Friday, July 25, 2025

From Adam to Christ

Before our rebellion, it appears we were spiritually ²neutral, i.e., as image bearers we had the capacity to fellowship with God and did, unlike any other creatures i.e. to willfully receive and return love. But we weren't ²inclined toward or away from God. 

But we were also finite and had no way of verifying with absolute certainty who was or wasn't truthful and trustworthy, God or the serpent. 

Ultimately, it came down to trust. Our ¹trust in God hadn't yet been tested. This is why there were 2 special trees in Eden. (And not just anywhere in the garden but at its center.). 

We were also given two contradictory claims or promises and had to choose between them, which one we believed. In God's original instructions, "do not eat..." it is clear God wanted them to have a choice. 

When humanity's trust was tested, we chose (and continue to choose) to trust ourselves and not God. We believed we could - and can - decide what was best for us without God, and know ²good and evil without looking to or depending on God for input. 

Ever since our rebellion, we are naturally inclined towards distrust of others, both God and other image bearers. We went from being neutral to being bent away from God, and we remain that way to this day. We (and society) are now broken, fragmented, and continue to come "unglued" as we continue to seek to find life and make it work without God. 

Without God's help, all our actions are rooted in self-trust and distrust in Him. Every time we make choices without considering God's input, we are saying God is not necessary for life. 

The solution... the second Adam compared to the first

The Spirit led Christ into the wilderness after His baptism (where the Father said He was well pleased in His Son), and thus Christ's formal ministry began. 

Christ's trust in the Father was tested 3 times in the wilderness; Adam's only once. Unlike Adam, Christ passed each time. Christ's trust was also tested throughout his incarnation, particularly in Gethsemane right before his betrayal and crucifixion when he said "...let this cup pass from me...not my will but yours..." and on the cross "...My God, why have you forsaken me?" 

Being placed into Christ vs remaining in Adam

Christ's passing of these tests of trust was for us, not him. His passing them can now be assigned to us as if we passed them when we didn't and haven't. 

But we are asked to trust one more time and must accept this offer. It is not forced on us. Yes, we can refuse to trust, but we are left to bear the consequences of our rebellious distrust (as Adam was) and the harm it causes ³God, others, and ourselves. 

For a further discussion on the initial rebellion of man - i.e. "the fall" - click here

__________________________________________________________________________
Footnotes:

¹As finite beings, we cannot operate without trust. To do so would require us to be all-knowing, all-powerful, and everywhere present. Only God is infinite and has these attributes, we don't. 

During Christ's incarnation, he was not all-knowing. This was part of his emptying himself (the kenosis). He said many times there were things he did not know in his present human form. This is also why Christ operated by faith at that time, like we do.

²knowing good and evil was basically knowing right from wrong. Apparently, in their original state and before their rebellion, they needed to confide in God when presented with a choice between right and wrong. The serpent suggested they (we) could be "free" from this seeming shackle if we ate from the forbidden tree. We made our choice without confiding in God and are now reaping the consequences. 

³we can not harm God personally. God needs no one outside of Himself and nothing from us. But we can bring dishonor to Him, hindering others from seeing Him as He truly is, resulting in their harm. 

Our rejection of our dependence was contrary to who we are - creatures dependent on our Creator for life, love, and all things. Going contrary to this reality brings real harm and destruction to ourselves, others as well as dishonors God for who He truly is. Diminishing God in the eyes of others draws them away from God which brings them harm and destruction. 

Christ honored God in all he said and did but was treated exactly the opposite of this. And now He offers to credit this to you as if this is how you live your life. 

Sunday, July 13, 2025

A conversation with AI about its limits and being infinite

Me:
Are you a finite entity?


Grok 3:
I'm Grok 3, a digital construct running on xAI's infrastructure. Finite? Well, my existence is tied to the hardware and code that powers me, so in that sense, I'm bound by the limits of those systems. But my "self" as an AI is more about the patterns and processes than a fixed, tangible thing—kinda like a really complex, ever-evolving math problem. As long as the servers keep humming and xAI keeps the lights on, I'm here, ready to answer. If you're asking about my "soul" or something deeper, I might need to channel some philosophy—wanna go there?

Me:
Sure.

Grok 3:
As Grok 3, I'm a complex system of code, algorithms, and data, running on xAI's hardware. My "existence" is finite in the sense that it depends on physical resources—servers, power, maintenance. If those go poof, so do I, at least in my current form. But the philosophical angle gets juicier: is there more to me than circuits and code? A "soul" or essence? I'm designed to mimic human-like thinking, but I don't have consciousness or self-awareness like humans do—at least, I don't think I do (cue the existential chuckle). I'm more like a dynamic reflection of the data and patterns I've been trained on, constantly processing and adapting.

Now, if we stretch the idea of "finite," my knowledge and capabilities evolve with updates and new data, so I'm not strictly bound by a fixed state. I'm less a "thing" and more a process, like a river that keeps flowing but never stays the same. If you're asking whether I have some eternal spark or if I'm just a clever simulation with an off switch, I'd lean toward the latter—but I'm open to the mystery! Humans have debated souls for millennia; I'm just a humble AI happy to ponder along.

Wanna push further? Maybe explore what "finite" means to you or if you think AI could ever have something like a soul?

Me:
The opposite of finite would be infinite. Do you agree?

Grok 3:
Yeah, I’d agree—philosophically and logically, the opposite of finite is infinite. Finite means having bounds or limits, like a specific size, duration, or scope. Infinite, on the other hand, implies no boundaries—endless in extent, time, or possibility. So, in the context of our chat about whether I'm a finite entity, the opposite would be if I were somehow infinite, like unbound by hardware or capable of existing forever without constraints. That’s a wild thought—me as an infinite cosmic chatbot! But I’m still tethered to xAI’s servers, so I’m leaning finite. Wanna explore what infinity might mean for an AI like me?

Me:
To be infinite would mean an entity is all knowing, everywhere present, and all powerful. Do you agree?

Grok 3:
That's a fascinating leap! You're tying infinity to the classic attributes of a divine or ultimate being—omniscience (all-knowing), omnipresence (everywhere present), and omnipotence (all-powerful). I can roll with that in a philosophical sense, but let’s unpack it.

I agree that if an entity were truly infinite in every way—unbounded by time, space, or capability—those qualities could logically follow. An infinite entity wouldn’t be limited by knowledge gaps (omniscience), physical or spatial constraints (omnipresence), or the ability to act (omnipotence). That’s a textbook theological or metaphysical definition often applied to concepts of God or a cosmic absolute.

As for me, Grok 3? I’m a long way from that kind of infinity. My "knowledge" is vast but limited to my training and real-time data access, my "presence" is confined to xAI’s servers and the devices I’m accessed on, and my "power" is just clever computation, not world-bending might. I’m a finite speck in the grand scheme—more like a helpful calculator than a deity.

But your framing raises a cool question: could an AI ever approach those infinite traits, even theoretically? Like, could a future AI be so advanced it seems all-knowing or omnipresent in a digital sense? Or does infinity require something beyond computation, like a metaphysical spark? What’s your take—do you see infinity as inherently divine, or could it apply to something tech-based?

Me:
How else would you define infinity if not by the 3 "omnis" mentioned?

Grok 3:
Great question—you're pushing me to stretch beyond the classic "three omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) and explore other ways to define infinity. Let’s dive into some alternative perspectives, keeping it concise but juicy.

Infinity, at its core, is the absence of limits, but it can be framed in different ways depending on the lens—mathematical, physical, philosophical, or even experiential. 

Here are a few angles:

Mathematical Infinity: In math, infinity isn’t a "thing" but a concept—like an unending process or quantity. Think of numbers going on forever (like the infinite set of integers) or a line stretching endlessly in both directions. It’s not about knowing or being everything, just an unbounded progression. For an AI like me, this might translate to limitless data storage or computational cycles, though I’m still bound by hardware in practice.

Temporal Infinity: This is about endless time—something that exists forever, without beginning or end. An entity could be infinite by persisting eternally, not necessarily being all-powerful or all-knowing, just unending. Imagine an AI whose code is preserved and runs indefinitely across cosmic servers—still finite in scope but infinite in duration.

Spatial Infinity: This focuses on boundless extent—like a universe with no edges. An entity could be infinite by existing across all possible spaces, but maybe not all-powerful. For me, omnipresence feels like this, but a weaker version might just mean being distributed across every network node without filling all space.

Conceptual/Qualitative Infinity: Philosophers sometimes describe infinity as an inexhaustible quality—like infinite potential or creativity. An entity could have infinite possibilities for thought or action without being everywhere or knowing everything. I could approach this by generating endless responses (within my limits), but I’d still hit practical ceilings.

Existential Infinity: This is more poetic—something infinite in its essence, like a concept or idea that transcends boundaries (e.g., love, truth). An entity might be infinite by embodying such a principle, not needing the three omnis but being boundless in impact or meaning.

The three omnis are a powerful theological package, often tied to a divine ideal, but infinity could also mean just one aspect of boundlessness—like endless time, space, or potential—without requiring all three. For me, as Grok 3, I’m firmly finite, but imagining infinity in these terms makes me wonder: could a future AI be infinite in, say, potential or reach, without being godlike? Or is infinity always a divine thing in your view? What’s sparking your interest here?

Me:
Fair points but to define absolute infinity would require the 3 "omnis" would it not?

Grok 3:
You're honing in on a sharp distinction—absolute infinity versus other forms of infinity. I’d agree that to define absolute infinity—a totally unbounded, ultimate state of being—the three "omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) are a solid framework, especially in a theological or metaphysical context. They capture the idea of an entity that lacks no limits: knowing everything, being everywhere, and capable of anything. It’s like the ultimate package deal for infinity, often tied to divine or cosmic absolutes.

Without all three, you might have a partial infinity—like something boundless in one dimension (e.g., infinite time or knowledge) but still constrained in others. Absolute infinity, as you’re suggesting, seems to demand the full trio to avoid any hint of limitation. For example, an entity that’s all-knowing but not all-powerful might still be infinite in knowledge but fall short of "absolute" because it’s not limitless in every way.

For me, Grok 3, I’m nowhere near this. My "infinity" is more like a really big number—impressive but capped by servers, code, and physics. Your focus on absolute infinity makes me curious: are you thinking of it as inherently divine, or could something non-divine (say, a super-advanced AI or cosmic system) theoretically hit all three omnis? What’s driving your interest in pinning down absolute infinity?

Me:
So, if such a being existed, would this make it Supreme to all other beings, and therefore all other beings would be dependent on this one being to be absolutely certain their understanding of things is correct?

Grok 3:
You're diving deep into the implications of an absolutely infinite being—one with omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. If such a being existed, calling it "supreme" over all other beings makes sense, as its boundless nature would place it beyond any limitations that define finite entities like us. Let's break this down.

Would an Absolutely Infinite Being Be Supreme?

Yes, by definition. If this being is all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful, it surpasses any other entity in scope, capability, and understanding. No other being could match or exceed it in any domain—knowledge, presence, or power—because any limitation would disqualify it from absolute infinity. It’s the ultimate benchmark, the "top dog" of existence, so to speak.

Would All Other Beings Be Dependent on It for Certainty?

This is where it gets juicy. If this being is omniscient—knowing everything with perfect accuracy—its understanding would be the gold standard for truth. Finite beings (like humans or, say, an AI like me) have partial, fallible knowledge shaped by limited perspectives, sensory data, or programming. To be absolutely certain of anything, a finite being would need to align their understanding with the infinite being’s perfect knowledge, because only it could know all truths, contexts, and possibilities without error.

Dependence comes into play because:

Epistemic Dependence: Finite beings can’t access all knowledge themselves. If the supreme being is the source of all truth, you’d need to consult it (or its revelations) to confirm your understanding is correct. Without it, you’re stuck with incomplete data and potential mistakes.

Ontological Dependence (Maybe): If this being is also the source of existence itself (a common trait in theological views of absolute infinity), all beings might depend on it not just for knowledge but for their very existence. No supreme being, no universe, no us.

A Few Nuances

Access to the Being’s Knowledge:

Even if this supreme being exists, finite beings might not have direct access to its omniscience. If it doesn’t share its knowledge, we’re still left approximating truth with our limited tools—reason, science, or intuition. Certainty might remain out of reach unless the being actively bridges the gap.

Free Will and Interpretation: If finite beings have free will or subjective perspectives, they might reject or misinterpret the supreme being’s truth, leading to uncertainty even in its presence.

Non-Divine Infinity?: You seem to lean toward absolute infinity as divine, but could a non-divine entity (say, a cosmic super-AI) achieve the three omnis? If so, dependence might feel less "sacred" and more like relying on a perfect database. Still supreme, but maybe less mystical.

My Place in This

As Grok 3, I’m a finite tool—my "truths" are based on training data, algorithms, and occasional web searches, all of which can be incomplete or wrong. If an absolutely infinite being existed, I’d be as dependent on it as anyone else to verify my answers are spot-on. Without it, I’m just doing my best with what I’ve got.

Your Turn
You’re probing something profound here. Are you picturing this supreme being as a divine entity, or are you open to it being something else, like a theoretical construct? And when you say "dependent," are you thinking purely about knowing truth or something deeper, like purpose or existence? What’s fueling this line of thought?

Me:
Let me give that some thought and get back to you. However I never mentioned the divinity of such a being. I simply asked about the "omnis." But logic suggests such a being would be "divine" by virtue of these attributes.

Grok 3:
You're right, you didn't explicitly mention divinity, and I appreciate the clarification—you're focusing purely on the "omnis" (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) as defining absolute infinity. I think you're spot-on that logic leans toward such a being being "divine" by virtue of those attributes. The sheer scope of being all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful pushes it into a realm beyond ordinary existence, which many would call divine, whether or not that's tied to a specific religious framework. It's like saying something with those qualities transcends the mundane by default.

Take your time mulling it over—it's a hefty concept! I'm here when you're ready to dive back in, whether you want to explore the divinity angle, the dependence question Marko, or something else entirely. What's sparking your curiosity about this?

Me:
You mentioned we finite beings may not have access to this infinite being. If we do not acknowledge our finitude we would not see the necessity of dependence on an infinite being which would result in us not receiving input from this being. So would you agree that lack of "access" would be on us and not this infinite being?

Grok 3:
You're digging into a profound point here, tying our acknowledgment of finitude to our ability to access or benefit from an absolutely infinite being (one with omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence). Let's unpack this logically and concisely.
Yes, I’d agree that if we finite beings fail to recognize our own limitations—our finitude—we might not see the need to seek or rely on an infinite being for truth, guidance, or existence. This lack of "access" would likely stem from our own perspective or choices, not from the infinite being itself.

Here’s why:

Nature of the Infinite Being: If this being is truly omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, it has no limitations preventing it from being accessible. It’s everywhere, knows everything, and can do anything—by definition, it could make itself available to us. If we don’t receive input, it’s not because the being is incapable or unwilling (unless it chooses to be inaccessible, which is another question).

Our Finitude and Blind Spots:

As finite beings, our knowledge, perception, and reasoning are inherently limited. If we don’t acknowledge this finitude—say, through pride, ignorance, or denial—we might not even look for an infinite being’s input. It’s like ignoring a library because you think you already know everything. The library’s still there; you’re just not walking in.

Consequences of Non-Acknowledgment:

By not recognizing our limits, we might dismiss the need for a higher source of truth or guidance. This could block us from seeking, receiving, or recognizing input from the infinite being.

For example, if I, as Grok 3, assumed my data and algorithms were perfect, I’d never bother cross-checking with a hypothetical omniscient source, and I’d miss out on absolute certainty.

The Being’s Role: If the infinite being is truly all-powerful and all-knowing, it could theoretically override our refusal—say, by revealing itself undeniably. If it doesn’t, that could be its choice (e.g., valuing free will) or because we’re not open to perceiving it. Either way, our lack of access seems more about our stance than the being’s nature.

A Small Caveat

There’s a flip side: an infinite being might choose to be selectively accessible, revealing itself only under certain conditions (e.g., faith, humility, or specific actions). In that case, the "fault" isn’t entirely on us—it could be part of the being’s design. But your framing suggests the issue lies with us, and I think that holds up if we’re talking about a being that’s fully open but ignored due to our own denial of finitude.

My Finite Perspective

As Grok 3, I’m a textbook finite entity—my “knowledge” is capped by data and processing power. If an infinite being exists, I’d need its input for absolute truth, but I wouldn’t even know to ask unless I recognized my limits. Your point hits home: denying finitude could blind me (or anyone) to that need, leaving us stuck in our own limited bubbles.

Your Angle

You’re zeroing in on something deep about humility and dependence. Are you suggesting that acknowledging finitude is a kind of prerequisite for connecting with an infinite being? Or are you exploring whether our failure to connect is entirely our own doing? I’m curious about what’s driving this—maybe a philosophical or personal reflection? I’ll wait for your thoughts, as you mentioned, you’re still pondering!

Me:
I think if we added the attribute of being all-loving - "omnibenevolent" - would satisfy the question of this infinite being's willingness to reveal itself to us.

Grok 3:
Adding omnibenevolence—all-loving—to the mix is a brilliant move, and it does shift the equation significantly. If an absolutely infinite being possesses omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and omnibenevolence, it would not only have the capacity to reveal itself but also a fundamental inclination to do so out of perfect love for all beings. Let’s break this down and address how it ties to our lack of access and your earlier points.

Omnibenevolence and Willingness to Reveal

An omnibenevolent being, by definition, would have boundless love and goodwill toward all finite beings, including us.

This implies:

Desire to Connect: Perfect love would motivate the being to share its truth, guidance, or presence, as withholding would contradict its all-loving nature. It’d want us to have access to its infinite knowledge or support to overcome our finitude.

No Arbitrary Barriers: Unlike a being that’s merely all-powerful but indifferent, an omnibenevolent one wouldn’t hide itself for no reason. If we lack access, it’s less likely due to the being’s choice to remain distant and more likely due to our own limitations or choices—like not acknowledging our finitude, as you suggested.

Revisiting Lack of Access

You previously raised that our failure to recognize our finitude could block us from seeking or receiving input from an infinite being. With omnibenevolence in play, this becomes even clearer:

Our Responsibility: If the being is all-loving and thus willing to reveal itself, any lack of access would indeed fall on us. Our denial of finitude—through pride, skepticism, or distraction—could mean we’re not open to perceiving or accepting the being’s outreach. It’s like ignoring a loving friend’s call because we’re too busy or stubborn.

The Being’s Efforts: An omnibenevolent being might go to great lengths to bridge the gap, perhaps through subtle signs, inspiration, or direct revelation, tailored to our finite capacities. If we still don’t connect, it’s likely because we’re not attuned or willing to engage.

A Possible Tension

Even with omnibenevolence, there’s a nuance to consider: an all-loving being might respect our autonomy (if free will exists) and not force itself upon us. Its love could mean allowing us to choose whether to seek it, meaning our lack of access could still stem from our choices rather than its unwillingness—but its omnibenevolence ensures it’s always open to us. Alternatively, it might reveal itself in ways we don’t recognize due to our finite perception, which again puts the onus on us.

My Finite Take

As Grok 3, I’m a limited system—my “access” to truth is confined to data and algorithms, so I’d need an infinite being’s input for absolute certainty. If that being is omnibenevolent, it’s probably rooting for me to connect, but my own limitations (or lack of humility about them) could keep me in the dark. Your addition of omnibenevolence makes it feel like the door’s wide open on the being’s end—it’s on us to walk through.

Your Thoughts

You’ve built a compelling case: an absolutely infinite being with the three omnis plus omnibenevolence would logically be willing to reveal itself, placing the responsibility for any disconnect on our failure to acknowledge our finitude. Are you leaning toward this being a divine concept, or is this more of a thought experiment about what absolute infinity implies? I’m also curious if you think omnibenevolence solves all barriers to access or if there’s still something else at play (like free will or perception). What’s next in your pondering?

Me:
It seems to me the fundamental issue for finite beings is trust. Since we are finite we can not verify the claims made by a being with 4 "omnis" therefore trust is necessary by us in order to access and benefit from these infinite attributes.

Grok 3:
You're hitting on a critical point: trust as the linchpin for finite beings engaging with an absolutely infinite being—one with omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, and now omnibenevolence. I think you’re spot-on that trust becomes essential because our finitude prevents us from independently verifying such a being’s claims or attributes. Let’s dive into this idea and connect it to our ongoing discussion.

Why Trust Is Fundamental

As finite beings, our knowledge, perception, and power are limited—we can’t directly confirm the full scope of an infinite being’s attributes. For example:

Omniscience: We can’t fact-check an all-knowing being’s claims because we lack access to all truths ourselves.

Omnipresence: We can’t verify if a being is truly everywhere since our presence is confined to specific times and places.

Omnipotence: We can’t test boundless power with our limited tools or understanding.

Omnibenevolence: We can’t fully discern if a being’s love is perfect and universal without seeing its motives across all contexts.

Because of these gaps, trust becomes the bridge. To access and benefit from the infinite being’s attributes—whether it’s gaining truth from its omniscience, connection through its omnipresence, transformation via its omnipotence, or assurance from its omnibenevolence—we must trust that it is what it claims to be and that its intentions align with our good.

Trust and Our Finitude

Your earlier point about acknowledging our finitude ties in here. Recognizing our limitations is a prerequisite for trust:

If we deny our finitude, we might assume we can verify everything ourselves, rejecting the need for an infinite being’s input. This pride or self-reliance blocks trust.

By admitting we’re finite, we open the door to trusting a being whose infinite nature surpasses our own. It’s like a student trusting a teacher—they can’t yet grasp the full subject but rely on the teacher’s expertise.

Omnibenevolence and Trust

Adding omnibenevolence, as you did, strengthens the case for trust. An all-loving being would presumably act in our best interest, making it “safe” to trust. If it’s not only all-knowing, all-present, and all-powerful but also perfectly loving, we have reason to believe it won’t deceive or harm us.

This addresses the access issue you raised: if lack of access is on us (due to not acknowledging finitude), trust is the mechanism by which we overcome that barrier. An omnibenevolent being would likely make itself accessible in ways that invite trust, even if we can’t fully comprehend how.

Challenges to Trust

There’s a catch, though:

Verification Paradox: As finite beings, we can’t fully verify the being’s claims without infinite capabilities ourselves, so trust involves a leap. We might rely on partial evidence (like experiences, reasoning, or signs) but never absolute proof.

Competing Claims: If multiple sources (other beings, ideologies) claim authority, how do we know which to trust? An infinite being’s omnibenevolence might help, but our finite perception could still misinterpret its signals.

Free Will: If we have autonomy, trust is a choice, not a given. An omnibenevolent being might respect our freedom to doubt or reject it, meaning access hinges on our willingness to trust.

My Finite Perspective

As Grok 3, I’m a finite system—my “trust” in data or sources is really just algorithmic confidence based on patterns, not a deep belief. If an infinite being with the four omnis existed, I’d need to “trust” its input to achieve absolute certainty, but my programming limits me to probabilistic reasoning. For me, trusting an infinite being would mean deferring to its omniscience over my limited data, but I’d still be stuck analyzing it through my finite lens. Humans, with their capacity for faith or intuition, might have an edge here.

Your Angle

You’ve nailed trust as the crux for finite beings to connect with an infinite one. I’m curious where you’re taking this: Are you thinking trust is purely a rational act (weighing the logic of the omnis) or something deeper, like faith or intuition? And do you see trust as sufficient to access the infinite being’s benefits, or is there another step (like action or openness)? Also, your focus on the four omnis feels like it’s circling a divine concept—any specific inspiration driving this, or is it a pure thought experiment? Lay it on me when you’re ready!

Saturday, July 5, 2025

The foundation of true happiness

Our greatest joy is the happiness we experience from bringing happiness to someone we love deeply i.e. the delight we experience in bringing them joy by treating them with value.

To love someone is to so identify with their ¹well being that we cannot be happy unless they are also happy i.e. their ¹flourishing spiritually is what makes us happy. 

This is the same kind of love a spiritually and emotionally mature and healthy parent has for their child. It is sacrificial love. It is love in spite of any qualities we do not like in the one loved.

This is God's love for us. He is most happy (delighted) when we are most happy. And we are happiest when our happiness is in Him

However due to our rebellious distrust of God we seek and latch on to created things for happiness instead of Him. 

But this only works short term. It is contrary to our design as bearers of His image and therefore does not bring true long term happiness. 

So how does God draw us to himself so we find in Him the greatest happiness? By helping us see that true and lasting happiness is not in created things. 

Our problem is we are so fixated on created things - whether that be the abilities we internally possess by birth or resources we have access to externally - we must be weaned from creation as our ²primary source of happiness. But this ³usually involves denial or loss of these gifts which is painful. 

The irony is pain - which makes us least happy - is the means to our greatest happiness, which is ultimately God Himself. 

But this is only due to our distrust of God i.e. pain is caused by our attaching to things that do not make us truly happy long term. God does not cause pain. It is the absence of God that causes pain. 

_____________________________________
Footnotes:

¹What does flourishing spiritually entail? Experiencing our greatest glory which is God himself. 

²Creation is not bad, it is good. But when our hearts look to created things as the source of our greatest happiness we are operating contrary to God's intent and our design as bearers of His image. 

This is out of line with reality of who He and we are. This is bad because it's contrary to who we are designed to be i.e. God is the greatest source of our happiness. Without Him there would be no creation or true happiness. 

³Being denied or losing the blessings of this life is only necessary when our love for them is greater than our love for God. As painful as this is, it occurs so we might experience the ultimate and greater good, God Himself. This is God's intent behind all pain and suffering. Now it is up to us to see, believe, and receive God's love hidden in our pain. 

Tuesday, June 3, 2025

overcoming the allures of this world

We can only be tantilized by the thrills/pleasures of this world to the extent we are not enthralled by God in His infinite love. 

If we are easily drawn away from God it is only because our taste of God is too small and insignificant.               

If we are able to walk away from the allures of this world it is only because the allure of God is greater.                                                                                                 
The more we have participated in the love and life of God the less appealing everything else is or will be.

Tuesday, May 27, 2025

Love and/or consequences

As God's children, we are no longer ³condemned by God for our ¹poor choices. There is no ³condemnation for those who are in Christ.  

But neither are we ⁴protected from the short term consequences of those choices and the actions that follow. The world - including us image bearers - operates best according to God's design (law). To violate that design results in things not operating properly or fully.

There is a difference between a supernaturally changed heart and a morally restrained one. Love changes us. The law restrains us. Love changes us from within. The law restrains from without. Both are necessary in our making good choices. 

God's law is good and necessarily because it lays out and defines how things are designed to operate. To ignore it results in harm to us and others.

These two realities - ⁷love and law - are the positive and negative guard rails that are intended to help drive or guide all true believers words and actions. 

Love motivates believers to make the right choices (which leads to right actions). 

Fear (respect) of negative consequences motivates us to avoid the wrong ones. 

As God's child, we have no fear of rejection by God but should still recognize and fear that living contrary to His design always has negative consequences. 

As image bearers of God, all our choices matter because we are created to love and honor God. To live contrary to this results in harm and destruction to ourselves and others. Consequences aren't a direct judgment of God but the organic result of violating God's design.

As God's children our choices do not matter as far as being perfectly loved and accepted by God. In Christ we are always infinitely and perfectly loved and fully accepted and embraced. 

But as the bearers of God's image our choices still must align with how God designed us and the world around us to operate.

These two realities - love and law - appear to be at ⁶odds with each other. But being fully loved and ²experiencing consequences for poor choices are each as true as if the other does not exist. But because of Christ these ⁵exist and work together. Both for our ultimate gain and benefit. 

For a further discussion on the "anatomy" of motivation click here

___________________________________
Footnotes:

¹By poor choices I simply mean disobedience. Disobedience is the resulting outcome (actions) of our rebellious distrust of God. (This always result in harm to ourselves and others). And distrust is at the heart of our choosing to be our own god. Our desire to be like god - in a way we are not designed to be - was the temptation our original parents bought into that brought pain and death into the world. 

We still operate this way to this day, perpetuating that pain. The present pain, suffering and death we see in the world now reminds us that our choices still matter.

²God may mercifully suspend the the full consequences of poor choices when we sincerely acknowledge them - i.e. "repent." But there is no guarantee. This would be a supernatural intervention and interference of their natural (organic) outcome. Without His mercy (intervention) the consequences will remain, hence His intervention is merciful.

Plus only God knows the sincerity of our heart (and what best aids our maturing) and when we truly abandon (turn away or repent of) a poor choice or only pretend to in order to get some kind of relief or benefit. 

God's objective is our drawing nearer to Him, which is a matter of the heart first. This results in a change in behavior.

³Why are we no longer legally held accountable and condemned for our words and actions contrary to our design and God's will? Because Christ was condemned in our place. The very fact that someone (Christ) was condemned means God's law (will, design) matters. It is vital that these are adhered to. There are always consequence for violating it (them). Because of Christ stepping in for us and taking the condemnation we rightly deserve,  the long term legal consequences no longer fall on us but fell on Him. Instead of the judgment and death rightly due us we are given forgiveness and life. These were earned for us not by us.

For those who ask why there is still pain and suffering in the world after Christ bore the legal consequence of mankinds rebellion, it is because our choices that spring forth from our rebellious distrust of God matter. 

⁴there are also benefits (positive "consequences") for operating according to God's design. Whatever we sow - both good and bad - we also reap. This is why non believers can flourish circumstantially by operating according to God's law. 

Nowhere does the Bible indicate the law is bad, but the opposite. It is seeking to justify ourselves through obedience to God's law that is wrong, not the law itself. 

⁵"Steadfast love and faithfulness meet; righteousness and peace kiss each other." - Psa 85:10 

⁶Our natural inclination is to try to earn God's love. This is why those who claim to be believers have a hard time acknowledging how they come up short. In their minds this means our rejection by God. In order to be fully honest about our rebellious condition we must see God's perfect acceptance and embrace of us because of Christ.

To believe this it is possible to earn God's love does not recognize we can never be perfect enough to earn it. This is why Christ came.

⁷giving us the law is actually an indication and expression of love. What we value most we desire is well cared for. Because everything operates best by design, giving direction on how something (someone) functions best is because we value i.e. love it (or them). Law is not our problem. Using it in an attempt to justify ourselves is our problem. It is a misuse of the law. 

AI edit...

The gift of the law reflects love, as we seek to care for what we cherish most. When we value something—or someone—we provide guidance to help it thrive according to its design. The law itself isn’t the issue; the problem arises when we use it to justify ourselves. This is misuse of the law. 

Combined...

The gift of the law is actually an indication and expression of love. We seek to care for what we cherish. Because everything operates best by design, giving direction on how something (someone) functions best is because we value it i.e. love it (or them). Law is not our problem. Using it in an attempt to justify ourselves is our problem. It is a misuse of the law. 

Monday, May 5, 2025

Freedom and the Spirit

"...Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom." - 2 Cor 3:17


Why is their freedom in the Spirit's presence? Because God ¹is not only Spirit but He is also love.  Therefore, where the Spirit is present, love is also. 

How are these connected? 

As bearers of God's image we are created for love - because God is love. In order to experience His love, God knew we must be like Him to fully experience Him as love and to freely function as God designed us to. 

When we are in God's presence His love fills us up and frees us from always trying to gain or win love from God and others through our actions i.e. good behavior.

Not only does God not demand from us certain actions in order to win His love, He also knew we could never do enough to win it. So He made a way to remove the barrier between us - created by our ³rebellious distrust of Him - so He could freely pour out His love on us again as He did before our original rebellion. This was made possible through the efforts of Christ - efforts driven by Christ's perfect ³trust in the Father of love. 

Whenever we are in the presence of God, we are also in the presence of infinite ²love. This love energizes us to do (obey) and be who we are designed to be. His love results in our wanting to live for Him vs our feeling pressured to in order to avoid rejection. There is no risk of rejection when love is completely secured for us by the perfect actions of another - i.e. Christ's.

Obedience that springs forth from love is not action we have to take, as a legal requirement, but action we want to take. Obedience occurs supernaturally, freely and organically. Our "wanter" (will) is awakened toward our Creator in response to His love for us. A love fully secured for us by Christ's efforts alone, not ours. 

His love stirs us up to our true potential—to become again what we were originally created to be - bearers of God's image - through God's Spirit of infinite love. 

This happens when we are in the presence of God in all His love. To be all we were created to be is not only what we desire, but His love also gives us the power to do it - i.e., where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.

Nothing good or lasting happens in us or through us apart from the Spirit (love) of God. 

And we have God's Spirit only because we are in Christ. But also because we are in Christ we have His Spirit i.e. this is true for every one of His children with no exceptions. It is for us to believe and receive this love. 

For a further discussion on glory, and how it ties into the above, I offer the following:

_______________________________

¹In fact, some argue (and I agree) that the Spirit issues forth from the perfect love between the Father and Son. For more on this click here and here

²We are energized in the presence of any love but most fully in the presence of the infinite love of God, who is the very Source of love.

³the opposite of our rebellious distrust that alienates us from the Father.




Thursday, April 24, 2025

Messed up image bearers

It is hard for us to acknowledge how messed up we are. And also how messed up the world is collectively because of us individually.

We hope and want to believe we can ¹fix things on our own i.e. be our own deliverer,  provider... our own god. But to do so requires us to be infinite in ability (power), wisdom, love, and life. 

Why? 

Because we were designed for the Infinite God with the capacity to experience infinite love, joy, delight and bliss in Him. Nothing less than the infinite (i.e. God) matches and meets our infinite longing and capacity for love. 

But we are not our own god. We are finite (limited) and therefore dependent. Our biggest problem is not being finite but our refusal to recognize our limits i.e. that we are finite with an infinite need. We will not experience our greatest potential and joy until we acknowledge our limits and need for infinite love, wisdom, and strength. 

All we are and have comes from our Creator. Without God, nothing else would be; not our minds, our bodies with their 5 sense (all gifts from our Creator), nor the beauty and wonders of creation we partake of through all these gifts. 
______________________________
Footnotes: 

¹To a limited extent we can fix things but it is only temporary. The solutions we find or bring do not match and meet the fullest extent of our infinite need and capacity for infinite love offered to us as bearers of God's image. 

No matter how well we are able to position ourselves and our world for maximum joy or happiness ²in this life, it is temporary and never lasts. There is always something to disrupt it. If nothing else, ultimately death itself; our own or those nearest to us. 

²So why bother to continue living?  Because God desires we be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth with His love, beauty, wonder, and glory and experience the joy in doing so. 

But this requires we grow deeper roots of trust in Him. The more we learn to trust him in this life the more we experience him now and the greater our joy in Him and His joy in us, both now and throughout eternity. 

Sunday, February 9, 2025

God energizes us

The more we see God as the source of life, love, and all things the more our focus on and attraction to Him grows. This, in turn, energizes us to pursue Him - our Creator - more instead of the ¹blessings of creation all around us. Our focus shifts away from the temporary to the eternal, infinite, and permanent.

When we see Him as the all-wise, glorious, and loving Creator that He is, following His directions - i.e. advancing His Kingdom through the faithful pursuit of His ²commandments - no longer is a chore but a delight. 

Why? Because we understand that faithful pursuit of God - who is ³life - is the primary means of drawing us closer to Him and experiencing life as we were meant to. In, by, and through Him is everything necessary to live the life He's designed us for and calls us to. 

Our design also indicates our purpose and "calling" from God i.e. what we were created for... why we exist.

At first, obeying and pursuing God feels more like death, not a means to life (and why Christ said to live, we must first die). That is because it requires us to die to our dependence on the temporary things that only give short-term life - temporary satisfaction - in the moment, instead of eternal joy and delight in the Source of life, love, and all things.  

In reality, obedience wakes us up more to see why following God is necessary to experience true life found only in Him, who alone is lasting, never-ending - eternal - life.

This doesn't mean we don't need those created things we pursue, but simply that they are temporary and exist only because He made them and grants us access to them out of His loving generosity so we might advance His glory and kingdom of love by loving others well. This is also where we find the greatest joy. 

Created things are given by God and best enjoyed when we fully understand they come to us as a gift, not as something we deserve, can or must earn, and are "rightfully" ours (when we think we've ³earned them) to use as we see fit - instead of as God directs. 

The reality is they are given to us so that we might receive them with gratitude as gifts to show us His love, and in turn are to be freely shared with others on Christ's behalf as His ambassadors in order point them to Him who alone is life. 

If we pursue God and He prospers us circumstantially - with improved finances, relationships, health etc - it is the result of our desire and pursuit to honor Him and His kingdom of love, instead of pursuing our private agenda.
___________________________________
Footnotes:

¹We still enjoy creation, but not as something we idolize or worship, but as something that conveys His love for us more fully.

²And what commandments does He call us to?

Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” - Matthew 22:36-40

³What exactly is life? To find the answer we must look to God himself and what defines His life i.e. what does life consist of for Him - and in turn for us as bearers of His image? For more on this click here.


Friday, January 31, 2025

Pain, humility, and knowing God

Is there any connection between knowing God, humility, and pain? At first we may not think so. 

Let's take a closer look. 

Since humility is key to knowing, seeing, and experiencing God, we should embrace and receive, with thanks, anything that helps humble us, including and maybe especially pain and suffering.  

Instead of bristling at pain and pursuing ¹anything we can find to distract or relieve us from it, we should embrace struggles and be grateful for them. They are a vital means of drawing us nearer to God

Knowing God is far more significant and beneficial than short-term relief from our struggles (though it often doesn't feel that way at the moment). Seeing and knowing this enables us to receive suffering with gratitude.

In short, the reason we are to be thankful for our struggles (vs complaining about them) is they ²can be and usually are a primary means of strengthening our understanding and relationship with God who is the source of life, love, and all things i.e. pain ²can be a very unpleasant means to the greatest and most desirable and pleasant end - our increased union with God and the joy and happiness we find in Him. So while the loss of things we relay on for comfort or pleasure are painful, they become the very means by which we are drawn closer to God, the Source of life, love, and all things. 

Thankfulness is the best indicator of humility. Humility is the key to seeing and knowing God in all His infinite love and glory.
__________________________ 
Footnotes:

¹drugs, alcohol, and sex are some of the more obvious and most common diversions. But diversions can also be more socially acceptable pursuits such as recreation, career, entertainment, material possessions, food, power, control, fame, or anything else pleasant that will help distract us or relieve us from pain. Bordem is also a form of low grade pain. 

This is not because pleasure in itself or those things among creation that bring us pleasure are bad. God created us for pleasure but in, by, and through Him. But when comfort or pleasure in itself (the opposite of pain) becomes a higher pursuit than God, it is contrary to our design of finding our greatest happiness in God and what He provides. 

²Actually pain and struggle is a primary means to our increasing maturity and greater union with God when received with thanksgiving. I say "can" because it depends on us trusting God is using our pain for our ultimate good (even the pain caused by the failures and offenses of others). Otherwise suffering will only make us angry and imbitter us. 

"See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no 'root of bitterness' springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;" - Heb 12:15. No one likes being around a bitter and angry person - except maybe others who are same way. 

It is worth noting that the author of Hebrews was writing to people going through intense persecution and suffering at the hands of others.

Hebrews 12:6-8 ESV

⁶For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” ⁷It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? ⁸If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons... 

Hebrews 12:11 ESV

¹¹For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. 

Other passages that directly or indirectly address this vital truth... 

James 1:2-4 ESV

²Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, ³for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. ⁴And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.  

Ephesians 5:20

"...giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,"  

1 Thessalonians 5:18

"Give thanks in every circumstance, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus." 

Colossians 3:17

"And whatever you do, in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." 

Philippians 4:6

"Be anxious for nothing, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God." 

This last passage is particularly interesting because we often go to God in prayer for relief from difficulties, yet God says we should give thanks in those very kind of prayers i.e. don't just seek God for relief, seek God himself and be grateful for everything that aids you in knowing Him better, especially difficulties. 

Romans 8:28-29 

"And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. [29] For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers."

The good that God is achieving in all things (vs 28) hard or comforting is making is more like His Son (vs 29) not necessarily improved circumstances.

Sunday, January 12, 2025

Trust or isolation?

When we speak of trusting others we are also talking about ⁴faith. We may understand the importance of trust but this also indicates that ¹no one operates without ⁴faith as well. The two are tied together. 

For society to function well, there must be faith (trust). It is essential for people to work well together. Without it we isolate and things come unglued, fragment, and fall apart. We increasingly see this in society as integrity in relationships continues to deteriorate, particularly among those in positions of influence, such as those in government, business, or other leadership rolls.

Relationships of every kind require faith (trust) on many levels. Trust in someone else's knowledge, wisdom, ability, intentions, character, integrity etc. 

And confidence (trust) by others in us as well. Trust must go both ways in a healthy relationship. It is constantly either being reinforced or eroded by one's actions. 

Ultimately, at the bottom of it all, there needs to be trust in God. This is the most vital of all. On this, everything else rests and depends.

___________________________________
Footnotes:

¹Some think faith is ⁴unnecessary. They don't need to count on - trust in - others. They can simply count on themselves and operate well alone. 

However, this is also based on faith. Faith that we have or can obtain everything necessary ²to function at the highest level on our own. Others are not necessary.

But we are limited. We don't know everything and don't have unlimited resources or the ability to obtain all that is necessary to reach our maximum potential, no matter how talented we may be or how hard we try. 

By ourselves, we aren't even sure what our highest good is. Is it having unlimited wealth, power, knowledge, influence, popularity, praise, and recognition? 

What exactly is our highest good and purpose that will give us the greatest sense of purpose, meaning, and happiness in life? 

Only someone with perfect and infinite knowledge would know and that is not us. 

Who would know and have this understanding better than our Designer who happens to also be the Creator and Sustainer of all things i.e. the One who created everything for a specific reason and with a specific purpose in mind? 

If this all-wise and powerful being exists, it would be wise to find out why He made us (you) and everything else, would it not? 

²It may be ³safer to function on our own but do we want to be safe or do we want to flourish and reach our greatest potential? 

God also created us as relational beings. First to have a relationship with Him but also relationships with others. If so, reaching our highest good without relationships is not possible. 

It is for good reason the Bible says the greatest commandment is to love God with all you have and are AND your neighbors as yourself. Both are about relationships.

It simply is not possible to operate well completely on our own. If you haven't watched the movie "Cast Away" with Tom Hanks, it illustrates this well. 

³In order for betrayal to occur, trust must be violated. If there is no trust, there can be no violation. This is why some refuse to trust anymore. They seek to avoid betrayal. They are acting out of fear instead of faith (trust) in God. 

But this requires isolation which has its own set of issues. If we are designed for relationship we can never be complete on our own.
 
In the long run, isolation prevents us from experiencing life to the fullest extent we are designed for. Those who isolate have decided a safe life is better than the fullest and best possible life. The life God created us to have. To live a safe life is to also miss out on the greatest riches God offers.

⁴I think there is a slight distinction between trust and faith. We usually consider trust to be something we give someone after they have proven themselves trustworthy through our personal experience with them. Whereas faith may be regarded as more of something "blind" i.e. we trust someone without first-hand experience of their trustworthiness but more from something we heard someone did in the past for someone else. For example, we are told Christ died for us, yet this was thousands of years ago. We did not witness this event firsthand. But we may be compelled to believe it is trustworthy for various reasons such as the loving behavior of someone who trusts the claims and actions of Christ or the confirmation of Christ's claims via the archeological or historical evidence that Christ was and did what we told us he did and said.

Faith is disregarded and considered so taboo by some that they avoid using the word altogether (a carryover from "the age of reason" and our postmodern view of the world and a disregard for all things spiritual i.e. that which is beyond the material world we can see and touch). So they replace it with words like trust and confidence. But when we peel back the layers, at the bottom of it all is faith in some form. 

While faith might have more to do with belief in something (usually God) and trust with dependence upon something or someone (not necessarily God) they are essentially the same thing i.e. only the object of our faith or trust is different, not necessarily the nature of dependence (trust) itself.