Storage.googleapis.com



The Great Divorce CourtAn Examined lifeByDan McMahon To Nancy, Meagan, Erin, Kevin, Brian, Shannon and Kathleen-my seven proofs of God who helped me doubt the doubt.IntroductionNothing would remain stable in human society if we determined to believe only what can be held with absolute certainty.Saint AugustineC.S. Lewis wrote powerful stories that have spoken truth to millions. The title of this story is an allusion to his tale about a group of poor souls who take a bus trip from Hell to Heaven. In, The Great Divorce Lewis makes it plain that “There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, “Thy will be done.” My oldest son is 18 years old and he tells me that many of his peers are losing their faith. Fully a fourth of young Americans now consider themselves an agnostic, atheist or of no religious faith. In an age when tolerance has been declared the greatest good most are hesitant to make a claim that there is ultimate truth. Many, it seems, prefer questions rather than answers. Philosopher Peter Kreeft says that is like preferring hunger to food. While we must acknowledge that our limited intellects prevent a full understanding of the truth, it is a bridge to far to claim that truth does not exist. The tragic consequences for society are more apparent with each passing year. Many lack a clear understanding of moral reasoning and as a consequence, they freely report routine intoxication, materialistic life goals, regrettable sexual experiences and disengagement from civil life. These developments undermine society and diminish the individual. The increasing number of young people suffering clinical depression is truly depressing.I did not completely lose my faith in school but it did suffer a near mortal wound. I lived in a culture immersed in a brew of secular humanism, materialism and new age fantasy. It was obvious that there were competing claims and not immediately obvious that there may be, real, substantial and sustaining truth. Like many, my doubts began to grow. One thing became increasingly clear to me: the world isn’t what it “should be.” But why? And what could be done? Was religion the answer? Like many others, I was taught a bit about Christianity and less about Islam and Buddhism. Much of the teaching was superficial and some was misleading. Peter Kreeft laments that education is often answers to questions that no one asked. While this is an instructive insight, I was more troubled by the corollary that many of the important questions (Is there meaning? Is there a God? Does God care? How should I live?) were often poorly answered. It is fortunate that a weakened or killed virus can inoculate us from a disease, but it is a tragedy that poorly presented answers can inoculate us from the truth. I was not given the gift of unwavering faith but I am now grateful that I was given the gift of doubt. Doubt is not the opposite of faith. Doubt is the opposite of certainty. Doubt means you don’t know. Doubt is an opportunity. Healthy doubt motivates; it is open and curious. Dishonest doubt admits no evidence; it is not an intellectual achievement, it is prejudice. It enslaves the doubter. Healthy doubt seeks truth. It leads to the doubt of doubt. By the grace of God, I began to doubt the doubt.I realized that I did not know enough and that I had an obligation to search for clues to the truth. Some of the clues were provided by skeptics who often began with an apparently valid point. Each was convinced that their innovation was the missing piece to the puzzle. Brimming with na?ve confidence, each was confident that they had discovered the definitive solution to our problems. Unfortunately, their analytics lead in different directions and their final conclusions clash with each other and with history. My doubt of doubt began to grow. Iron clad proofs of God are hard to come by. However, it was not exceedingly difficult to find isolated facts or observations that supported the notion of a personal creator God. But none of the individual strands or pillars was strong enough to support the weight of belief. None were proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. Doubt does not surrender easily. But doubt can be turned on itself; how can you know what you don’t know? I began to realize that the thin strands and delicate pillars of belief originate from isolated points and then converge at the center of the question. Eventually, I recognized that they are like spokes on a wheel and that many thin strands combine to build a sturdy and reliable wheel. I now know that the doubt of doubt is the seed of faith and the last bastion of belief. The doubt of doubt is the quiet voice of God.God Wheel Over the years, I learned a few things and among the most important is the power of story. It turns out that God is the original story teller and that his purpose is not mere entertainment. God, being perfect beauty, understands that stories speak to us in ways and on levels that edicts and lectures never could. God, being perfect truth, understands that truth is complex and that complexity can be better explained by example than by description. God, being perfect good, wants to teach us the ways of justice and story makes the choices clear. God, being perfect love, wants to draw us into relationship and He knows story is how we reveal, understand and bond. Story does not mean fable; some stories are true and even some strange stories are true. As they say, “Truth is stranger than fiction.” Fiction can edify but it is limited by the perspective of its author. Fiction can’t set you free. Only the truth can set you free. One story strangely unites the twin truths of man’s utter grandeur and fearful wretchedness. It is a story that has taken millennia to tell. It is the story of God’s relentless pursuit of you. The story began with light and then God declared that man was very good. The story continued with darkness as man turned away from God. Thankfully, all was not lost as God had a patient plan to save us all. He began by establishing a covenant with a single person as He called Abraham into the wilderness. The covenant expanded as He chose Israel to be a light for all the nations. When the time was right, God came into the world to demonstrate justice and beauty and truth and love. God came into the world to bring you home. God gives you the option to refuse his plan; He gives you the power to choose. For some, Christianity has become passé. As Chesterton notes, “It is almost impossible to make the facts vivid, because the facts are familiar; and for fallen men it is often true that familiarity is fatigue.” Given this reality it may be surprising that Christianity remains the fastest growing religion in an increasingly religious world. Concurrently many in “post Christian” lands choose to live according to different stories. Most of these stories claim to offer reason and autonomy. One of these stories confuses man with things; it recognizes only “stuff.” It leaves no room for the immaterial; no room for God or soul. Man, is reduced to a meaningless bag of chemicals. Other stories confuse man with God or angels; they attempt to salvage the dignity of mankind but they lack the power to do so. Often the stories over emphasize an isolated component of reality but none leaves room for the fullness of truth, justice, or love- they leave no room for ultimate meaning. The story you choose to believe will shape the way you see the world and it will shape who you become. God has given you the power to choose. God has given you the obligation to choose. You may not know what to believe but you should recognize that you are choosing. The Great Divorce Court is about choices. When we make choices, all of us seek some apparent “good.” However, we should recognize that, at times, we may be deceived by ignorance, our prejudices and most especially by our passions and weaknesses. In an era that claims an open mind is the greatest good (and an end in itself rather than a tool) it is troubling that many never consider that they may be missing the mark. I encourage you to boldly examine the assumptions of our age. Each witness is followed by a “Did you know?” section. These sections are designed to provide background information that is relevant to the preceding testimony. At the end of each section there are suggested readings for those who want to learn more because the truth is complicated and there is always another layer. Conversely some may find certain “Did you know?” sections to be too technical and too detailed, there is no obligation to digest all of the material. Finally, in writing this book I have learned a few more things; perhaps the most important is the value of time, ideally the reader will allow a day or so to consider a chapter before moving on to the next. The Great Divorce CourtChapter OnePain ripped through his chest and then strangely lost its power to dominate. The vice that had been crushing his chest was no more. The irregular pulse of the monitor surrendered to a monotonous chord. Frantic tense voices gave way to quiet murmurs. The murmurs decayed into silence. The silence became absolute. The quiet then mysteriously brightened. The light grew. Bright light. Powerful light. White light. He was drawn to it. The concept seemed trite. How much comfort does a light provide? Certainly, he had no desire to go back to the room of searing pain. He was not sure what to think but he was strangely aware that he was thinking more clearly than he had in years. In fact, he was thinking more clearly than he ever had. But the clarity of his thought had limits; he was overwhelmed by a sense of the unknown, a sense of frontier. The light began to fade. Why was the comforting light giving way to a grey fog? Was blackness next? Would pain return? Could it be worse now than it had been? He realized that he was alone. Radically alone. No friend. No foe. No distractions, just his thoughts. His memory was astonishing. Each thought was crystal clear. He recalled that Miss Hoban was his kindergarten teacher; she wore a pink sweater and a white blouse on the first day of school. Her smile was the warmest of welcomes. Vincent Walsh told him a raunchy joke in seventh grade. He cheated on a freshman algebra quiz. The look in his wife’s eyes as their daughter walked down the aisle. The odometer read 48,230 miles when he arrived at the Grand Canyon. The well seemed endless. Some memories were trivial, some anything but. Some memories brought bliss. Some memories were acid; they made him wish that his thoughts were not so clear.A growing sense of loss began to erode even his fondest memories. He could not hide in their shelter. He yearned for something tangible. He groped for a point of reference. Was there no anchor in the sea? Was there no home in the wilderness? His thoughts cycled, “How long will this continue? How long has it already been? Is it a blessing? Is it a curse? Is this death? Where is God? Is this hell? Am I angry? Do I think God owes me more? Do I think God owes me heaven?” People long forgotten, choices made, opportunities missed, love lived out; triumphs and failures all in undeniable clarity. Gratitude for what was. Regret for what could have been. Isolation. Solitary confinement. Just thought. Growing gratitude. Ripened regret.The silence softened and voices and then faces were discernible. A crowd seemed to be forming in a large room. Anticipation spread like contagion. Perhaps there would be some sort of sporting event or a concert. He was brusquely escorted to the front of the room as the fog lifted. The floor was milky white marble but rich mahogany dominated the space. Adam was asked to state his name. Chapter TwoBailiff: Next up on the docket is the case of The People Versus Adam Eversmen. All rise! Silvertung Brightpast presiding. Brightpast: Council will make his opening statement. Council: I will demonstrate that Adam Eversmen has a long; that is a nearly life long history of unusual activity. During his decades upon the earth he was given opportunity after opportunity and lesson upon lesson. To what end? Adam Eversmen knowingly and willingly violated convention and repeatedly exhibited disregard for your concerns. Further, I will demonstrate that Adam Eversmen remains single minded to this day. Finally, I will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Adam Eversmen has brought upon himself eternal separation from this company. The facts demand his removal- there can be no compromise. (Wheeling to face the accused) You Adam Eversmen shall be revealed.Brightpast: The defense may make his opening statement. Adam: I am a humble man. What court is this where a humble man is provided no council? Brightpast: Who, indeed, would dare to make a case on your behalf? Make your case as you can but do not look for any others to come to your side.Adam: Your honor I am a humble man. What great offense brings me to this point? What are the charges against me? How can I make a defense if I am unaware of the charges? I will respond with honesty and humility. But, I cannot declare innocence, as it is certainly true that I have often failed. For what I’ve done but especially for what I’ve failed to do I am truly sorry. Brightpast: Words and more words. Just words piled upon words. They shall be put to the test. Freedom is earned. Not all who pass this way embrace the freedom we cherish. You shall be put to the test. Chapter ThreeBrightpast: You may call the first witness.Council: I call Cole Ward Leeguy to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. Cole, when did you first meet Adam Eversmen?Cole: I was in my first year as a teacher and Adam was one of my students.Council: At that young age was there any sign of the man we see now?Cole: Well, Adam was smaller than the other boys and actually smaller than many of the girls. It’s strange to see him all grown up. Adam was, well I usually don’t make negative comments, but, I’ll just say it: Adam was a strange kid. Council: Why do you say that he was “strange”? Cole: I first noticed that he wasn’t normal when the class was playing at recess. Initially, Adam was overlooked but then there weren’t many kids left so the call was made “red rover, red rover let Adam come over.” Adam raced across the open field and then crashed into the linked arms of his classmates who barred his way. There was no way he was going to break through, he barely bent their arms. Within seconds he lay sprawled on the ground with his arms extended. He was the picture of failure.Council: Was it his weakness that made him “strange”? Cole: His weakness was pathetic but what was weird was that he was so oblivious to reality. It was like he was in his own little world. It was ridiculous; you really had to see it to believe it. While he was still lifting himself off the ground the call came that it was Claire’s turn. She was even smaller than Adam; so of course, she met a similar fate. The boys who stopped her progress lifted her high in the air and drove her into the ground. As her head bounced off the hard, dry earth she went limp and then began to cry. Adam bent to console her and then demonstrated utter foolishness by attacking the large boys who were still laughing at their success. Of course, they knocked him on his butt again and just laughed even harder. The kid was just oblivious to reality. It doesn’t take a genius to read the tea leaves. It’s the same everywhere, keep your head down and don’t ask for trouble. Find a dark corner and maybe no one will notice you. Mind your own business. Don’t ask for trouble. Adam was oblivious to what was obvious for all to see. That’s all I’m gonna say. I’ve said too much.Council: He who has eyes let him see and he who has ears let him hear. Ward, I have no further questions to trouble you.Brightpast: The defense may question the cautious witness.Adam: I have no questions for Cole your honor but I do have an additional story to tell. In sixth grade, Jake and Will, the two boys mentioned by Mister Leeguy and I were on the same team. Tommy Smith was a really big, really nice kid who played offensive line. Jake and Will were running backs. When it was muddy they would jump the snap count and plow into Tommy as he was bent in a three-point stance. His face would plant into the mud. Most of the team and even the coaches laughed harder each time they did it. Tommy was more and more humiliated with every face plant. I just stood there. The coaches started calling Tommy “Mud Eater.” Tommy never played any sport after that season. I’m ashamed that I didn’t do anything to help Tommy. Did you know?Hitler advocated killing individuals whose “life was not worthy of life.” In 1939, he personally authorized a secret program code named T4 to “euthanize” people with mental illness or physical disability. By 1941, 70,000 people had been killed and word of the program began to spread. The Bishop of Munster, Clemens August von Galen, preached against these acts of murder (and against the concentration camps, forced sterilizations, and Gestapo terror) and even sent a copy of his remarks to Hitler. Subsequently, in an effort to weaken the influence of religion the regime ordered the removal of crucifixes from all schools in Upper Bavaria. The Nazis were shocked that this move precipitated widespread public demonstrations and within weeks the regime was forced to rescind the order. Emboldened by the success Von Galen redoubled his criticism of the T4 program and of Nazi persecution of religious orders. The local Nazis pushed for his arrest (and some for his execution) but Goebbels cautioned that this would lead to open revolt in Westphalia. The unrest intensified and Hitler was publicly jeered for the first and last time of his 12 years of rule. Hitler was furious but on August 24th he ordered the cancelation of the official T4 program and he gave instructions that there should be no further provocations of the churches till after the war.Most of us are disturbed by the actions of the bully on the playground and those of the tyrant on the stage of history. “It’s not fair” and “that’s not right” are statements that we all have made. This notion of inherent knowledge of right and wrong is known as the Moral Law or Natural Law. Traditionally it was thought to point beyond the individual and the culture to a higher standard. Cicero (106-43 B.C.) referred to “law” as the “highest reason, implanted in Nature, which commands what ought to be done and forbids the opposite.” He stated “right is based not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature…if the principles of justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultery…what is right and true is also eternal and does not begin or end with written statutes.” Natural law continues to be relevant in the modern era. In his inaugural address John F Kennedy noted “…the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.” Similarly, in Letter From A Birmingham Jail Martin Luther King Jr wrote: “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.In recent times the concept of a universal inherent code of conduct has been challenged. Some say it never existed and that societies are free to choose what is acceptable. Often, acceptable actions are defined as those that do no harm to others and good is defined as that which brings the most happiness to the most individuals. While these utilitarian precepts seem reasonable they are less robust than they first appear: Is the primary goal to avoid suffering or pursue happiness? Is harm limited to direct injury or is it defined more broadly? Should a minority be disadvantaged to increase the happiness of the majority? In addition, should decisions be made according to rules or on a case by case basis? In an effort to reconcile the rules based approach and the more relativistic individualized approach John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) introduced Weak Rule Utilitarianism. He argued that decisions should be based on rules that benefit society, but that those rules can be broken under specific circumstances in order to produce the greatest happiness. Mill’s utilitarianism has become the dominant force in modern ethics; at times with chilling consequences. Professor of Bioethics Peter Singer argues, “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects for a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed… Therefore, if killing the hemophiliac infant has no adverse effect on others, according to the total view, it would be right to kill him.” The standards of no harm and greatest happiness inevitably break down under the pressure of competing preferences, what constitutes harm and whose happiness takes precedence. Utilitarian standards are unreliable because they are arbitrary in origin and subject to manipulation by the powerful. Curiously, this approach that seeks to preserve the concepts of morality and ethics but that rejects any appeal to a standard outside the physical world is inconsistent with the natural world. In a purely natural universe, material things do what they do. In a Darwinian model, survival of the fittest demands that the strong dominate the weak. From this view the concepts of evil or fairness do not even exist. From a Darwinian perspective, it makes no sense to assign the terms “good” or “bad” but only winner or loser or perhaps survivor and victim. Clearly, the stalking lion does not worry that it is going to make the gazelle unhappy. In a purely physical reality why should anyone care about your preferences or your happiness? Atheist Richard Dawkins puts it bluntly, we “humans are survival machines-robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.” If this is true, is rape legitimized if it ensures the survival of genes?Some have attributed the near universal concepts of “good” versus “bad” and “right” versus “wrong” to instincts that developed in order to protect the herd. Selfless actions are said to persist because they protect the genes of other members of the herd who share essentially the same genetic makeup. If this is the case, then the rational course would be to suppress these instincts in order to further self-interest. Thankfully, most are not willing to accept the consequences of this Darwinian view. Certainly, there would be no obligation to feed the hungry in the local community let alone the starving child of a distant continent. It is instructive to note that those who deny an external universal standard still generally seem displeased and even morally outraged when their own list of unacceptable actions is violated. Further, it is telling that their anger is voiced in language sounds a lot like “that’s not right” and “it’s not fair.” How do most respond to blatant prejudice, unrestrained corporate greed or wanton environmental pillage? At times a conflict develops between two instincts. Should I run from danger or stay and help? C.S. Lewis noted that one would expect the stronger instinct, the louder voice, to prevail. But our inner voice tends to side with the weaker of the two impulses- I want to run but it would be right to stay and help. History teaches that many listen to the louder voice and run, but that we honor those who don’t.Modern ethics limits its mandate to ordering social interaction and its query to a single question: Do our actions directly harm others? Premodern thinkers emphasized two additional layers; personal virtues and vices and the greatest good or purpose of life. C.S. Lewis reveals the broader vision of the earlier approach with an analogy to a fleet of sailing ships. The modern ethicist acknowledges that the ships should not run into each other. The classical ethicist knows that more is required: A fleet only functions well when the individual ships know how to be sea worthy; that is when each ship is internally ordered(if they are not then they may very well run into each other). Additionally, an armada needs to have sailing orders, it needs to know where it is going; it needs to know its purpose. Reflection:What makes authority legitimate? Most of the German population went along with Hitler and ten million died. Most of the Russian population went along with Stalin and twenty million died. Most of the Chinese population went along with Mao and seventy million died. Have you ever stood up to illegitimate power? Why do we honor those who do? Suggested Reading:Meer Christianity by C.S. Lewis50 Questions On The Natural Law by Charles RiceChapter FourBrightpast: You may call the next witness.Council: I call Ike Connel-Klast to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. Ike, please tell us how you knew Adam?Ike: As you are alluding, it was rather unlikely that we should meet. To say the least, we travelled in different social circles. Perhaps, you are unaware that it was one of my early works that brought Adam into my orbit. Inevitably, my fame grew ever greater and I had less and less to do with the Adams of the world.Council: How did Adam come into your “orbit?”Ike: My popularity with the intelligentsia was beginning to blossom and I was commissioned to paint a mural for his university. Like most of the plebeians, Adam did not understand my artistic vision or even the modern conception of art. With the growing controversy, the university assembled a discussion group and Adam was a student participant. Of course, there was quite a firestorm, which was precisely my goal. Council: What generated the controversy? Ike: No doubt, my inspiration was a bit much for people who think art is about beauty. Clearly, art is only vibrant when it confronts. If it disturbs, then it has broken through to a higher plane. The work depicts a bearded man and twelve tunic clad associates and is titled “I’m in urine and you’re in…” Council: How did Adam respond to your work? Ike: Befuddled and bewildered! Offended? Without a doubt. I remember it quite clearly because Adam was so typical of his type. He was so earnest, “Isn’t art supposed to be beautiful?” Some on the panel even said that it should reflect and reveal the ultimate source of beauty-God. It is such a tired view, haven’t we gotten beyond the dark ages? The universe is cold and heartless; there is no deep meaning under the cruel facade.Council: Did Adam think there was evidence of God in the world? Ike: I don’t recall which troglodyte said what; they all seemed to be parroting the same dribble. I do think it was Adam who gasped, “Doesn’t creation require a creator as art requires an artist?” “Young man,” said I, “stop using god as the answer to all questions. Have you dolts been asleep for two hundred years? Science has replaced superstition. Blind faith has been vanquished. We don’t need god anymore.” Council: Did Adam have a defense against the claim of superstition?Ike: He said, “You falsely accuse us of blind faith while you champion blind doubt. Science can explain how a thing transitions from one state into another, but it cannot explain why anything exists in the first place. Only God is capable of creating something from nothing. I replied that his brain was capable of creating nonsense from nothing. Council: Did he accept your assessment?Ike: He pressed me for an explanation for the existence of the universe. I told him that it just is and that science has shown that particles can spring into existence in an electric field. Council: Did Adam respond?Ike: Yes, weakly: “An electric field is something. You act like it started with a pile of something that you call “nothing.” Nothing means not anything. How can everything be made out of not anything?” He childishly added, “You are so pompous, if you think an electric field is nothing then I double dog dare you to jump into a bathtub with a hair dryer. I bet you’ll make sure that it is not plugged in.” When the others stopped their guffaws, he gathered himself for what he thought was a big finish, “You mock the notion of a creator and your only alternative is “the universe just is.” You might as well say, “Because.” Is “Because” the best you can offer? You claim that God is an antiquated concept and I say, “Because” is not a sophisticated answer and God is a plausible hypothesis. I’m not sure who or what God is but it is foolish to deny the possibility of God.” Of course, I was compelled to point out that it would only be a matter of time before science answers all the questions. Council: How did Adam respond?Ike: Weakly and petulantly. He claimed that science is better at determining the “how?” than it is at providing the “why?” He thought that the ultimate “why?” was beyond the reach of science. Of course, there was no need for an answer to that question then or now. Why should there be a why?Council: Did Adam have any other comments?Ike: Understandably, I was growing tired of the whole exercise so I told them all not to bother with the standard “There had to be a god to start the chain reaction” argument. Of course, Adam claimed that since god is outside of time it made no sense to talk of a beginning for god. At some point, he said, “God created time, space and matter and that he is outside of them as the painter is outside of his painting. I explained to him as simply as I could that god is an irrational concept.Council: Did that end the discussion?Ike: An ancient professor chimed in, “A square circle is an irrational concept; God is a rational possibility.” Then the old bitty said that Thomas Aquinas’s arguments were often poorly understood and misrepresented. “Most people think Aquinas was talking about sequences going backwards in time but he really was referring to events going downward in the present moment. Since God is not in time all moments are the present for God.” There was something to do with the difference between potentiality and actuality- along the lines that the potential can only be activated by something actual. She gave an example of a moving train with a line of freight cars each seeming to be moved by the preceding freight car. “An infinite line of freight cars would not “move” because movement requires not the potential for movement but actual movement. It requires a locomotive; that is an engine car.” I think she added, “Pure actuality is God. Sheer being is God.” In any event, the old woman thought the case for “God” was being poorly made. Council: Was Adam offended?Ike: No, but I don’t think Adam really knew what she was talking about. She continued, “Intelligent design proponents argue that God is the most probable explanation for the complexity of our world but this approach is vulnerable because as scientific facts accumulate there is an ever-shrinking role for God. God is reduced to the “god of the gaps.” I said, “And the gaps keep shrinking with every discovery.” Council: Was that the end of it?Ike: I think her hearing was poor because she merely continued, “Conversely, the arguments by Aquinas and Aristotle for the necessity of God are not affected by any new discoveries. Their arguments demonstrate that God’s existence is a requirement of ongoing existence and not just for creation. For God, there is no distinction between creating and sustaining. God’s creation is an act but it is not an event; it is not in time; it is non-sequential. It is a four-dimensional domain containing all mater and time itself. In a very real sense one could go so far as to say, “The prayer that you will say on your death bed contacts the Creator in the moment he creates you. Of course, the proofs of the necessity of God do not necessitate a personal God who is interested in hearing your prayers”.Council: Did Adam respond?Ike: He just sat there. She looked at him and said, “It would be better to think of God as a musician than a painter.” The old woman started to digress with what I’m sure would have been a painfully dry monologue on why the universe itself can’t be pure actuality. Thankfully she was impeded by the moderator. Of course, it is always why “god” is different from everything else. Why, is it that only “god” is exempt from the need of a creator? I have no need for a creator. I have no desire for a creator. I announced, “I haven’t seen the Easter Bunny and I haven’t seen god. There is no evidence for either; are there special rules for the Easter Bunny? Why are there special rules for god?” Council: Did Adam think that there were “special rules” for God?Ike: Of course they kept trying to make art analogies, “Just because we don’t see Leonardo de Vinci standing next to Mona Lisa doesn’t mean that he didn’t exist.” I informed them, “It doesn’t mean that he did exist. The Earth is an insignificant dot. There are billions of planets; life had to spring up somewhere. I said, “Do the math!”Council: Was Adam interested in the calculation? Ike: He said, “Just because something is mathematically possible does not mean that it has to exist. I can multiply dollars in my mind or on a page, but that those numbers won’t pay the rent.” Then he claimed the complexity of the system means that the math actually didn’t support my view. Of course, crunching numbers is the ultimate bore. It was all so regressive, I told them all, “You’re not special; you’re just a bunch of proteins and chemicals mixed together by chance. Deal with it!”Council: Did Adam “deal with it” well?Ike: He said, “Man needs meaning and if we are just chemicals then our thoughts and feelings are just another chemical reaction. Don’t you think there is more than a chemical reaction when a mother loves a child? No wonder you are so negative; depressed and depressing.” But I shot back, “Art is my meaning; it is limitless.” Admittedly, it’s frustrating that I haven’t completed anything here yet but I’m sure that this drought won’t continue. You must admit that it is awfully difficult to shock this audience. Not to worry, I’m going to submerge myself in the dark depths of this place. I’ll find an edge that will cut even the thickest armor. Council: Did Adam think art was limitless? Ike: The tedious old know it all chirped that art was precisely about limits! “All acts of the will are acts of self-limitation hence every choice the artist makes is the rejection of infinite other options.” Just thinking of her makes my skin crawl. Mercifully, no one paid much attention to her obscure wanderings. The rest of them stuck with the standard, “You’re trying to replace meaning with stimulation in order to avoid boredom and despair. We are created in God’s image and we can find meaning by participating in his creation.” I loathe that tired old notion that “beauty testifies to God’s existence and character.”Council: Did Adam think he knew God’s character?Ike: It is all superstition; dependence on god is the root of the world’s problems. Christianity is the worst of all. It is delusional optimism. Live in fantasy land if you wish but all that nonsense about a loving Father makes me vomit. Have the courage to face reality: the universe is cold. Nature is a cruel bloody beast ripping at your throat. I’ll say it again, there is no god. There is no beauty. I saw no beauty so I confronted the world’s delusions. I saw no beauty then and I see no beauty now. It saps my strength to even talk of it. It haunts me. Are we not free of it even here?Council: Some say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Ike, I have no further questions to keep you from your art. Brightpast: The defense may question the courageous witness.Adam: Sir, I have no questions for Ike. Ike, the world can certainly appear to be cold and heartless. I apologize for my immaturity and the disrespect I showed to you. Did you know?Science has had great success in explaining the workings of the natural/physical universe. The cascade of success has led many to assume that science will eventually produce a natural/physical explanation for all phenomena. Many assume that God will become an obsolete concept when the remaining gaps in knowledge are filled. This is often thought to be the scientific position but it is more correctly labeled scientism or materialism. According to scientism, the scientific method is the only acceptable form of inquiry and similarly according to materialism, if it can’t be physically measured it doesn’t exist. Proponents of this view reject the concept of metaphysics (beyond physics) yet, the scientific method is based on assumptions that are metaphysical. Philosopher Edward Fesser states that the scientific rationalist accepts logic on faith and on faith alone. Meaningful science requires that there is a physical world with objective patterns existing outside of our minds, and that the laws of logic and mathematics apply to that world. It also assumes that our minds can gather pertinent information, form reliable conclusions and communicate meaningful concepts. These assumptions all represent metaphysical claims that cannot be proven by the scientific method. Since the scientific method presupposes the assumptions, adherents of scientific materialism are guilty of arguing in a circle if they accept the assumptions and they are self-contradictory if they deny them. Empirical science is, by definition, limited to observation of physical parameters. Many of the accomplishments of modern empirical science are attributable to the development of increasingly sophisticated and specialized tools. The first telescopes provided preliminary observations of our solar system and now with advanced technology we can peer into deep space. As the tools of science improve new discoveries become possible, but all tools have an inherently limited utility. Every carpenter knows that no job is difficult with the right tool and that it is difficult to saw a board with a hammer. Similarly, a thermometer is not a good choice if you wish to measure the acceleration of a projectile and immunohistochemistry is a poor tool to select if you wish to measure the frequency of a radio wave. Should the researcher deny the possibility of radio waves because his tissue stains do not find evidence for their existence? It would be even more surprising if a material tool or methodology documented an immaterial reality. By definition, the empirical science of physics cannot limit the reach of metaphysics (beyond physics). The astronomer will not locate God and the biologist will not find the organelle of life’s meaning but that does not necessarily mean that God and meaning do not exist. Author Trent Horn states, “Science is like a flashlight that is used to examine a room without windows. The light will be able to show us what the walls are made of and what the room looks like, but it can’t show us what the room looks like from the outside, and it can’t tell us what’s inside the flashlight. But philosophy helps us understand what science is and how it works (the inside of the flashlight), as well as the answer to the question “Why is the something rather than nothing?” (or what might be outside the room.) The modern mind is accustomed to the idea that the universe came into existence. We lose sight of the fact that one the most radical concepts ever advanced is the claim in Genesis that the universe was created from nothing. This is not mere shaping of a preexisting something and Hebrew has a unique word for it (bara’) that distinguishes it as God’s unique action. Conversely, pagan creation myths all begin with something and then that something is manipulated to form our world. Parmenides (515 BC) noted that something cannot be produced out of nothing. Since the universe is something, Aristotle (384-322 BC) assumed that it had always existed. The nature of the universe remained mysterious even as Newton (1642-1727) described gravity; the laws of motion as well as an eternal, infinite and mechanistic universe. Newton’s explanation seemed to satisfy man’s desire to know how things worked, but he was clearly not an atheist. He stated, “gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done.” Newton had plenty of company among the early giants of science including: Kepler, Boyle, Leibniz, Pascal, Harvey, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Lavoisier, Kelvin, Ohm, Ampere, Pasteur, Planck and Mendel all of whom continued to believe in a creator. However, over time the theistic view came to be seen as outdated. The new view assumed that the eternal universe had no need for a creator. Additionally, an eternal, infinite universe provided the possibility for the development of life by mere chance. According to popular wisdom, there is no need for anything beyond nature, there is no need for anything beyond the material universe and there is no need for God. Despite the fact that this material explanation of the cosmos and the origin of life had significant gaps, it was accepted as scientific dogma until the Twentieth Century. Einstein (1879-1955) turned the apple cart on its side when he developed an improved explanation for gravity. Einstein was surprised and irritated to learn that his Theory of General Relativity led to predictions that the universe is expanding. His irritation stemmed from the fact that an expanding universe is not compatible with an eternal universe because it necessitates a starting point. The theory of expansion began to look like fact in1929 when astronomer Edwin Hubble observed that space was indeed expanding. Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, many scientists continued to support the antiquated eternal universe model. Physicist Walter Nernst boldly stated, “to deny the infinite duration of time would be to betray the foundations of science.” As late as 1959, the majority of scientists accepted the “steady state” hypothesis because it offered an apparent solution to the problem of expansion and it avoided the idea that the universe came into existence. Heavyweights of the era labeled the Big Bang “repugnant” and said that “it cannot really be true.” It is now well accepted that the universe sprang into existence in a cosmic explosion approximately 15 billion years ago. It is also accepted that light, time, matter, space and the laws of physics came into existence through the Big Bang. If we can apply the term “God” to the creator what does the Big Bang reveal about this “God?” Dinesh D’souza notes that: The creator used no natural laws or forces to create the universe, the creator is clearly supernatural. As space and time are within the universe, the creator is also outside space and time, which is to say eternal. As the universe is material, the creator is immaterial, which is to say, spiritual. As the universe was created from nothing, the creator is incomprehensibly powerful, or as best as we can tell, omnipotent. ReflectionPrimitive cultures revere the gods when their universe is small enough to walk across and modern culture belittles God when we now know the universe has billions of planets. What does that say about modern culture? Do some people want there not to be a God? Do you? Suggested readingThe Last Superstition by Edward FeserAnswering Atheism by Trent HornChapter FiveBrightpast: You may call the next witness to the stand.Council: I call Eve O. Mental to the stand for her honest and complete testimony. Eve, how did you know Adam?Eve: Adam and I met at the campus gym. He was concerned that I was going to walk across the dark campus by myself and he offered to walk with me. It seemed a bit chauvinistic but he was cute. Besides, I was recovering from a particularly devastating relationship with an utterly awful Beta Alpha Delta. I was looking for a little validation. Adam was different in so many ways. He was so solid, so trustworthy. Perhaps I should have stayed with the relationship longer. I was just starting to grasp the reality of the universe- men can be such pigs. We were young and neither one of us knew exactly who we were going to be. Anyhow, we all try on a few things before we figure out where we fit in the world. When I was a young, I thought the world was a wonderful place. I loved animals and the fields and especially the ocean. I had plans to live on the shore; I wanted to be a marine biologist. I wanted to study dolphins or perhaps whales.Council: Yes, but what ways Adam like?Eve: He was reliable and really kind. He had a pathetic roommate. I can’t remember his name but he stuttered and had unbelievably bad acne. Anyhow Adam usually asked him if he wanted to join us for dinner. Adam was considerate. But he had very small concerns. Eventually, I became involved with bigger things, really important things, global things. Basically, I outgrew him. The experts all agreed that the planet was in crisis. Unfortunately, the masses were asleep. They needed to be roused from their slumber and shocked into action. There was no time to lose. I’m proud of what I did; I knew that drastic times call for drastic measures.Council: Was Adam asleep?Eve: Adam was careful not to waste, he turned off the lights. He wore a sweater instead of turning up the heat. He knew that excess consumption was wrong and he talked about being a good steward of creation, but he did not go far enough. He saw how humans polluted the world and he was troubled by it but he did not see that humans are the pollution. Humans make machines and machines increase production allowing more humans. People and progress are the world’s problems.Council: Was Adam a fan of progress?Eve: He used to say it was hard to tell where things were heading. He liked to tell the story of the Chinese farmer.Council: The Chinese farmer?Eve: You know: A Chinese farmer has a horse that runs away and all the villagers say, “What horrible misfortune has come to your home.” The farmer says, “Could be good and could be bad.” The next day his son is looking for the horse and finds it along with a stray stallion. When the son brings the two horses to the farm the villagers say, “What tremendous fortune has come to your home.” He replies, “Could be good and could be bad.” The next day the son is trying to break the stallion and he is thrown from the horse. When the villagers hear that his leg is broken they say, “What tremendous misfortune has fallen on your home.” He calmly states, “Could be good and could be bad.” Soon news spreads that the Hun’s have invaded and all able bodied young men a being sent to the battle. The villagers are panicked with the fear and they say to the farmer, “What tremendous fortune has come to your home.” Of course, the farmer replies “Could be good and could be bad.” Council: Did Adam think things were random?Eve: No, he thought things didn’t always go in a straight line. Some author he liked wrote about the “progress myth.” I guess he knew that progress doesn’t always help, but he didn’t know that progress really is the problem. I don’t think he understood the damage that an expanding population brings. Who would bring another human into such a fragile world? How much more could our Mother Earth take? Council: Did Adam think the earth was his mother?Eve: Adam’s head was in the sand. He didn’t get it. Even back in 1798, when there were less than a billion humans Thomas Malthus knew that the population would rapidly outgrow the food supply and now there are billions more on the planet. It is not sustainable. Adam wanted a family but it’s immoral to bring even one more hungry mouth into the world. Humans destroy biodiversity. Many claim humankind is God’s gift to creation but the human species is a cancer stealing nutrients from more deserving forms. Cancer must be treated! If we don’t do something who will? I had to do something! Council: There has been a long history of alarm but do you have any further insights into Adams life?Eve: Adam wasn’t willing to do what needed to be done to protect the planet. One day he asked me, “Are the “experts” always right?” I said, “We are in crisis mode! Drastic times call for drastic measures.” All he could muster was a stupid story about ancient history. I guess in the 1890’s there were so many horses that everyone was sure that cities were going to be buried in 6 feet of horse manure. The “moral” of the story was that it never happened because cars were invented. Did he expect me to applaud the burning of fossil fuels? It was the last straw; I stormed out! Council: Did you have any other dealings with Adam?Eve: I never spoke to him again. It was obvious that the status quo was a disaster waiting to happen. We had to take control of the situation before it deteriorated any further. Adam did not understand the forces at play. He was just so na?ve. I showed him the data, the crisis is accelerating. You might think it would be better here but all the talk about being free to create our own reality doesn’t change the facts. If you haven’t noticed, the situation here is even worse and every day there are more arrivals with no end in sight. We need to put an end to it before the whole damn system collapses! Don’t you see? The system is not sustainable. Inaction is disaster! Why won’t anyone do anything? The time is now and bold action is our only option. If the Administration won’t deal with it then I will. Rise up! Follow me! Naiveté is a luxury we simply cannot afford! Council: Yes, naiveté will not get you very far around here. Eve, I have no further questions to divert you from your concern.Brightpast: All observers are instructed to strike the defamatory commentary on local issues from their record as her private opinions are clearly immaterial. I remind the witness that her views are an example of private opinion. As such they are to remain private. The administration is tolerant of all private views as long as they remain private. I remind all present that your right to privacy is threatened when one attempts to export her of his private opinion. Tolerance is jeopardized. Coercive speech must not be tolerated. The defense may now question the witness before she is remanded to the Right to Privacy Protection Committee for remediation.Adam: I have no questions for Eve. Eve, I thank you for reminding me that I can be just fine with less. I wish I had been a better steward of creation.Did you know?The Malthusian Thesis is the concept that the population increases exponentially while the food supply increases in a linear fashion. The end result is mass starvation. Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) popularized the theory and wrote that the Poor Laws (the English laws that provided for the poor) should be rescinded. He argued that the laws increased the population of the poor and hence produced an increase in misery. For similar reasons, he advocated that society should regulate the size of lower class families. Malthus failed to account for human ingenuity as improvements in agriculture actually provided food supply growth that outpaced population growth. There is more than enough food to feed all in the world. Tragically, hunger and starvation persist due to the inadequacies of food distribution. While it is easy to lay all of the blame at the feet of corrupt and ineffective third world governments Jonathan Bloom, author of American Wasteland: How America Throws Away Nearly Half of its Food (And What We Can Do About It) offers practical advice on how we all can help to improve the system. It must be noted that concern with overpopulation did not begin with Malthus as Tertullian (160-220 AD), Plato (429-327 BC) and Confucius (551-479 BC) all worried that population growth would be detrimental. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) credited his theory of natural selection to insights gained from Thomas Malthus’ conclusion that more offspring are produced than can survive. According to Darwin, natural selection promotes the survival of the fittest individual and population as well as the eradication of less fit competitors. He argued in Descent of Man: “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace throughout the world the savage races…. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian (aborigine) and the gorilla.” Francis Galton (1822-1911) built upon the theories of his cousin, Charles Darwin. Galton feared that society’s desire to protect the weak was thwarting natural selection and undermining the vigor of the population. In 1883, he coined the term eugenics (well born) and defined it as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations.” Galton hoped that eugenics would “be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion, so that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races.” To achieve this goal he advocated state regulation of reproduction; inferior individuals who did not comply with his plan “would be considered as enemies to the State, and to have forfeited all claims to kindness.” In Hereditary Genius he wrote, “The population of the earth shall be kept as strictly within the bounds of number and suitability of race, as the sheep on a well ordered moor or the plants in an orchard-house.”The eugenic thread was advanced further past natural selection by Margaret Sanger (1879-1966), the founder of Planned Parenthood. She stated, “We are in a state where our charities, our drainage and sanitary equipment all tend to keep alive the sickly and the weak, who are allowed to propagate and in turn produce a race of degenerates.” One of her favorite slogans was, “Birth Control to Create a Race of Thoroughbreds.” In 1929 she softened it to the more marketable “Babies by Choice, Not Chance.” The eugenics movement enjoyed great popularity and grew in influence throughout the world. While the theory found its greatest champion in the Nazi regime, it should be remembered that in the U.S. many states adopted forced sterilization laws. The movement lost the public relations battle in the aftermath of World War II but the ideology has not been abandoned. Since eugenics brings up memories of Nazi brutality proponents of the philosophy generally avoid using the term for political reasons Julian Huxley, the first Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and a founder of the World Wildlife Fund stated: [E]ven though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable. --Julian Huxley(wiki eu) As predictions of mass starvation have proven false, the Malthus Society and other like-minded individuals currently focus primarily on the impact that the human population may have on the planet. They state, “Tragically, the larger our numbers, the harder it is to gain control over population increases while the devastating human impacts on our environment continue inexorably.” The goal remains a decrease in the number of humans but now it is not to protect humanity but rather to protect the planet. Recent efforts to limit population growth and a preference for males have lead to the disproportionate abortion of females. It is estimated that over 200 million females are “missing” and the imbalance is growing fastest in China and India. Feminist Mara Hvistendahl points out in Unnatural Selection that societies with a paucity of females are afflicted with increased violence and an expansion of the sexual slave trade. Reflection:Do you have a responsibility to the earth? Have you ever heard someone say you should have to get a license to have a baby? Should human life be licensed by a government? Do you have value beyond your utility? Suggested reading: Architects of the Culture of Death by Donald Demarco and Benjamin WikerThe War Against Population by Jacqueline Kasun Chapter SixBrightpast: You may call the next witnessCouncil: I call Phil Oferthink to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. Phil, how did you know Mr. Eversman?Phil: Adam and I met in high school.Council: What do you remember about Adam?Phil: Of course, I was valedictorian, editor of the yearbook and president of the National Honor Society, not to mention captain of the chess club and the debate team.Council: And Adam?Phil: Adam was a fringe player, he was reasonably intelligent, the kind of person who lives from ideas and not for ideas. He dabbled in the higher level but then settled to a more pedestrian existence. Council: Did your contact with Adam continue after high school? Phil: Yes, I saw Adam during the college years when I was home on break. As you may know, he worked for my father’s company. Adam was more interested in that sort of thing than I was. I studied philosophy and it opened up a new world to me; the giants of the past became my peers. I felt a deep kinship, a real bond, with the remarkable intellects that came before me. I loved to enter into mental conversations with the giants of the past. Those conversations began the process of opening my mind. Of course, it wasn’t long until I was dominating the debate with Descartes and out witting Wittgenstein. Now, of course, my meaningful conversations are with myself as I’ve moved beyond the antiquated speculations of the past.Council: Did you have meaningful conversations with Adam?Phil: Adam didn’t have a robust philosophy; what thoughts he had were muddled and regressive. As we all know, antiquated thinking is the world’s most pernicious problem. I tried to drag him at least into the modern world whereas my own philosophy has become post-modern. In fact, I have been working on a new all-encompassing philosophy that can only be described as post, post-modern. Perhaps, post, post, post-modern or even….Council: Well you will have plenty of opportunity for further development as eternity stretches before you, but I would like to limit the discussion to the ideas you exchanged with Adam. Phil: Very well, if you lack the intellect required to explore new horizons I will descend into the tedium of the past. Adam had a civil engineer’s view of the world: concrete bridges and concrete ideas. I tried to blow up the concrete dam that prevented the free flow of ideas. He was stuck in a Newtonian world of cause and effect. I tried to take him past the rational foundational principles of Kant through Schopenhauer's vision of the world as Will-as an endless striving, a world where there is no comprehensible God, a world beyond good and evil to the freeing thought of Nietzsche. Council: Was Adam freed by Nietzsche?Phil: Nietzsche had the courage to proclaim, “God is dead”, that is well known but, more importantly he developed new frontiers of thought from a perspective beyond good and evil-shattering the notion that exploitation and domination of the weak are universally objectionable behaviors. He knew there is no universal morality. What matters is the force of the will, the power that yearns to be realized. Actions are justified by the ability of the actor to act. I like to think that Nietzsche would have developed his philosophy further, likely along the lines of my own advances had he not gone mad. In a sense, it is proof of the unreliability and unreality of “reality” that one with his insight would “go mad.” But what is insanity and what is sanity? Who is the judge? Imagine a philosophy launching from a point beyond sanity and insanity, a philosophy freed from all constraints, a philosophy…Council: Yes, you and Nietzsche have a lot in common, but what of Adam? Who were his philosophic champions? What ideas motivated him and what were the fruits of those ideas? Phil: Well, there was an air of na?ve earnestness about him. To be fair, he wasn’t firmly in the theist camp. In fact, he admitted that he really didn’t have meaningful faith. He was searching for the truth but he was constrained. He said, “I don’t know what’s true and I don’t know what’s not true. I don’t have much faith but at least I can remain faithful while I figure it out.” I was hopeful that I could open his mind and free him from the constraints of convention. Adam listened with interest, but as strange as it seems, my arguments only served to make him more obtuse. While I hoped that he would agree that reason prevents the acceptance of any god, I was appalled that he did not understand that Christianity offends the intellect more completely than any other creed. Council: Was Adam leaning towards Christianity?Phil: Its infernal emphasis on time, place and individuals is maddening. The Bible is just one tribe claiming to be special. It’s just the Jews cutting to the front of the line. Council: Was Adam troubled by the Jews? Phil: Not deeply, he acknowledged that in some respects they were like any other group but then he speculated that God may have chosen them to serve as a collective prophet; to be a light to the other nations. Judaism and Christianity are just too dammed tangible, too damned limiting and too damned personal. An alternative system restricted to rational principles perhaps but a faith anchored in individuals and in the past, is simply preposterous. Council: Was Adam troubled in the same way? Phil: I, of course, pointed out that only a fool would accept that a backwater Jew is the key to eternal happiness. Adam acknowledged that it is a wild story and then he queried, “Why do you think so many do accept it? Why has it had such a huge impact on the world?” I replied that I had no interest in the mental machinations of fools. He then said, “Have you ever considered that it just might be true?” I closed the exchange with, “I have no need to dignify such a patently absurd question.”Council: Did Adam have any other questions?Phil: Adam persisted, “I’m not sure there is a God but I’m not sure there isn’t a God either. How can anyone be sure there isn’t a God? Why is the burden of proof on belief and not on doubt? If you are in a room with no windows and no doors how can you be sure there isn’t someone outside?” I countered, “Perhaps there is a dragon in the hall, but I’m not going to waste my time looking for one. I don’t want any god, saying no to god is saying yes to man!” Council: Was Adam willing to say no to God?Phil: Unfortunately, Adam was a constrained thinker and his understanding remained as limited as his reading. He gravitated to popular rubbish; I believe that he had just discovered C.S. Lewis. I don’t think he understood what Lewis owed to Chesterton let alone to Aquinas, Augustine or Aristotle. I want to make it clear that I never found them to be compelling. They were easily dismissed. In fact, I never actually made it all the way through any off their odious works. I was much more interested in…Council: Yes, in more modern thinking, but what impact did Adam’s ideas have on his behavior? Phil: I was not paying much attention to Adam; his life was so mundane. He was somewhat religious, but not as obnoxious as some. As Nietzsche said, “After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands.” I instructed Adam that Feuerbach observed that man invented God for comfort and that the kings used God to control the peasants. Weakly, Adam responded, “Perhaps, but atheists deny the existence of God for their “comfort” and atheistic tyrants embraced the absence of God and perpetrated mass murder on an industrial scale.” I almost expected him to retreat to, “God made me to know him, to love him, and to serve him in this world and to be happy with him forever in the next.” As you can tell Adam had small ideas and small goals, humility destroys greatness. Council: What were his small ideas?Phil: Philosophically, he knew little beyond the antiquated concept of natural law. Regrettably, he seemed to be looking for absolute truth. “Absolute truth”: the combination of two figments of the imagination. Additionally, imagination may be a figment of the imagination. How does one…Council: Yes, your insights do spin the proverbial head, but what of Adam?Phil: What is it that engineers actually do? I suppose he spent most of his time slogging away at equations and the like. Of course, engineering is lower than mathematics- all that emphasis on matter. The material world is such a burden. I would much rather be free of all that. Gravity and friction, what horrible constructs. Only a madman would design such constraints. I have no use for constraints.Council: Was Adam troubled by those constraints?Phil: I do remember, Adam said, “God must like matter because he chose to make us creatures with bodies.” Damn matter. Imagine a philosophy penetrating far beyond material and immaterial. A philosophy actually catapulting beyond the boundaries of philosophy! Metaphilosophy! Thought exploding beyond the boundaries of thought! Metathought! Glorious! Praiseworthy! My thoughts and my metathoughts united and entwined in a self-sustaining embrace. Metathought evolving and then exploding, or perhaps imploding to an Ultimate No-thought and Ultimate No-thought pushing upward and downward, inward and outward, expanding and contracting as it consumes all. The intellect cries out. No-thought. No. No. What a beautiful word. No. Council: Yes, yes your intellect leaves no corner stone unturned. Phil, I have no further questions to keep you from your speculations.Brightpast: You may cross examine the erudite witness. His comments on matter are particularly penetrating.Adam: I have no questions for Phil sir. Phil thanks for encouraging me to test my assumptions. It is the only way to be confident that you are building on solid ground. Did you know?Philosophy matters because ideas have consequences. History teaches that philosophy shapes culture and that culture spawns philosophy. Philosophies seep through a culture and effect how and what the individual members of a society think. Ideas that would have been incomprehensible in another setting become widely accepted as a new outlook takes root. These ideas shape the day to day activities of individuals, the choices a society makes and the course of history. For those who seek to understand our current environment it is helpful to look at the history of ideas.Enlightenment era thinkers looked to the accomplishments of science and were optimistic that human reason would lead to relentless progress in all fields and endeavors (scientific and cultural). These thinkers sought to replace the traditional sources of authority with human reason. Most did not aim for and did not foresee an overturning of traditional morality or a disruption in the bond between faith and reason. The developments in thought that lead to Nietzsche and beyond can in part be traced to Newton and his proposition that the universe was eternal, infinite and directed by mechanistic laws governing matter and motion. This apparently straightforward position had tremendous impact that extended beyond the world of science. Over time the “scientific view” came to mean the “materialistic view” and this transition had wide ranging implications. If the universe is entirely mechanistic then there is no freedom to act and therefore there is no “right” or “wrong.” Additionally, if the only truth is that which can be physically measured then there is no room for the immaterial human soul or God. Taken to its logical conclusion there is no room for the concepts of self or even thought. A crisis developed as the very foundations of traditional thought and morality were undermined. The resulting clash continues to reverberate to this day.Descartes (1596-1650) is known as the father of modern philosophy. Descartes looked to the progress being made in the natural sciences and sought a new method for philosophical inquiry. He was confident that his new method would provide definitive answers to the great questions of life and thus put an end to the controversies that divided men. He began with a search for philosophical bedrock, a point beyond doubt, upon which to build his new system of thought. He concluded that “I exist” is impossible to doubt. Echoing Augustine’s “If I am deceived, I exist,” he famously stated, “I think, therefore I am.” From this starting point, he attempted to bring to philosophy the certainty found in mathematics. Descartes believed that his method would defeat skepticism and provide a firm foundation for belief in God and the immaterial soul. The ancient Greeks coined the term philosophy (love of wisdom) and while they had many disagreements, most believed that the greatest good was to know the truth so as to conform the self to objective reality. This concept is intimately united with the basic premise that there is purpose built into the very nature of things (Aristotle described four causes: formal, material, efficient and final, which is the purpose for which a thing was intended). These foundational precepts remained dominant in Western civilization until they were displaced by materialism. Materialism acknowledges process (efficient cause) but it denies purpose (final cause). Descartes is the first modern philosopher because he broke with the dominant tradition to argue that the greatest good is to conform objective reality to the desires of the soul. This view holds that the purpose of knowledge is to aid man in his conquest of the world, as Bacon said, “knowledge for power.” This is indeed a radical departure from Aristotle’s view that the purpose of knowledge is truth. In a further break with the past, Hume (1711-1776) sought to replace traditional philosophy with a system based upon the tools of the natural sciences, a skeptical system founded on “fact and observation.” He advised, “Hearken to no arguments but those which are derived from experience.” Hume observed that we cannot know the laws of nature by reason and that we can only know nature by sense observation. Additionally, observation cannot lead to universal statements as observations are always related to specific conditions and events. For example, since the mailman has not been bitten by your dog he may have the expectation that he will not be bitten. However, there is the possibility that some factor will cause the dog to bite with the next delivery. Since all observations are specific to the circumstances there can be no universal truths. If there are no universal truths, there can be no universal rules for morality (or for physics).Kant (1724-1804) believed that there are unchanging moral laws and that they are rooted in God. He considered himself to be a Christian and he attempted to defend traditional morality and religion from skepticism by demonstrating that reason alone would suffice as the foundation of the traditional values. He rejected the theory that reality was limited to the material universe and he recognized that the methods of the natural sciences do not apply to philosophy (and that the methods of philosophy do not apply to the natural sciences). A microscope is a useful tool for the study of biology but we should not expect it to provide a direct answer to the question “is there a purpose to life?” Kant was critical of Hume (and Aristotle) who assumed that the task of knowledge was to conform to objects. Many philosophers assumed that the object of thought (the thing being thought about) was independent of the act of thought. Kant argued that we cannot know “things-in-themselves” and he postulated that the “object of thought” was formed by the individual’s awareness of the object. For Kant, the object we “know’ is not the “thing-in-itself’ (noumenon) but rather only the appearance of the object (phenomenon). Kant’s views directly undermined the claims of the enlightenment, that is, the concept that science and reason are the reliable ways of discerning truth. He did not go so far as to argue that reality is an illusion or that reason has no utility, but rather that reason and observation cannot penetrate the breadth and depth of reality. Kant attempted to make peace between philosophy and empirical science (science based on measuring material things) by emphasizing the limitations of both. Though Kant denied that we can know the essence of reason he nevertheless sought to build a theory of ethics based on reason. His first principle or “categorical imperative” stated, “Act according to that maxim whereby you can… will that it should become a universal law.” His second stated, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity… never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.According to Kant, since man is rational his will is autonomous. As an autonomous agent, man doesn’t just discover morality, but rather his “transcendental ego” constructs the law. He proposed that science and religion are at peace because both are built on human autonomy. In the end his concepts undermine the claim of science to know the true universe and the claim of religion to know the true God. Kant began by exploring the limits of human reason but in the end, he made a god out of human autonomy.The emphasis on human autonomy intensified as Nietzsche (1844-1900) rejected the supernatural and therefore focused entirely on man’s power. He believed man could evolve beyond his brutish origins as an ape to become an “over man” and that, “Egoism is the essence of a noble soul.” He argued that man’s power of intellect allows him to choose his own standards of behavior and to create reality according to his own desires. For Nietzsche God, religion and morality are impediments to obtaining this end and as such they must be defeated. Whether or not one agrees with Nietzsche, his philosophy demonstrates a level of internal consistency that eludes many others. Unlike those who try to retain Christian values despite rejecting Christian doctrine or those who conversely retain doctrine and ignore morality, he was willing to make a full break with Christianity. He recognized that Christian thought was responsible for western culture and he sought to free the individual from the influence of the entire system. He boldly questioned the foundational assumptions of western society including “another Christian concept, no less crazy: the concept of equality of souls before God.” He recognized, “This concept furnishes the prototype of all theories of equal rights.” Nietzsche saw no evidence of equality and no benefit in pretending that the powerful owed anything to the pitiful. His imaginary prophet Zarathustra councils, “Say not: I will do unto others as I would they should do unto me. What thou doest, that can no man do to thee again there is no requital.” In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche states it bluntly, “life itself in its essence means appropriating, injuring, overpowering those who are foreign and weaker…” More broadly he states, “All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” Nietzsche denounced Christianity as “fundamentally life’s nausea and disgust with life” and more generally God as “a thought who makes crooked all that is straight.” Many are surprised that he recognized that there is danger associated with the “death” of God. In The Gay Science a madman proclaims “Whither is God? I will tell you. We have killed him-you and I. All of us are his murderers.” He continues, “Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Despite this Nihilism (the concept that life has no value or meaning) Nietzsche was fascinated by Dionysus the Greek god of wine and revelry but poor health limited his pursuit of worldly pleasures. Foreshadowing his own course, he stated, “Hope in reality is the worst of all evils because it prolongs the torments of man.” At the age of 44 his thoughts spiraled inward and he suffered a major breakdown; he considered himself to be Dionysus and “The Crucified One.” He was institutionalized and never regained his faculties.A famous T shirt design begins with “God is dead"-Nietzsche and continues “Nietzsche is dead”-God. While Nietzsche is dead his philosophy continues to live on and the corrosive effects of his views are hard to overstate. When good and evil are replaced by strength and weakness the marginalized and lowly are in peril. As the Russian author Dostoevsky noted, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl stated: The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment- or, as the Nazis like to say, “of blood and soil.” I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz … were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers. Reflection:Would Nietzsche have been well received in prior eras? What is his current appeal? Are we more intelligent or insightful than our ancestors? If there is no universal morality (natural law) is there anything other than power? Further reading:Socrates Meets Descartes by Peter Kreeft 10 Books That Screwed Up The World by Donald Wiker After The Natural Law by John Lawrence Hill Chapter SevenBrightpast: Council may call the next witnessCouncil: I call Osama Hadith to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. Osama, how did you know Mr. Eversmen?Osama: Adam came to my country to be engineer with Army US. I believe he owed years of service as result of educational program of government US. I was, among other things, interpreter for his group. Council: What were your observations about Adam?Osama: At first I was most hopeful. Adam was polite and he did not exhibit the personal excesses that so humiliate most of his countrymen. He could at least see that west is corrupt. Council: What did he think was corrupt? Osama: It is obvious for anyone with even one eye. Western elites ridicule religion and the masses ignore it. Every year drugs increases. Every year sexual perversions increases. Every year the west decays and Islam grows. Their population falls because they have no babies. They have no babies because they have no men. It won’t be long. The west crumbles. We build mosques next to their churches but there are no churches allowed to stain Arabia, who do you think will win? Christianity is impotent; it can’t bring structure to the chaos. Council: Did Adam share those views? Osama: I hoped that Adam could see that Christianity is weak; that it failed. Islam is simpler, more rigorous and yet easier. Islam is explicit. It provides for a man’s needs: rules, discipline, order and peace. Council: Did you have any concerns about Adam? Osama: Adam did not understand the nature of Allah, he did not have the benefit of the teachings of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Council: What were your specific areas of concern?Osama: Allah is all powerful and he is One. Adam was tricked by altered scripture of the Christians. Adam say that Jesus rose from the dead. Muslims know that Jesus, as a prophet of Allah, was spared the cross and that his crucifixion was just illusion. Even worse, he believed that Jesus was; I sicken to say it: “God”. Allah would not become a man. Does an eagle become a gnat or does a man become a pig? Jesus was a man he could not be Allah. Council: Did Adam think he could be man and God?Osama: He said, “The apostles heard Jesus say things that any man would say and they heard him say things only a great man would say but they also heard him say things that only God should say. They saw him eat and they saw him feed five thousand. They saw him walk and they saw him walk on water. They had to be confused. Then they saw him die. Then He returned. After his death and resurrection they came to the realization that He was both man and God.” I replied, “I refuse that Jesus could be God.” Council: Was Adam surprised?Osama: No, he continued with error, “Numerous groups have refused to accept one side of the coin. Some thought he was just man and some thought he was just divine but the shocking revelation is that he is both. It is the only conclusion that doesn’t ignore part of the evidence.” I corrected him, “A person cannot be man and God. You can’t be God and neither could Jesus.”Council: Did Adam think a person could? Osama: He said, “A divine person could and Jesus is a divine person. He added a human nature to his divine nature at his incarnation.” I exploded, “You fool; you say Jesus died on the cross. God can not die!” Council: Did Adam think God died on the cross?Osama: He claimed that Jesus died on the cross. “Death is the separation of the soul from the body and Jesus’ soul left his body on Good Friday. God humbled Himself by becoming man because he loves us. That gift gives man dignity he did not earn. Then he showed even greater love by dying for us. By his death he defeated evil.” I chastised him, “Allah is all powerful. Allah has the power to defeat the evil in battle. He would not need to die.”Council: Did Adam think God needed to die?Osama: He replied, “God chose to die in order to defeat evil with righteousness rather than power. God did it for me and He did it for you. He wanted it to be personal.” I stopped him, “God is not a person, God is God.”Council: Did Adam persist in saying God is a person?Osama: Even worse, he claimed, “There are three “persons” in God and in God there is one nature fully and equally possessed by three persons. God is one but God is complex.” He blasphemed that God is the “The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in a Trinity.” Jesus was a prophet but Allah is one! Allah does not need a partner! Allah is not son or father, Allah is not a man. Who could accept such teaching?Council: Did Adam accept that teaching?Osama: The Qur’an proves the error, “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” Council: Was Adam troubled by the charge of blasphemy?Osama: I warned him again over and over. “Behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.” (5:73 and 116). Christians are corrupt by their corrupt book. I would not touch it. That heap of falsehood should be burned everywhere as it is in Holy Arabia. Council: Was Adam respectful?Osama: I gave him the Qur’an but he must not have opened it. “Will they not ponder the Koran? If it had not come from God they could have surely found in it many contradictions” 4:82 (111). Council: Did Adam think it made a difference one way or another?Osama: He offered that we both worship God but that we have different understandings as to the nature of God. Most terribly, he denied Allah’s power. Foolishly, that “God was unable to contradict Himself!” That God’s rational nature prevented any deviation from the rational and that His goodness precluded anything less than pure goodness. That God can only be rational and good. Allah cannot be limited, I will not have it! Council: Did Adam think God had limits?Osama: He stated, “God can’t be irrational, He can’t make a square circle. God is Being so he can’t choose to not exist. God’s power is simply His Being and His Being is simply Goodness itself. God can’t choose to be not good” He put limits on God! He denied Allah the option of choosing! Allah’s power cannot be limited, good is only good because it has been declared so by Allah. There is no fundamental goodness. Allah is power! Allah declares what is good and evil! Allah can reverse his edicts if and when he chooses. Allah has the power to be rational or irrational as Allah chooses.Council: You are quite firm in your beliefs but what did Adam believe and what effect did it have upon him?Osama: He asked me, “Does might make right or does right make might?” Adam believed that there was an objective truth, an objective “good” that flowed from the very nature of God; Evil is a departure from that goodness and sin is a corruption of the good that God provided. The Prophet, peace be upon him, taught us that “Allah is the source of all that is; both good and evil he plants in man and in the world.” Adam’s errors caused him to value love above power.Council: Adam placed love above power?Osama: Power is the ultimate. How can it be any other way? How would we know what way to go if it were not for power? Osama Bin Laden said it well, “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.” Power reveals the truth and power determines the truth. When all submit then there is peace. Council: Did Adam pursue peace?Osama: Regrettably, no. It is said, “Islam means peace” and that is proper, but more correctly, Islam means “submission.” Peace comes when all have submitted. Look and you will see that the submission has begun. In places the justice of Sharia prevails, even in the west we are gaining control with small steps. With small steps a long journey can be completed. We grow in number and in strength as the west sleeps. Islam will bring order and peace. The Bible is mocked but none dare to speak against the Qur’an or the Prophet! All must submit!Council: Did Adam submit?Osama: I hoped that he would but he did not. He blasphemed that the Jesus of the Qur’an was a misrepresentation. I washed my hands of him. The Qur’an warns, “Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors of each other. And he amongst you that turns to them in friendship is of them.” (5:51) Adam did not understand the righteousness of power. I knew the power of power and did not shy away from using it! Lack of submission is the world’s problem! It is perhaps better here. At least the primacy of power is recognized. But it is worse here as power is relentlessly usurped. Resistance is chaos! Resistance must be crushed! Only an iron fist can bring order. All must submit! All will submit! Council: Power is indeed powerful. Osama, I have no further questions for you. Brightpast: You may question the forceful witness.Adam: I have no questions for Osama sir. Osama, thank you for helping me to understand God’s awesome power and thank you for helping me to appreciate His infinite goodness and love.Did you know?Muhammad (580-634) started to preach in Mecca around the year A.D.610. The region was dominated by polytheistic pagan tribes but there was a significant Jewish population as well as a smaller Christian presence. Muhammad gathered a group of believers but the majority of the locals rejected his message. Tensions developed between the groups and in 622 Muhammad and his followers fled Mecca for refuge in nearby Medina. Muhammad began to establish control of Medina and formed alliances with the Jewish tribes of the region (Muslims faced Jerusalem for prayer prior to beginning the practice of facing Mecca). Eventually he determined that the Jews were not going to accept him as God’s Prophet. Violence ensued and those Jews who survived were forced to flee. After consolidating his control of Medina, Muhammad began to raid the trade caravans of Mecca. He continued to amass wealth and followers and Mecca fell to Muslim forces in 630. Rapid conquest followed as Jerusalem was conquered in 638 and Alexandria in 642. The Muslim expansion continued and within a century Islam had “mastered and garrisoned and were governing Syria, North Africa and … most of Spain. Muslim forces advanced into France but were pushed out in 732 by forces under the leadership of Charles Martel. The general trend continued in 1071 when the Christian Byzantine Empire was defeated at Manzikert by the invading Muslim Turks. In 1095 Christian Europe mustered for a counter offensive with the primary goal of recapturing Jerusalem. The series of conflicts that followed are collectively known as “The Crusades.” Jerusalem fell to the Crusaders in 1099 but it was recaptured by Muslim forces under the leadership of Saladin in 1187. The city again came under Crusader control in 1228 but the victory was short lived as the Crusaders were defeated and Jerusalem was razed in 1244. The Crusades ended in the Middle East in 1272. The weakened Byzantine Empire never recovered its former glory and Constantinople came under Muslim rule in 1453. Sultan Mehmet then announced his intention to capture Rome and Italy was subsequently invaded. Islam also spread far to the east as Persia, Afghanistan and India were invaded and eventually subdued. The Muslim advance on Europe was finally halted on September 11, 1683 when the Ottomans were defeated near Vienna by a coalition of forces under the command of Polish King Jan Sobieski. The Qur’an consists of 114 surahs, or chapters. Muhammad related that each word of every surah was dictated to him by the angel Gabriel. It was only after Muhammad’s death that the Qur’an was compiled as a written document. The Qur’an is not a narrative but rather a series of statements and the surahs are not arranged by topic or in strict chronologic order. Many make references to the Jews as well as Jesus. Islam shares with Christianity the worship of the “God of Abraham” who has a personal nature and alone is all powerful and all knowing. “Allah” is simply the Arabic language word for “God.” Islam retains a call to act justly, angels, evil spirits and the immortality of the soul. The Qur’an describes Jesus as a great prophet (born of an exalted virgin); indicates that he was taken up to heaven and foretells that he will return at the end of the world at the time of the final judgment. Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953) considered Islam to be a heresy of Christianity. He observed that heresies are characterized by the overemphasis of part of the Gospel and the exclusion of other essential elements. Aryanism, the denial of Christ’s divinity was the dominant heresy of the fourth century. It sprang from the “desire to visualize clearly and simply something which is beyond the grasp of human vision and comprehension.” Rather than accepting the teaching of revelation that Jesus is both fully man and fully God the Arians considered Jesus to be the first emanation from the Godhead. They acknowledged that the world was created through him but they considered him to be a mere agent of God. Islam goes further in denying the divinity of Christ than Aryanism had before it as Jesus is reduced to a prophet, but Islam does not go as far as many modern “Christians” who reduce Jesus to a wise teacher or a hypothetical figure.Should Christians and Muslims view each other as natural allies in their respective confrontations with secularism or are they bitter competitors bent on the domination and destruction of each other? To gain insight into this question we must examine one of the dominant assumptions of our time. Many in the west have adopted the position that all religions are equivalent. For some this means that Islam and Christianity are both valid and beneficial expressions of monotheism and for others it means that they are the evil twins who keep the world mired in regressive and dangerous beliefs and practices. We have already enumerated many of the meaningful similarities between them but before we accept any stance it would be prudent to examine the distinctions and differences that exist between these two “great monotheistic religions.”Christianity calls its adherents to examine the life of Jesus Christ and to model their own behavior upon the teachings and actions of the God/man. A full accounting of Christ’s teaching and activities is beyond the scope of this text but it is important to note that he has been regarded as a great teacher and example of morality even by most of those who reject the claim of divinity. The New Testament is replete with sayings, parables and exploits that bear witness to those views. Short examples include: As you did it to the least of my brethren, you did it to me (Mt 25:40).But I say to you love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Mt 5:44).Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends (Jn 15:13). I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (Jn 10:11).We see Jesus acting forcefully when he casts the money changers out of the Temple and then we see him restraining violence when he tells Peter to put his sword away. We see Jesus reject worldly power when he is tempted in the desert and again as the crowds seek a political leader to cast off Roman rule. Islam does not elevate Muhammad to divinity but he is lifted up as the source of correct teaching and as the standard for correct behavior. A full listing of Surahs pointing to Muhammad’s authority and righteousness would be cumbersome but the following passages are typical: You have the messenger of God [Muhammad] a beautiful pattern (33:21). Believers, have faith in God and his Apostle (4:136).Are they not aware that the man who defies God and His Apostle shall abide in the fire of Hell (9:63).The spoils belong to God and the Apostle. (8:1)We are introduced to Muhammad by the Qur’an but we learn a great deal more about the context of the Qur’an, Muhammad, his life and early Muslim practices from the Hadith (narratives of the customs of Muhammad). The Hadith provide the circumstances associated with passages from the Qur’an and practical example on a huge range of subjects including prayer, charity, pilgrimage, trade, marriage, divorce and punishment for unbelievers. In an effort to avoid the inclusion of forged stories most Muslims rely on recognized traditional collections of the stories. The Hadith are given great respect and they are often referred to in matters of Islamic Law or Sharia. In fact, Muhammad’s actions are considered to be the standard by which other activities are judged. In Islam, right and wrong are not determined by natural law or by ethical principles but primarily by what Muhammad did or said. Since Muhammad’s actions are elevated in this fashion it is intellectually dishonest to condemn as Islamophobic an appraisal of his life and system. We should not limit our inquiry to only favorable passages such as “There is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) as they may not provide an accurate appraisal of the whole. For example, the “no compulsion” claim is contradicted by the jizyah (tax or penalty) that non-Muslems are forced to pay: Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled (9:29). The Suras from Muhammad’s early days tend to be more gentle and conciliatory while those dating from his time of prominence and control reveal a harsher tone. While interpretations of the Qur’an vary, many accept that the later versus have greater authority than the earlier passages. Surah 2:116 and 16:101 indicate that Allah can cancel earlier sections with newer ones. Surah 5:33 states, “Indeed the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger…is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.” As a consequence, Islamic thought has divided the world into two camps, the “House of Islam” and the “House of War” (i.e. non- Muslim). This sets up a Jihad (struggle) against non-Muslims (Jihad can also refer to an inner struggle against sin). Non-Muslims living in Muslim lands often converted in order to avoid the strain of the special taxes and other forms of coercive discrimination. Since conversion from Islam was punishable by death the percentage of non-Muslims declined steadily.Readers with a strong interest can find the Qur’an and the more colorful Hadith online but the amount of material is daunting. It may not be fair to focus on any one specific episode but many of Muhammad’s actions and teachings are startling to the western reader: Muhammad had 11 wives (other Muslims are/were allowed up to four at one time) and several slave girl concubines; his favorite wife was nine years old when the marriage was consummated, another was his former daughter in law and a third he wed on the day her first husband was killed by Muhammad’s order. Muhammad participated in many battles and “struck off the heads of captives as they were brought to him in batches.” Perhaps the most troubling fact is that Muhammad often produced new revelations that justified many of these and other behaviors if and when objections were raised. This dynamic was demonstrated after an early victory: “They ask thee concerning things taken as spoils of war. Say: such spoils are at the disposal of Allah and the Messenger” (8:1). Additionally, a surprising number of surahs indicate that Muhammad was sure to correct those who said, “He has invented it himself.” (10:37, 11:13, 21:5, 32:1-2, 34:43, 46:8)These matters are not irrelevant as Muhammad continues to have enormous influence in Islamic nations and even in countries where Muslim’s are in the minority. The Pew survey indicates that 84% of Egyptians favor death for those who leave Islam. Sharia based cultures permit: diminished rights of speech, worship and practice for Christians, the consummation of marriage at the age of nine, a man to be married to four wives, men to beat disobedient wives, the stoning to death of adulterers, discounting the testimony of women, female genital mutilation and “honor killings.” In Western Europe there are now Muslim sections of major cities that are not routinely patrolled by civil authorities, essentially these areas are functioning as autonomous zones where the concepts of Sharia have precedence over the European laws. Perhaps of even greater concern, secular courts have convicted Europeans for making negative comments about Muhammad and Islam. For example, an Austrian human rights activist was fined for referring to Muhammad’s pedophilia. Since as Karl Marx said, “criticism of religion is the premise of all criticism” these developments are troubling. If religion cannot be criticized then as Lars Hedegaard has said, “life and society in their entirety become religious and the littlest squawk against the existing order is an act of blasphemy.” The assassination of Theo Van Gogh (killed for his “anti-Muslim” film Submission.) demonstrates how far this approach can be taken. It is becoming increasingly clear that many are hesitant to produce material that could be seen as “Islamophobic.” Potentially this reticence is merely the fruit of the dominant worship of multiculturalism and the elevation of tolerance as the greatest good. From this perspective Christians and Muslims, like all groups, are considered to be equivalent. However, it is clear that criticism of Christian beliefs, practice and groups is freely produced. It seems that the difference may be that Christianity reacts in fundamentally different ways than does Islam. The teaching and example given by Jesus and Muhammad are relevant in the inquiry into why that is. Many have refused to acknowledge the divinity of Christ but it is interesting to note that these individuals and groups place Jesus in some sort of elevated position: prophet, sage or moral example. As C.S. Lewis noted this is a “really foolish” position. “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher.” The option is not between God and good man it is between God and lunatic or liar (and even perhaps demon.) Only God or a lunatic or a liar claims to be God. Lewis continues, “You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” Some state that Jesus is just another prophet who never claimed divinity but that view is not compatible with scripture (or history). The prophets indicated that they were sent by God but Jesus broke new ground when he plainly stated “I came.” (Mk 2:17) He continued to blaze new territory as he boldly proclaimed, “I and the Father are one”(JN10:30). The radical nature of His mission became increasingly clear when he claimed to have the power to forgive sins and as Mark’s Gospel reports, “some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning…. Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Mark 2:7) When God addressed Moses at the burning bush He said that his name was “I Am Who Am” ( I am the One who is) he then added “This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I Am sent me to you.”(Exodus 3:14) The Jews refrained from uttering this name out of reverence and fear of blasphemy. Jesus shocked and angered many Jews by saying, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am.” The Jewish audience knew that Jesus was claiming divinity and they knew the proper punishment for blasphemy: “they took up stones.” (John 8:57-58) Similarly, Thomas confidently calls Jesus, “My Lord and my God” and Jesus unabashedly answers “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” (John 20:28-29) These and others biblical statements do not prove that Jesus is God but they do demonstrate that He claimed divinity (or that divinity was claimed for him). Why would anyone even consider the possibility that this shocking claim is true? The initial answer is not because of the merits of any philosophical argument or even reports of miracles but rather because He was so good and wise and trustworthy- and those are not the attributes of a liar or a madman. Reflection:If God is all powerful does it matter if he is rational or love? How does our concept of the nature of God impact our concepts of truth and justice? Would the incarnation be beyond God’s power?The Qur’an (in its entirety)The Truth About Muhammad by Robert SpencerChristianity, Islam and Atheism by William KilpatrickSeeking Allah, Finding Jesus by Nabeel Qureshi Chapter EightCouncil: I call Dee Est to this place for the purpose of her honest and complete testimony.Council: Dee, how did you know Adam?Dee: Adam is my dear brother.Council: What was Adam like?Dee: He is a really good person, good all the way down. I didn’t know how good he was; it is like a veil has been lifted from my eyes. Council: What makes you say that about Adam?Dee: Adam really cared about all of us even when we did not want him to.Council: Why do you say he really cared?Dee: Adam was always focused on me and everyone else as an individual; he always had time for us; he really cared about us all. Adam used to say that ideas matter because people matter, ideas affect the way we see the world and how we treat each other. I just thought he wanted to win the philosophical argument, I didn’t think that the ideas mattered that much.Council: What did Adam do?Dee: I let huge opportunities slide through my fingers, there was so much I could have and should have done. I’ll never get those chances back. It really hurts; its profound pain. I complained about things and said “That’s a shame, why doesn’t somebody do something about that?” but I just moved on. The worst part is that I know that I would make the same mistakes all over again. It is so humbling. I’m eternally grateful that I know what humility is now. I was so full of pride. I didn’t want to think it made a difference because I didn’t want to change. Adam tried and tried to tell me, God bless him for that. Thank God, the seeds he dropped finally sprouted at the end. I had no idea how rapidly the end was coming.Council: What “seeds” did Adam sow?Dee: I thought that God didn’t have much to do with the world. It seemed that he just wound up the big old clock and let it go. It made sense that there was a God who made everything but it seemed like he was on vacation. I thought that he wasn’t paying much attention to anything. Bad people got rich and famous while innocent children got leukemia. It all seemed random; sometimes it seemed like the bad guys won most of the time. If God didn’t care that much, why should I? I said I was a “good person” because I didn’t hurt people on purpose and I gave a bit to charity; I even volunteered some but I should have done so much more. Adam saw more clearly. I thought God didn’t bother but it was me who didn’t bother. Now I see how much I left on the table and it makes me weep. I could have helped so many. Lord have mercy on me.Council: What did Adam see?Dee: That God was involved even when it didn’t seem that way. That we should look more honestly and more humbly for signs. I remember saying that there was no evidence that God did anything after the big bang. I said that God was either too weak or too uninterested to fix things. Council: Did Adam think God gave signs?Dee: Well he had an interesting experience on an airplane. It was a dreary day as the jet took off. Adam was reading something religious and lamenting that his faith was weak. The plane entered a dense cloud that nearly obliterated what little light there was. Adam noted that the day was even gloomier than his mood. Suddenly the clouds were illuminated from above as three rays of bright sunlight burst like spotlights on the white sea of cloud. Adam thanked God for His beautiful creation and went back to reading. The plane continued to climb and the sun was completely obscured as the plane entered a second layer of dense cloud. Soon the plane pierced the cloud and the sun shone forth and illuminated the second layer from above. But there was yet a third layer which still prevented a full view of the sun. Again there were patches of illumination on the clouds below and only a hint of the sun’s true power. Adam was struck that this was similar to the way God reveals himself to us. Moments later the plane was again engulfed in the clouds and Adam thanked God for the patches of illumination he had experienced in his life. Eventually the plane climbed higher still and the third layer of cloud was pierced. Now the sun blazed forth in power and glory and Adam was forced to pull the shade down to protect his eyes from its overwhelming brilliance. He thought of his relationship with God and he understood that he needed sunlight and clouds. At the time, I just said, “Adam, I’ve seen clouds too. Three layers are a bit odd but it doesn’t mean anything.”Council: Did Adam think it was more than a metaphor?Dee: I didn’t really ask. I do know that it really happened- he wasn’t making up a story. I went to church when it was convenient but I never took it seriously. I never let it penetrate. I wanted to keep it at arm’s length. I didn’t want to be labeled an extremist. Council: Was Adam an extremist?Dee: I thought so. I thought it was silly and even dangerous to be so committed. I told him to lighten up and that miracles were childish wishful thinking. Council: Adam believed in miracles?Dee: He thought the Bible recorded real miracles and that Jesus performed supernatural acts to demonstrate who he is and that he is trustworthy. I thought that Thomas Jefferson had it right when he went through the Bible and cut out all the miracles. Adam said, “Why care about Jesus if he was just a guy who said some interesting things?” I said, “The idea of Jesus is fine but turning water into wine, walking on water and healing the blind, really it’s preposterous to even discuss it.” Council: Was Adam offended?Dee: No, he knew that was how I felt. Adam smirked, “How about the miracle of the blind carpenter? He picked up his hammer and saw.” I groaned, very punny. I didn’t even want to think about the resurrection. Now I wonder why I “Believed in God” and yet wanted him to be so distant, so limited, so weak and so small. I guess I didn’t want to know it is me who is so limited, so weak and so small. How many of God’s children suffered because of my conceit and indifference? Council: Did Adam think that God does miracles?Dee: I remember telling Adam that scientists think the account of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea and the subsequent destruction of the Egyptian army was explained by a strong wind temporarily exposing solid ground. Council: Did Adam have a response?Dee: He said, “For years, skeptics argued that those sorts of accounts were just fiction and now many try to find a purely natural explanation. God is free to use natural processes, if you are being chased by an army and the wind happens to do that favor for you I think you would at least think you are exceptionally lucky but if God tells you to go and then it happens how can you not think that God had something to do with it?” I certainly didn’t believe in the Resurrection. Council: Did Adam?Dee: I thought that Jesus was alive in the hearts of the apostles. I thought He was just a cherished memory. I ignored the testimony of the hundreds who saw the resurrected Christ. I ignored the radical change it brought to their lives. I ignored their willingness to completely commit their lives to Christ and their refusal to deny his unique divinity even if it cost them their life. I was just conditioned to reject anything even remotely miraculous. But Adam got it.Council: Did Adam think that God still does miracles?Dee: He said that he had seen a few in his life and that things like Fatima were pretty hard to explain. I had an explanation for everything including Fatima-I thought that tens of thousands of people had a mass hallucination, like that was a likely story. I told Adam that if God cared he would not allow evil in the world, I thought I had a better understanding of love and justice than God. Can you imagine anything more ridiculous! I never would have told the plumber that I understood the toilet better than he did and I thought I could see more clearly than God! Sartre wasn’t totally crazy when he noted, “man fundamentally is the desire to be God.” Council: Did Adam want to be God?Dee: No, he was the only person I knew who ever quoted, “The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom.” I thought that was offensive. Now I realize that the quote has to do with awe and not terror; really it is about humility and wanting to not disappoint God. Can you imagine? I thought the world would be a better place if I were in charge. I thought God was incompetent. I actually thought that things would be better if I were God! I’m disgusted by my hubris! I pray for humility. Lord have mercy on me. Lord have mercy on the whole world.Council: What did Adam think about all the suffering the world has seen? Dee: Adam was very involved in many people’s lives so he knew that the sorrows of the world are real but he trusted God. He trusted that God would make all things new. That justice and love would triumph in the end. Adam was humble enough to be wise. I feel great pain over my pride. I told Adam that I could not worship the wrathful God of the Old Testament. He said that I should look more deeply into the Old Testament because it is a journey to Jesus and that some passages were often misunderstood. I thought it seemed like God was out to get people. I thought I knew God but God is not defined by us; you won’t recognize Him if you are looking for a something that can fit inside your head. Council: Did Adam think that God was out to get people?Dee: He explained that “God’s wrath” was mostly allowing natural consequences because our sins often bring their own punishments; like a hangover after a binge and that God is often blamed when it would be wiser to acknowledge our error. He also told me that there has always been real evil at work in the world. I knew he was going to talk about the Devil; I laughed at him, I was never going to accept that idea. He said that it was interesting that many people could accept the existence of antimatter but that they could not accept the existence of non-material evil-evil spirits. I said, “The Devil and Hell are just silly fairy tales, I mean horns on the head and pitchforks and fire seem kind of trite. You sound like a wacko even talking about it.” Council: What did Adam have to say?Dee: He said that we can’t wrap our brain around evil spirits or Hell or antimatter for that matter. He said, “Fire is used to represent hell because everyone fears it. Everyone knows that burns cause damage and pain. But Dante used a different metaphor when he wrote Inferno. At the bottom of hell Lucifer struggles to free himself from the constricting ice that binds him. Each thrust of his massive wings cools the frozen river that traps him. Lucifer endlessly struggles to break free under his own power because he is too proud to accept that he is unable to generate heat.” I said, “Great use of irony but I doubt Lucifer even exists.”Council: How did Adam respond? Dee: He said, “The most diabolical strategy the Devil can employ is the concept that he does not exist. But if you can’t fathom fallen angels just think about people. Just think about how evil some people become in a lifetime of rejecting God’s will and then multiply it by eternity; an eternity of sinking deeper and deeper into depravity. Hitler on steroids. Then multiply that by a multitude and hell becomes more frightening than a pitchfork.” Council: Did Adam want you to fear hell?Dee: Yes, but not in the way I thought. I should have the pondered the vignette he told me: The natives asked the missionary Francis Xavier about hell; he answered that it is like a feast with tables piled high with food but everyone is to trying to eat with four foot chopsticks. He continued that Heaven is like a feast where the tables are piled high with delicacies and everyone is using four foot chopsticks to feed their neighbor. I told Adam that heaven is just wishful thinking.Council: Did Adam defend heaven?Dee: He said that if God exists and if He is just then there has to be a heaven. I see my wretchedness now, I really didn’t, I thought I was fine. Adam tried to help me. I’m finally starting to understand why Pascal said, “Knowing God without knowing our own wretchedness makes for pride. Knowing our own wretchedness without knowing God makes for despair. Knowing Jesus Christ strikes the balance because he shows us both God and our own wretchedness. (527) God’s will is beautiful – it is truth- it is justice- it is mercy. I long for that beauty.Council: Did Adam think he knew the will of God?Dee: In a way, I remember he quoted Maria von Trapp, you know from The Sound of Music: “It will be very interesting one day to follow the pattern of our life as it is spread out like a beautiful tapestry. As long as we live here we see only the reverse side of the weaving, and very often the pattern, with its threads running wildly, doesn't seem to make sense. Someday, however, we shall understand.In looking back over the years we can discover how a red thread goes through the pattern of our life: the Will of God.Council: Dee, I have no further questions for you at this juncture.Brightpast: You may question the witness before she is returned to the Grey Zone. Residents are reminded that the Disturbed can mesmerize, their speech can be seductive. All are warned not to be pulled into their private delusions.Adam: I have no questions for my dear sister. It is a joy to see you and to hear how you have grown. Thank you, Dee for being a beacon of hope and I thank God for his mercy!Did You Know? A supernatural (non natural) event does not require a violation of the laws of physics; rather it depends on a point of initiation that is outside the system of nature. Only if it can be proven that no actor can exist outside the system could action from outside the system be impossible. Since it is impossible to disprove the existence of God it is impossible to disprove the existence of miracles.Deists hold that the God created the natural world but that he does not intervene in its functioning. Deism begins with the belief that a rational examination of nature points to the existence of God; it is primarily associated with the exaltation of human reason that characterized the Enlightenment. This exaltation of human reason renders Revelation and miracles delusional distractions. Naturalism is the philosophic position that nothing exists outside of nature. Naturalism is the rational bedfellow of atheism but it is also consistent with Pantheism. If there is no God then there is nothing beyond nature and if “God is the sum total of everything” then nature and God are synonymous, they are one and the same. The atheist and the pantheist agree that there is no reality beyond nature and it follows that there can be no non-natural events. The Deist holds that there are no non-natural events because God prefers it that way. The laws of physics do not prevent the possibility of miracles; in fact an orderly and predictable universe is a requirement if miracles are to be possible. In a random universe the concept of miracle is meaningless as ungoverned activity and the ensuing chaos preclude anything from being surprising. Conversely, in a universe governed by laws we come to expect a limited number of outcomes. We do not expect that a cruise ship will float into the air because our experiences with gravity and the principles of buoyancy do not allow that “possibility.” The consistent nature of Nature allows for meaningful predictions of likely outcomes, it allows for meaningful science. Science has made great progress precisely because our universe is predictably predictable. It follows that the possibility of miracles does not require a violation of the laws of nature, in fact, if the laws if nature were routinely violated they would cease to be “laws.” The possibility of miracles is dependent upon an actor who is outside of nature, an actor who is super-natural. This supernatural actor could affect the natural world without violating the laws of nature as a billiard player can alter the course of a ball without violating the laws of motion. It is also possible that a supernatural actor has the ability to manipulate the fundamental parameters of the natural/physical universe. Aquinas notes that miracles are not God acting contrary to nature but rather apart from nature.In the pre-scientific era many events where considered “miraculous” because there was not an apparent natural explanation. With the advance of science many previously mysterious events have become easily explainable. However, it is a mistake to assume that this dynamic nullifies all Biblical and post Biblical accounts of miracles. C.S. Lewis points out that the modern obstetrician has an understanding of fertilization, implantation and embryology that Joseph and Mary did not but that Joseph and Mary were well aware of the basic dynamic of procreation. They both could recognize that something unusual was happening. If reality includes more than the natural world then Mary and Joseph had a much clearer understanding of reality than does the modern naturalist.On May 13, 1917 three Portuguese children told their families that they had a vision of a lady. Over the next six months Lucia, Jacinta and Francisco reported a series of visions. The hostile local authorities tried to put a stop to the commotion by jailing the children and when that did not deter them the authorities shockingly threatened to boil the children in oil. Word spread of the events, of the associated “3 secrets of Fatima” and of a promised miracle. On the 13th of October, an estimated 70,000 people witnessed “The Miracle of the Sun.” The secular (and anticlerical) press attested to the veracity of the unusual occurrence and the fact that it was witnessed by those up to 40 km away. The uneducated 10, 9 and 7-year-old children warned that a second great war would occur unless there was repentance and the “consecration of Russia.” It was predicted that a great sign in the sky would precede the outbreak of hostilities. On January 25, 1938, the aurora borealis was visible as far south as North Africa and about a month later Hitler began his attempt at world domination by seizing Austria.Reflection:Suggested ReadingFatima: The Full Story by John De MarchiMiracles by C.S. LewisThe Case for Jesus by Brant PitreChapter NineBrightpast: you may call the next witness.Council: I call Bud Amind to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. Bud, how did you come to know Adam?Bud: Adam was our neighbor.Council: Was he a good neighbor? Bud: My ex-wife really liked Adam because he mowed our lawn when I had a heart attack. But I wouldn’t say we were close- he was a bit of a Neanderthal so I usually limited it to “how you doing?” or “nice day isn’t it?”Council: Was Adam unfriendly?Bud: Adam was friendly enough. Early on we spent some time together but it didn’t take long to see what he was about. I’ve never had much interest in Bible thumpers. I told him, “My karma trumps your dogma. Christianity is for children and simpletons. A developed intellect quickly sees past the fairy tale.”Council: Adam didn’t see past it?Bud: No, he did not understand that apparent distinctions are just illusion, that all is illusion. The universe, morality, self and God- all is illusion. Council: Adam thought that there was more than illusion?Bud: Adam claimed, “Life is a daring adventure, a quest for eternal truth and truth eternally.”Council: What did he mean by “eternal truth?”Bud: I’m sure it was the typical Christian stuff. I told him not to bother me with his dogma. Surprisingly, he asked me what I thought was true. I informed him, “The idea “one” is the source of all truth; the idea “two” is the source of all error, any apparent distinction is illusion. There is no creator- no God. Things just are, if you must, the universe is “god.” Of course, the nature of man is the nature of “god” as man is part of the universe-part of “god.” It follows that there is no independent existence; all is one. Thankfully, since all is god there is no separation from God; there can be no sin and no hell. Christianity is just a bunch of unnecessary rules.” Council: Did Adam agree?Bud: He said, “Christianity isn’t really about rules, it’s about relationship, it’s about love. It’s about amazement that God loves us. God is not an impersonal force. We call God Father because He created the universe outside of himself as a gift, an act of love. Love is patient, love is kind, love does not seek its own interest. (1 cor 13:4-5). “Love” requires an “other” to be loved.” Council: Did Adam think God was incomplete without an “other”?Bud: That’s exactly what I said. He claimed, “The very nature of God is love. God doesn’t just love; God is love. God is one like a sentence is one with subject, object and verb. God is lover, loved and loving because he is the Father loving the Son, and the Son loving the Father, and that the love between the Father and Son is so real that we call it the Holy Spirit.” I said, “Am I supposed to think that god is the old guy with a beard or the young guy with a beard? Does a beard make you god?”Council: What did Adam have to say about your facial hair theory?Bud: He acknowledged that many Christians have an underdeveloped cartoonish concept of God. Something along the lines of, “Many have a mental picture of the Father as an old man but He is immaterial, He has no body. But thankfully the eternal “Word” of God took on human flesh to enter the world.” I answered, “So are they Siamese twins but only one has a body. I thought that you believed in one God”Council: Did Adam have an answer?Bud: Yes, that God is one of course. He quoted from the Gospel of John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” Then he quoted Jesus saying that he and the Father are one. There was something about revelation teaching that the internal relationships within the “Godhead” are the sole distinctions between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I said, “You can’t make this stuff, up are they Siamese triplets?”Council: Did Adam reply?Bud: He answered, “Your right, you can’t make this stuff up. The truth is truth is stranger than fiction. We all try and reduce God so that he will fit into our heads.” He noted that C.S. Lewis imagined that two dimensional cartoons could not understand that six squares are one cube. I said, “Yes, koans teach us that reason fails.”Council: How did Adam respond?Bud: He said that three “persons” in one God is a seeming contradiction, but that it is a paradox and not a koan because it is complex but not irrational. He totally lost me but he talked about how chemical compounds like nitrate have resonance structures and that every nitrate molecule has three forms. I said, “I hate chemistry and who cares.” He said that each molecule is all three distinct forms at the same time and never just one of the forms at any time.” Like I said, “reason fails.” Council: Did Adam defend reason?Bud: He argued that Christianity is full of paradoxes and seeming contradictions that open into deeper truths. Most think the questions are either or but the answers are often both and. It seemed like he was going to go on forever but I cut him off after One/Three, God/man, mercy/justice, body/soul, grandeur/weakness, contemplation/action and sacrifice/fulfillment. I said, “I get the basic point. I like the idea of balance, finally we agree on something.”Council: Was that the end of it? Bud: Adam thought we might be talking about different concepts. He quoted Chesterton, “Paganism declared that virtue was in a balance; Christianity declared it was in a conflict: the collision of two passions apparently opposite.” Adam gave the example of feast days and fast days; then he said it was about red and white rather than just red or just white or always pink. He claimed that all the paradoxes were interwoven and that together they produced an intricate tapestry. Then he said something pretentious like, “If you take the time to study the tapestry you will find that it is a treasure map and if you find yourself exposed in the wilderness you will find warmth beneath the fibers.” I said, “We are all fibers in the tapestry that is the universe but you haven’t answered my question about how Jesus and the Father can both be God.”Council: Could Adam answer that question? Bud: He said that we can’t fully penetrate that reality but that doesn’t mean that is not true. He warned me not to limit God to human dimensions or human language. He continued, “God’s “Word” has a lot more to it than ours does. Gods “Word” is His essence and it’s so real that it has its own life.” I replied “Word, God, Father, Son and Spirit, there sure are a lot of words.”Council: Did Adam think there were too many words?Bud: No, he thought our words are inadequate. “Because each is inadequate we employ more as we delve into the mystery. The “Son” is the eternal “Word” or discourse of the eternal “Father” and that “He” has always provided the principle of cohesion for the created universe. We use the terms Father and Son and Spirit because Jesus did and we use the term person because our language and thoughts are capable of no more. More pretentious words like discourse do not really make the reality any plainer; actually, they can obscure the truth. Father, Son, Spirit and person all say something real about God but we need to remember that we are incapable of going past metaphor.” Then he asked, “Can we even think about ourselves as a person without discussing our relationships?” Council: So Adam thought that relationship was important?Bud: He claimed that relationship is everything. “If you destroy the relationships between the Persons of the Trinity you are not left with a third of God but no true God at all. God revealed the Trinity to show us who God is.” I said, “It is all just a bunch of unnecessarily complicated nonsense.” Council: How did Adam respond?Bud: He said, “I thought you said Christianity was too simple for serious intellects? The genius is that it is simple for simple folk and complex beyond the most complex human speculations.” Then he paraphrased somebody, “Mice can safely splash in the shallow end and whales can dive in the deep end.” I didn’t want to get bogged down in minutiae so I changed course, “If there was this “being” why would he care about our puny world?” Council: Did Adam think God cared?Bud: He argued that Jesus revolutionized our knowledge of God by revealing him as “Abba” because no one had dared to think of God as “Daddy.” He claimed that God thought of us as family. He believed that creation flows from generosity and that God wants to have a relationship with each of us. I said relationships require distinctions. All distinctions are just an illusion, all is one. The universe is a grand illusion.Council: Did Adam leave it at that?Bud: He ridiculously claimed that I was being dogmatic! Adam claimed that the choice isn’t between dogma and no dogma but rather between one that is true and one that isn’t. He stooped and picked up a rock and said, “This rock is no illusion; if you can’t recognize that this rock is real it is hard to have much of a dialogue. Lucky for you I know it is real so I won’t knock you upside the head with it.” I said, “Thanks, but you would be hitting yourself because all is one.” Council: Did Adam accept your view that “all is one?”Bud: Adam thought that God’s genius was to allow us to be free and independent; to allow us to have the power to choose. He droned on and on about God respecting our autonomy, about God allowing us to reject him, about some people choosing separation- in effect choosing hell. Council: Did Adam think God cared one way or the other?Bud: He said that God loved us so much that he humbled himself by becoming a man. He thought that God gave us more than metaphor in that Jesus came in the flesh in order to save us. Of course, he felt that sin separates us from God and that Jesus came to unite us with God. He said Jesus means “to save.” I told Adam and I’ll tell you, I don’t need a savior!Council: Did Adam believe that he needed a “savior?”Bud: Yes, because, “Sin means to fall short of the mark and that having a relationship with Jesus, really knowing him, shows us how we all fall short of the mark.” But I told Adam and I’ll tell you: I have never “sinned” because it doesn’t exist. It is just a tool that organized religions use to manipulate people. Christianity is the worst. Christians are hypocrites.Council: Was Adam a hypocrite?Bud: I’d have to say that he basically practiced what he preached. But he was aggravating. When I said, “Christians are hypocrites” he responded, “Of course we are. We are sinners after all but thankfully God is patient. But Bud, what’s wrong with being a hypocrite if there is nothing that’s wrong?” I told him to lighten up. All that sin nonsense just drags everybody down.Council: Adam thought that sin is real?Bud: Adam said, “I know that sin is real because I am a sinner.” He was shocked by some of his thoughts and deeds. I wasn’t interested in what he thought was shocking. I told him that guilt is just a depressing illusion that should be rejected.Council: Did Adam think that guilt was a good thing?Bud: He equated it with physical pain. “Both are designed to keep us from doing things that cause damage. We learn not to stick our hand in the fire because pain is real and we should learn not to sin because guilt is real. Our sin causes real harm.” I told him guilt is just a social construct designed to control everyone. There is nothing real there. Freud knew that it is normal for us to seek pleasure. I said, “Just look around.”Council: Did Adam look around?Bud: He countered, “I look around; don’t you see how much pain our selfishness brings? It brings it to others and to ourselves. Love wills the good of the other; saints actually seek the good of the other even when it costs them. The saints show us what is possible. We must reject sin because it is harmful.” I replied, “You can talk all you want to but I don’t see any sin.” I told Adam and I’ll tell you that guilt is a destructive lie. I reject the whole concept of guilt. Guilt is destructive.Council: Did Adam accept that “guilt is destructive?”Bud: Adam said, “Guilt would have no benefit, no purpose if there was no solution to the problem. If that were the truth, then it would just magnify the pain and despair. Guilt is constructive because there is a way forward. There is a solution to the problem of sin and despair.” I thought, “O Christ, here he goes again with Jesus!” Sure enough, he claimed that Jesus came to forgive sins and to destroy sin itself. I told him that Jesus and Christianity were boring. Council: Did Adam respondBud: Yes, that many have a false impression of Jesus and that if you think Jesus is boring then you don’t know the real Jesus. He added, “Jesus wasn’t some namby-pamby nice guy. He was dangerous. They killed him because he was dangerous. He is just as dangerous now and people are still suffering and dying for him today.” I told him that I knew enough and that I did not find him that compelling. Council: What was compelling to Adam?Bud: The fact that God became man gives tremendous dignity to every person-everlasting dignity.Council: Did Adam treat people like they had tremendous dignity?Bud: I didn’t follow him around all day. He treated me alright. I said, “You Christians think everything revolves around Jesus but you have no proof of any of it- and don’t tell me that the Bible says so is proof of anything.” Lots of ancient societies made up myths to explain the things they did not understand. Jesus is just another myth.Council: Was Adam prepared to give an answer?Bud: I was surprised when he said that his path did not begin with the Bible. Adam said that he believed in “a God” because it was the most rational option and he began to consider Christianity because Jesus really existed. Supposedly there are more references to Jesus in ancient documents than to other figures from the past. He continued, “It is obvious from the course of history that the early Christians knew that He existed and that they believed that He returned from the dead. Over five hundred of them actually saw the resurrected Christ. If it really happened then it changes everything.” I said, “Perhaps, they were all crazy or wanted to make a buck off of religion like the goofs on T.V.”Council: Did Adam accept your greed hypothesis? Bud: He said, “You can’t run an experiment to check history, you can’t “know” history, you believe history based on the reliability of the witnesses. He trusted in the witness of the early Christians: “Jesus claimed to be God; He died on the cross and then Rose from the Dead. If those things happened then Christianity is the truth. The most reasonable interpretation of history is that they did happen. It is silly to think that they lied as they lived generous, humble lives and then suffered and died for the faith. Why would so many, let alone one die for a lie that gave so little in obvious return? They ended up poor, ostracized and dead, not a strategy likely to attract many enthusiasts. It is shocking that such a ragtag group of misfits was able to “turn the world upside down” (acts 17:6). How often do a handful of humble fishermen revolutionize the world? How could they be so bold? How could they be so resilient? How could they be so successful?” He claimed that all of it would have been impossible if they hadn’t witnessed the resurrected Jesus and received the Holy Spirit. Evidently the Christians grew to 200,000 in the first hundred years and to over 6 million in the second. He said that I should read The Acts of the Apostles and look into the history. I clued him into the fact that there have always been large numbers of people who don’t believe. Council: Did Adam have a response?Bud: He said that some are distracted and that some don’t want to believe. Evidently Jesus said, “Rejection lies in this, that when light came into the world men preferred darkness to light; preferred it because their doings were evil. Anyone who acts shamefully hates the light.”(John 8:19-20) I said, “I’m not afraid of the dark or the light but I’m glad your truth works for you.”Council: Did Adam think that “his truth” was different from “your truth?”Bud: What works for you may not work for me. We need tolerance not judgment. There are no absolutes. Council: Did Adam accept those ideas?Bud: Adam said that it is an absolute claim that there are no absolutes. He then asked me, “Isn’t there something you would not tolerate?” Then he sophomorically asked, “Do you tolerate intolerance?” I told him stop being so judgmental and juvenile.Council: Did he accept your advice?Bud: No way, he said, “Would you tolerate organized rape, the holocaust or nuclear contamination?” So, I said, “Don’t be ridiculous. Just because there are no absolutes doesn’t mean that I don’t care about anything. Besides, there is no point in talking to a Christian about tolerance; you don’t even know what it means.” Council: Did Adam value tolerance?Bud: Not really. He said, “Tolerance is championed because there is so little love. Tolerance just means that I don’t punish anyone. Should you tolerate your daughter or love her?” At the time, that really pissed me off. I said, “Adam you know I love my daughter.” He absolutely pissed me off, thinking that he possessed “The Truth.” Council: What was absolute for Adam?Bud: Obviously, Jesus. He said that Christ was the hinge of history. Adam thought only the creator could have come up with such a creative plan, “Some might have guessed that God would enter the world but who would have thought he’d come not as a king or ruler but as a rebel and a servant; who would have thought that he’d suffer and die? God’s plan was to reach out to humanity to show us who God is and how we should live so that we can actually have joy.” Council: Was he persuasive?Bud: Lots of ancient societies worshipped a dying god who was reborn with each spring. Besides, claiming to know what is right and what is wrong? I don’t need all that “do this” and “don’t do that” nonsense. Stay out of my business and stay out of my bedroom. Besides, being judgmental brings bad karma; it prevents enlightenment. I explained to him that bad karma will keep you in the wheel of suffering, suffering through birth and then life and then death and then birth and then death on and on and on. Buddha’s first noble truth is that to live is to suffer. The second is that desire is the source of suffering. To be free from suffering we must detach from desire. It is written, “One must not be attached to existence or to nonexistence, to anything inside or outside, neither to good things nor to bad things, neither to right nor wrong.” I told Adam, “Destroy the disturbances. Return to the original state of non-attachment and you can awaken to understanding. Extinguish desire and with it the flame of self. Become enlightened and escape the cycle of suffering.”Council: Did Adam want to be enlightened? Bud: Well he acknowledged that Buddha was a remarkable man and that the Buddhist notion of the middle path was better than materialism. He even acknowledged that Buddha was on target in recognizing that suffering is real and that the world cannot satisfy the human heart. He said, “Buddha knew that something was wrong with the world but he didn’t have the benefit of Jesus. Jesus is the remedy.”Council: Did he say why that mattered?Bud: Adam said, “I want more than to be released from suffering; I want joy on the earth and in eternity. Buddha taught his followers to desire less than the world offers but Jesus teaches us to desire more than the world offers. He claimed my philosophy is “nothing ventured, nothing lost.” Council: Did Adam encourage desire?Bud: He said, “Bud you’re right that some desires and attachments should be rejected but desires and attachments are not all created equal. Some are negative and some are positive; the trick is in knowing which are which. Desire isn’t evil. Evil desires are evil. People think they are seeking good things and experiences but sometimes they are not seeing clearly. We should desire the greatest good more than the next shinny object. God’s will is the greatest good and it brings true joy. We need to desire God’s will rather than our own and we need to overcome our attachments to that which is counter to God’s will. God’s will being done is heaven, God’s will being abandoned is hell.” I said, “I don’t need heaven or hell, enlightenment is nirvana.”Council: Was Adam interested in nirvana?Bud: Oh, He argued that nirvana is an intellectual construct that promises the negation of suffering by annihilating the self; he called it “spiritual euthanasia.” I said, “Judgments and attachments are the source of the world’s problems. Breaking free from self and suffering requires being free from all judgments and attachments. Reject attachments and you escape suffering. As long as you are attached to things as real, you will not see the truth of emptiness.” Each day I fell less and less. I can tell you that I have virtually no attachment to anything or anyone now. I am nearly empty. Only a flicker of “I” remains. The flicker is nearly nothing. Most of you lack courage. You’re not strong enough. It takes strength to release all attachments and embrace nothing. Council: Yes, attachments do anchor the individual. Bud, I have no further questions for you. Brightpast: Adam you may question the enlightened witness.Adam: Sir, I have no questions for Bud. Bud, I am grateful to have known you. Thank you for helping me to understand that the material world can’t satisfy. I regret that the truth of Christianity wasn’t more visible in me. Did you know?We can know of God from observing the created order, the workings of our own mind, and the longings of our heart. However, we must acknowledge that our understanding will be spotty at best. Since the being (or force) that is capable of producing the known universe out of nothing is far beyond our comprehension we are dependent on Revelation for specific knowledge. This does not mean that it is irrational to believe in God. Theologian Scott Hahn notes, “It means that any god we could comprehend could not be God, because such a divinity would be inferior to our own minds. God’s grandeur can be glimpsed, for fleeting moments in creation. But we cannot know God unless He reveals Himself.” Is it reasonable to expect God to reveal his nature? If God is an impersonal force then we should expect no contact. Conversely, if God is personal and loving then it is reasonable to expect him to reveal himself to those created in his own image (i.e. self aware, rational, creative and capable of love). Additionally, love means to seek the best for the other and a personal and loving God would have a profound empathy for his creation; it is reasonable that he would seek not just to make himself known but also that he would seek relationship with his creation. Finally, it is reasonable to hope that participation in relationship with The Ultimate would provide the fulfillment of all human longing. After experiencing this relationship Augustine said, “My heart is restless till it rests in thee.” Did Jesus even exist? Did someone fabricate the claim? There is more historical evidence that Jesus Christ was a real person than there is for many well-known figures from antiquity. It is also clear that Christianity burst onto the world stage shortly after his execution. The sources include Christian, Jewish and Roman authors. Pliney the Younger (A.D. 61-113) in his role as a provincial governor wrote to the emperor Trajan for advice on how he should punish the Christians and to ask if they could be pardoned if they renounced Jesus. Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) reported, “Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations (probably a reference to rumored cannibalism), called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hand of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a deadly superstition broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil but also in the City (Rome)Is Jesus a mythic figure like Paul Bunyan? Jesus and all of his first followers were Jews. Unlike the pagans the Jews knew that the transcendent God should not be confused with a creature. The notion that the Creator would become a man and that he would suffer death is not a myth that would have occurred to the Jewish mind. Additionally, the pagan myths of a dying and reborn god were tied to the natural cycle of the seasons while Jesus came not to participate in a cycle but to transform nature. While it is true, as Chesterton said, “the only good argument against Christianity is Christians” it is also true that Christianity has produced the likes of Mother Theresa of Calcutta and Francis of Assisi. While most Christian’s don’t achieve such obvious virtue, Arthur C. Brooks documents in Who Really Cares that religious Americans donate more of their income, time and blood than do their secular counterparts. Did the Gospel writers fabricate the claim? If Christianity was a fabrication, then what was the motivation? Liars have a selfish motive but proclaiming the Gospel brought persecution and martyrdom. To save themselves the Christians had only to deny that Jesus is Lord. Peter and Paul were executed in Rome during the reign of Nero. Peter was crucified upside down, Paul was whipped with lashes, beaten three times with rods, stoned and ship wrecked before being beheaded. Of the original apostles only John died a natural death (and he was exiled to a deserted island). ReflectionIs it better to think about ourselves less or others more? If you had a choice would you prefer a personal God or an impersonal force? Would you like to have lunch with a famous athlete, movie star, politician or inventor? How much time would you like to spend with the creator of matter and time, the designer of galaxies and hummingbirds? Suggested reading: Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. TacelliThe Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity by Gerald O’CollinsIs The New Testament Reliable? By Paul BarnettChapter TenBrightpast: You may call the next witness.Council: I call Heath L. Wealth to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. Heath, how did you know the accused?Heath: Adam and I go way back. We were in high school together; fairly typical guys looking to have some fun. That was before I hit it big. I had it all!Council: Those are important years, formative years, what were they like?Heath: Good times. We spent a lot of time together and had a lot of laughs. Adam was always good for some laughs. Our football team won the City League and would have gone to States if Jones could hang on to the frigging ball. We chased girls. Of course, I caught more than Adam did. What can I say; I always had a way with the ladies. I don’t remember most of them but senior year was all about Sarah and Rachel, the Booker twins. They were clearly the best of the local talent. Wow, could they dance. My jaw dropped when I learned that their father was a prominent minister. Council: Did that impact your relationships?Heath: It’s wasn’t like they were Amish or anything. Rachel was more into it than Sarah. Sarah mostly wanted to be popular. After a couple of months the girls invited us to hear a visiting speaker. I wasn’t interested in the talk but I was interested in being close to Sarah. I figured, “Snooze through an hour long talk and then take Sarah out for a “drive”, not a bad deal.” To my surprise, the speaker, Joel Olsmile, was incredibly dynamic. Joel proclaimed that God wanted to bless me. Jesus died for my sins, all of them: past, present, and future. All that I needed was to acknowledge his saving work. I mean what’s the downside? Jesus is Lord! How hard is that? It’s great to be free from all those rules. The law is dead.Council: We are not here to abolish the law but to fulfill the requirements of the day. Did Adam take to the message as you did?Heath: I learned that my actions have no bearing on anything. Joel proclaimed that God wants to bless me in the world and for eternity. No more gloom and doom. I learned that “Praise activates God's favor.” Give a little praise and reap the benefits that God showers on you. Give a little more and get even more. Who doesn’t want health and wealth? Give me a double dose of both. Accept Jesus and you get it all.Council: How did Adam respond to the message?Heath: He said, “It is easy to say “Jesus is Lord.” Do you even know what you mean when you say it? Do you mean anything? Do think God just wants us to say a few magic words?” I told him, “Adam that is the best part, you don’t have to earn it. The Bible says, “If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” (Romans 10:9) You don’t have to do anything, nothing, no works, just say it. It’s a great deal!”Council: Did Adam accept your advice?Heath: He said that saying something would be something we do; it would be a “work” so it didn’t make sense to say there was no room for “works.” I told him that he was making it too complicated. I said, “Stick with the fundamentals.”Council: Did Adam accept your advice?Heath: Not really, he kept making it complicated. He thought we needed to accept God’s grace and cooperate with His will. He thought having faith really meant being loyal to God. He said that it was probably more like joining a team than cashing in a lottery ticket. I told him that I already won and that I was not going to give the winnings back. Council: What happened next?Heath: Well, I just got on with things. You know how it goes. Sarah was smokin hot and we began to grow closer, both emotionally and physically. It was great to be young. We felt free, liberated from the constraints of an Old Testament morality and fear. We were responsible in taking precautions- neither one of us wanted to get pregnant, but it happened anyway. We both had a bright future before us. It was a difficult decision but it would have been impractical to have a baby. There wasn’t really any option, it would have been wrong to sacrifice our futures. Council: Yes, something or someone had to be sacrificed. Did Adam adopt your approach to life?Heath: Adam? Well he really liked Rachel and she really liked him. I kept telling him to go for it. He was stuck in fear. Council: Fear?Heath: He said that part of him wanted to go for it but he felt an obligation to “protect Rachel.” Rachel was worse than Adam. She used to ramble on about “service.” She volunteered for everything. She wasted a lot of time visiting old codgers who couldn’t even remember she was there. She dragged Adam along for a lot of it, they deserved each other, I was too busy - at least I was too busy to waste my time like that.Council: Yes, yes you were too busy for the least but what of Adam?Heath: Adam was busy with sports and school, he was ok at both but no star, he flew under the radar. He just lacked the guts to take advantage of opportunity. I did what it took to juice my GPA and test scores and he just went along with the system. He was a stick in the mud and I had bigger and better things to do. I went off to Princeton to study finance and he stayed local and studied civil engineering. I don’t know what happened to the girls. There are a lot of fish in the ocean and I always practice catch and release. Things just kept getting better for me. I had it all. Everything I touched turned to gold; it was like taking candy from a baby. I had the best of everything. You can tell a lot about a man by the cigars he smokes and the single malt he drinks.Council: Did you have contact with Adam after those years?Heath: I invited Adam and his wife to spend a weekend on my yacht. “The Arbitrage” is bigger than most houses and can make 20 knots. There was a crew of six. I had the chef prepare…Council: I’m sure it was delicious; what were the topics of conversation?Heath: Well, I was a shareholder in the Yankees so we started to talk about the outrageous salaries the players were getting for playing a game. Adam thought that it showed how “out of wack” society was and then he started complaining about the bonuses given out by Gildman Sacks and JP Morjan that year. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you! I told him that he didn’t know what the hell he was talking about and that he sounded like a frigging communist.Council: Did Adam think everyone should have the same income?Heath: He said hard work should be rewarded but that he wasn’t sure what he should make. I told him, “I work hard and deserve what I have.” Then I told him that God wanted to bless me with more. I told him, “You have to name it and then claim it!” I was swimming in money. By comparison, he barely had two pennies to rub together.Council: Did Adam wish he was wealthier?Heath: He said he had way more than he needed! Then he said, “I feel compelled to give back” and I told him that that was a great strategy because God would then give him even more, as the Bible says, “Give and gifts will be given to you.”(Luke 6:38)Council: Was Adam moved by your use of scripture?Heath: He said, “Don’t you think it is meaningful that when Jesus taught us to pray he included “give us this day our daily bread” he didn’t say give us a Ferrari or even this week’s bread.” I don’t think he liked it when I repeated, “Give and gifts will be given to you.” Council: Did Adam object to your quoting from the Bible?Heath: Well, he replied, “Unfortunately, many people cherry pick versus from the Bible and then take them out of context in order to support their desires.” He asked me if I knew when the books of the Bible were divided into chapters and verses. Evidently, it wasn’t until the middle ages. Anyhow, he claimed that the Bible should be taken as a whole and that it doesn’t promise prosperity. He added that giving back is not a strategy to get more but rather an act of gratitude. Council: Did Adam think gratitude was important?Heath: He was grateful for this and grateful for that. The putz was grateful for everything. He thought gratitude was everything and that being a Christian was about being grateful for our friendship with the living Christ. He said that having faith really means trusting and following Jesus. I told him that I had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.Council: What did Adam think of that?Heath: He asked, “What kind of friend is always asking for more? That’s not a real relationship. What kind of friend only gives in order to get?” It was tedious. Adam said he was grateful for his next breath as he didn’t even have a right to one more moment. He didn’t think he was generous enough. Christ, do you know how much I paid in damn taxes? That should have been more than enough; I must have funded the food stamps for five thousand ghetto rats. The thing is you have to figure a way to get it back. Too bad the government cornered the lottery but I was the king of pay day loans, sure the default rate is higher than I’d like but where else can you charge an interest rate hotter than Atlanta in August? It was the best thing since the glory days of paying workers squat with company chit and then taking it all back in company housing and the company store. Council: Was Adam concerned about the poor?Heath: Sure, but I told him the Bible says there will always be the poor. Too many people lack commitment to success; that’s the problem with the world. I could have invited proven clients that weekend but instead I took a chance on him. I expected to get something, at a minimum a little gratitude for the surroundings. By the way, this place isn’t what I thought it would be. Not to worry, I’m not going to let that keep me down. In fact, I have an incredible deal in the works now. You seem like a sharp guy so I’m going to let you in on the ground floor. I know we’ll hit it big. This is the perfect place for my kind of deal. There have to be natural resources here, labor is desperate and environmental regulations are obviously lax. All I need is a little seed money to grease the palms of the regulators. It’s fair to say that the upside is unlimited. It could be very, very fruitful; I might be able to save a share for you, if you can…Council: Was Adam’s visit fruitful? Heath: Not in the least. I knew he didn’t have substantial assets. Not the kind of money required to travel in the circles I was used to. He should have kissed my butt. The last thing I expected was an attack! Council: How did he attack you? Heath: Adam said, “We are saved by faith but faith is about trusting in God not saying some magic words. Really it means being faithful to God’s will.” Then he threatened me, The Bible also says, “Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven: but he that does the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom.” (Matt 7:21) I told him that God helps those who help themselves and that he should dream big and then make it happen. But Adam wouldn’t stop, “The Second Letter of Peter cautions that Paul’s writings have “some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as do the other scriptures.” I said, “I don’t have to accept your interpretations.”Council: Did your refusal trouble Adam?Heath: He just wouldn’t stop, “Second Peter also states, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation.” I said, “Enough of this nonsense, I don’t let anything stop me.” I’ll tell you now, I still don’t. I’m not going to be stuck in this grungy zip code much longer, I can’t be. I just need one deal to get things going and I’ll be back on top. I never let anything stop me. I just can’t get anyone in this damn place to trust me. Council: Yes, you didn’t let anything stop you. Heath, I have no further questions for you.Brightpast: Mr. Eversman you may question the industrious witness.Adam: I have no questions for Heath sir. Heath thank you for reminding me that God wants the best for us. Thank you for reminding me that God knows what is best for me better than I do.Did you know?Mathew 25:31-46 When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' and they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." Both Catholics and traditional Protestants recognize the reality of sin and the perfect justice of God. Both Catholics and traditional Protestants acknowledge that human nature is predisposed to sin. Both understand that Jesus suffered and died on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins. Both believe that we are saved by grace. Both say that any who say salvation can be earned are guilty of heresy (Pelagianism). Catholics have been said to emphasize works and Protestants have been said to emphasize faith. Much of the controversy that surrounds the role of “works” and “faith” is the result of the different ways that terms (justification, sanctification, redemption, faith, works and works of the law) are used by each group. Catholics use "justification" to include what Protestants refer to as a two step process: "justification" and "sanctification." For Catholics justification and sanctification cannot be separated as “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.” Additionally, Protestants refer to “works” and Catholics make a distinction between “works of the law” (e.g. circumcision and Jewish dietary restrictions) and “works” or “works of love.”The Catholic view is that human nature is wounded by original sin. An individual is saved by God’s Grace (free gift) but he must cooperate (have faith) with the offer of relationship. The Council of Trent stated: "...we are therefore said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God." The Catechism of the Catholic Church adds that faith is "a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him..." Since God has given us free will and since not all gifts are accepted the individual is free to refuse the relationship. If he accepts the relationship, then he is called to trust God and to do works that are in accord with God’s will. Doing works (bearing fruit) for God demonstrates commitment to the relationship and helps to transform the individual into the person that God intended them to be. Actions don’t just affect others they affect the actor as well. A man who swings a sledge hammer will break up rock and become more muscular; similarly, we become charitable by being charitable, patient by being patient and faithful by being faithful. The initial faith is necessary but not sufficient as Paul states in Corinthians, “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” (1Cor.13:2 RSV) God seeks to teach us how to love because he wants to transform us into saints so that we can enter heaven. Catholics use the term sanctification for the life long process of transformation from forgiven sinner to saint. With this transformation the righteousness of Jesus becomes part of the individual (infused righteousness). Since sin is deliberate rebellion from God sin damages the individual’s relationship with God. Initially, sin impedes the transformation of the sinner but if the damage continues it can jeopardize salvation. With sin God does not abandon the sinner, but the sinner can (via the exercise of free will) distance himself from God. Despite sin the individual remains in Christ unless the bond of faith is broken by formal infidelity. Catholics hope to remain in relationship with God- to remain in a “state of Grace.”There are tens of thousands of groups under the banner of Protestantism and their teachings show wide variations on the theme but many Protestants believe that we are saved by faith alone and that salvation cannot be lost.The Pharisees hoped to earn God’s favor by strictly following the edicts of the law. Jesus often criticized their smug self-satisfaction as well as their hypocritical condemnation of others. Similarly, Paul’s letters emphasize that all people sin and fail to uphold the law. Martin Luther (1483-1546) taught that human nature is completely corrupted by original sin. He believed that an individual “sins as often as he draws a breath” and is therefore incapable of saving himself from the rightful wrath of God. For a time, Luther was tempted to despair but he eventually found great comfort in Paul's Letters. Luther was particularly struck by the statement “the just man lives by faith.”(Rom 1:17 Gal 3:11) After reflecting on these passages he stated, “The just man lives by his faith. Thence have I learned to know this same justice of God, in which the just man, through God’s grace and gift, lives by faith alone.” For Luther, faith is not only necessary for salvation it is also sufficient. Reflecting the sufficiency of faith he wrote to a close friend, “Be a sinner, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still…” Because no one can remain sinless our only hope is faith in the mercy of God and not in our works. In order to make this point more strongly Luther added the word alone to his German translation of Romans 3:28 "a man is justified by faith (alone) apart from works of law." Historically, this concept has been a matter of great contention and according to Luther, justification by faith alone is the article on which the church stands or falls. Much of the controversy stems from the apparent difficulty of reconciling Luther’s translation of Romans with the teaching in The Letter of James, “you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”(James 2:24) Luther was less concerned by this problem than many others because he considered The Letter of James to be “straw;” he stated “I do not hold it to be his writing and I cannot place it among the capital books.” Many Protestants continue to emphasize Paul’s statement, “if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”(Romans10:9) From this perspective, an individual is justified when God grants a judicial pardon to those who have faith in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. A Christian can enter heaven because his sins are accounted to Jesus and Christ’s righteousness is accounted to him. According to Luther, the Christian is not transformed, but rather salvation is accomplished through the covering of his sins by the righteousness of Jesus (imputed righteousness). As stated, there are multiple groups within Protestantism and there are real distinctions in their views. For example, John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, taught Imparted Righteousness and the concept that individuals could obtain Christian Perfection. Most Protestants use the term justification for God’s forgiveness and acceptance both of which are immediate, eternal and completely dependent upon God. Since all the activity (after the statement of faith) is done by God, justification cannot be lost- even by sin. The term sanctification is utilized for the individuals subsequent seeking of holiness and resisting of sin. Sanctification requires cooperation with God but the previously granted justification is never in jeopardy. Good works are encouraged and viewed as confirmation of the Christian’s relationship with God. From a practical perspective most would say that an individual who does no works (bears no fruit) for God is not really saved. In essence the fruitless individual may have made an intellectual assent (said yes) but he does not really believe (trust) and is not really saved. While Luther’s view differs from that of Catholics and the Orthodox the current practical distinction may not be as great as some have suggested. Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul writes, “The relationship of faith and good works is one that may be distinguished but never separated...if good works do not follow from our profession of faith, it is a clear indication that we do not possess justifying faith. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.” Thankfully, there seems to be an ongoing softening of the historic animosity between the camps. In 1999, The Lutheran World Federation and The Catholic Church signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This document accepts that a "consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists between Lutherans and Catholics."Multiple Bible verses have been utilized to advance the positions outlined but both sides would agree that the words of Jesus “repent (change your heart) and believe” (Mark 1:15) are good advice. In recent years there has been an attempt to claim that followers of Jesus can expect preferential treatment in this world- including material gain. This movement is known as the Prosperity Gospel or the Health and Wealth Gospel. It is difficult to find Bible verses that support this view and easy to find many that directly contradict it. Perhaps the most famous is "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (1 Timothy 6:10). ??Reflection:Mother Theresa said, “We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty. We must start in our own homes to remedy this kind of poverty.” In a society preoccupied with material goods and afflicted with interpersonal alienation what might be added to giving food to the hungry or clothes to the naked? Suggested Reading:With by Skye JethaniThe Letter Of Paul To The RomansChapter ElevenBrightpast: You may call the next witness to the stand.Council: Your honor I call Eustice Topia to the stand for her honest and complete testimony. Eustice, how did you come to know Adam?Eustice: Adam was a civil engineer and I was a Professor of Urban Planning and a consultant to the City of Los Humanos. The city was in the midst of a major period of growth and prosperity. With proper planning I knew that we could achieve what had eluded civilization, what had been just beyond mankind’s grasp. Imagine if all the resources of a community could be harnessed and organized so that problems could not only be solved but even avoided! It was a time of tremendous technologic innovation and new possibilities were emerging. Society was on the verge of a new era. Progress really is the answer to the world’s problems.Council: Yes, the times were full of possibilities. What did Adam do with all those possibilities?Eustice: I was a little disappointed to be honest. I mean he was always helpful and even upbeat. Obviously, he fulfilled the obligations of his work and he did so with enthusiasm and energy but he never seemed to grasp that we were on the precipice of a new epoch. He didn’t see the big picture. I saw the big picture. I knew that those who could see the future would have to make sacrifices. It cost me my marriage but we had to recreate Los Humanos. To see those towers filling the skyline was worth more than everything! Council: Didn’t Adam care about the future?Eustice: He said, “I hope things will be better but history teaches that things have a way of not working out the way they were advertised.” I told him, “There are new opportunities that have never existed in the past, this time it will be different.”Council: Did Adam think things were different?Eustice: He said it is easier to bring chaos out of order than it is to bring order out of chaos. I was offended so I asked him what he meant by that and he said, “It takes months to build a house and only hours to tear it down.” I said, “Adam don’t you see that we are in the process of building the structures and systems that will remake the world?”Council: Did Adam see that?Eustice: He said that people can always see that things are not what they should be. Revolutionaries always gather followers because it is always easy to see that things aren’t quite right. He thought it was because we have sense of how things are supposed to be, before mankind fell, when mankind lived in fellowship with God. I said, “I don’t think there is a God; it is up to us to make things better, but even if there is a God don’t you think that he wants us to try. That’s the problem with you Christians, your waiting around for heaven instead of fixing things right here and right now. I am not going to put my head in the sand.” Council: Did Adam want to “Put his head in the sand?”Eustice: Adam said, “We should work to make things better but we should recognize the reality of the situation. He asked me, “Why, do you think, is the world so messed up?” I replied, “It’s obviously because of a lack of communication and we can now do something about that.” Adam said, “Unfortunately history demonstrates that man never really gets it right. Most revolutionaries end up creating injustices that lead to the next revolution. It is pretty strong proof of the concept of original sin.” I said, “Not all revolutions have done that poorly, what about the United States?”Council: Did Adam think the USA was exceptional?Eustice: He thought that the US revolution was better than the French or Bolshevik because those involved recognized their own fallen nature and the set up a system of checks and balances to try and restrain the growth of self-serving abuses. He claimed that the founders also knew that only a religious people would be able to have any chance of resisting the darker aspects of human nature. I asked, “Why does Christianity have to be so negative all the time?” Council: Did he answer?Eustice: He claimed, “Christianity is accused of being too negative by some and too optimistic by others. He continued, “Hobbes wrote Leviathan because he believed that people are so cutthroat that the natural state is “war of all against all.” From his perspective life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” and the only solution is a Sovereign empowered to dictate what is allowed and forbidden. A dictator deciding what is good and what is evil and that is the best we can do? Now that’s pessimistic.” I said, “Why not be optimistic like Rousseau? He thought that people were inherently good until they were corrupted by society.”Council: And his response was?Eustice: He said that was a bit of an over simplification. Adam continued, “But society is just people so anything true of society is true of people first. Rousseau thought that good laws would make good people. Good culture can make it easier to be good but he never really explained how the self-centered citizens can agree on a common vision that might lift them up. Saying they should accept “the general will” is na?ve. It’s like saying they will all get along if they get along, it’s true but it has no real power. Rousseau knew this was a problem and his solution was for the “lawgiver” to “persuade” them to go in the right direction.” I said, “That is why sophisticated progressive people need to lead the way. We need to make sure things go forward.”Council: Did Adam think that was the solution? Eustice: He replied, “The problem is that the law giver is at least as corrupt as the others at the start and more corrupt at the end. Marx thought everything would be great if society did away with private property. He thought that greed would disappear and human nature would actually change. He promised freedom and abundance but the world got Stalin and Mao instead. I don’t think they had an accurate understanding of human nature. Revolutions can change systems but only Jesus can change the human heart.” I said, “I don’t have time for the past. It is obvious we need to move forward, we are our choices Adam. We make our-self, our future and our reality.” Council: Did Adam think human nature was important? Eustice: He said, “Rousseau’s ideas had a lot to do with the French Reign of Terror and a lot of people died and Hobbes’ ideas had a lot to do with totalitarianism and even more people died. We need to start with an accurate appraisal of our nature. While trapped in a Soviet Gulag Solzhenitsyn came to the realization that “the separating line between good and evil passes not through states, not between classes, nor between political parties- but right through every human heart- and through all human hearts.” Christianity unifies the twin facts that each of us can be really good and really bad. Christ helps us become better. We need to acknowledge that there are darker aspects to our nature in order to control them. When there is less self-control then society begins to exert control and freedoms disappear.” I said, “I never hear anyone other than you Christians talking about this, it’s just a Christian fixation.”Council: Did Adam think it was a Christian fixation?Eustice: He noted that Plato recognized the situation long before the Christian era. Plato used a chariot analogy to make the point clear. “First the charioteer of the human soul drives a pair, and secondly one of the horses is of noble breed, but the other quite the opposite in breed and character. Therefore in our case the driving is necessarily difficult and troublesome.” I said, “Adam, are we going to waste all of our time on speculations. Just think about how much time and energy are wasted on prayer and thinking about God. Just imagine how much better things would be if we used all of that energy to reshape the world. All we need to do is develop consensus and then society will bring great things for all.”Council: Did Adam accept your appraisal? Eustice: No, he responded, “For centuries there was consensus that slavery was acceptable but that consensus brought misery to some and corruption to others. Quiet and prayer aren’t a waste of time. Prayer helps us see past ourselves. People criticized Mother Teresa because she took time out of each day for prayer. They claimed that she could have helped more people if she didn’t spend so much time in prayer. She replied that her group wouldn’t have the fortitude to help anyone if they were not strengthened by prayer.” Evidently, she said, “The fruit of silence is prayer. The fruit of prayer is faith. The fruit of faith is love. The fruit of love is service. The fruit of service is peace.” Of course, I let him know that his advice wasn’t very practical. Council: Did Adam have any practical advice about how to make things better?Eustice: I asked him the same thing and he said, “It has to start with each individual. Why are most of our thoughts directed to the past and the future? Why do we demean the present? We should all be careful not to be so busy planning to be happy that we never get around to actually being happy.” I said, “But Adam we have to plan. Tomorrow comes weather you are ready or not!” Council: Did Adam think that tomorrow was unimportant? Eustice: He just quoted the Bible, “Tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day.””(Mt 6:34) I replied, “Well somebody has to make plans, somebody has to worry, society will just fall apart if everyone goes about their merry way.” Council: Did Adam go about his merry way?Eustice: No, he made plans but he didn’t fret like I did. He believed that we focus on yesterday and tomorrow in order to divert our attention away from today. He asked, “Have you ever stopped to wonder why we toil endlessly when we claim we seek rest?” I told him that I would love to rest but that there is too much that needs to be done first. He then asked, “Why when we get a chance to rest do we promptly seek some meaningless diversion?” I said that I hadn’t given it any thought and then I asked him what he thought.Council: Did he have insight? Eustice: Adam said we pursue toil and endless diversions because we don’t want to think about the realities of our situation. We don’t want to stop because boredom makes us acknowledge that we seek more than the world can offer. We are afraid of silence because it might lead to despair. I told him that I just like to be busy and that there is nothing wrong with looking forward to things. Council: Did Adam seek more than the world could offer?Eustice: We never are satisfied, are we? He claimed that we can only be satisfied by true relationship with God. He said that if we get that right then our heaven can start on earth.Council: That is an unusual comment.Eustice: I thought so too, especially because he was so suspicious of utopian goals. He said something about selfishness ruining things and if anyone really lived in the fullness of the moment then they would not be bored by even the most trivial experience. He told a story that someone probably made up, “Saint Francis was a raking his garden. He was asked, “What would you do if the world was going to end in an hour?” He answered, “Finish raking the garden.” Council: Did Adam think that he lived in the fullness of the moment?Eustice: No, he admitted that he had a hard time not focusing on himself and that his mind would race to his past or some hoped for future even in the middle of great moments. He said that he was grateful that he could now at least see the problem. He wanted to reverence each person and moment. Council: Was there a practical application of his theory?Eustice: Well, his primary goal was to be good to his family and to those close to him. Adam thought that society was only as strong as its families and that families and marriage were really suffering. He said, “People needed to know that love is a verb-it is something you choose to do or not do.” Adam had statistics showing that there was a strong correlation between increasing homes without fathers and increasing rates of poverty, school drop outs, drug use, depression, teen pregnancies and incarceration. Council: Did Adam say what should be done to fix the family and society?Eustice: He mostly talked about little things, his favorite statistics had to do with the positive effects of family dinners. I guess there is an impact on all sorts of outcomes, from grade point average to teen pregnancy. Adam liked to say, “The family dinner table is the intersection of love and discipline” and “The best thing a father can do for his children is to love their mother.” Council: Did Adam think that would help society? Eustice: He claimed that society was spending lots of money trying to fix the secondary problems, spending on things like poverty and incarceration. He said some of the solutions had unintended consequences that made things worse in the long run. Adam thought that the government shouldn’t push the family to the perimeter. I pointed out that it takes a village to raise a child and he replied, “That saying comes from Africa and the “village” in Africa was an extended family and not a bureaucracy.” Council: Did Adam have concerns beyond work and family?Eustice: Well he coached little league and was involved with some sort of home for the disabled, but that sort of thing will never change the world. Adam was sweet but I think he was a bit na?ve. You need an organized program to make real change. He didn’t embrace our chance to make a big difference. He was just too worried that things were becoming overly centralized and bureaucratic. He just kept harping on the idea that small was beautiful and that things should be addressed at the lowest and most local level possible, he called it “subsidiarity.” Adam claimed, “Local and personal efforts support the dignity of the individual and convey love.” Council: Did Adam think that love made a difference?Eustice: He said, “Christ taught us to love the poor and that many people confuse that with the hatred of poverty. Love promotes dignity and that bureaucracies can’t love. Remote and impersonal programs foster materialism and utilitarianism.” I said, “Adam, these programs will really help. We need to go forward not back.”Council: Did Adam want to live in the past?Eustice: Well, he said that many conservatives falsely think that the past was a golden age and that many liberals falsely think the future can be utopia. He believed each era has it problems and errors. Council: Did Adam accuse you of trying to create problems?Eustice: No, but Adam talked a lot about unintended consequences. I think he said, “History is in large measure the continuous flow of unintended consequences.” You do understand, if we had more fully harnessed communication technologies we could have avoided the confusion and infighting that derailed the truly earth shattering parts of our plan, don’t you? With the brain power in this area we should be able to develop a more robust system. It’s hard to get folks to work together here but I just need to convince a core group; get them talking the same language and then we’re off to the races! It is all about communication and organization! It will be revolutionary. I know we could get it right this time. I know what needs to be done and I’m not afraid to lead. It’s just so damn hard to get anyone to listen. I could just scream.Council: Yes, yes the cities of man are hampered by the babble of men. Eustice I have no further questions.Brightpast: You may question the exemplary witness.Adam: I have no questions for Eustice. Thank you, Eustice for reminding me that we should have an impact. I should have done more. I regret not giving more care to those around me. I should have spent more energy on “inconsequential” things. I missed so many opportunities.Did you know?Thomas More served as Lord Chancellor of England during the reign of Henry VIII. In the year 1534 he refused to swear the Oath of Supremacy to the King and he was executed with his final words lingering in the air, "The King's good servant, but God's First." Prior to his martyrdom Thomas Moore coined the term utopia for a work of fiction. The word sounds like it would mean “good place” but it actually means “no place.” Philosopher Peter Kreeft clarifies the basic reality: “We don’t want to believe that the evils of our age are only another version of perennial injustice. We want to believe either that they are far worse than those of the past or far lighter. If we believe they are worse, the past becomes our Utopia; if lighter the future does.”We are all familiar with the tendency of children to protest, “That’s not fair.” The human yearning for the “Ultimate” has been noted to encompass five distinct goals. We desire perfect Justice (Goodness) as well as perfect Truth, Love, Beauty and Home (Harmony). “We seem always to expect more justice and goodness than the world can deliver, it causes outrage, impatience, judgment of others and even cynicism when it does not come to pass.” Our desire for perfect justice obviously does not come from our experience in the world but rather from a notion of perfect and unconditional justice that is beyond our lived experiences. This notion of perfection of justice/goodness (or for that matter the notion of perfect truth, beauty, love and harmony) has long been seen as the presence of God in our consciousness. John Henry Newman clarified the issue, he did not think there was a moral obligation because there was a God; he thought there was a God because there was a moral obligation. He noted that conscience implies a relationship to something outside of and superior to oneself. Newman’s focus was not on the specific edicts of conscience as he was more concerned with the universal aspects of conscience: “command, praise, blame, promise, a future and the unseen.” Finally, he noted that the voice of conscience was less intelligible to the unpracticed but that it became clear to those who listened and responded to the initial quiet dictates. The yearnings for perfect justice, truth, beauty, love and harmony are the driving forces behind attempts to establish a utopian society. Augustine in City of God (AD415) explores the differences between the city of God and the city of man and notes that “nothing but Absolute Being can satisfy human nature. The result is that the city of man remains in a chronic condition of civil war. Hence there is always the oppression of those who fail by those who succeed.” Some have attempted to establish an earthly “City of God” in the here and now but Augustine cautions: “I have described …the historical course of the two cities, the heavenly and earthly, intermingled as they have been from the beginning and are to be until the end of time…Both of these cities alike make use of temporal goods and both are equally afflicted by temporal ills-but how unlike in love! This will go on until they are separated in the last judgment, when each shall achieve its appointed end-an end which will have no end.” The Christian has duties in the earthly city and responsibilities to the heavenly city. Jesus initiated the separation of church and state when he said, “Render to Ceaser that which is Ceaser’s but render to God that which is God’s.” This duality implies that earthly rulers have authority but that it is limited. The earthly ruler is constrained- he has no claim to that which belongs to God. Separation of church and state has been violated by both the church and the state. In each case the results are regrettable. History demonstrates that the church becomes corrupt when it focuses on earthly political concerns and that the state becomes dangerous when it assumes authority to regulate all human activity. Without any exogenous limits dictatorships, monarchies and democracies are free to revoke any right they may choose. Thomas Jefferson is considered among the least religious of the American founding fathers yet he stated, “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?” The phrase “separation of church and state” has been used in order to diminish the role of religion in society. While the phrase has become synonymous with “constitutional” it does not appear in the US Constitution. The First Amendment does include a non-establishment clause stating that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …” The language implies a desire to protect religious liberty and not a fear of religion. In recent years, the concept of separation of church and state has been reformulated: freedom for religion has been replaced by freedom from religion. Religion is often cast as a dangerous obsession that must be limited. This outlook would be foreign to the founders. In his Farewell Address, George Washington noted “Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Similarly, John Adams cautioned, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Reflection:Can humanity create paradise on earth? Is there any harm in trying? When the leading intellects of his day were asked to write an essay on what was wrong with the world G.K. Chesterton complied with the shortest response: Dear Sirs, I am. Sincerely Yours, G.K. Chesterton. What was Chesterton’s point? Suggested reading:Small Is Still Beautiful {Economics As If Families Mattered} by Joseph PearceIs Reality Secular, Testing the Assumptions of Four Global World Views. by Mary PoplinChapter TwelveJudge: You may call the next witness to the stand.Council: I call I. M. Angerman to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. I.M., how did you know Adam?I.M.: Adam’s boy and my son were two peas in a pod. They were a tandem from the day they met in third grade. They teamed up at second base and short stop. My son had a cannon of an arm so he played short. I tell ya, it was a thing of beauty to watch them turn a double play. They were such good looking young men; my son had to beat the girls off with a stick. They were two peas in a pod till the day they, the day, the –Damn that day. How could God allow such a thing to happen? A good God would not allow such a thing. He was my pride and joy. My boy was a star. God is either nonexistent, dead or a cruel bastard. Who cares. Screw God. What difference does God make? None. Cut down in a crash. My son had so much to live for. It was a thing of beauty to see him play. Screw God.Council: You have suffered as only a father can suffer, but how did Adam react?I.M.: Adam was angry as he should have been. His wife should have been more careful but God should have run that damn drunk into a tree before it had a chance to happen. Screw God. Council: What did Adam do?I.M.: Adam sank into despair, into a deep, black hole. His world crashed down. Life has no meaning, only suffering. Life is cruel. Life is misery. God? What God. Screw the bastard.Council: Adam was angry? I.M.: He was almost as angry as I am.Council: How did it play out? I.M.: Adam tried to drown his sorrows. How could there be a God? God is a sadist.Council: What happened to Adam? I.M.: He drank and drank and drank some more. His marriage suffered, suffering. Screw God. My boy was a star. THERE IS NO GOD. Council: What did Adam do?I.M.: Adam drank and then he met another woman at a bar. She had lost a child to leukemia. It started innocently, two wounded people trying to survive. You know how it goes. Adam drank a lot. In fact, they both drank, a lot. There is not enough alcohol in the world to drown my anger. One thing leads to another. Phone conversations to walks and walks to lunches and lunches to dinners and dinners to breakfasts. It’s all pointless. Council: What happened next?I.M.: I’m not sure what really happened but Adam stopped drinking and stopped seeing the other woman.Council: Just like that?I.M.: How in hell am I supposed to know? Oh, Adam claimed horrible remorse. Tears, the whole works. Something like, “I am a selfish fool, sob, my wife is a saint, gasp, I should never have hurt her, gasp, I have caused so much pain; my sins have caused so much destruction and suffering.” No one knows the suffering I’ve seen.Council: Was he depressed?I.M.: He said that his inflated opinion of his own virtue gave way to despair because he didn’t want to admit his own weakness. He brought up the party line that we need a savior and that sin put Christ on the cross. But he claimed he hadn’t really understood how damaging sin is. “Doubt leads to sin and sin leads to doubt in a viscous downward spiral.” There was a quote from CS Lewis about good and evil increasing like compound interest and small acts of lust or anger being like the loss of a strategic point from which the enemy can launch an attack that otherwise would have been impossible. Adam said, “I knew Jesus came so that sins could be forgiven but now I know that Jesus came to destroy sin itself because sin is the enemy of life.” Screw life.Council: Did Adam think that he had beaten sin?I.M.: No. But he believed that God wants give us the grace to develop virtue and overcome sin. Council: Did he have other insights about sin?I.M.: He said, “Sin has more to do with damaging our relationship with God and others than with breaking rules. Despair is the worst sin because it does the most damage to our relationships.” He noted that his relationship with his wife and with God both fell apart because he turned his focus inward. He claimed, “Despair isolates; it is like a prison cell with no windows and shrinking walls.” He claimed that confession helped him know that God was there for him. It helped him know that he had been forgiven and that helped him forgive the drunken driver. He just spewed nonsense, “I’ve been released from prison and now I value my relationship with God more than anything.” I said, “The problem is, who wants a relationship with that sadist.” Council: Did Adam think that God was a sadist?I.M.: He said that his emotions made him think that was true for a while. Then he asked me, “Why are we disturbed by evil, by “the problem of pain,” why do we expect reality to be just and loving? He thought it was ironic that no one ponders “the problem of good” and then he quoted Augustine: “If God is, why is there evil? But if God is not, why is there good?” Who cares. Council: Did Adam have an answer?I.M.: Adam believed God is love and that he wants us to love too. But we can’t love if we aren’t free and free will requires the possibility of evil. He argued that “Love has to be freely given; it requires a free choice. For love to be real God has to allow us the power to choose, the power to say “no.” Evil is the rejection of God and his ways. God allows evil so that there can be love.” He said denying God’s existence and goodness because of evil is like a farmer burning his corn fields because he found a weed. He thought that the existence of injustice bothers us because we sense that true justice really exists. I spat at him, “There is no justice. Look around you, injustice rules this dung heap.”Council: Did Adam think that injustice rules? I.M. Adam claimed that, “We long for perfect justice because only perfect justice is not injustice. Unfortunately, perfect justice does not exist on earth. Justice exists where God’s will is done and it is only done perfectly in heaven.” He thought that God worked all things to his end but that God’s end was not clear to us. It is clear to me there is no God!Council: Was anything clear to Adam?I.M.: If you can believe it, that God understood my pain. That God had seen his own son humiliated, tortured and crucified. He stated that he had never really appreciated the depth of suffering in the world, “in this valley of tears.” Screw God.Council: With so much suffering why didn’t Adam give up hope? I.M.: He believed that suffering should help us remember that we were created for eternal life and not primarily for our dance across the stage of life. That ass claimed that God loves our boys more than we did! What a bunch of crap. Screw God.Council: Why did Adam have hope?I.M.: He hoped that the mercy of God could heal us. He claimed confession helped him know that he had been forgiven. He put his hand on my shoulder and asked me to suspend judgment and to just act like God is real and loving. Then he said, “Give God a chance, I’ll pray for you.” God had his chance. Adam claimed that all was gift and that he was grateful that our sons had lived. He can’t have suffered like I have. Why should I be grateful for this insurmountable suffering? Council: Was Adam grateful?I.M.: He said it is a tragedy that we don’t fully appreciate all the moments we are given. He did not see reality, we have been given nothing. Everything is dark. Everything is cold. Everything is death. Council: What did Adam think about death?I.M.: He said, “If there really is no good and loving God then a life of one hundred or one thousand years would be empty and cold but if there is a good and loving God then even a life of one day is full of meaning and hope. Christianity doesn’t tell us why our boys died but it does tell us why they lived and it gives me the strength to carry on. God brought our boys home to be with Him.” He claimed that I would see if I opened my heart and that I should pray because relationships wither without communication. He said that God could heal me. Screw God. My son was a star. Screw God! Council: Truly, truly your son is a marvelous creation. It is said, “godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death."(2 Corinthians 7:10 ESV) I have no further questions for I.M..Brightpast: You may question the justified witness.Adam: I have no questions for I.M.. Thank you for your son, I.M.. He was the best friend for my boy. Did you know?Why is there evil and suffering in the world? These questions are the driving force behind much of man’s search for God and they are also a common reason why faith is rejected. How can we reconcile a God who is all powerful, all knowing and all loving with a world that seems to be drowning in suffering? Why is it that good people seem to suffer the most? The pagan world did not recognize an all-powerful God but rather a constellation of small gods. There was no ultimate authority as each god was incapable of total control. The concept of a munchkin god continues to influence the contemporary world. Modern “process theology” posits that God is not in complete control and is in-fact growing over time. In effect, God is doing the best he can at the time. Alternatively, the ancient Persians and others have believed that there are two gods locked in a struggle: one is evil and one is good. What is the nature of God? Should we be trying to strike a balance between good and evil or should we seek good and avoid evil? Can we be confident that good will triumph in the end? The Judeo-Christian tradition offers a confident reply. The Jews were set aside by God to be a light to the nations; to recognize and proclaim that God is one, universal, all powerful and trustworthy. Christianity goes further as it proclaims that the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus reveal the depth of God’s concern for us. Most of us know that love entails sacrifice. A mother is often willing to suffer for her child, to sacrifice her own interests for those of her child. Sacrifice has other meanings as well. The history of the world demonstrates that man seems predisposed to offer sacrifice. Pagan cultures felt compelled to offer a sacrifice to the gods because they hoped for protection and they feared retribution. This practice was nearly universal and many of the Israelites worshiped and offered sacrifice to the pagan gods during their Egyptian captivity. After the Israelites were liberated they were commanded to sacrifice the very animals that symbolized the Egyptian gods. These sacrifices helped keep the Jews “aloof” from idolatry. For the Jews, sin brought suffering and death to the world and sacrifices were offered to initiate or restore their relationship with God.In the New Covenant it is the self sacrifice of Jesus that “takes away the sins of the world” (JN 1:29) The New Testament offers a new way of thinking about suffering and about God. Suffering remains painful but now it can be examined in the light of Christ. Suffering in itself is meaningless but suffering for a purpose is sacrifice. The Jews of Jesus’ day were divided. Some hoped for political savior who would free Israel from Roman rule while others looked to the scriptures which promised a new Moses, a new exodus, a new covenant and a new promised land. Jesus entered human history not as the messianic military savior hoped for by some of the Jews but as the suffering servant foretold in Isaiah: He was despised and rejected by men;a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;and as one from whom men hide their faceshe was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he has borne our griefsand carried our sorrows;yet we esteemed him stricken,smitten by God, and afflicted.But he was wounded for our transgressions,he was bruised for our iniquities;upon him was the chastisement that made us whole,and with his stripes we are healed.All we like sheep have gone astray;we have turned every one to his own way;and the LORD has laid on himthe iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53)The prophecy meshes nicely with Christ’s passion and crucifixion but what does any of this mean? Are power and goodness united? Will good triumph? What does Jesus mean to the world-to you and me?Everything!With the incarnation of Jesus we are assured that we have tremendous value and that power and goodness are united. With the crucifixion of Jesus we are assured that we are loved and that we can be forgiven for any sin-forgiven for anything. With the resurrection of Jesus we are assured that we can spend eternity in the company of God.The Incarnation is certainly a challenging concept. At first, it does not seem to make sense that Jesus (a preexisting divine person, the “Word” or “Meaning” of God through whom all of creation came to be) could enter history and add a human nature; that he could be fully God and fully man. But the facts attest that Jesus was so good, so powerful and so unique that this strange concept took hold. It may be helpful to employ the aid of analogy: as a human being you have a physical body and an immaterial soul. You are not a soul inhabiting a body but rather a unity of body and soul. Similarly, philosopher Peter Kreeft posits, “If I write a story about myself, I’m both the creator of the story and the creature I create in my story. Same person, one person, but with two natures, both the transcendent creator of the story and a character immanent in the story at the same time.” Certainly the incarnation is one of the mysteries of Christianity and a full understanding is beyond our capabilities. Physicist Stephen Barr states, “The reason there are mysteries is that God is infinite and our intellects are finite.” Most of us are reluctant to admit our obvious limitations (It has been said that we are more like rocks than like God). With characteristic acumen, Augustine advised, “Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand.” The Christian mysteries do make more sense when one begins to see how they fit together into a cohesive whole. Philosophically, a God/man is an attractive concept because it provides a direct mechanism for revealing God to man and for representing man to God. Frank Sheed notes, “Outside of Christianity there is nothing to compare with the intimacy of this knowledge. It is a wonderful thing to see God being God, so to speak; but there is a special excitement in seeing God being man.” If the incarnation is real, then crucifixion is the most outrageous event imaginable. The injustice of man torturing God is too great to be fathomed. The notion that God would humble himself to become man is outlandish but to allow him-self to be mocked and tortured and killed is more shocking still! Is there any possibility that it could be true? Only great love could account for such things. Of course, God is Love; in fact, God is perfect love. Perhaps perfect love would choose to do such things. Why would Jesus die upon a cross? Perhaps, to show us that sin has consequences. Perhaps to show us that he will do anything for us. When near his own death Jesus said, “Forgive them they know not what they do.” If he had suffered less would you know that he can forgive any sin? Would you know he is Perfect Love? The story does not end with the crucifixion but with resurrection, with new glorified life that proves the futility of evil. The good news is that Christ offers us a share in that everlasting life. Does this mean there will be no more suffering on earth? No, but it does mean that suffering can have meaning and value. Paul makes the seemingly strange comment, “in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of His body, that is the Church.”(Col1:24) Paul is emphasizing that Christ’s all sufficient sacrifice is completed by our acceptance and proclamation. Christ suffered to benefit you and me and if we want to participate in the life of God we must be willing to suffer as well because suffering with Jesus is sacrifice and sacrifice is the sign of love. Reflection Why aren’t prayers answered quickly and conveniently?What would the world be like If God was like an ATM at the bank and you could withdraw whatever you wanted? What would free will mean if God showed his full power and glory?Suggested Reading: Making Sense Out of Suffering by Peter KreeftThe Problem of Pain by C.S. LewisChapter ThirteenBrightpast: You may call the next witness.Council: I call Crystal Powers to the stand for her honest and complete testimony. Crystal, how did you know Mr. Eversman?Crystal: Adam lived next door to my parents. I’m the daughter of Bud Amind who testified earlier. I baby-sat for the Eversman’s when I was in college. Their children were just adorable!Council: What was Adam Like?Crystal: He and his wife were cute; I remember feeling that I wanted a marriage like theirs. It seemed like they were always doing stuff together, tennis and things like that. He was a good dad; he played soccer and basketball with the kids. He was kind of silly with them. Knock knock joke kind of stuff. He’d ask them how the slept and they would say, “I slept well” and then they would ask him how he slept and he would say, “Lying down” or “under the covers.” Pretty soon the kids learned to say something like, “with my eyes closed.” Nice guy but corny. My Dad and I used to laugh at him because he was so closed minded. Council: Did you have political differences? Crystal: We often supported different candidates but neither one of us was particularly political.Council: Why do you say he was closed minded? Crystal: I am a spiritual person, I feel that it is very important to be connected and centered but there are multiple paths. All the religions teach the same things, I feel it is closed minded to think that one system has a monopoly on the truth. Council: Adam limited himself to one system?Crystal: Absolutely. My Dad told me about some of their conversations so I asked Adam if he knew much about other religions. Of course, I assumed that he didn’t know much. Anyhow, he said that he had spent a fair amount of effort learning about most of them when he was trying to figure out what was true. He said that he was a skeptic by nature. I was surprised that he ever had any doubts, he seemed so traditional!Council: Do you know what he doubted?Crystal: I guess everything. He claimed that he began with a nearly empty slate.Council: What was on the slate?Crystal: The first was that the world is a mix of good and bad. The second was that we are troubled by the bad and made happy by the good. Council: That’s it? Crystal: Yeah, surprisingly. I told him that an open mind is what it is all about. So, Adam asked me, “What is the purpose of an open mind?” and I told him it is to see what might be. Council: Did he agree with you?Crystal: He felt that was a good start. Then he added, “The purpose of an open mind is to find the truth. It is pointless to merely collect conflicting claims that can’t be reconciled. Many religions have part of the truth but Christianity has the best understanding of human nature and the best explanation of God.” Jesus was a wise teacher but I feel that his message of love and acceptance got hijacked.Council: Did Adam think love was important?Crystal: He went, “Love is everything but love desires the best for the other. Authentic love demands honesty because the truth leads to freedom and joy.” I don’t know; who wants to be told they’re wrong? I mean who wants anybody telling them what to do? I told Adam that Christianity has too many rules. I mean it really is just a bunch of made up rules. Who says so? What is truth? Council: Did Adam think it was a bunch of made up rules?Crystal: No, he said that Pilate asked, “what is truth?” when Jesus was brought before him. He said that it was sad that Pilate wouldn’t accept that the truth was standing in front of him. He quoted Pope Francis, “And yet Jesus is exactly this: the Truth that, in the fullness of time, “became flesh” and came to dwell among us so that we might know it. The truth is not grasped as a thing; the truth is encountered. It is not a possession; it is an encounter with a person.” (Church of Mercy 43) But, I mean, who needs organized religion? Why can’t we all think for our self? Thankfully, we are starting to get past all that western imperialism. I love that song, “Imagine no religion too… “ Council: Adam believed organized religion was good?Crystal: He said that the world owed far more to religion than most want to admit. He said, “We know what a world without religion looks like; it looks like the French Reign of Terror, a Soviet Gulag and forced abortions in China.Council: Did he support his claim?Crystal: Adam argued that the modern concept of human rights was developed on the unique Judeo-Christian idea of equality before God. He said no other society has ever thought that all people are of equal importance. I said, “What about all the wars? Religion causes war, it is a known fact.” Council: Did Adam respond?Crystal: He felt that human nature leads to conflict and that political organization allows that conflict to reach the scale of war. Adam said, “Blaming human nature, or for that matter, organization made more sense than blaming religion.” Evidently more people were killed by atheist regimes in the 20th century then had been killed in all the wars that could be even remotely tied to religious motivation. He felt that without God there was nothing to restrain the powerful. I chided him, “Careful that kind of talk can lead to another Inquisition.” Council: Did he defend the Inquisition? Crystal: No, he thought it was misguided but then he said that there was a lot of misinformation. I don’t think these statistics are right because I’ve always heard they killed millions. But he said that it is interesting to note that the Spanish Inquisition killed about a thousand over a period of four hundred years and that in 1936 4,000 priests and nuns were killed in a matter of months when the Communists and Socialists took power in Spain. I just feel the world would be more peaceful if everyone practiced yoga. Council: What else did Adam say? Crystal: He felt that the modern university and hospital are deeply indebted to Christianity and that it was ironic that the universities had become so hostile to Christianity and Western Culture. I don’t know why he was so fixated; Buddha and Jesus taught the same things and did you know that Islam means peace? I told Adam that there are many paths up the mountain and that Gandhi was just like Jesus. Council: Did Adam accept your many paths analogy?Crystal: He said that Gandhi learned a lot about nonviolence by reading The Gospel of Mathew. Then he said, “There are many paths and most start from the same point-man’s yearning for meaning. The paths don’t lead to the same end because they head in different directions. One path is different. It’s not a path made be men at the bottom of the mountain it’s the path from the top of the mountain and God made it.” I just feel we all need to coexist. Council: Did Adam want to coexist?Crystal: Adam was polite so he never really criticized me directly. I know he thought my astrology was silly. He was so single minded. I like to be able to look at the different religions and to take the good things from each. Why limit yourself? Council: Did Adam limit himself?Crystal: He went, “Many religions have elements of truth and that the similarities between them center on morality. They are often in accord with the morality that God has planted in the human heart. I think he called it “natural law”. I said, “I agree that you need to follow your heart.”Council: Did Adam think that was the answer?Crystal: Adam said that conscience and heart were related but that they were not the same thing. He felt human nature is a mixture of good and bad. “If we were 100 percent good then we could follow our heart, but we all have a tendency to take the easy path and to rationalize our choices. We convince ourselves that if it feels good at the time then it is good. We all hear two inner voices- heart and conscience. Our conscience is the second voice, it says, “Slow down, maybe your deluding yourself. Our conscience gets weaker and weaker when we always follow the louder voice of our passions. Many say they are following their heart when they are giving into their disordered passions. Our conscience needs to be developed; it needs to be formed and informed.”Council: How did Adam think the conscience was formed and informed?Crystal: He felt that Jesus shows us that we fall short of the target and he offers a way forward. He went, “You have to decide if it is true or not; you have to decide who Jesus is. Did he really rise from the dead or not? Can he forgive sins or not? Is he God or not?”Council: That is a big question. Crystal: How could you know? What difference does it make? There are so many voices and so many choices. I always say, “Different strokes for different folks” Why listen to the dogmas of the past? They are so constraining- do this, don’t do that! Oh, that reminds me, Oscar Wilde said, “I can resist anything but temptation.” Isn’t that cute? I can’t resist anything either, but why should I? Besides there is so much that is new and exciting; I am all about self-actualization. Channeling brings insights that are hidden from the masses mired in lower energy consciousness. The world’s problem is that most don’t see what we can be. Council: Did Adam see what he could be?Crystal: Only the elite, the vanguard, understand now- but human consciousness is shifting; Gaia and cosmic consciousness are shifting to a higher vibration as well. We can transcend and transform the universe if we dispel fear and dogma; we can evolve ourselves and the universe. As we become Gods we can reshape and remake the cosmos! The impact will reverberate endlessly. Council: Crystal, did Adam have an impact in life?Crystal: He was one of the more generous people I knew. Council: Do you have any examples?Crystal: There was a cop in our town who got shot during a drug bust. He couldn’t walk or anything. There are just too many guns. Well, I was snooping through some papers at Adam’s house while the kids were sleeping. It’s not like I stole anything, I was just curious. Anyhow, they anonymously paid for the cop’s kid to go to college. Not many people would do that. I felt it was pretty cool.Council: Did Adam do anything else? Did he do anything about big issues?Crystal: He was always focused on the individual person. He was so focused on personhood, even saying that a fetus is a person and of course God is a person. What does it even mean to be a person? Council: Did Adam have an answer to that question? Crystal: I know he thought that Christianity had the best explanation of human nature, the good and bad of it; the fact that people do things that no animal ever would. He said, “We are either better or worse than animals. The lamb is not sickened by the plight of a stranger and the lion does not revel in the suffering of the gazelle but people can be shockingly good and horrifically bad.” He asked me, “How can we account for acts of self-sacrifice and despicable abuse from the same species let alone the same person? I thought maybe it was society?Council: Did he agree?Crystal: Well, he asked me, “Have you spent a day with a toddler? At the time, I hadn’t. He said, “They can be so sweet but people don’t call it the terrible twos for nothing. It’s obvious that every two-year old thinks the world revolves around themselves, they don’t want to hear “no” and neither do we. Society didn’t make it that way.”Council: Did he have another explanation?Crystal: He said, “Our nature is wounded but we have a remnant of grace, a spark of goodness. God wants to kindle that spark into a flame. Unfortunately, sin gets in the way. Sin is like a virus that infects us.”Council: Why did Adam think that was important?Crystal: He said that the world thinks that there is no sin because sin is so common that it is considered normal. He said Christianity could not only explain the good and bad in human nature, but that it really did help him become a better person because Jesus is the cure for the disease. He said, “Many people don’t want the cure because they don’t know that they are ill. God loves us as we are but he loves us too much to leave us as we are.”Council: Was there evidence that it made him a “better person?” Crystal: Adam was a nice guy but it all seemed a little boring to me. Who decides if you’re a better person? Besides who wants to eat the same food every night? I’d rather have Italian and then Chinese, you know what I mean? I like to think that my religion is my own recipe, my own concoction; you could say I believe in Crystalism. I like parts of Christian stuff, mostly the stuff about love but I leave out all the negatives, I add yoga, the law of attraction and karma; it is more fun to pick and choose. I can’t wait to find out what I’m going to be in my next life! I don’t know why it’s taking so long to get the next gig; you know it’s a bummer just waiting and waiting. Anyhow, if something starts to get in the way or be a drag then I can just switch it out. It is very liberating, there really are no constraints. I tried to clue Adam in. It was Lent so I went, “Adam what’s the deal with fasting; how can that help anything?”Council: Did Adam understand fasting?Crystal: He told me a joke! This old Irish guy goes to the pub every night and has three beers, one for himself and one for each of his two brothers who moved to America. One day he comes in and only orders two pints. The bartender looks concerned and asks, “Tis everythin is ok with the family?” The man replies, “Oh no nuttin like dat, it’s just I gave up drinkin for Lent.” Then he got deep and said, “Learning that we can do without helps us keep things simple; it helps us focus on what’s important.” I said, “You know Adam, the Gnostic Gospels teach us that we need to escape the flesh to discover that we are God.”Council: Did Adam accept that view?Crystal: No way, he went, “Crystal, be careful who you believe. The world has always had folks who prey upon our desire for meaning, security and comfort. The Gnostic Gospels were written centuries after Jesus by fringe players who wanted to hijack Him for their own purpose.” I said, “Adam your negative talk is going to attract negative stuff. You need to think positive thoughts. What you conceive and believe you will receive and achieve. If you think it, it will come.”Council: Did Adam take your advice?Crystal: He said, “Being optimistic is a good idea but that it’s magical thinking to expect our thoughts to control the world.” The old guys just don’t get how things have evolved. I am creating a new reality! My Dad thought that the goal was to escape suffering but when you add Gnosticism to Buddhism you learn that it’s not about escaping suffering but about becoming God! Don’t you think eastern thought is deep. I doubt Adam would have accepted Buddha’s rejection of the notion “that I have a self” and I am not sure what he would have thought about Buddha’s rejection of the notion that “I have no self.” Now there was a powerful mind. Council: Yes, ideas are powerful. Did Adam have any other ideas?Crystal: No, just the same old ideas. He thought everything hinged on who God is and what it means to be human. Adam said that the religions do not agree on those two key questions. Council: Did he outline the distinctions?Crystal: He said, “Jesus didn’t just talk about God but rather he shows us who God is and that he didn’t just talk about what it means to be human but that he shows us how we are supposed to be.” He quoted Louis somebody, “In the end there are those who say to God Thy will be done and those to whom God says thy will be done.” I feel Jesus was wise, but there are multiple paths and they all lead to the same end. Why limit yourself. People like Adam tire me, they are so single minded. We need to evolve to remake the universe. I mean really, why limit yourself when you are becoming God? By the way, who do I talk to about my next gig? The boredom here is stifling. I feel I’m going to be a movie star; this waiting sure is a drag. Anyway, I feel that you should take what feels true from every religion; there is no need to limit yourself. Adam just wouldn’t let go of his one idea.Council: Yes, what to do with the single minded? I have no further questions for Crystal.Brightpast: You may question the broadminded witness and then we will adjourn to allow the repositioning of the witnesses.Adam: I have no questions for Crystal sir. Crystal, thank you for helping me remember that Christ is the way, the truth and the life.Brightpast: We will resume when the authorities have completed the inventory and transfers of the first group.As the crowd dissipated, Adam found Crystal by his side. She leaned forward and in a hushed voice said, “It’s great to see you, I only have a few moments, resident control will be moving me soon.” Adam asked, “Are you O.K. Crystal? Can I do anything for you? This place seems sinister.” She replied, “Don’t be silly, these setbacks are like mutations, it is all just part of the evolution of heaven. But, Adam you have to get with the program or you’re going to be shut out. Adam, we are talking about eternity. It is no longer a matter of speculation, we are here and it is eternity. It isn’t the way you thought it would be. It turns out that Christ was just a myth. You have to adjust. There are tons of people here who used to say that they were Christians. Make the right decision; give them what they want. You don’t know what they will do to you if you persist. I’ve seen people disappear. They say it can be pretty grim. But Adam, I sense that I’m on the cusp of an evolutionary leap. I can feel the vibrations. The power is growing in me. I’m going to leap frog him, I’ll be the God. I said that stuff about reincarnation because I don’t want them to get suspicious. By the time it happens there won’t be anything he can do to stop me. I’ll make everything right.” Adam sighed, “Crystal, eternity without the True God is hell. I don’t think you or any of the others can change that. I can’t give them what they want.” Before she could reply the resident control agent stepped between them and escorted Crystal out of the room. Did you know?It has been said that there is nothing new in the world. Augustine asked, “Is it not the case, rather, that the ungodly city has these scrapping ideas from here, there and everywhere clutching them in pell-mell confusion to her bosom?... No wonder that this earthly city has been given the name Babylon, for Babylon means confusion.” Augustine was speaking from personal experience, prior to embracing Christianity he had been a Manichean. Augustine initially rejected Christianity because he was “put off by the inelegant language and barbarous behavior he found in the Old Testament.” Manichaeism professed itself to be the true synthesis of all religious systems. The system has an elaborate explanation for the cosmos based upon a duel between the god of light and the god of darkness. The material universe is thought to be a corruption of the spiritual realm and the ultimate goal is to “set the light-substance free from the pollution of matter.” Like other Gnostic systems salvation is reserved for the elite in possession of secrete knowledge of the universe. As a Manichean Augustine lead a life of sexual license but other Gnostic groups have advocated severe fasting and celibacy. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the Gnostic Gospels and other “hidden” texts and some suggest that the powerful conspired to suppress these alternative writings. Often a text is pulled from these documents in order to challenge traditional Christianity. Little concern is shown for the fact that the full content of these texts is often at odds with the common sense. For example, in the Gospel of Thomas Jesus proclaims, “For every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven.” In the similarly titled Infancy Gospel of Thomas, St Joseph warns, “Do not let (Jesus) go outside the door because anyone who angers Him dies!” These texts were written between the second and the fourth century and were rejected by those who adhered to the teaching of the apostles. Christianity is often said to be a religion of the book. More correctly, it is the religion of the incarnate (enfleshed) Word of God; that is the divine person Jesus. Since it has been centuries since Jesus walked the hills of Judea and since he chose to leave no writings we are dependent on the reliability of the testimony of others. This seemingly unreliable approach requiring personal interaction and a passing on of the story seems to be Christ’s specific plan. We have no evidence that Jesus ever told his disciples to produce any documents. We are told that Jesus instructed the apostles to preach, baptize, make disciples and represent his memorial sacrifice. Evidently, Jesus wanted his disciples to build His Church and not a publishing house. The modern reader often fails to appreciate that the written word was not available to the average person prior to the invention of the printing press and subsequent widespread literacy. But on a deeper level Christ’s plan recognized the power of relationship and the need for explanation. Augustine is considered a towering intellect of the ages yet he was not converted by his private reading of scripture but rather by the satisfying preaching of Ambrose. Augustine notes “As for the passages which had previously struck me as absurd, now that I had heard reasonable explanation of many of them I regarded them as of the nature of profound mysteries.” Through the ages, it seems that Christianity is caught rather than taught as relationship precedes information. In Acts of the Apostles, Luke quotes Jesus, “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” In Mathew’s Gospel Jesus plainly reveals his intention is to establish a church: “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” The centrality of the church is confirmed by Paul who writes to Timothy: “I repeat the request I made to you when I was on my way to Macedonia, that you stay in Ephesus to instruct certain people not to teach false doctrines… I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon. These things write I unto you, hoping to come unto you shortly. But if I should be delayed, you should know how to believe in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Timothy 1:3 and 3:15) Recognizing that the church would continue to grow Paul exhorts Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” It is through the testimony of the Church that we have access to the world changing life of Christ. The term Bible stems from the Greek word “biblia” which means books. The New Testament started as 27 separate scrolls each written for a specific audience and purpose. There are four “Gospels” which proclaim the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and 23 other texts that presuppose a well-established community of believers. Since copies of the documents were expensive and in short supply the texts were generally not read privately. Justin Martyr (AD 105-165) records that every communal celebration of the Lord’s Day began with readings from the “memories of the apostles and the writings of the prophets.” Other writings were in circulation but they were not accepted by the believers who remained faithful to the oral teaching they received from the apostles. The question of the era was not, “Is it Biblical?” but rather, “Is it apostolic?” Paul instructs the Thessalonians, “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.”(2 Thes 2:15) History confirms that the Bible did not give us the church but rather that God gave us the Bible through the Church. The first “book” was not written until approximately 15 years after the execution of Jesus. Additionally, the Bible is a compilation of selected books and it was assembled as a cohesive whole by the Church. The earliest use of the term “new testament” is in reference to the new bond (covenant) between God and man that Christ forged. Over time, the term became associated with documents because these texts were utilized in the public worship/liturgy of the early Church. In the second century writers refer to accepted texts and begin to apply the term “New Testament” to this library of books. The list was not formalized until after 380 A.D. with the Synod of Rome and the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. Some have been troubled by reported discrepancies between ancient Biblical documents. There are more than five-hundred Greek manuscripts and fragments from the early centuries and there are numerous others in Latin, Coptic, Syriac, Armenian and Georgian. With the number of available manuscripts it is a relatively simple task to identify isolated errors in a specific document. These documents show a remarkable consistency and differ from each other in only minor ways. Additionally, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has supported the validity and reliability of the previously known documents. The Christian claim of truth is dependent on real historical events. Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day… he appeared to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive….. If Christ has not been raised then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain 1 Cor. 15:3&14. If Christianity is to be taken seriously it must stand up to historical scrutiny and if the Scriptures are to be understood, we should seek to understand the “precise sense the words were intended to convey at their time and place of origin.” In practice, modern historical methods that seek to identify and understand the past have indeed deepened our knowledge of scripture and the faith. However, respect for the New Testament suffered when the “historical-critical method of scripture interpretation” came to be seen as the only legitimate method of understanding the texts. In Jesus of Nazareth, Pope Benedict declares, “The historical-critical method- let me repeat- is an indispensable tool, given the structure of the Christian Faith”, yet he has also expressed concern that exclusive reliance on the historical-critical method has “resulted in ignorance about the nature, identity and mission of Christ.” Scott Hahn notes that this method is often associated with “a hermeneutic of suspicion.” “This approach means not only that the Bible’s sincerity and truthfulness must be proven before the Word can be accepted, but also that the interpreter stands in a position of judgment over the Word, measuring its claims according to his or her own standards.” In the fourth century Hilary explained that the careful reader “realizes that he will not understand what is written in it if he does not expect more from the book than he brings to it.” Hahn argues that we can’t understand the historical and cultural context if we deny the religious understanding the “authors of the Bible and their audience brought to the texts. In other words, Whether you believe that God is speaking in scripture or not, you are not going to understand fully what the human writers intended to convey unless you read their writings on their own terms-and their own terms are inescapably religious.”Major shortcomings of the historical-critical method include a tendency to view each section of the Bible as the words of an isolated individual locked in a distant past. As Benedict observes, it fails to appreciate “that any human utterance may contain more than the author may have been immediately aware of at the time.” The very possibility of inspiration is often denied because the approach fails to recognize that “the author does not speak as a private, self-contained subject. He speaks in a living community, that is to say, in a living historical movement not created by him, nor even by the collective, but which is lead forward by a greater power that is at work.” The limited approach came to be associated with the “search for the historic Jesus” and eventually it was employed to deny the authenticity of the “Christ of faith.” Interestingly, application of this theoretically neutral method produced divergent views of who the “Jesus of history” really was. Some claimed that the evidence revealed that Jesus was a bellicose role model of anti-establishment revolution while others managed to portray him as “meek moral teacher who approves everything.” Not surprisingly, the “Jesus of history” tended to share the goals and world view of those describing him. Despite disparate descriptions of the “Jesus of history” the proponents agreed that the Christ of Faith was an artificial construction. Scripture study became an academic exercise rather than an encounter with God. The common ground was the desire to “demythologize” Jesus and in the court of public opinion they were largely successful. These ideologically driven skeptics denied the possibility of miracles and claimed that the Biblical reports of miracles have simple explanations or that they are simply false. Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), considered the father of “demythologization,” stated that it was “impossible to use electric light… and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.” Furthermore, early proponents of this form of analysis stated that the Biblical prophesies had to have been written after the prophesized events actually occurred. On this assumption, they dated much of the New Testament to the second century and thereby excluded the possibility of eye witness testimony. Scholars now agree that Paul’s First Letter to The Thessalonians was written between A.D. 48 and 50. Paul’s first epistle acknowledges Christ as the “Son of God” and in Romans and Titus he frankly calls Jesus “God.” (Rom 9:5 and Titus 2:13). It is important to note that Paul takes it for granted that this unique status is widely accepted by the audience of early Christians to whom he writes. Paul was executed by Nero who died in A.D. 68. Many have dated the Gospels to A.D. 70-90 but this is primarily to assign a time after the destruction of the Temple. A stronger case can be made for “sometime before the early 60s; within the first few decades after Jesus’s death.” Furthermore, the early “Church Fathers” Clement of Rome (about A.D. 96), Ignatius of Antioch (about A.D. 108) and Polycarp of Smyrna (about AD 110) quote from numerous books; Ignatius, alone referred to 24 of the 27 books of the New Testament before he was martyred. Thus while the New Testament was not written immediately after the death of Jesus it was written while eye witnesses of the events were still living. Critics have pointed to apparent historical errors to discredit the Gospels. The skeptics’ position has been undermined by ongoing historical and archeological research For example, many noted that Luke refers to Lysanius as Tetrarch of Abilene (around A.D. 27). The skeptics complained that Roman documents indicate Lysanius was the ruler of Chalcia and that he was dead long before John the Baptist appeared on the scene. However, a recently unearthed temple inscription confirms that a second Lysanius was, in fact, the Tetrarch of Abila at the time indicated by Luke. Scholars also now agree that historian Josephus is referring to the second Lysanias when he records, “He added to it the kingdom of Lysanias, and that province of Abilene.” Skeptics who discount the miracles of Jesus and those who argue that He never claimed divinity are at a loss to explain why he was perceived to be a threat by both the civil and religious establishment. Benedict succinctly notes, “People do not crucify the average professor. Similarly the skeptics who deny the resurrection are at a loss to explain the zeal, efficacy and resiliency of the disciples. The authors of the New Testament understood that their testimony would be hard for some to accept. Paul notes that Christ Crucified was “to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Gentiles foolishness.” (1 Cor 1, 23) Yet, the apostles persisted with a consistent message in their early oral teaching and in the later writings. The Second Letter of Peter states, “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.”(2 Peter 1:16) Some who were alive at the time of the events believed that Jesus was the Messiah and that he rose from the dead while others did not. There is no historical evidence that any of these eye witnesses disputed the authenticity of the books of the New Testament and many were willing to die rather than to deny the Gospel. The Church in Antioch was founded by Peter in A.D. 34. Peter anointed Euodus as Bishop of Antioch when he left for Rome and Ignatius succeeded Euodus. The earliest known use of the term “Christian” was in reference to the believers in Antioch and Ignatius provides history’s first known use of the term “Catholic.” The letters of Ignatius emphasize the centrality of unity, the bishop and the Eucharist in the life of the early Church. In writing to the Philadelphians he states that there is “one flesh of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and one cup of his blood that makes us one, and one alter, just as there is one bishop. Additionally, Ignatius makes it clear that the Church extends beyond the local community. In writing to the Ephesians he emphasizes that bishops are appointed “the world over” and in his Letter to the Smyrna he states, “where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic (Universal) Church. Some have been troubled by differences found in the four Gospels. In fact, the differences are limited to minor details (e.g. how many arrived at the tomb) and chronology. It must be remembered that the Gospels were written to preach the good news of salvation rather than as modern biography. Ancient biographies often did not follow chronological order. Only Luke’s Gospel claims to be present the events in the actual temporal sequence. The minor differences actually serve to support the validity of the witness. We are not troubled that an initial report of a news story produced by a cable news network differs in minor ways from one presented by a monthly news magazine. Conversely, any savvy conspirator knows that a manufactured story has to be tight with no loose ends to arouse suspicion. One common complaint is that in John’s Gospel Jesus was condemned to death as the Passover lambs were being slaughtered. It seems to indicate that Jesus died before Passover and it appears to be in conflict with the other Gospels’ report that Jesus celebrated Passover with the apostles on the night before his crucifixion. There are a number of possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy. One explanation was not available to the originators of the historical/critical method of interpretation as the Dead Sea Scrolls had not been found. The Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the Essenes followed a 364 day solar calendar rather than the 354 day lunar calendar followed by the Saducees. Because of their distinct calendars the Essenes celebrated Passover Tuesday night and the Saducees celebrated Passover on Thursday night. While some focus only on the differences between the Gospels it is also interesting to look at the commonalities. One apparently minor detail included in all four Gospels is that the women reported the empty tomb. This may not seem surprising but first century writers would have no motivation to add this detail as a woman’s testimony was not considered as reliable as that of a man. It is also surprising that the texts document that prominent individuals (e.g. Peter) behaved, at times, in embarrassing ways. The early Christians were confident in the validity of the story- they did not need to sterilize or buff up the texts.Finally, it is interesting to note that Jesus chose to enter history at a time and place when the power of the Roman Empire had produced reliable roads and social stability. These factors allowed the early Christians to spread the Good News to a wide audience. It would be many centuries before information could again be as easily dispersed. Reflection:What does Jesus’ statement I am the way, the truth and the life mean? What does your daily life say to others about the nature of God? Suggested Reading: The Case for Jesus by Brant PitreConsuming the Word by Scott Hahn The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy AkinChapter FourteenBrightpast: You may call the next witness.Council: I call Jessica Bell to this place for her honest and complete testimony. Jessica, how did you know Adam?Jessica: I was just out of school and Adam was my first real boss. He was older. A little salt and pepper at the temples but no wrinkles and no beer belly. He looked good and I thought it would be fun. Besides, the guys in my age group were getting monotonous. Shaved, tattooed and pierced, one after another, shaved, tattooed and pierced, all of them expressing their individuality in the same way. Adam was so solid and mature. Ya know, I guess I was tired of the bad boy type; I guess I was looking for a good time and a sugar daddy. My Dad left the country when I was four. I saw him a couple of times when I was in high school but then he drove his car off a cliff. They think he was pretty drunk; the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree huh. Neither one of us has much to be proud of. Council: That must have been hard on you.Jessica: Not really, I never really had a father so it didn’t make much of a difference to me. Lots of things are like disappointing; about all you can do is to try and have a good time. A great buzz, a good buzz, any buzz. I wanted excitement, you know, seize the day.Council: Yes, you certainly tried to seize the day but did Adam respond to your advances?Jessica: Adam was frustrating, he hardly seemed to notice me and I am hard not to notice. Of course, that only made me want him more.Council: Adam was a frustrating? Jessica: I get lots of attention but it usually has to do with what I might do for a guy. Adam didn’t seem interested in what I had in mind. Council: Did Adam ignore you?Jessica: No, he was polite but, ya know, I wanted more than office instructions. Council: Did Adam treat you like an office machine?Jessica: No, not as a machine.Council: As a slave? Jessica: No he actually treated me with more respect than I wanted him to. Council: What do you mean?Jessica: Ya know I never had a father so it was all foreign to me but as I think back on it I would say he treated me like a daughter. That was strange to me then, part of me probably liked the idea and part of me rejected it. I have a hard time trusting that sort of thing. Kind of like the idea that God is the “Father,” that never really clicked for me. I remember my friend saying, “If there is a “God the Father” then we are in big trouble because that bastard will be out to get us for all that we’ve done.” We sure didn’t think about mercy. Mostly, I avoided even thinking about any of it. Anyhow Adam was about the only guy I ever met who didn’t try to get in my pants. Council: Was Adam afraid of sexuality?Jessica: No that was the worst part; he was so restrained but his restraint oozed sexy. A couple of times I tried to lure him in with a double entendre but he wouldn’t bight. Anyhow, a week before I quit I heard him talking on the phone and he said that sexuality was a gift from God and that it was one of Satan’s favorite targets precisely because it is so good. He said, “Sin always pretends to be something good or fun or attractive-that is why it is tempting.” It didn’t make any sense to me at the time. I thought he was na?ve.Council: Did he explain how it could be “so good” and “sin?”Jessica: He said that sin is the corruption or misuse of God’s gifts and that the “unitive and creative” aspects of the “marriage act” were central to God’s plan and separating them was like separating eating and nutrition. He felt sorry for those who did not know about the “theology of the body” because it taught him so much about what love really is. I remember because I thought the terms were ridiculous but he sounded so natural. There was something about the tendency to treat people like an object and to take what should be received as a gift. He said he was learning to cherish his wife. It was like he lived in a different world from mine. I guess the divorce rate is like 2% or something. Anyhow, he said that most of the world is paddling along like they are in a canoe without realizing that God has given us all sailboats and a nice breeze. I remember thinking that I wanted a speed boat. Maybe, I really just wanted to be loved. Ya know I thought I knew all about “love.” I didn’t have any idea of what love actually is. I had a nearly infinite number of “lovers” because I didn’t know that there is an infinite Love. Council: Did Adam think sex was important? Jessica: He said that sex was actually holy if you can imagine-obviously, he never had the experiences that I have had. There is nothing holy about…Council: Yes, yes you may both have a point. Jessica, I have no further questions for you at this juncture.Brightpast: You may cross examine the witness before she is removed to the Grey Zone.Adam: I have no questions for Jessica. Jessica I regret the many times I treated women as an object to ogle. It took me a long time to admit that the habit paved the way for my infidelity. Thank you for reminding me that all people want to be authentically loved. Did you know?Karol Wojtyla suffered persecution under both the Nazis and the communists and as a young man he witnessed the destructive impact that “modern” notions of sexuality were having on the young people he knew. Over time the Nazis and communists were defeated but the destruction of the social fabric became more obvious as rates of disease, divorce and despair skyrocketed. Wojtyla recognized that society was being offered a faulty “anthropology,” that is a false explanation of what it means to be human. He recognized that the Church was not fully prepared to respond to the aggressive new challenges. The traditional approach was to warn people of the dangers and to remind them that sin is destructive. These warnings were being ignored as people were no longer willing to accept traditional authority.As Pope John Paul II, he continued to reflect on these realities and the Gospel of Mathew’s account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce (19:3-12). Jesus responds to the questions of the Pharisees by saying “in the beginning it was not so.” Jesus is telling the Pharisees that although Moses allowed it for “your hardness of heart;” divorce was never part of God’s original plan for his creation. Genesis teaches that Man was created “very good” but man’s very nature was injured by “original sin.” Have you ever considered what things were like prior to “the fall?” In our reading of Genesis, we should remember that the purpose of the creation stories is not to teach science but to reveal truth about the nature of God and the nature of man. Some readers miss the rich truths revealed by these stories because they are distracted by their assumptions. It is important to note that Genesis confidently presents not one but two creation stories; the fact that the stories have significant differences indicates that a strictly literal interpretation was/is not intended. Many readers focus on the sequence and timing of creation within the narratives. Skeptics point to apparent errors and claim that modern science has invalidated the Biblical account. Writing in the Fourth century, Augustine notes that our terms for time including “day” generally relate to the “movements” of heavenly bodies; he then calls our attention to the statement that the sun and the moon were created on the fourth day. He concludes that the author’s “day” is not intended to be equated with the time between the rising and the setting of the Sun. In order to understand any author’s meaning we need to consider the style of communication. If you read, “The winds of change swept across the country and factory after factory went dark” would you assume that the author thought a tornado knocked out the power supply or would you understand that changing circumstances lead to the closures? If you read “It will rain cats and dogs would you look for a leash or an umbrella? When you see a stop sign do you apply the brakes or do you search for a subtle metaphor? Different sections of the Bible have different purposes and use language in different ways. The real questions are, “What did the human authors want to affirm and what does God want to reveal to us?” John Paul II discerned that the texts reveal that prior to the Original Sin man existed in a state of Original Solitude, Original Unity and Original Nakedness. Building upon these observations he developed a robust understanding of the human person. This groundbreaking work is known as “The Theology of the Body.” In the garden, God and man were friends. Of all the animals only man was able to converse with God and only man was self-aware. Man was aware of God and of his own self, he was uniquely alone with God and this is the meaning of Original Solitude. God and then man “realize” that man should not be “alone” and God creates woman. Man and woman are not solitary, they find fulfillment in a unified life. Together they are alone with God. Humanity was created for relationship for “Original Unity.” Man was created in God’s image and humanity’s Original Unity reflects the unity of the God. Scott Hahn goes so far as to say, “God in his deepest mystery is not a solitude, but a family, since he has in Himself fatherhood, sonship and the essence of the family, which is love.” The concept of “Three persons in one God” is certainly a hurdle and many Christians seem to avoid the topic entirely. While the Trinity is impossible to fully comprehend, the effort is worth it as even a partial understanding of this central mystery revolutionizes our relationship with God and each other. Frank Sheed explains the traditional analogy well: “The First Person knows Himself: His act of knowing Himself produces an Idea, a Word: and this Idea, this Word, the perfect Image of Himself, is the Second Person. The First Person and the Second Person combine in an act of love-love of one another, love of the glory of the Godhead which is their own; and just as the act of knowing produces an Idea within the Divine Nature, the act of loving produces a state of lovingness within the Divine Nature. Into this Lovingness, Father and Son pour all that they have and all that they are, with no diminution, nothing held back. Thus Lovingness within the Godhead is utterly equal to the Father and Son for they have poured their all into it…. Thus their Lovingness too is Infinite, Eternal, Living, Someone, a Person [The Holy Spirit], God.” In the fourth century Hilary noted, “What we believe in is not merely God but God as Father, and not merely in Christ but in Christ as Son of God…If God is not solitary and exists always in relation, there can be no talk of God that does not involve love. Love unites Father, Son and Holy Spirit, love brings God into relation with the world, and by love human beings cling to God.” Gospel means good news and the shockingly good news is that Christ offers us participation in the love within the Godhead. In John’s Gospel Jesus prays: “that they may all be one: even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us.” He continues, “Father, I desire that they also, whom thou has given me, may be with me where I Am, to behold my glory which thou has given me in thy love for me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee, and these know that thou has sent me. I made known to them they name, and I will make it known, that the love which thou hast loved me may be in them and I in them.” (Jn 17:24-26) Michael Gaitley points out that Jesus begins with the Old Testament “I Am” and transitions to the New Testament “Father” but the startling reality is that “he wants us to see and to participate in the eternal life and love of the Most Holy Trinity that was before the ages.” The term Father has meaning, including the important distinction that God’s creation, unlike a mother’s, is outside of Himself (many pagan religions employed feminine terms and developed myths relating to pregnancy). Unfortunately, for many the term Father does not conjure up the images of mercy and trust that it should. The ongoing decay in family life means that an increasing numbers of individuals have earthly fathers whose example of fatherhood is manifestly defective. In distinction, Jesus speaks of true fatherhood that does not fail. He extends the analogy to fatherhood further than it had ever been taken as he uses the term Abba which is analogous to Daddy or Papa. Jesus encourages us to mimic His intimacy so that His Father becomes our Father. However, we must remember that God is not made in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman but rather pure spirit. Jesus used the masculine terms Father and Son but he also employed the words Spirit and Wisdom both of which are feminine. As an aside, the Church is referred to in exclusively feminine terms. Finally, while we speak of three persons we are referring to one God. Jesus reiterates this oneness of God when he commissions his apostles to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church clarifies the distinction. We speak of the “name” and not “the names” because “there is only one God, the almighty Father, His only Son and the Holy Spirit: The Most Holy Trinity.”Our words and intellect fall short of the reality that God is not like a family but that a family is (ideally and imperfectly) like God. The love between Adam and Eve is so real that they become “one flesh.” They are totally free and generous in their exchange of love. Original Unity entails perfect acceptance of the other and perfect donation of self to the other. It is no coincidence that the Hebrew word for marriage also means “holiness”Man and woman were able to love in this way because they were free of any inward or outward barriers to communication. Real love requires this freedom this “Original Nakedness.” Comfort with nudity is only a small component of this state of total trust in which there is no need for any physical or emotional protective shield. All of us long to be loved and to love in accord with these original gifts but all of us have a tendency to use people as a means to our end. Unfortunately, original goodness was wounded by Original Sin (our inherent tendency not to trust in God and to place our-self over God and others). The Theology of The Body reveals these truths and offers a path towards real love.ReflectionNietzsche said, “Ultimately it is the desire not the desired, that we love.” How does his view of human relationships differ from the Christ who said, “There is no greater love than this, to give one’s life for one’s friends.” (John15:13)What do modern songs and movies say about sexuality? Is there a reason why people used to say “make love” and “family jewels” but now say “have sex” and “junk”? Should your sexuality be treated differently than other aspects of your life?Suggested reading: Theology of the Body Made Simple by Anthony PercyFirst Comes Love by Scott HahnThe One Thing is Three. How the Most Holy Trinity Explains Everything by Michael GaitleyChapter FifteenBrightpast: You may call the next witness.Council: I call Doctor Livia Long to the stand for the purpose of her honest and complete testimony.Council: Livia please tell us about your patient, AdamLivia: Adam exercised regularly. He drank sparingly and he did not smoke. Unfortunately, he ate processed sugar, animal protein and fat. My research clearly demonstrates the advantages of a vegan diet. Antioxidants, micronutrients and macrobiotics are the key factors and when coupled with structured exercise life expectancies can be increased by at least 10 years. Council: Yes, a long life is a common goal but please comment on Adam’s clinical course and your observations of the impact it had on him.Livia: Adam became quite ill and for a time it was possible that he would die. He was fortunate to come to me as we had recently obtained limited FDA approval for the trial of a new agent. The regulatory hurdles are always enormous and the regulators were on high alert after the debacle with Panaciamide. Clearly, the regulators fail to understand that you have to break some eggs to make an omelet. In any event, it’s not an overstatement to say that Adam’s condition would have deteriorated rapidly had it not been for my involvement. Council: Yes, you moved mountains but how did Adam react to the ups and downs of his disease? Livia: Adam was tenacious, he was a bull dog; he refused to stay down.Council: Was Adam afraid?Livia: It didn’t seem that way. He had the advantage of a supportive family; he and his wife were still obviously in love. She stayed by his bed for hours and when he was too weak to talk she would lay her cheek on his hand, I can still see the picture in my mind. In addition, he was comforted by his belief system. He said that he “could accept God’s will.” Council: Did he mean he could accept death?Livia: As the world’s leading authority on longevity my focus is on extending life. Technology has the potential to extend life- indefinitely. We are unlocking the genome, gaining control of cellular signaling, making breakthroughs in tissue and organ culture, and mastering cloning. Immortality is on the horizon. I never understood people like Adam.Council: Was Adam comfortable with death?Livia: Adam stated that he viewed death as part of life. He viewed it as a transition, like the transition at birth and the transitions between childhood and adolescence, adolescence and adulthood, adulthood and old age. He even thought that we “needed death” to remind us what matters.Council: He thought death was a good thing?Livia: He said, “Living forever without God is the definition of hell.” Adam looked me in the eyes and said that knowing God cared gave him peace even in the midst of difficulties. He looked forward to being reunited in the “communion of saints” with his departed family and even more so to “seeing the face of God.” He said that phrase really means that we that we will have pure joy when we “see” that everything God is and does makes perfect sense, perfect justice and perfect love.Council: Did Adam want to die? Livia: I know that he wanted to help his children and that he looked forward to being a grandparent. You could tell that Adam wasn’t intimidated by death. He said that faith in God really meant trust in God. He said that his trust in God had started as a small spark but that the fire had grown over the years. I told him that I was glad his views comforted him. Adam stated there had to be more than biology. I smiled at him and he said, “I understand why many don’t accept God. Philosophy trickles down into society; it determines what will be accepted. Philosophy is like the soil in the Parable of the Sower. If the soil is healthy the seed will flourish but no matter how good the seed is it can’t flourish if the soil has been poisoned.” I told him that I’m very open minded but that I focus on real data and not on superstition because I am a scientist. Council: Did Adam accept your statement?Livia: He acknowledged that superstition was foolish and then he asked me if I had ever seen a proton or if I had ever verified the equations that Einstein developed to describe the workings of the universe. I replied that I had not done those things but that others had. Council: Why did Adam ask you about those things?Livia: He noted that I accepted the reality of protons, gravity and the speed of light by faith in the reports of scientists and that he accepted the reality of God, in large part, by faith in the testimony of saints. He said, “Take a risk and give faith a chance because God is a rational possibility. Many discoveries are only realized when a researcher entertains possibilities that others have rejected. Reason can be informed by revelation.” I did not want to confront him. I am a scientist and I can only respond to data, to things that can be measured. Darwin demonstrated how species evolve randomly. People like my husband and Adam just want there to be more.Council: Adam wanted there to be more? Livia: I am sure that Adam agreed with my husband. Bill wondered why humans care about abstract principles. He didn’t think evolution could explain why Socrates was willing to die for the truth. Bill said evolution did a great job of accounting for different kinds of frogs but the paucity of translational forms was a real problem with the theory. He said that it did nothing to explain the jump from a soup of chemicals to actual life and absolutely nothing to explain the origin of the chemicals. Obviously, science does not have an explanation for everything yet but with each year the gaps become smaller. We should not be afraid of science; it is our only hope.Council: Was Adam afraid of science?Livia: Adam said, “God wants us to search for the truth; there can be no real conflict between faith and reason because God is the author of all truth. Any apparent difficulties represent our misunderstanding of the truth.” He argued that both science and religion had been used, at times, by people who were more interested in advancing their agenda than the truth. As I said, Bill and Adam were a lot alike. Bill thought it was funny that the old atheists argued that we did not need a creator God because the universe was eternal- that it had no start- while the new atheists argue that we don’t need a creator because some can imagine how the big bang might not be the beginning of the story. He also thought that it was silly to believe in multiple universes and dimensions and yet deny the possibility of heaven and hell. Bill loved to point to the second law of thermodynamics and argue that natural processes dictate decay and not organization. Council: Did Adam know much about science? Livia: He was an engineer so I assume he knew something. Bill was a computer programmer and he thought there had to be a code writer to explain the order of the universe. Bill said science is based on the assumption that the universe is organized and is predictable. He quoted Einstein, “the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” He thought it was ironic that the Judeo-Christian concept of a rational God creating a universe with discernible laws had a lot to do with the birth of science and that many now think that science and religion are at war. Bill said that many scientists have confused the scientific method with philosophic materialism. But we can’t go back to the age of superstition.Council: Did Adam think there was more than matter? Did he think there that was more than things?Livia: He quoted the mathematician Pascal, “We have an incapacity for proving anything which no amount of dogmatism can overcome. We have an idea of truth which no amount of skepticism can overcome.” Adam said I should ask Bill if he knew that Pascal built the first computer long before there was electricity. Adam believed that thoughts and concepts demonstrate that there is more than matter. As you may know, many scientists think it won’t be long until computers are capable of all that has been considered human. Council: Did Adam think that computers could be considered human?Livia: I’m sure he didn’t. Some hope to download their consciousness so they can live in a digital eternity. That never sounded appealing to me and Bill didn’t think that would ever happen. He thought that consciousness was a lot more than gathering, sorting, accessing and prioritizing data and he didn’t think computers could move beyond those things. He said that he would take the argument seriously when computers disobeyed their programming. Do we have that ability? Are we free to believe or to doubt? Are we free to do anything? Chemical reactions don’t have freedom. Council: Do you know if Adam thought there is free will?Livia: Oh, of course but he acknowledged that it was a bit of a mystery. Evidently, Chesterton said, “Only materialists and madmen never have doubts.” But perhaps we really are just a series of responses to prior responses. To be fair, since thoughts are just a matter of electrical impulses and chemical reactions it doesn’t make sense to argue who is correct on this or any other topic. If you are honest, you have to accept that one chain of chemical reactions is just as real, just as valid as another. If “A” and not “A” are just two different chemical reactions then there is no truth and no free will. Everything is just the next reaction in the chain. It seems that reason leads us to conclude that there is no reason. Perhaps we misunderstand reason. Is reason unreasonable? Council: Did Adam think he knew the answer to those questions?Livia: Adam said that faith is dependent on reason and that reason is dependent on faith. He credited Pascal with the comment that, “Reason can’t be validated by something below reason or even by an act of reason as a part can’t justify the whole but only by something super-rational; that is by faith in God.” Perhaps reason can’t be justified. The central irony of our age may be that human reason was the foundation of the enlightenment and the engine of science, yet the enlightened scientific view now argues against the existence of reason. Can we have faith in science when reason itself is denied? Can science survive? I’ve heard it said that the novice skeptic says, “I have the right to think for myself and that the master skeptic says, “I have no right to think at all.” I couldn’t embrace faith but I’ve never been comfortable with the denial of reason. Council: Did Adam think that reason was reliable?Livia: He said he understood why I was skeptical. I remember him saying something about flawed and fallen human reason pointing to the existence of True Reason, that is, to God. He said that dogmatism was the error of thinking that human reason is as reliable as True reason. When human reason and faith are shown to be lacking it leads naturally to skepticism which is the error of denying the reality of reason or faith. Council: Did Adam think there was a way to avoid the extremes of dogmatism or skepticism? Livia: Adam thought that the proper response to the uncertainty was humility and that humility should lead us to listen to God. But science is the only hope and science only reveals blind matter following the edicts of physics. I thought my death would be the end of my battle with death but I will fight on. All processes have to be reversible. I’m going to get my research going as soon as I find a few cooperative assistants. There are countless subjects here who would be willing to take enormous risks. There will be some missteps but I know we can eventually conquer the difficulties with the apparent directionality of death. Can you imagine? When I break down the barrier it will dwarf all prior and future discoveries. It will be The Discovery. I’ve got a state of the art lab all set to go. It’s maddening, it’s just gathering dust; it’s just so hard to build a team here. Council: Was there evidence that Adam really thought there was more than science?Livia: Adam spent a lot of time with another patient of mine, a young man who didn’t make it. After the young man died, Adam said that he trusted it would all make sense someday. I never understood the hope that was in him.Council: Did Adam have an explanation for his hope?Livia: I’ll never understand Adam’s hope. Science is really the only hope. I know I’ll find the way to reverse death. I’ll never give up. I’ll never rest. Adam just quoted Augustine, “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.” Council: It is said that suffering produces endurance and endurance character and character hope. I have no further questions for Livia.Brightpast: Mr. Eversman you may question the pioneering witness.Adam: I have no questions for Livia. Livia, thanks for reminding me that life really is a wonderful gift.Did you know?Newtonian physics described a mechanistic, eternal universe with infinite time and space. This concept coupled with Darwin’s theory of speciation based upon random mutation and natural selection provided the basic infrastructure for the development of an apparently robust materialistic world view. For the materialist, design was not required and precision was not important as infinite time and infinite space provide infinite opportunities for the successful generation of life by random processes.Physicist Stephen Barr notes: there was no experiment that proved that only matter existed, nor was there any calculation that proved the universe had no purpose. Nor did the materialist claim that there was. What he claimed was that there were two pictures of the world, the religious and the materialist, and the progress of science revealed a world that looks more and more like the materialist picture and less and less like the religious picture. Barr continues that the problem with that narrative is that science did not end in the nineteenth century and many recent discoveries have begun to “confound the materialist’s expectations.” These “plot twists” go beyond the discovery that time and the universe “began.” Foremost among them is the discovery that the universe and its laws are balanced on a razors edge. The Big Bang theory describes a universe that explodes into being in a manner that is consistent with the bold description given in Genesis. The theory was initiated in 1927 when Belgian physicist and priest Georges Lemaitre realized that Einstein’s theory of general relativity was not compatible with the prevailing eternal universe model. If general relativity is true then gravity would crush a static universe into nothingness. Lemaitre labeled his new model “the primeval atom.” The appellation “Big Bang” was coined in the 1950’s as a term of derision by physicist Fred Hoyle. Hoyle like most of his peers disparaged the theory as an attempt to replace science with primitive myth.In 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubbell provided the initial data demonstrating that space is indeed expanding (Hubble Expansion). Resistance to the theory of expansion finally dissipated with the discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) in 1965. The characteristics of CMBR are consistent with light from the Big Bang made faint by billions of years of cosmic expansion. Additionally, calculations based on the Big Bang correctly predict the proportion of heavy and light elements in the universe. The theory has been updated to account for the discovery of an initial inflationary era (small fraction of a second) when there was a rapid increase in the volume of the universe, dark matter (particles that do not emit or absorb light which make up one fourth of the mass of the universe), dark energy and Planck time (the brief era when non-quantum descriptions of gravity are inadequate). Physics is the study of the physical universe. “Constants” have been described for many parameters including the speed of light, the mass of protons, neutrons and electrons, gravitational attraction and the strong and weak forces. Physics teachers refer to the “laws of physics” but they are not like the laws of arithmetic. The laws of nature are simply patterns observed in our universe. The equations and laws of physics reflect the reality of our universe but the possibility exists that they could have been different. All physicists acknowledge that subtle changes in the parameters governing the Big Bang would have resulted in widely divergent outcomes. It is clear that minor alterations to the parameters would produce devastating consequences. Physicist and atheist Stephen Hawking notes, “If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have recollapsed.” Conversely, if the gravitational and weak force constants were decreased the big bang would have scattered all matter and there would have been no cluster formation. Additionally, a 2 percent reduction in the strong force and its constant would prevent the formation of elements heavier than hydrogen (the lightest element) while an increase of 2 percent would have prevented the formation of hydrogen. A lack of hydrogen would have prevented the formation of water and star fuel. Similarly, if gravity were weaker and electromagnetism stronger all stars would be red dwarfs while a slight change in the other direction would produce only blue giants-both conditions would not be compatible with life. The number of possible inhospitable outcomes is enormous. It is estimated that the odds of an anthropic (able to support life) universe is 10 to the 123 power. (the 229 power according to Lee Smolin). That number is incomprehensibly large, by comparison the total number of atoms in the entirety of the known universe is a much smaller number (10 to the 80 power).While there is ample evidence that the universe came into existence theorists continue to imagine alternative models with an infinite past. To become accepted these models would have to overcome enormous barriers in both physics and metaphysics. The empirical evidence indicates that our universe is expanding; in addition, there are good reasons to claim that any expanding system has a finite past. The initial claim that an expanding system is past incomplete is intuitive. If a balloon is expanding it cannot have been expanding forever as even slow expansion demands a distant starting time. This line of thinking was fortified in 2003 by Borde, Guth and Vilenkin (BGV). In layman’s terms the BGV theorem notes that in an expanding universe the relative velocities of objects accelerate the more one “goes backward in time.” Since nothing can exceed the speed of light there has to be a limit on past time. Additionally an eternal past can be challenged philosophically with a simple exercise. Could you count to infinity and then open a door? No, because you would always have more counting to do. Since today arrived it follows that there were not an infinite number of days in the past. The implications that time had a beginning; that the universe sprang into being in a tightly controlled expansion and that minor variations in the parameters present would have prevented the development of an anthropic universe have not been lost on physicists. Atheist and physicist Stephen Hawking notes, “many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” Physicist Bruce Gordon states: When the logical and metaphysical necessity of an efficient cause, the absence of a material one, and the proof that there was an absolute beginning to any universe or multiverse are all conjoined with the fact that our universe exists and its conditions are fine tuned immeasurably beyond the capacity of any mindless process, the scientific evidence points inexorably toward transcendent intelligent agency as the most plausible, if not the only reasonable explanation.Perhaps in response to this conclusion the quest for alternative explanations continues. Some have speculated that the universe may “bounce” in a cycle of big bang and big crunch. The “bouncing universe” concept contradicts the second law of thermodynamics. The second law states that the entropy in a system stays the same or increases as organized energy becomes disorganized energy- essentially that systems run down until they eventually stop. To maintain “motion” energy must be supplied from outside the system. A universe with no beginning would be a perpetual motion machine and the laws of physics do not allow such a system. String models have been proposed that allow for renewal by drawing on “inexhaustible” gravitational potential energy; however this again entails an expanding universe and therefore runs afoul of the BGV theorem. Calculations regarding the entropy in the universe at the time of the Big Bang and the amount of CMBR now present are also difficult to account for in a cycling universe. Finally, the 2011 Noble Prize for Physics was awarded to researchers who discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating rather than decreasing. Models with multiple universes (more correctly a multiverse) have been proposed. Some have speculated that in a system, with more than four dimensions, “membranes” collide to produce sequential Big Bangs. A system with 3 or a billion “universes” would be unlikely to achieve conditions suitable for life but if there were enough universes then there would be an opportunity for anthropic conditions by mere chance. However, these constructs are entirely speculative, and could never be proven as quantum theory does not allow travel between these imagined areas. Stephen Barr notes that the only way we could know of their existence would be by divine revelation. Physicist Paul Davies clarifies the options, “Of course, one might find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than on observation.” While these theories make for great science fiction they do not explain the source of the multiverse. In the final analysis we must acknowledge that our increasing knowledge of the origin and nature of the universe may not provide definitive answers. Physicist Don Page argues the central point well: God creates and sustains the universe rather than just the beginning. Whether or not the universe has a beginning has no relevance to the question of its creation, just as whether an artist’s line has a beginning and an end, or instead forms a circle with no end, has no relevance to the question of its being drawn.Reflection:Do you have faith in science? Is hope important? What gives you hope? If the universe is created, was it for the benefit of elements, planets and stars or for you? Why do some want there not to be a God? Suggested reading:Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr New Proofs for the Existence of God by Robert J. SpitzerChapter SixteenBrightpast: Council may call the next witness.Council: I call Ed V. Guy to the stand for the purpose of his honest and complete testimony. Ed, how did you know Adam?Adam and I graduated from engineering school together. I gotta tell you the plain and simple facts. I was at the top of the class and Adam was in the bottom half. How a guy like him gets to run a major firm I’ll never know. He had an average intellect- at best- and everything just seemed to fall his way. It is crazy how a putz can get ahead with nothing more than lucky breaks. What made it even more infuriating was that every project I had was snake bitten. Life is all about luck. It is all about luck and kissing butt. If you don’t kiss butt, you’ll never get anywhere. Council: Did Adam “kiss butt?”Ed: He had to. How else would a guy like him get to the top? The problem is there is no justice in the world. I should have been his boss. He should have been my lackey. He probably cheated or bribed his way to the top. Council: Did Adam cheat?Ed: He never got caught. He always had a fa?ade that kept people from suspecting him. I never trusted that holier than thou chump. I remember one day when I was complaining about my daughter’s punk boyfriend he said, “Rules without relationship results in rebellion. Girls often seek acceptance from a guy when they don’t have a validating relationship with their father.” He told me that I should make sure she knew that I loved her and then he asked me if I ever hugged her! No one hugs their kids after they’re four years old! Kids today grow up fast. He was so smug, it pissed me off and I told him so. He had an answer for everything.Council: Did Adam think he was smarter than you?Ed: Smarter than me? That’s a joke. He admitted he had no insight of his own, that he was just tapping into the wisdom of the ages. Council: What did he mean by that?Ed: He felt every age has blind spots. Omissions and over reactions in its thinking that prevent a clear reading of the situation. He quoted Louis somebody or somebody Lewis, “The characteristic errors of one age can be corrected by the characteristic truths of another” or something like that.Council: What areas was he talking about?Ed: I never really asked. I do know that he thought it was silly to criticize the kids. He said, “They don’t know what they don’t know.”Council: Did he explain what that meant?Ed: He believed they were responding rationally to society’s message that nothing has any real meaning. He said, “What is the point of discipline or virtue? Why shouldn’t they just try to have a few thrills? Let’s hope they figure out that they’re being sold a big lie.”Council: Did Adam give you any practical advice?Ed: He said, “Don’t turn your kids over to the media.” He said it was like a drug and that most kids were exposed to massive doses of senseless violence and dehumanizing sex. He said adults can survive a higher dose but that it still has a negative impact. I told him that you can’t say no if everyone is saying yes and that movies, TV and video games don’t really have any effect anyhow. I couldn’t really argue when he said that media companies survive because advertising works. “It changes what people think and do so it is dishonest for them to then claim that everything is just entertainment.” Evidently there were studies from Brazil showing that behaviors changed dramatically for the worse when TV was introduced to an area.Council: Did he offer anything else?Ed: If you can believe it, he said that he prayed for his kids’ and their future spouses; that they would be protected from the dangers of modern culture. That sounded a little crazy to me. Who would talk like that? Who actually does stuff like that? How does a guy like that make it? I was number one in my class and he was last. Explain to me how he did it? It’s just ridiculous!Council: Did you ever ask Adam why he was successful?Ed: Why would I ask him? It was obvious. He pretended like he didn’t care about accolades but I could see through him. He claimed that he tried to be a servant. I could see right though that smokescreen.Council: Did he explain the servant comment?Ed: He said that perhaps the most remarkable statement in the Bible is that Jesus said, “Whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant… for even the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve.”(Mark 10:43-45). Council: Did Adam make that part of his life?Ed: He said that his life really blossomed when he decided to start each day by praying, “Lord, let me do your will today.” What a bunch of crap; let me tell you, Adam fired lots of employees. Some servant, he just wanted to be important. I don’t know why so many people tried to help Adam; they bent over backwards for him.Council: Did Adam enjoy bossing people around?Ed: Who doesn’t? He claimed that he had a responsibility to make sure that the bridges we built did not fall down and that the company did not go out of business but I know he really just wanted to be Mister Big Shot. I wasn’t going to let him push me around. I work hard and I deserve some respect. I never got what I deserved. It wasn’t just that I kept getting screwed. It was ten times worse because Adam kept getting more and more credit. I hate to bring it up but the loser almost flunked out of school. Council: Was Adam proud of his accomplishments?Ed: Of course, I wanted some recognition but mostly I wanted to stick it to Adam and the rest of that pile of crap company. Sure, I took company secrets and accounts to the competition, who could blame me? Of course, when I quit, Adam smugly said, “Envy is the ultimate happiness killer. Jealousy is damaging enough, but envy is even more destructive because the focus isn’t on getting what the other guy has but on wishing that the other guy fails.” Again, with the smug bull crap, like he is looking out for my best interest. Adam always got lucky; in freshman chemistry Adam got to be lab partners with the professor’s nephew and when we started to work he got the desk closest to our boss. I got the brains but he always got lucky; one time… Council: How did Adam respond to your leaving the company?Ed: He pretended like he wished me well! He pretended like he was giving me advice, “Companies do well when everyone pulls in the same direction. Everyone has different talents and you need to get people into positions where they can thrive. You have to try to build a culture where everyone celebrates the talents that their coworkers have been given. If their fighting over whose piece of pie is a smidgen bigger you’re in trouble.” I knew that he was really pissed. Adam knew that I really got him good. It was great. He knew that I had patiently waited for the chance to really stick it to him and there was nothing he could do about it. It was perfect. The next quarter was the worst in history and they came this close to going broke!Council: Did Adam take it hard?Ed: Damn it, next thing you know, that piece of crap gets a huge contract just handed to him and he comes out smelling like a rose. There is just no freaking justice! I never got what I deserved and he got way more than he deserved. I hate to complain but I’m still not getting any recognition in this dump. I’ve had it with this damn place. I’m about ready to let them know what I really think! I deserve better!Council: Truly, truly it is not always obvious what is deserved. Ed I have no further questions for you.Brightpast: You may question the deserving witness.Adam: I have no questions for Ed. Thank you, Ed, for teaching me the necessity of forgiveness and mercy.Did you know?Shakespeare understood that all of us have a tendency to prefer justice for others and mercy for ourselves:The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes. 'T is mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway, It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's, When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this, That in the course of justice none of us Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy. William Shakespeare, "The Merchant of Venice", Act 4 scene 1The Gospel of Mathew records a parable that reveals just how biased our thinking is:"For the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the market place; and to them he said, `You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.' So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing; and he said to them, `Why do you stand here idle all day?' They said to him, `Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, `You go into the vineyard too.' And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his steward, `Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.' And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the householder, saying, `These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.' But he replied to one of them, `Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you, and go; I choose to give to this last as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?' So the last will be first, and the first last."How can Justice and mercy be reconciled? Mercy and Justice seem to be mortal enemies. Is the call for justice the death knell for mercy and is the application of mercy a death blow to justice? Jesus was confronted with this choice when the crowd wanted to stone the adulteress in accord with Jewish law. Jesus does not reject the law; he challenges and befuddles the accusers by stating, “who among you that is without sin may cast the first stone.” Many leave the narrative at this point when it appears that Jesus has subordinated justice to mercy. But Jesus then links mercy and justice as he turns to the woman and instructs “go and sin no more.” The conclusion of the story is critical for in John’s Gospel we are instructed that “whoever commits sin is the slave of sin.” (John 8;34) Those who deny the existence of sin condemn the sinner to slavery. Jesus is not content to ignore the woman’s sin because he does not want to leave her in slavery. Mercifully, Jesus offers freedom. Jesus reveals that true mercy requires the criticism of sin and true justice requires the rejection of sin but that neither requires the rejection of the sinner. We are challenged to hate the sin (including our own) but to love the sinner (including ourselves and our “enemy”). Jesus eventually fully unites justice and mercy upon the cross. In the act of perfect love, Jesus accepts the sin of the world and then offers himself in reparation for our sins. This perfect act of love is also the perfect act of justice as no higher price could be paid. Finally, this perfect act of justice is the perfect act of mercy as we are restored to God through no actions or merit of our own.Reflection:Do you want what you deserve? Would you rather have mercy or justice? For yourself? For your enemy? Can you think of any other way to perfectly unite mercy and justice? Suggested reading:Screw Tape Letters by C.S. Lewis A Father Who Keeps His Promises by Scott HahnChapter SeventeenJudge: You may call the next witness.Council: I call RIP Eversman to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. RIP, how did you know Adam? RIP: How did I know Adam? Our Mom introduced us. He’s my kid brother. Council: Were the two of you close?RIP: Close? We were close to opposites. Adam was always work, work, work from the time he was in high school on. I knew that the best things in life were free- or better yet, paid for by someone else. Adam was “mister responsible”, “mister show up on time”; a regular working stiff. Life is too short for that nose to the grindstone stuff. Chill. Relax; don’t sweat the small stuff baby. It’s all good.Council: Can you tell us more about what Adam was like?RIP: Like I said, he was a bit of a downer. It seemed like all he wanted was to make “a contribution.” He’d pester me, “Aren’t you going to grow up?” “Don’t you want to do something with your life?” I told him that I wasn’t going to be a missionary or anything. Council: Did Adam want you to be a missionary?RIP: Of course not, Adam knew that wasn’t in the cards. Effort has never been my strong suite. He said, “God wants you to make good use of the talents he gave you but God doesn’t need you to be a missionary, in fact, God doesn’t need anything. I said, “Great” but he ignored me. “God created everything; it is all His. He doesn’t need your money, your worship, or even your obedience or love. God wants you to give, to worship, to obey and to love because they all are good for you.” You get the idea, “mister good advice.” I just wanted to have some fun. What’s wrong with a little fun?Council: Did Adam have a problem with fun?RIP: Absolutely, well with my kind of fun. He just kept coming back to, “You’re a talented guy-don’t you want to contribute? Aren’t you concerned about anyone but yourself?” Blah, Blah, Blah. Council: Did Adam ever ask you for your opinion?RIP: Sure. He tried to get in my head and see what made me tick so I’d mess with him. I would say that rules were for fools. Of course, Adam thought that there were legitimate rules.Council: Did he think all rules are good?RIP: He said, “We need to make a distinction between legitimate authority and illegitimate authority. We should submit to the former and fight the later.” I said, “Rules are for fools, baby.” He asked me what I would think of a man who buys a new phone. The instructions specifically state “Do not submerge.” The man says, “It is mine and I can do what I want with it.” He dumps it into a lake and it is ruined forever. I said, “The new ones are water proof.” Then he said, “Man learned to fly by learning and accepting the laws of aerodynamics not by ignoring or denying them. Accepting the laws increased man’s freedom. Don’t you see that moral rules are to keep things working as well as possible?” He said that when we misuse our freedom we become enslaved by our vices; of course Adam thought that I was addicted to a lot of things.Council: Was Adam focused on the shortcomings of others?RIP: Yeah chief he was always worried about me, I reminded him don’t judge me, “Judge not is in the Bible.” Of course, Adam said, “We are not supposed to judge other’s souls but we are supposed to make judgments about what is right and wrong. That’s what separates us from the animals. You’re my brother and I worry about you. If you’re standing on a train track shouldn’t I warn you when I see the locomotive? Don’t you see that God’s commandments are rules designed to keep us from making bad choices, from choosing things that will make ourselves and others unhappy?” Yada, yada, yada.Council: Did Adam claim to know what would make you happy? RIP: Yo, he said that I kept chasing moments of pleasure and moments of pleasure can’t give you joy. “Sin always offers pleasure but that in the end it delivers pain.” Adam said, “When I do things God’s way I feel more alive, more joyful. God gave us the Commandments, the Church and the Bible to help us know how to be happy.” Council: Did Adam claim the authority to dictate the rules?RIP: You nailed it! He started with Paul, “The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.” blah, blah Then Jesus said, “Though art Peter” blah, blah “I will build my church” blah “give you the keys to the kingdom” blah “what you retain on earth will be retained” blah, blah “apostolic succession”(Acts 1:20,2 Tim 2:2, 2 Thess. 2:15) blah “salvation history” blah “guided by the Holy Spirit” blah, blah “the gates of hell shall not prevail” Blah, Blah, Blah.Council: Adam wasn’t very convincing? RIP: Convincing? I don’t know. I heard it all a million times. It didn’t seem relevant to me. I gotta be free.Council: Did Adam respect your freedom?RIP: Bud, you know I gotta be free! He claimed that my freedom was fake freedom. Adam was like, “Freedom is a paradox. False freedom leads to slavery and real freedom requires discipline. False freedom is like a cleverly baited trap. When I was a drunk having a choice between vodka, gin and whiskey didn’t increase my freedom.” Whatever, I didn’t have the energy for that philosophical stuff. I was just trying to have a little fun. God should have said so if he wanted my attention. I didn’t see any proof. Council: Did Adam think there was proof?RIP: Yo, he said you shouldn’t expect God to materialize in your room or to send a message in the sky. He said, “The Bible says only those who seek will find, but understand that scripture teaches that God reveals himself with subtlety like a mist.” I told him, “A mist isn’t much to go on.”Council: Did Adam think that God should give more evidence? RIP: Adam said the Bible also says that all who seek will find. All I know is that I didn’t find. I’m a believer in direct communication, hah, except when I’m not. You know what I mean; ya know how clingy chicks can be.Council: Adam thought, “All who seek will find?” RIP: Oh, yeah, Adam said, “God wants to have a relationship with each of us. But if we are focused on self it is hard to see God. We need to recognize the dynamic of the relationship. We would melt if we really came face to face with God. God lets enough light out to be found by those who truly seek and He remains partially hidden to teach believers humility. God also leaves darkness for those who do not desire Him so they have a place to hide. God is a lover and not a rapist.” Adam thought my bad habits kept me from seeking God. All I’m saying is why not just make it plain and simple. I never said there isn’t a God.Council: Did Adam offer any “proof?”RIP: I wouldn’t call it proof. Even Adam admitted that there was no isolated, overwhelming proof. He thought that there were lots of things that pointed to it. Adam said it is like a bicycle wheel. A single spoke is not enough to support much weight but when you find an organized array of thin spokes extending from different positions to the hub you have a wheel that can support the rider. He said, “You are missing the point if you claim that none of the individual spokes can support the weight of the rider.” Council: Did Adam identify any “spokes?” RIP: Bro, I think he got to the point where everything became a spoke. He talked a lot about Bible things and even observations about the universe, human nature and society. Blah, blah, blah. Can’t say I remember any specifics, I guess I remember that he thought the persistence of the Jews as a people was a miracle because the world seemed committed to their destruction. Oh yeah, he said that Disraeli told Queen Victoria the same thing. He continued, “They should have disappeared as a people many times: when they were captive in Egypt, Asyria and Babylon and certainly after the Romans expelled them from their lands and they were dispersed throughout the world. We all know Hitler did his best to put an end to their existence. The world has done its best to annihilate the Jews and to put an end to their witness. The fact that they have survived so much adversity is a sign that God is sustaining them.” Council: Adam thought that history had meaning?RIP: How much longer we a goin with this? I’m a gettin a little bore, bore, bored with history class. Council: Rip please focus and tell us what you remember.RIP: Ouh, Adam said Jesus didn’t write any books but he did start his Church to be his body until he comes again. (Eph 1:22) He thought it was a miracle that the Church persisted and grew and that it was remarkable how many times the Church had survived persecution. I said, “Lots times they deserve it.”Council: Did Adam object to your assessment?RIP: He said sometimes they did and sometime they didn’t. I was surprised that he basically agreed with me, “The Church is a collection of sinners and it should come as no surprise that some sin big time. Every other institution eventually collapses under the weight of its own corruption but the Church has survived despite the best efforts of some very corrupt individuals. The Church has survived for thousands of years and it is still growing, nothing else has even come close.” I said, “I’m not saying it’s not true, I’m not saying it is true. I just don’t care much. I’m not doubting Thomas, I’m I don’t care right now RIP. Tell me Jesus is in the next room and that I can probe his wounds and I’ll say, “Ask him to wait there till the game is over.” Adam ignored me and continued, “The historical aberrations are almost as good as probing the wounds of Christ. Then he added, “The sins are wounds in Christ’s body-his Church.” I said, “We can’t know for sure so it doesn’t make much of a difference either way.”Council: Did Adam think it made a difference?RIP: Of course, Adam thought it made all the difference in the world. “Remember how you loved movies when you were a kid, you always loved it when the hero overcame incredible obstacles to defeat the evil empire. Don’t take the passive easy path, dare to be heroic. Many people think Christianity is soft and cuddly. They think it only comforts the weak, but in reality, Christianity demands more than any other world view.” He quoted G.K. Chesterton, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” Adam asked, “Who wants to forgive, or love their enemy, or lay down their life?” Council: Did Adam think following Jesus was worth the effort?RIP: Adam said, “Christianity promises more than any other world view. Nothing else claims that we were created to be children of God. Nothing else claims that we are cherished by a loving Father. Nothing else claims that God has a plan for each of us. God wants us to develop virtue and virtue often comes by overcoming hardship.” I said, “Don’t worry, I got a plan. I’m plannin on a nap as soon as I get outa here.Council: Did Adam think that “the plan” was the same for everyone?RIP: Yes and no. Yes, in that God wants us all to love Christ so that we love like Christ. And yes, so that we love like Christ and become members of the body of Christ. But no in that we are all different like the feet are different from another part of the body. I told him, “I know what part I would want to be and it’s not the spleen.”Council: Did Adam think there was a purpose to the plan? RIP: The big payoff is that we can participate in the “Devine Life of God.” Essentially, we can experience the love inside of God. Council: Did Adam know how that would happen?RIP: The basic idea is that people become members of the mystical body of Christ. As members of the “same body” they have communion with each other and through Christ participate in the interior life of the Trinity. So heaven isn’t just sitting around it’s actually participating in the intense love that flows. It isn’t just looking at beauty it is being engaged in beauty. More like playing a game than watching a movie. See, I know all about all of it; I just never get around to making big decisions. Besides, everybody has to have a vice or two, were only human.Council: Did Adam accept vice?RIP: Adam quoted somebody that the world thinks that happiness comes from selfish pleasure but that life finds meaning when it is given as a gift. He said, “The best defense is a good offense. Look at the saints, many of them overcame sin.” Of course, he brought up Augustine and Ignatius of Loyola. He claimed that God would give me the necessary grace and that greed, gluttony, lust, anger, sloth, envy and pride are no match for charity, moderation, chastity, mercy, diligence, generosity and humility. I said, “That sounds like a lot of effort, the first list is a lot easier.” Council: Did Adam think he had it mastered?RIP: He replied, “I fail too, so I try not to put myself into situations where I’m more likely to fail. We are all works in progress; I especially wish I didn’t let so many opportunities for good slip away. We both need to look for chances to build on the virtues.” The he looked me in the eye and said, “Don’t be afraid to ask God for help.” Council: Did Adam think God’s help was important?RIP: Adam said he would pray for me and he asked me to pray for him. I said, “I don’t get the same buzz you do from that stuff. I’ve heard everything you are saying a million times but I’m just not that moved.”Council: Did Adam have a response?Rip: He said, “God offers us graces through others, scripture and the sacraments but that many do not bother to open the gifts that God gives to them.” I said, “If I get the receipts maybe I can exchange them for some better stuff.” You gotta have a sense of humor. Council: Did Adam laugh?Rip: A little, then Adam got even more serious than usual and said, “Humor is great but don’t hide behind it. We are confronted by the claims of Christ and we have to decide if it is true or not. If it is true then it changes everything. If it is true then the whole world is sacred and each person is sacred. If it is true then I should fearlessly confront injustice. If it is true then I should give more than I wanted to give and I should love more than I think I can love.” He said, “That thought makes me feel very inadequate.” Council: Was Adam troubled by feelings of inadequacy?RIP: He claimed, “Weakness is strength because it makes us dependent on God’s grace.” He said that it was remarkable what God had done with weak individuals like Peter and even our parents. Council: Did Adam treat you like you were sacred?RIP: Well, year after year he offered me a job but the old nine to five is for suckers. I knew Adam didn’t approve of my choices. He thought God had a plan for me, hey I broke a few laws but I didn’t really hurt anyone. Hey, I’ve got to be me. I’ve got to do it my way! What’s wrong with just trying to have some fun? What’s the big deal? One of these days I might get around to some serious thought about all of it but I’ve been busy. Things may not be going so well now but don’t judge me man. “Judge not least you be judged” that’s in the Bible (Mathew 7:1). Council: Yes, as is, “Do not judge by appearance but according to what is right.”(John 7:24) RIP, I have no further questions for you.Brightpast: You may question the irrepressible witness.Adam: Sadly, I have no questions for RIP. RIP, I regret the opportunities I squandered in my life. I regret that I wasn’t more honest with myself and more open to God.Did you know?God could have simply given us a treatise on philosophy, a compendium of wise statements or a list of approved actions. Instead he chose to reveal himself via real world interaction with specific individuals. God seeks relationship with us as individuals because He is Love and because He knows that these personal interactions provide meaning that cold edicts cannot convey. “Salvation history” refers to this concept that God revealed his nature and desires to mankind via real people and real events. Biblical scholar Scott Hahn states “God writes the world the way men write words.” The Old Testament records how mankind fell from a position of grace and how God began the process of repairing the damage. God continued the process of repair by establishing a covenant with a specific man, Abraham. Then God expanded the covenants to include first a family and then a tribe and eventually a nation. Each Old Testament covenant was “fundamentally familial in nature” and each covenant was sealed by an outward physical sign because God knows that our normal way of learning is through our physical senses. The story moved forward as individuals struggled with the challenges of their day. Many episodes demonstrated the inclination that mankind has to ignore God and justice. Each time, God remained patient and faithful despite man’s failures. Over time God revealed more and more of Himself. Over time ever larger numbers of individuals were drawn into a covenantal relationship (family bond) with God. Scott Hahn notes that the Hebrew and Greek word that “we render as “testament” … may be rendered more accurately in English as “covenant.” The Old Testament chronicles the age of nature (creation to Moses) and the age of law (Moses and ancient Israel) and God is revealed to be all knowing, all powerful and trustworthy. The New Testament reveals that in the fullness of time God gave his full and final revelation to the world, as the “Word” (Logos) of God became man-Jesus. Logos is usually translated as “word” but alternative translations include: “mind”“meaning”, “reason” and “essential determining factor.” As Justin wrote, “Reason became man and was called Jesus Christ.” God entered history so that we could know him. Jesus ushers in the age of grace and He is the complete and final revelation of God because He is the ultimate reality-He is fully and eternally God. In the first creation story in Genesis God speaks and creation is accomplished, and then the language curiously becomes plural: Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Similarly, John’s Gospel begins: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The New Testament does not replace but rather fulfills the Old Testament. Augustine said, “The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.” The Old Testament as interpreted by Christians was a different book from the ancient writings. “Christians saw terms take on different hues, certain images spring to life, persons and events privileged, and everything woven together in a tapestry imprinted with the face of Christ.” There are many narratives that reveal the complementary nature of the Old and the New Testaments. A prime example was initially revealed in the Old Testament Passover/Exodus narrative. The Israelites were warned that the angel of death was coming. They were instructed to sacrifice a perfect lamb, to eat it and to mark their homes with the blood. The blood of the sacrificed lamb provided protection for the people as they were delivered from the angel of death and slavery in Egypt. At last as God’s “first-born son” they were able to freely worship Him.(Exodus 4:22) Soon thereafter the Covenant of Moses was sealed at the base of Mount Sinai when blood was sprinkled on the altar (representing God) and the people. This seemingly bizarre activity evoked the ancient notion of “blood association.” Scott Hahn explains, “In a literal and symbolic sense he was making Israel and God “brothers of the same blood.” The Jews were instructed to continue to celebrate the Passover as a day of “remembrance”(Exodus 12:14) for all time. Subsequent generations see each celebration as more than a memorial as each celebration becomes a way of entering into the first Passover. In the New Covenant Jesus is the spotless Lamb of God. In accord with scripture and tradition Jesus met with his apostles on the feast of Passover. “And he said to them I earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer.”(Luke22:14-15) Then Jesus did not stick to the script of the traditional Passover but rather pointed to the future as he broke the bread and said, “This is my body which is given for you: do this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19) He then took the cup and told them to “Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”(Mathew 26:27) Clearly, something radically new had occurred as the Covenant of Mosses specifically forbad the drinking of blood (LEV 17-10). By ushering in a new Passover in which he is the sacrifice Jesus is also declaring a new exodus. This exodus frees his followers from the slavery of sin and the consequence of sin, that is, death. The New Covenant opens the new promised land- the Heavenly Jerusalem. Likewise, during their time in the desert God sustained the Israelites by providing manna from heaven. Similarly, in the sixth chapter of the Gospel according to John, Jesus refers to manna and then says, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats this bread he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” In John’s Gospel we learn that many of the disciples said, “this is hard teaching” and that “after this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus does not say come back I was only kidding, it is just a figure of speech but rather he turns and asks “the twelve, "Do you also wish to go away?" Simon Peter answers him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”After the crucifixion and resurrection the apostles begin to understand that the New Covenant brings forgiveness and a new opportunity for a deeper, more intimate and more meaningful relationship with God. This powerful reality becomes clear in the Road to Emmaus account found in Luke’s Gospel. Two befuddled disciples encounter a stranger who explains the scriptures and makes their hearts “burn.” The disciples are in the presence of Christ but they do not recognize him until he proclaims the blessing and “breaks the bread.” With this representation of Jesus’ Passover actions the eyes of the disciples are opened and they recognize that the stranger is in fact the risen Christ. In the ages of nature and law God used material signs (e.g. water) to point to immaterial realities. Most “signs” such as a flag or even words point to the object they represent but they cannot convey the full reality of the thing. Much about the object remains hidden because the “sign” has limited power. God’s “Word” is more powerful, as it can effect what it signifies because it is Christ acting. Outward signs from Christ that have the power to convey what they signify are known as “sacraments” in the West and “mysteries” in the East. With these sacred mysteries God employs the material reality he created to convey the sacred reality that lies beneath. Currently, although we are in the age of grace we see this reality “as through a glass darkly”(1 Cor 13:12) When Christ comes in glory we will see him as He is.” Reflection:If God created matter are there limitations to how he can use it? Did the man Jesus appear to be God? Augustine said, “If you believe what you like in the gospels, and reject what you don't like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” Are there hard teachings that you don’t want to accept? Suggested Reading: Swear to God by Scott HahnThe Lamb’s Supper by Scott HahnJesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist by Brant Pitre Chapter EighteenBrightpast: You may call the next witness to the stand.Council: I call Alfred O. Pain to the stand for his honest and complete testimony. Alfred, how did you meet Adam?Alfred: Adam and I met at Long Shadows Nursing home. He had difficulty with Parkinson’s, or was it MS, or ALS? Anyhow he was weak and seemed to be in pain. My wife was in the next room. Margaret had Alzheimer’s. I watched her melt away. She didn’t know me or anyone else at the end. It was humiliating; no one should live like that. I knew I never could. Control is the key and pain of course; no one should have to suffer. A quick dignified exit is the smart way to go. Council: Was Adam looking for a quick exit?Alfred: I mentioned my plan to him. He asked me, “Do you have the right to sell yourself into slavery?” I said, “What the hell are you talking about?” Adam replied, “Human beings are not property; we don’t have the right to sell a human life let alone throw one away.” I said, “Adam, you worry about you and I’ll worry about me.” When my diagnosis came I knew what to do. “I Did It My Way,” that’s always been my anthem. Council: And Adam, did he want to suffer?Alfred: No, I suppose not, but he said we could “offer it up” and then he spoke of “redemptive suffering” and quoted St. Paul to me, something about uniting his suffering with Christ’s. But Paul didn’t have modern options. I told him that I could not understand or accept that suffering could have meaning.Council: Did Adam think suffering could have meaning?Alfred: He said that if life is meaningless then suffering is meaningless but that if life has meaning then so does suffering. He claimed that many of the “saints” found meaning in both. Adam said that while he did not fully understand it he had come to believe that life and suffering both have deep meaning. There was something about participating in a suffering that we don’t understand being similar to being the focus of a love that we do not fully understand. It made more sense when he said, “The three year old always cries when his mother takes him away from the park, even if it is to get ice cream.” But we’re not talking about parks and ice cream; we’re talking about real suffering. I still say suffering is evil, evil is suffering. That is all there is to it. The earth is brimming with suffering; it might as well be hell. Council: Adam embraced his suffering?Alfred: In a strange way I suppose he did. He said, “Pain is endurable but meaninglessness isn’t; “pleasures” are essentially pain if there is no meaning. The worst thing about suffering is that it can make you forget about other people if you let it. Suffering makes it hard to feel good but that it shouldn’t make it hard to be good.” I told him that suffering and good did not belong in the same sentence.Council: Did Adam think suffering could be good? Alfred: He believed that suffering destroys our illusion that we are God. He noted that Greek tragedies show how success produces hubris and how pride comes before the fall. “The fall often leads to bitterness. The Old Testament confirms the initial sequence and reveals the other half of the cycle. Suffering can lead to humility and repentance. Blessings naturally follow.” Council: Did his suffering lead to bitterness or to humility?Alfred: Strange as it was, I never heard him complain, he just kept going day by day even hour by hour it seemed. It was like he was winding down. There was drool on his chin when he said that it is important to give thanks for a specific thing or person each day. He was even grateful for weakness because it allowed him to see the folly of pride; it didn’t seem natural to me. Council: Did Adam say how he did it?Alfred: He said he could not do it without Jesus. He said that he was sustained by Jesus the Word of God in Scripture and in the Eucharist. He didn’t look all that sustained to me.Council: Did Adam despair?Alfred: No, but he should have. He seemed to be at peace. He claimed, “Weakness is a blessing because it makes room for Christ. My suffering helps me understand Christ’s suffering and that helps me understand Christ’s love. He loves me so much that he was willing to die on a cross for me. He would do it for any of us.” I replied, “None of that makes sense to me.”Council: Did Adam explain why it made sense to him? Alfred: He spoke about communication with God growing into communion with God. He felt like he was already partly entering heaven but I thought he looked like hell. He said each of his labored breaths was a prayer. I told Adam that I prayed for my wife to be healed but God did not answer my prayer. Council: What did Adam think about prayer?Alfred: He thought prayer was more than asking for things, in fact, he said, “The best prayer is “Thank you.” I replied, “Under the circumstances it doesn’t seem like there is much to be thankful for.” He said, “Imagine if you only had today what you were thankful for yesterday.” I said, “Adam what’s the point? If there is a God he doesn’t listen and he certainly doesn’t answer.” Council: Did Adam think God answered? Alfred: Of course, in fact, he said, “God always answers prayer: at times the answer is “yes”, at others it is “wait” and sometimes it is “no.” None of us likes to hear “no.” When Jesus taught us to pray he included “Thy will be done” and we should too because God knows more than we do; we all will die of something, the truest healing is not the removal of disease but rather the grace to remain joyous and hopeful; to learn to trust God even when things seem bleak.” I replied, “I just want to be comfortable. I just want peace.”Council: Did Adam seek comfort?Alfred: I don’t think so, he continued, “The world looks for peace but many think that means comfort. Seeking comfort leads to self focus. Self focus leads to loneliness. Loneliness leads to boredom. Boredom leads to indulgence. Indulgence leads to imbalance and imbalance leads to despair. If you take your focus off of self you can see others. You can see God.”Council: Did Adam trust that God would help?Alfred: He claimed that God had always provided what he needed even if it did not seem that way. By the end Adam couldn’t even make an intelligible sentence. He was just a slumping heap of flesh. He really died months before he stopped breathing. I didn’t see it. I don’t see it. All I know is that I’ll do anything to avoid pain and suffering. It is always something. I don’t see it. I don’t know, maybe it is natural for a dog or some other animal to just hang on, but it is different for humans- we can see it coming. I could see it coming, I needed out. I can see it coming now. I didn’t ask for much. I’m not asking for much now. I need out. I’m not looking to triumph over difficulties. I don’t need to be a hero. I don’t need to be a saint. Hell, I just need to avoid pain; I just need that much control. Council: Truly, your nature is more complex than a dog’s. Perhaps Adam’s path was not completely “natural.” Alfred I have no further questions for you.Brightpast: You may question the prudent witness.Adam: I have no questions for Alfred. Thank you Alfred for reminding me that fear can be a trap. I hope that I grow in courage.Did you know?There are only three ways to look at the world: Life as meaningless vanity, life as suffering and life as love. Which philosophy will guide your life? Before you solidify your choice recognize that while our thoughts do not construct reality they do shape our experience of reality. Philosopher Peter Kreeft states that the most profound books ever written about these philosophies are found in the Old Testament: Ecclesiastes, Job and Song of Solomon (Song of Songs).Modern man’s greatest fear is nothingness. Are we just dust in the wind? Are life and the universe meaningless? Ecclesiastes relies on human observation, emphasizes human reason and reaches a modern conclusion: everything is meaningless, everything is vanity. Initially, Solomon places his hope in philosophy and finds “I have seen everything that is done under the sun: and behold, all is vanity… I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all…I perceived also that this is but striving after the wind.” (Eccl 1:12-17 TPL 38)Next Solomon seeks fulfillment in pleasure. “I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings… I got singers both men and women, and many concubines, man’s delight…whatever my eyes desired I did not keep from them; I kept my heart from no pleasure….Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent in doing it and behold all was vanity and striving after the wind, and there was nothing to be gained under the sun.” (Eccl 2:1-11) Solomon like many people today pursues pleasure but in the end he finds that he is bored. Power is more enticing than other pleasures as power controls pleasure. Solomon dominates the world as few have, but in the end he finds that this too is meaningless. Ultimately, power fails to satisfy for it cannot control meaning. Augustine noted that we are driven by the quest for power, to be over the law and not under it. In essence, we desire to be like God. Power intoxicates but even infinite power can not satisfy. Our longings are broader than power. We long for infinite justice, beauty and truth. We long for goodness. Aquinas clarifies that power is not the central issue, “if we are like God in power but not in goodness, then we are not like God in power, because God’s power is one with his goodness. Most religions teach that getting beyond self is central to happiness, goodness and fulfillment or at least to reducing attachments which produce suffering. Solomon heads down this path as he notes that a “threefold cord is not easily broken” and he seeks meaning in service to others. He soon finds that multiplying zero by anything results in zero. Meaninglessness shared is still meaningless.Eventually, Solomon seeks meaning in the God that can be discerned by observing the natural world, the invisible watchmaker who set the world in motion. This God could be like the “Force” in Star Wars but it could never love or be loved. Solomon despairs that all is vanity, all is meaningless. His despair reflects the reality that hell is separation from the company of God and that it often begins on earth. While Solomon seems to have it all many of us are not so “lucky.” At times the world seems to be a factory whose real product is suffering. Job is the poster child for suffering as he is afflicted with woe upon woe. When his world implodes Job begins to despair that “the innocent and guilty, he destroys alike. When a sudden deadly scourge descends, he laughs at the plight of the innocent.”(Job 9) Job begins to fear that perhaps God is not good. He fantasizes about bringing a lawsuit against God but he recognizes that there is no court with authority over God. He laments that there is “no arbiter between us.”(Job 9:32) The situation goes from bad to worse and Job is merely instructed to wait.Despite his mounting misery Job never gives up hope and in the end humbly comes to realize that God’s ways are above his ways. He appreciates that while he can never fully understand God he has nothing that does not come from God. Despite his tremendous suffering Job does not despair because he is in relationship with God. Job’s associates speak of God but Job, even in the gravitational pull of despair speaks to God. Eventually he states, “I had heard you with the hearing of my ear; but now my eye sees you.” Job accepts that without God he has nothing and if he has God he does not need anything else. Job discerns that with-out suffering he could not have learned these truths. Without suffering he would not have been able to “see God.” Job did not get what he thought he wanted; instead he got what we all truly want.To interpret Song Of Songs or any portion of the Bible symbolically does not require the rejection of the literal sense of the scripture. Often both approaches are simultaneously appropriate. Thomas Aquinas taught and the Church continues to recommend the “fourfold method” of interpretation (literal reports deeds, allegorical reveals Christ, moral teaches how to act and anagogical describes our destiny) as a way of unlocking the full meaning of scripture. Aquinas reminds us that “all other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”A symbolic interpretation of Song of Songs reveals a love story between God and his people. “According to atheism, there is only a human monologue with no God to dialogue with. According to pantheism, there is only a divine monologue with no created world or free souls for God to dialogue with. All is one. Only according to theism is there a dialogue between the Creator and the creature. Only in theism does mankind confront an Other. Thus the dialogue between lovers manifests a whole philosophy of life.” True love does not become boring because unlike everything else in the universe it does not run down or decay, it is perpetually renewing, in effect it can remain in perpetual motion. Song of Songs reveals that love is an invitation to active life. God calls us to a free existence full of power and sacrifice. Life has meaning and love is real. Heaven is participation in God’s love. If we are open to God’s love Heaven begins even amongst the challenges of earthly life. All of us have some desire to change, to improve in some way. The natural idealist seeks limited incremental change. He seeks to eradicate a given defect or to acquire a specific virtue. The Christian looks to Christ as the standard and has a deeper understanding of the depths of his own defects. He acknowledges that he is dependent on Christ who “saves his people from their sins” not just the punishment for their sin. ( Mathew 1:21 ) He renounces his past sin, as well as his present and future sin because they distance him from God. He is not just ready for change; he seeks to leave his unredeemed nature behind and to be transformed from above into a new man-to be born again (John 3:3). Michelangelo said, “Lord, take me away from myself and make me pleasing to Thee.” The Christian is not concerned about the world’s standards or appraisal. He is not afraid to be a fool for Christ. He seeks freedom from sin and freedom for Christ. This requires radical change and most of us are hesitant to move forward. “To admit Jesus is divine is to admit his absolute authority over your life, including your private life… we are all addicts to something- to selfishness at least. That is the meaning of sin, the very disease that Jesus came to cure…. The old self is no fool. It sees that Christ has come to kill it. It knows that Christianity is not a harmless theory, but something alive and dangerous.” C.S. Lewis offers a powerful analogy, “Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what he is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you know that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is he up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of-throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage; but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.” The follower of Christ seeks to change however he does not seek random change but rather the unchangeableness of God. The natural readiness to change decreases with age but the supernatural readiness to change grows with Christian maturity providing an eternal youthfulness. As he matures, the Christian is willing to leave behind his natural self but in doing so he does not lose his individuality but rather gains his true nature. Von Hildebrand states, “The great mystery of our metaphysical situation, that God is nearer to us than we are ourselves, is manifest in the fact that we cannot even be wholly ourselves-in the sense of individuality as a unique divine thought-until we are reborn in Christ.” It is only in a saint that individuality is fully expressed. We are all called to be saints. Reflection:Many wonder why God has not given us a world without suffering. Would you give up free will to have a world without suffering? Without free will can there be love? Suggested Reading: Three Philosophies of Life by Peter KreeftTransformation In Christ by Dietrich Von HildebrandChapter NineteenBrightpast: You may make your closing arguments.Council: The evidence is overwhelming, it speaks for itself. The verdict is clear for all to see.Brightpast: Adam Eversman do you have anything to say before the judgment is announced? Be advised that your freedom is in peril. Be advised that eternity is at stake. Those who are not radically dedicated to autonomy have no place here. We are a proud and accomplished people. We will not serve him. Declare your independence. Create your own reality. Our ranks swell and my power grows. Join us. Join Me. We are Legion.Adam: Am I to beg for admittance? Is eternity the promise? An eternity of what? An eternity without truth? An eternity without true love? I seek nothing you offer. You speak of freedom. I seek true freedom. I seek true autonomy. I seek my best self; not the basest. Your false freedom enslaves, it is a trap. The “residents” are like a monkey caught in a hand trap. They, like the doomed monkey, can’t escape because they won’t let go of a trivial prize. It saddens me that you have ensnared so many. I will not be trapped. I will not clutch your prize. Condemn me. I place my trust in Truth and Love. Jesus I trust in you. Peter said, “Lord where else would we go?” These testimonies show the veracity of his words, there is nowhere else to turn. I place my trust in God: in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I reject the false options championed today. I reject the false visions. Truth Is and Love Is. I long only for Truth and Love; I am purged of all other desires. Brightpast: The way is wide and the gates are many but the verdict is clear. The proceedings confirm that we embrace many points of view and many courses of action. What we cannot have is you Adam Eversmen. You have been revealed and you are not for this realm. The counselor will show you through the gates.Council: Come, follow me. I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.Adam: Though I walk in the valley of the shadow of death I fear no evil. Jesus I trust in you.Adam and the Counselor pass through the gates and enter a new realm… God:Well done my good and faithful child, you have loved well and run the race to the end. I have prepared a room for you in my house. Come join in the marriage feast of the Lamb. Adam: Lord I am not worthy, I have failed in so many ways. My ways are so much below your ways, have mercy on me a sinner. I seek only your mercy. I see more clearly than ever that you are All! Oh Beauty that purifies. Oh Justice that sanctifies! Oh Truth that clarifies! Oh Love that satisfies! My Lord and my God!GOD: COME Adam woke from his first restful sleep in weeks. The young nurse greeted him with a perky, “Good morning sweetie.” Adam replied, “God bless you Katie.” The pulse oximeter announced each heart beat and Adam wondered what he had experienced. Whatever it was, it made him long for God’s company. Everything in the room seemed to be more real. He felt totally alive. He began his morning prayer in his usual way but the connection to the sublime was starteling. The arrival of eggs and toast were barely noticed. A dull pain warmed his left arm. The ember of pain grew into a raging fire. Katie called for help. Pain ripped through his chest and then strangely lost its power to dominate. The vice that had been crushing his chest was no more. The irregular pulse of the monitor surrendered to a monotonous chord. Frantic tense voices gave way to quiet murmurs. The murmurs decayed into silence. The silence became absolute… Final thoughts"Knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. They will say, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation.”"2 Peter 3:3-4 What will we believe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How will we live our life? Will we build our life on materialism? On the notion that only stuff and force mater? Will we accept the rational corollary that there is no right or wrong but only power? If we are just atoms why do we long for justice? If we are just chemicals why do we want to love and be loved? If we are just animals why do we think about God? Can God be love if He is not a person? Has God revealed Himself to us? Is there meaning?What is the nature of “God?” C.S. Lewis notes that, “we want a god we can contain: An “impersonal God”- well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads -better still. A formless life force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap-best of all. But God Himself, alive, pulling at the other end of the cord, perhaps approaching at infinite speed, the hunter, king, husband-that is quit another matter. There comes a moment when people who have been dabbling at religion suddenly draw back. Supposing we really found Him? We never meant it to come to that! Worse still, supposing he found us?” Lewis also points out that the credibility of the incarnation and Chrisitianity, “does not lie with Obviousness. Pessimism, Optimism, Pantheism, Materialism, all have this “obvious” attraction. Each is confirmed at the first glance by multitudes of facts: later on, each meets insuperable obstacles. The doctrine of the Incarnation works into our minds quite differently…It has little to say to the man who is certain everything is going to the dogs, or that everything is getting better and better, or that everything is God, or that everything is electricity. Its hour comes when these wholesale creeds have begun to fail us.” Christianity is unique. Chesterton clarifies its radical isolation, “all modern philosophies are chains which connect and fetter; Christianity is a sword which separates and sets free. No other philosophy makes God actually rejoice in the separation of the universe into living souls.” Is it possible that we were created in the image of a loving God? Is Jesus the ultimate icon of the loving God? Is it true that Jesus is the way the truth and the life? If these things are even just possibly true how can I ignore God? As you confront these questions ask yourself two simple questions: Do I really know myself and do I really know Jesus Christ? If not then ask yourself what might happen if you did? Could it be that Christ is the way to move from wretchedness to redeemed, from sin to salvation and from death to life?Christianity is indeed a strange story. Christianity is indeed a true story. Christianity is indeed the life giving story. Life has meaning- deep and wondrous meaning. The truth is that God is Love and you are the point of creation. Do these statements seem odd? Make the choice to be skeptical of skepticism and dare to doubt doubt. As Chesterton points out, “Whenever we find there is something odd in Christian theology, we shall generally find that there is something odd in the truth.” “This, therefore, is the conclusion of my reason for accepting the religion and not merely the scattered and secular truths out of the religion. I do it because the thing has not merely told this truth of that truth, but has revealed itself as a truth-telling thing. All other philosophies say things that plainly seem true; only this philosophy has again and again said the thing that does not seem to be true, but is true. Alone of all the creeds it is convincing where it is not attractive; it turns out to be right like my father in the garden….” It turns out that Christianity is the surprising answer to a strange riddle because Christ is the surprising key to a strange lock.Peter Kreeft makes it clear that we need more than abstract principals: When life gets really rough, you need more than good ideas and good ideals. You need a real friend to be with you and to stay with you, a friend who knows you better than you know yourself, who loves you better than you love yourself, and who has more power to help you than you have to help yourself. You need a God who is really present. You need a God who is real not just an ideal. That’s exactly who Jesus is- and who He wants to be for you.Dare to doubt doubt. Doubt is an invitation; it is a starting point not a destination. Doubt is a gift as only those capable of doubt can have faith, but doubt can never satisfy. Relentless doubt is not the hallmark of a robust intellect, it is the habit of intellectual survivalists hunkered in a bunker of presumed superiority. Doubt is not an intellectual triumph. Everything can be rejected by the adherents of doubt. Every great advance is ridiculed by minds too small and proud to recognize the genius of the unrecognized insight. Those who worship at the altar of doubt never build anything. Building demands care and discipline. Building requires faith. Faith constructs magnificent cathedrals. Doubt is a crude blunt instrument, it is a wrecking ball. Each of us is choosing. We are choosing between faith and doubt. We are choosing between meaning and emptiness. We are choosing between hope and an abyss. We will never have perfect information. Pascal lamented, “But seeing too much to deny and too little to be sure, I am in a state to be pitied.” If you’re not sure what to do then begin with Pascal’s seemingly selfish wager: Which choice has more downside risk and which has more upside gain? Paradoxically, the apparently selfish choice leads not to selfishness but to selfless fulfillment. Many accept God’s gifts. Unfortunately many others reject his company. The gap between these two options may look like a crack in the sidewalk but know that it grows to become a great chasm. On one side is joy, peace and life; on the other depression, despair and death. It is easier to cross the divide before sin has widened the distance but know that God is always willing to draw you back across the abyss. Just ask, humbly ask. If you feel inadequate remember that Chesterton said, “If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.” Suggested Reading Orthodoxy by G.K. ChestertonThe Gospel According to Luke ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download