ignorance of cost pertaining to that which is for sale may victimize the buyer, it would seem wise to require oneself to comply with the informed trade model, or a reasonable approximation, prior to any acquisition from an untrusted source. It would also be prudently conservative to overestimate the cost and underestimate the product or service if full disclosure is not forthcoming. As the old saying goes, let the buyer beware.

A potential way to combat these distractions that try so hard to sell us something new would be to ask oneself if one can get through the rest of the day without such a thing. If the answer is affirmative, then that which is sought would appear not to be a need, and may be ignored for that day. The following day would beg the same question if the desire remains, and the same answer may give the same result. Thus one can effectively defuse desire one day at a time. The Lord seems to have spoken to this when He told us to take no thought for the morrow, and that it is enough to deal with the evil of today. It should be noted, however, that this tool can be misused, like any other device of men. If properly utilized, it is a method of differentiating between want and need, and ought not to be used as a justification for procrastination.

Conversely, the signs that show the way of our destined path tend to be more subtle. They do not need to be distractingly brash because the path is right in front of us. We have to consciously choose not to follow it. Furthermore, since we were made specifically to follow that particular path, following it is in our nature. There may be some rough spots, but these bothersome patches are still acceptable to us because we were made to navigate them. Those billboard-inspired detours may tempt us with what looks like an easier road initially, but it will become more offensive as the time and miles go by.

Like all imperfect beings, there are times when we may make a wrong turn. We may ask ourselves what we are doing, and quickly return to our programmed course, but sometimes it may take longer to right the error in navigation. Sometimes we need to travel some distance down that wrong road before realizing that we goofed, and try to find our way back to where we should be. Although we are the ones that decide what detours to take, as influenced by our untrustworthy desire, it appears to be God who determines how we get back to the way that we had forsaken. After all, since He provided that good path and is himself uniquely good, He would be the only one capable of performing the benevolent task of rerouting us back to our designed course, although He also has helpers to assist Him in this matter. Indeed, while He was yet with us, the Lord effectively gave us a map in the form of His Word that shows us how to get back to where we should be. We need some help in this regard, since even what specifics that we may have known of our individual paths appear to have passed beyond our threshold of awareness in this world of forgetfulness.

However, like choosing to take a detour, it is we who must choose to return to our proper path. When I look back at my life, the signposts were there, but I was not yet ready to travel that road, even the one that I now walk. Indeed, I did not even recognize them for what they were at the time. It was when I had abandoned what I had once thought that I wanted, and began to search for something to do, that the answer became evident. The signpost appeared before me, but in the apparent form of an implied suggestion that allowed me to connect the dots, and arrive at the solution myself. Such a coaxing technique would seem appropriate in my case, as well as others, since it is a better method than a direct order to one that does not like to be ordered around.

The answer had been with me, to some degree, all along. It makes use of talents of which I had known for some time, but had neglected because they did not fit well with the detours that I had taken. The task that appears to have been appointed to me is not a difficult one for me to accomplish. It makes use of abilities that seem to be inherent to my being, and thus the relative effort required is small. Indeed, does a screwdriver have to try to be a screwdriver? It is the obstacles that the world puts in my way that are bothersome, not the task itself.

If we do what we are meant to do, it will seem to come easily. The Lord has told us that His yoke is easy, and His burden is light. If we choose to follow Him, there would seem to be little need to strive. All we need to do is to be that which we were made to be. If we are unsure of what to do, we may resolve any issue by asking applicable questions. The Lord has indicated that those who ask or seek shall receive or find, respectively. If we ask Him, will He not answer? We should keep in mind, however, that His answer will come in a manner and time of His choosing, and not necessarily as the inquirer might have of Him.

We may desire many things, as if we were innately deficient compared to what surrounds us. However, even in our apparently lowly state, there are the seeds of greatness. Are we not as gods unto those beasts whose attributes we envy? Yet it was not us that made it so, but He who is a god unto us. After all, it is the gardener whose care and placement of the seeds make them great within the garden, and not the seeds themselves.

Desire offers us many detours of temptation, but if we stick to the path that has been laid before us, it will lead us back to the place from which we had strayed, and to He who empowers us. Furthermore, it would seem advisable during our journey to keep He who defines our purpose in mind when exercising our imperfect judgment. This would seem to not only augment our own effectiveness, but also be an added benefit to He who wields us. After all, how bothersome would it be to have to change a tire with a lug wrench that does not want to be a lug wrench?

back to contents
A Matter of Understanding

Life is a wondrous thing. At any applicable scale, can one behold it and not marvel at its magnificence? Yet one of the most wonderful things about it is the design by which this phenomenon developed. Evolution is a most intelligent design when one takes the time to appreciate it. Its creator has only to set the works in motion, and the system takes care of the rest. With each succeeding generation, the physical attributes of some portion of each species change just a little from those that preceded it through apparently random mutations of the organism's genetic code. Any given change in properties affects only a minority, but such minorities are the means by which the species may progress. If the change is a helpful one, the minority may fare better in the environment than the rest of its generation. Over time, it may become the majority because of its competitive advantage.

However, these small changes in form and function do not necessarily constitute improvements. A change may make that minority less able to engage its environment, so that portion would be less able to propagate than the majority, and may vanish from the population over time because of its weakness. However, since the number in a given minority is small, the species as a whole would not be adversely affected by a weaker variant.

Weakness, however, is determined to some degree by the environment, and environments change. An attribute that would be considered a weakness in one environment may be a strength in another. As an environment changes, those minorities that appeared weak may gain strength and flourish, while the majority that had been strong slowly withers from the population. Consequently, an apparent weakness may be the key to a species survival as the environment changes over time. However, environmental attributes are a function of location as well as time. A weakness in one area could be a strength in another. Consequently, what might be considered to be a weak minority could enable the species to spread to another region where that minority may become a strong majority in time.

Thus, with each succeeding generation of product, adaptability might be strengthened, survivability could be enhanced, and propagation potential may be augmented. However, all of the related design adjustments occur without any further effort required on the part of the system's designer. Such autonomous splendor might have the potential to diverge and grow uncontrollably, but the system has accounted for that as well.

Life tends to consume other life, either directly or indirectly. This is because each organism, in order to sustain its existence, is competing with others to acquire usable resources that are generally limited in availability. In addition, each organism tends to contain the materials necessary for other life to grow. An organism may accomplish this activity by taking such items from another organism by consuming it, or by taking them from the surrounding environment from which another organism might have obtained them had the taker not intervened. An example of the latter phenomenon would be a tall tree with a broad root system taking the sunlight, as well as the water and minerals from the ground, that a smaller nearby tree might otherwise have gotten if the larger specimen had not been present. Since each organism is competing with others, including those of its own kind, and each species tends to improve itself over time, there is an inherent resistance to divergent growth in an environment where resource flow is typically constrained.

Furthermore, the passive niche-driven nature of species improvement, combined with an environment that changes considerably as a function of time and location, means that no species that is a product of this system would seem likely to dominate the ecosphere. One may dominate a locale, perhaps even a region, but not the entire planet. As previously noted, a strength at one point in time or space may be a weakness in another. There appears to be no native organism present, or likely to be present, with a physical configuration that is singularly dominant in every applicable environmental condition.

To have an overall dominant species in this biosphere, where the environmental attribute gradient may be quite steep, would seem to necessitate a more proactive adaptability. Such a creature would be able to alter its configuration to adjust to whatever environmental conditions are present at the time. This method of active adaptation might make use of tools to make required changes to an essentially static physical form. However, such a creature would be able to overcome the inherent restraints of the system that promote equilibrium. Therefore, it would constitute a potential threat to that equilibrium; and, in so doing, to the system as a whole.

Of course, such a creature does exist, but it does not appear to be entirely a product of the system. The attribute that enables humans to exhibit active adaptability is sentience. This appears to be a primary difference between man and beast. With man, the hardware tends to serve the software, whereas with animals the opposite is the case. Beasts use their physical form to acquire needed materials with the help of onboard software. Man, on the other hand, tends to use his enhanced software to acquire more data for that software with the aid of his physical form.

This difference in prioritization is not absolute. Animals exhibit learning, so they are also adding to their individual databases. In addition, humans tend to cater to their physical needs beyond what their minds require. Nevertheless, the relative subordination of hardware versus software is present and observable. Although both man and beast appear to share information that they acquire through communication with their own kind, it appears that only man makes repositories for his knowledge.

The existence of libraries underscores the human esteem for knowledge, but also indicates an awareness of forgetfulness. If we never forget, then between learning and personal communication we could probably get by without books and the like. Although learning is individually accomplished, and verbal communication can be unreliable, at least somebody somewhere would seem likely to have the correct information. However, if we forget that data, without some sort of artificial memory like books, there is no readily available back-up copy present within our society.

Artificial memory is a means of recalling that which may be forgotten, as well as a means of teaching those that have not yet learned of those forgettable items. This memory augmentation permits us to store acquired knowledge, and reference it when needed. Such a device may also be used to shape subsequent learning, since whatever knowledge we acquire must, to some degree, be compatible with what is already known. By using our artificial memory as a filter, we may disregard misinformation that is not consistent with what we believe to be correct.

In this regard, scripture corroborates the concept of evolution by presenting compatible knowledge. The book called "Genesis" tells us that God formed man from the dust of the ground. This is biologically accurate since our bodies, even as embryos, acquire the material needed to produce tissue from the soil, though indirectly for the most part with the possible exception of water. Indeed, it would seem appropriate that the color of every human's skin is a reflection of the soil upon which we tread.

The noted scriptural reference tells us what has happened; but the science of biology, which includes the concept of evolution, tells us how it has happened. The noted sources of information are compatible, but answer different questions. Natural science in general can be described as the study of how God tends to do things as far as the physical aspects of this reality are concerned. Science could benefit from utilizing stored knowledge that is not its own to shape its direction. After all, the noted scriptural reference implies the possible existence of a food chain. Such a system of material and energy movement is now accepted as being present within our biosphere.

The book called "Genesis" also tells us that God breathed into the nostrils of man that He had fashioned from the dust of the ground, and man became a living soul. There is no mention of God doing this for the beasts of the earth. In this regard, man is special. Moreover, the noted transference would seem to be a rather personal one. God is giving something of himself to man. If we think of God as a spirit of infinite thought, then what He gives us of himself would seem to be a portion of that thought, even our sentient consciousness.

It is this sentience, this prevalence of thought, that characterizes us. We are not the bodies that we wear. Our physical forms allow us to manipulate the environment around us, but they are not us. These encounter suits may be a reflection of us like the clothes that we wear, but we are independent of them from a definitory standpoint. We are each the algorithm that defines our individual thoughts. Although others may define us, at least in part, by the actions that we take as derived from our thoughts, it is our software that establishes those thoughts; and, in so doing, is the cause responsible for the effects of our thoughts and associated actions.

This perspective may become evident in dreams. When I dream, I often lack a discernible physical form. I am essentially a disembodied consciousness observing and perhaps traversing the dreamscape. Even when I have an observable physical form, my consciousness may be outside of it. In such instances, I still control my body, but my point of reference is exterior in relation to it, often observing the scene from above and at a distance.

Although this phenomenon occurs in dreams, it is still occurring to me, or at least a portion of me. When in a dream, the dream becomes reality, because all one tends to perceive is the limited stimuli within the dream. It is when we become aware that a remembered reality, separate from the one currently occurring, is discontinuous or incompatible with the present reality, that we recognize the past reality to be a dream. However, although the reality of dreams seems to be fleeting, they are still opportunities to learn. The dreams that one remembers have particular value, since they seem to be more revealing than this physical reality, where so much is masked by the opacity of material appearance.

Even within this physical reality, the separation of mind and body becomes evident when one examines the boundaries applied to each. We are free to do as we will within the limitations of our bodies, but our minds are not so constrained. Within our minds, we may contemplate whatever we choose, including actions that our bodies are fundamentally incapable of performing. However, while our bodies are confined by the hard boundaries of physical laws and material form, our freedom of thought does appear to be dampened to some degree by a softer set of restrictions.

Our thought is limited to some extent by memory. Without memory, we can only think about what we perceive at the moment, and even that must be remembered long enough to manipulate with our thoughts if the stimuli is not continuous. It would seem that without some degree of memory, thought would be reduced to reacting to perceived stimuli as it is occurring. Fortunately, we are blessed with some amount of memory, though we do at times forget; especially in this place, and within the bodies that it provides, compared to others that we may have inhabited, so it would seem.

Our thoughts also appear to be somewhat constrained by our individual algorithms. We are built to think a certain way. To think in a manner different from the one that defines us is difficult, perhaps even painful. We may at times encounter stimuli that we find unpleasant or uncomfortable. If we neglect stimuli that possess a magnitude that is offensive to our senses, it is not so much the stimuli that remain that cause this phenomenon, as much as it is the effect of that stimuli upon our thoughts as we are designed to think. It is the algorithm that defines our thoughts which causes the discomfort when we are confronted with incompatible sensory input.

It is as if we are cells within a larger body, each with its own battery of tasks for which it is individually equipped, but also with the blueprint of the whole contained within each cell, providing that the cells choose to retain it on an individual basis. Except, instead of physical cells, we are snippets of consciousness that form a sentient structure. Each individual consciousness is commanded and defined by the one that controls the body of thought as a whole. Our ability to control our own physical bodies would seem to be, to some degree, an example of this pattern repeating itself at a different scale.

The Lord has told us that only God is good, and that every good tree brings forth good fruit. If God indeed has created a body of thought comprised of our individual consciousnesses, then that blueprint that may be within each of us, in its original form, would represent the unspoiled design data of what was initially good. It would seem that it is this common algorithmic definition potentially within us that comprises such godly attributes as those which we might consider to be our moral heart and conscience. It would also seem to be this spiritual DNA that causes us to resist thinking about, and especially doing, that which is evil. When evil acts are committed, it appears that this definition of goodness in such an individual is slowly eroded, or perhaps mutated, until that consciousness has nothing of God left in it. The Lord has noted what appears to be such a case when He said after the last supper that the prince of this world comes and has nothing in Him.

Although the DNA in our physical bodies defines both structure and function, in a spiritual body the structure would seem likely to be more fluid. Such a nonrigid structure could then be spread dynamically over great distances while still maintaining functional integrity. Therefore, spiritual DNA would likely emphasize function over form from a definitory standpoint. In order to maintain the wholesomeness of this spiritual DNA, and avoid the spiritual equivalent of genetic disease, it would seem prudent to resist the urge to do those things that, at some level, make us uncomfortable. As long as we are true to ourselves, we will not lose that which constitutes ourselves. We may lose some peripheral attribute that already had a limited life, but the software that defines each of us will remain intact.

Even if we are able to conserve our spiritual integrity, it should be noted that others may choose a different path, even those that we love. What the book called "Genesis" tells us about the garden of Eden seems to speak to this. Although she had her reasons that appeared to possess merit, Eve chose poorly in disobeying God. Afterward, Adam likewise sinned against God, seemingly because of his love for Eve. His apparent love for one who is imperfect, which appears to have exceeded his love for one who is perfect, caused him to become less perfect.

I myself can attest to this phenomenon, as a prior chapter has described. I followed my Eve to a place that I knew I ought not to go, even the place that God told us not to visit, but I did it anyway out of my love for her. What might have appeared, in another time, to be a carnival in the wilderness has become a prison without walls; and, from a larger perspective, it would seem to have been a trap laid by a rogue prince to reduce the strength of his adversaries in a future battle that is now past. Like so many of my fellow prisoners still have to do, I had to learn the hard way that God must come first, not only because He alone is worthy; but because, like any good parent, what He tells us to do is for our own good. With His help, I will never make the mistake of putting another before Him again.

What scripture relates regarding the creation of Eve would seem to support this concept regarding the relative expendability of undivine companionship. The book called "Genesis" tells us that God took one of Adam's ribs while he slept, and from it made a woman for him. Since each cell in our bodies contains the DNA that determines the attributes of the entire body, it would seem that the rib reference is symbolic. God could have taken a small sample of any part and done the same thing.

It should be noted that the literal interpretation of truth tends to be the most accurate when taken in conjunction with a parable, where the literal meaning serves as a metaphor for a more obscure application of the principle involved. In addition, there are multiple cases of the Lord's words being mistakenly interpreted in the literal sense, as the gospels of the New Testament show. The apparent symbolism of the rib reference would suggest that Eve is like the rib. A rib adds strength to the skeletal structure, and protects vital organs from impact damage. However, a rib is not absolutely necessary for the body to function. We can get along without one, if necessary, because its loss would not adversely affect our operation. An individual rib is nice to have, but it is not essential. Such a rib may seem to be an integral part of us while we have it with us, but if it became diseased, or in some other way caused us ongoing offense, would we not cut it out and cast it away? This would seem to be what Adam should have done, what I should have done, and what many others should have done. However, we each chose the more difficult path to learning that God must come first.

It should also be noted that Eve, like Adam, like each of us, is software running within our individual bodies. Our physical form effectively constitutes the hardware which enables us to interact with this reality. Each piece of sentient software is an algorithm originally defined by God, but free to autonomously modify itself as it sees fit. The rib metaphor would therefore seem to be more spiritual than physical, though both would seem to apply.

The book called "Genesis" indicates that Eve came from Adam, but Adam existed first. Eve was intended to be a helper for Adam, as Adam was a helper unto God. Biological knowledge would seem to confirm the physical aspect of the chronological reference since a man has a Y chromosome unique to his gender, whereas a woman has a second X chromosome in its place that is common to both genders. Eve lacked that which Adam had, but she was made from that which was taken from Adam. Each would seem to have had something that the other lacked. This is further evidenced by the physical appearance of each gender that is apparent even today. This condition, as well as their remaining commonality, would be conducive to forming a symbiotic relationship.

By association, the spiritual division would seem to be likewise. The commonality of their algorithms would likely have created a sense of familiarity between the two, and each having something the other lacks might have caused a want, if not a perceived need, in each to keep the other around. It was this formula that created the conditions for learning a hard but what would appear to be the most important lesson: God is the only one each of us truly needs, even more than ourselves. He is the only one that we can trust completely. He is always there, He is always right, and He will never change. In keeping with what the Lord has told us to be the first and great commandment, we must love God with all of our heart, mind, and soul; not only because of the reasons noted, but because no matter how much we love Him, He loves us more.

It is one kind of love to die for something greater than one's self, but to die for something less, even that which is far less, is another kind of love entirely. After reading about the good shepherd, as the Lord has related, the following thought occurred to me: What manner of love is this that a shepherd would die for his sheep? Considering what we know of Him, how can we not love such a one whose infinite nature suggests that His love is boundless, and His actions are consistent with this supposition? Indeed, is He not worthy of all the love that we can give?

One of the last things that my dad told me was to trust God, though it may not have been just him saying it. I believe many things, and perceive many more, but there are very few things that I can say that I know. However, one of those relative certainties is that God has never let me down. I don't know how I know this, but I do. I would that I never again let Him down, and this would seem to begin with having faith in Him.

I endeavor to walk the path that God has put before me, even if I cannot see very far ahead. I will follow my shepherd, the one whose words I know, and He knows me. If I do what pleases God, then it will please me as well, because I am of Him, and because He matters more to me than any other, even myself. I know that He is right, even if I do not understand, but then that's it isn't it? It's only a matter of understanding, and when He has shown me why He does something, it makes sense, even superlatively. I would that I do as God would have me do, even if I do not understand, but I also would that I remember that I have not always done so, and that such occasions served my own detriment and, what's worse, His.

As I make this journey, it is as if I am driving into a thick fog. I cannot see much beyond what is imminently present, but I know that somewhere in that fog is a door, a door that leads to where I need to go. However, I do not make this journey alone. God is with me, and guides me through this disquieting mist, even this reality that seems to be trying too hard to be real. I know that I'm in over my head; but, as long as I do not choose it for myself, that is as it should be. I need God; and, it would seem, I periodically need to be reminded of how much I am dependent on Him. If I thought that I could handle this situation on my own, then I might not feel as in need of God as I do, and that would be a grievous mistake, perhaps even the mistake that enabled me to make the error of coming here. So I must continue to forge into the unknown, because that is what I believe God would have of me, and that is what will lead me back to Him.

back to contents
A Messy Necessity

Humans are sentient beings, but what need is there for such in this place, or any place? Evolution is a wondrous design that tends to improve its products over time without any further effort required from the designer. Life here can and did exist before humans came along. Although sentient consciousnesses may have been here before man, it would appear that the presence of such beings is unnecessary for life to exist. However, evolution is an inherently passive system that tends to work well when movements in the operating parameter ranges occur slowly over time, as long-term environmental changes tend to do. In spite of this, changes sometimes occur more rapidly, and evolution may be hard-pressed to compensate. A second tier of biosphere stabilization that is more proactive, and can react to such events in a timely manner, would seem advisable.

The book called "Genesis" tells us that Adam was placed in the garden of Eden to dress and keep it. This was the duty with which he was charged. As a sentient being, he was able to do what evolution was ill-equipped to do in terms of reacting to rapidly occurring events that threatened the integrity of the garden. In effect, he was there to provide an active layer of order to complement the passive order that evolution provides.

Furthermore, in keeping with the theme of autonomy evident in the design of evolution itself, any additional layer of order would likely be compatible with this concept, if not exhibiting it. In creating Adam, God created something like himself, even of himself. Who is better to mind a designer's work than one who is like the designer, even his own children? This concept allows the designer's work to be maintained in a manner compatible with his wishes, while allowing him to do other things.

This pattern appears to repeat itself at our level. Does not a farmer let his children tend to the daily chores on the family farm while he engages in more strategically important tasks? This model also teaches the children responsibility, among other things, as well as helping them understand the decisions that their parent makes with regards to the farm. Such choices would likely be less comprehensible unless one engaged in the associated activities oneself. This symbiotic model thus teaches the children and maintains the farm without constant intercession on the part of the farmer.

This concept would seem to work well if the children respect and honor their parent, as young children who still possess some humility tend to do. However, as children gain experience and knowledge, there is an increased likelihood for that meekness to dissipate. Some children may think that they know better than their parent. Some may even rebel. Such happenstances represent perhaps the single greatest threat to sentient beings. We have a tendency to be our own worst enemy.

This potency for self-destruction would seem to stem from our freedom of choice. Evil, after all, is a choice. We are free to choose it, and many do on certain occasions. Some may find such acts distasteful, and turn back to better choices. However, it is those who continue down that road that become increasingly offensive to others, both good and evil alike. It is because of this group that wars come to be.

At some point, the benevolent who are being offended may seek to cast out their offenders. In such a righteous war, victory or death are the only options. Defeat is not acceptable, because death would be preferable to living even one day under the behavioral model of an enemy whose very nature is utterly incompatible with that of their adversaries. Under those conditions, the integrity of every value that is held dear is compromised to the point that those values are effectively dead. Therefore, those who fought for them because they are of them, and died not, effectively died anyway by giving them up. Both victory and death spare the offended from living an intolerable existence. This perspective may seem extreme, but in such times would it not seem reasonable, even necessary?

The direness of this scenario underscores the need for tolerance. Long-suffering is important to the cause of righteousness for those on both sides of such a potential conflict. Tolerance provides time for those who may turn back from evil to do so. It also provides time for umbrage to develop in those who are slow to become agitated. Thus, when tolerance has evaporated, and word has been given from above to cast out that which will not be saved, the insurrection may be quelled relatively quickly, efficiently, and without remorse.

Potential war would seem to be a necessary condition arising from the existence of imperfect sentient beings. Of those who choose freely, some may choose evil; and, because not all are likely to do so, wars may occur. It is theoretically possible to have no war; but, like flipping a coin heads up a hundred times in a row, it is extremely unlikely. War is, in effect, like a disease of the body. In such an event, many individual cells of independent thought move to fight off an infection that threatens the integrity of their common values. Self-sacrifice is a valid strategy for the defenders, because each of them is fighting for more than themselves, even that which is more than themselves. This provides a strategic advantage because evil seems to be entirely selfish. Each element of evil appears to fight only for itself, and does not seem willing to sacrifice itself for anyone or anything.

Although evil may win some battles because of an apparent tactical advantage arising from what appears to be a relative abundance of immoral options, good would seem destined to prevail eventually. The strength of the benevolent that is derived from their unity is itself derived from the principles for which they fight, even those that they represent because those principles are a part of them, and those in turn come from He who is greatest of all. God is our greatest advantage, and our greatest value. It is He for whom we effectively fight, and it is He that enables us to prevail. Even when a battle appears to be lost, when viewed from a larger perspective, a more meaningful victory may become apparent. It is interesting how often those who stand against God end up serving Him, albeit seemingly unbeknownst to them.

War is therefore not a heinous thing to be avoided at all costs, but acknowledged as a necessary probability for the existence of our sentient selves. This does not mean that we have to like it, any more than we would like to become ill. However, it would seem to be a likely event from time to time, and therefore something that we should accept, even as we work to avoid it. Like taking out the trash, it is a distasteful task that occurs occasionally as history shows, but would seem to be part of the price of our existence, regardless of what we do to limit its frequency.

As life is associated with creating, and war with destroying, destruction would likewise seem to accompany creation on a larger and more general scale. Wherever one occurs, is it not the precursor of the other? Each seems to precipitate its counterpart in what would appear to be an endless cycle of change. Though creating is a more difficult task than destroying, beauty may be found in each. A salvo of bombs exploding, when viewed from some distance away and above, is not unlike witnessing a time-lapse rendering of flowers blooming. Even a mushroom cloud has a certain aesthetic appeal about it. The symmetry of its form and movement is undeniable. Consequently; beauty, and its pleasing effect upon us, would seem to be a potential attribute of our apparent existence, regardless of the point in the transformational cycle.

Notwithstanding the amount of beauty present, righteous war serves an important purpose. It is effectively the second tier of stabilization moving to eliminate a disturbance of sufficient magnitude that it is, or eventually will be, adversely affecting system operation. Unless both the cause and associated effects of such agitation are brought under control, a catastrophic system failure may result. The sentient beings that make up that additional layer of stability are more able to actively adapt to rapidly changing threats, such as those that might be perpetrated by their malicious counterparts, than those that depend upon the more passive adaptability of evolution.

It is the advanced capability to reason that gives sentient beings this enhanced adaptability. It is also this ability that enables them to anticipate disturbances before they occur. Reasoning would therefore seem to be a strength, but it is also a weakness. Reasoning allows us to adapt, but sometimes we adapt too well, and become something incompatible with our core programming, even counter to the definition of what appears to be our spiritual DNA. Our moral heart that seems to be a part of that intangible code informs us when reason is going too far, but sometimes we override its guidance.

We must remember that reason and logic make useful tools, but are poor masters. The priority must be what our heart tells us, even if logic would seem to advise against it. How often have each of us done that which made sense, but didn't feel quite right, and had the eventual result disappoint us more than reason predicted? As sentient beings, the tools under our direct control should serve us more than we serve them. The tools over which we have little control, such as our heart-felt feelings, should take precedence. The source of these helpful input indications would seem to be at least a portion of that which defines us by He who created us. Therefore, in prioritizing these messages above the output of our reasoning, we serve God as well as ourselves by being that which He made us to be.

This is not to say that we should allow ourselves to be ruled by our emotions, or even our feelings of lesser magnitude. Feelings are input data that we may evaluate with our reasoning, and act accordingly. Strong feelings, such as emotions, are like warning lights telling us that some sort of action may be necessary. Emotions may have a base logic associated with them, such as the fight-or-flight instinct found in animals that, within us, serves as a drive that enhances survivability when time may be too limited for a rational analysis. However, it is important not to allow these innate reactions to overpower our reason or even our more subtle perceptions. We each decide for ourselves what to do based upon our input data and behavioral algorithm. However, it is our sense of intuition that would seem to be a more reliable tool than our reason. After all, is not a good outcome determined not so much by logical correctness as by the perception that it just feels right? Our intuition would seem to be yet another example of that which is a part of us, but not defined by us, being more trustworthy than that of ourselves which we can define.

So it would seem that we have the ability to do what evolution is unable to accomplish. However, we must be mindful that our ability must be subordinate to our programming; and, correspondingly, to our programmer. If He bids it, is it not ours to do? The Lord has told us that only God is good. Therefore, we can be confident that whatever He commands or does will be good, although we may not understand His actions at the time. Even war, in its time, when it is appropriate by His judgment, is a good thing.

To this end, the book called "Revelation" indicates that there is a battle coming. When the harvest is gathered, the sower of tares will be cast out of this place, the kingdom that he appears to have been given, as he was cast out of another. Although the end of humanity as we know it is feared by some, it should be welcome for those who are of God. It is when our shepherd will return, and the days of torment in this zoo of the serpent's making will be ended. In addition, it will be a chance for redemption. It will be an opportunity for those who were here, when they should have been elsewhere, to do what they should have done the first time around.

The Lord has told us that with God, all things are possible. Evolution is a testament to this as a means of providing new designs without any further effort required on the part of the designer. Sentient beings, such as ourselves, are able to maintain that which cannot think or reason for itself; as well as provide an added layer of stability to account for rapidly occurring changes in the environment, which even such a wonder as evolution is unable to adequately counter. However, some things are beyond our level of sentience. For such events, and really for all events, we need God to show us the way. Only in following Him may we achieve a good outcome.

Although we possess free thought, free choice, and free will within the bounds of our ability to manipulate our environment, we are not without weakness. In spite of the fact that we can tend to that which even such a magnificent design as evolution cannot, we are also our greatest threat. Our occasional, and seemingly inevitable, lapses in judgment remind us that we need God in order to do well. Although our existence is not required in an absolute sense, in a creation that continues to be a reflection of its designer, where anything is possible, and autonomy and symbiosis are recognizable themes, imperfect sentient beings would appear to be a messy necessity, not only because of what we can do, but because of what we cannot do.

back to contents
Epilogue

It would seem that faith is a continual work-in-progress. My faith was a relatively small part of my life when I was in my youth. Now, this life seems to be a relatively small part of my faith. The change came about through a series of events that certainly made this life interesting. It was not what I had expected or wanted, but I acknowledge that I am blessed for it being as it has been. Some of those experiences have been recounted here, along with some associated thoughts, or vice versa. Some portion of the happenings that have been related may seem farfetched to the uninitiated. However, the most incredible experiences have been omitted from this publication. Such things would seem to require first-hand exposure to be believed. In hindsight, the collective effect of these sequential elements seems reminiscent of a wind-up alarm clock ringing in slow motion, with each event representing an individual clap, and each of these strikes appearing to strengthen my faith a little more.

This journey of faith seems to be an endless one, since faith appears to be one of the very few things of which that one can never have too much. As with all journeys, it takes time. It took me many years to realize that manned flight does not appear to be in accordance with God's intent. It took me additional time after that to realize that it also seems to constitute sinful behavior. The Lord has told us that if we seek, then we will find. If one wants to find God, and searches for Him, one will surely find Him, but it may not be where one might think. Furthermore, once one finds Him, one may just find one's self, as well as an identity that may be very different from the one that this place has come to know, and yet not altogether dissimilar.

Faith, however, seems to grow best in a desert. Utilizing faith frequently appears to cause accelerated growth, and this spiritual wasteland where mammon seems to dominate the landscape makes a fine incubator. Nevertheless, though my faith has strengthened, I am quite weary of this place. At times, it seems like I cannot take a breath, or blink my eyes, without being offended by something here. However, it is the work of men, not of God, that offends me. It is indeed disheartening how often that which walks on two legs walks as if it has none.

Knowing what I know now, there is much that I would alter, if I was to live this life among men again. The problem is that I don't know what the resultant changes would be. I do not know how to live a life here in this place without offending myself or God. Perhaps this means something. I perceive that it does, though I am not sure of what specifically. Regardless, I am embarrassed and ashamed to be human. My Father made me better than this. I chose to become less.

Through God's grace, I am better now. When this life comes to an end, I will go wherever God would have me go. However, if it be His will and intent, and His words and actions would seem to indicate that it is His intent, I would that I go home. It is a place where I sense that even now, while my consciousness still walks this earth, my vessel lies sleeping on a couch in the library, not far from a large picture window that looks out onto the garden that God has given me. I would that my vessel awake. I would that I open my eyes, find myself back in the library, look out the window and see my garden, and know that I am home. I would that I be home.

###

back to contents
About the Author

As indicated by the pen name, the author would prefer to remain anonymous. There are a number of reasons for this position, but the most important one is the implication that it provides. If one is effectively anonymous, then one could be anybody. Given this condition, there is the possibility, however remote, that the one in question is - everybody. It is precisely the possibility of this solution existing, to some degree or another, that the author submits to the reader for consideration.

back to contents
