Why some are disillusioned with God

When does God not hear our prayers?

Whether God answers our request to be healed or delivered from difficult circumstances depends on why we are asking. If we wish to be healed (delivered) so we can better serve him, he will say yes. If we wish to be healed so we can ¹"spend it on ourselves," he will not. 

Our challenge is knowing the difference. If we think we are asking for the right reason and are not, we assume He does not care or love us if we don't get the answer we want. Then we become disillusioned with God. But this is our shortcoming, not God's. 

We incorrectly think God is a celestial Santa Claus or our heavenly servant or butler instead of the all-wise, loving, infinitely beautiful, and powerful Creator wbo sustains all creation and ²life. Someone to be adored and honored, not someone we can control and use for our own ends. 

"You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions." Jas 4:3 

Are love and life connected? How? Click here for a further discussion.

______________________________________________

Footnotes: 

¹ James 4:1-10  

[1] What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? [2] You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. 

You do not have, because you do not ask. [3] You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. 

[4] You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? 

world = the systematic worldwide pursuit of humanity to find ²life in or through created things - such as wealth, fame, power, praise from others, sensual pleasures, etc. - instead of from, through, and in the Creator (Rom 1:21-23) 

Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. 

Passionate pursuit of created things for ²life instead of the Creator is like a husband pursuing a woman other than his wife to fulfill his physical passions. In doing so, he is unfaithful to his wife and has made himself her antagonist. 

[5] Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? 

What kind of spirit has God put within us?  A spirit that longs (is passionate) for infinite love. Love that can only be satisfied by the Source of love - our Creator.  He will not share in our pursuit or loyalty to any other "lover" because He knows there are no other true lovers. Everything we seek for life outside of God Himself is temporary and comes up short. GOD alone is the Source of infinite love and we're designed for infinite, eternal love. To experience His love we must give Him all our loyalty and faithfulness, or we will pursue love outside of Him. 

[6] But he gives more grace. Therefore, it says, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” [7] Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 

Pride causes us to seek love independent of God for love or life. This is an invitation for the evil one to get a foothold in our lives. Humility shuts the door on his foot and opens the door to grace. When we open the door to grace, we invite God in.  

[8] Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. [9] Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. [10] Humble yourselves before the Lord, and HE will exalt you." 

Want to see God move on your behalf? Humbly recognize He alone is infinite ²life and the only true satisfier of our hearts longing for love. He knows best what we need most; we don't. 

²Are love and life connected? How? Click here for a further discussion.

Being takers and God's solution.

What is the solution to being a ¹taker vs a giver - and all the consequences and fallout from this approach to life? Someone else bearing the consequences of a life of taking while also being the perfect (complete) giver, and giving us credit for it - if and when we choose to receive this. 

This results in the just consequences of our taking being borne by another, while at the same time having their life of giving totally credited to us as if we did it, i.e., as if we were the giver. 

Unless we are in union with God, we are all naturally inclined to be takers. To be a total giver is supernatural. It is Godlike. 

We are created to be in union with the Source of life, love, and all things. He is the ultimate giver. Yet being separated from Him makes us all takers because we are not plugged into God who is love and life.  

Why? Because of the void in us as a result of our rejecting the Source of all good things as our ultimate Provider and Sustainer. 

This results in us not being able to give as we were originally created to. Being absent a connection and relationship with the Source of life, love, and all things, is like being a well-decorated Christmas tree sitting in a dark room unplugged. 

The acknowledgement of this is the beginning of how we reunite and "plug-in" to the Source and are empowered to be the giver we were originally created to be - not as the Source but as a conduit of the Source. 

Giving to get is not giving to give. Giving to give only occurs by our being plugged into the Source of unlimited resources. Only God is that Source. 

The day we bought into the lie that we could be our own source (god) is the day we cut ourselves off from that Source and died.

_______________________

FOOTNOTES: 

¹To put another's needs before mine is to be a giver. To put my needs before yours is being a taker. This is the opposite of loving our neighbor as ourselves.

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!

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, and 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, or recognition, as the world often presents? 

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 Created and Sustains 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 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 the pain of 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 that 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 to or for someone else. For example, we are told Christ died for us, yet this was over two thousand 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. 

What Christ and unbelievers have in common

The disdain that many unbelievers have for "Christianity" is sometimes 100% justified.

How?

Their disdain is usually toward the pretense and hypocrisy among those who claim to believe in God. 

Yet Christ himself also disdained and even condemned this attitude and behavior. 

Pretense and hypocrisy are far too common among churchgoers. But why?

Because of a performance or works-based approach to "Christianity" - i.e. legalism - which is not true Christianity at all, but only gives the appearance of being Christian. In reality, it is the opposite of and opposed to the gospel of grace, the essence of Christ's message. 

Unlike a heart "ruled" by grace, performance-based "Christianity" is based on self-salvation which leads to pretense, pride, and hypocrisy. It rejects the necessity of the work of Christ to restore us to the Father - not rejection with their words necessarily (many say the "right things") but in their heart - and believes we can save ourselves without God and His Son, i.e. we don't need the righteousness of Christ assigned to us because of our unrighteousness. To believe this is to also believe our deeds are somehow better than Christ's. 

This is an insult to Christ and all He did to restore us to a right standing with His Father. In effect, we are saying Christ's work is useless, worthless, and unnecessary and ours is superior. 

This approach was also the very same issue Christ had with the self-righteous religious leaders of His day.  

How does this self-righteousness develop?

Many, who live in the Christian community and profess to be Christians, are aware of the high ¹moral standards Christ calls us to e.g. love your enemies, love God with all you are and have, always treat others as you wish to be treated, be grateful for all things at all times, especially the hard stuff etc. 

But they do not know (possess) the power necessary to live these out - i.e. a heart moved by love, not by ²mere will power. 

So on the outside and before others, they pretend to live by those standards because they know this is what is expected of a "good Christian." But behind closed doors, and out of the public eye, their true self is ³revealed. 

This is especially true for those closest to them, particularly their children, and why kids from a "Christian" home often rebel and walk away from this religiosity. 

The criticism often leveled at these so-called "Christians" is they expect others to do as they say but not as they do.

But outward "obedience" only, is not true obedience. True faithfulness springs forth from the heart of someone who knows they are truly unrighteous yet infinitely and perfectly loved at the same time. As a result, their righteousness (right conduct) is a response of loving faithfulness to God in return, not an attempt to earn God's acceptance.

As Christ said, "If you love me you will keep my commandments..."  It doesn't say keep my commands to win my love or impress me and others with your good deeds. 

This was the problem of the Pharisees during the time of Christ. They were all about appearance and pretense to gain the praise of men. They were not about substance - i.e. true faithfulness out of a heart moved by love for God. 

Ironically, those unbelievers who disdain hypocrisy are far more aligned with Christ in this one significant area than many who profess to be Christians.

For a fuller discussion about hypocrisy click here

Why does Christ consider the poor in spirit blessed? Click here.

For a discussion on self-righteousness click here

Should we pursue Jesus or morality? click here

Why religion comes up short click here

Why Christ came with grace not just truth click here

_____________________________________

Footnotes:

¹Also common among those who are legalistic is an overbearing and condescending emphasis on "right doctrine." These self-proclaimed "defenders of truth" can sometimes recite the various teachings in the Bible impeccably, sometimes better than some true lovers of Jesus, but it is from their heads, not their hearts. There is no grace or humility in their criticism of others. It is the fruit of arrogance, not of a humble heart that seeks to honor God by being faithful to His words.  

Those who are like this tend to always be on a spiritual witch hunt to expose those who do not cross their doctrinal "t's" and dot their theological "i's" perfectly according to them. 

However, correctly comprehending things is not the same as believing them. We can understand and even explain things perfectly but that doesn't mean we believe them. And faith in the work of Christ for us - i.e. the gospel - is central to being a true follower of Christ, not perfect doctrine.

²Our wills are certainly involved but not to "obedience" - i.e. outward conformity to prescribed behavior - but to faith. We must either believe the gospel of grace and God's infinite love that comes to us by it, or we do not believe it. This is the true and legitimate exercise of our will and the choice we are called to make. 

Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”- John 6:28-29

³And no one sees this better than our own kids or family. "Do as I say and not as I do" is a common attitude by parents when their kids or extended family push back on the inconsistency between their private life and their public life. This is common among those who are superficial in their Christianity and may be an indication that they are not a true follower of Christ at all. 

For any kids that had such parents growing up, don't miss the true message of Jesus and the good news he offers of crediting his good deeds to us as if we did them and the removal of the condemnation for our rebellion to Him. 

The joy of generosity

Generosity ¹seems to be a ¹primary part of who God is and what makes Him tick, i.e. how he operates. He delights in giving. God so loved... He gave...

As His image bearers, we are designed the same way, but with a major difference. Only God has unlimited resources - i.e. He is the Source of all things. He is an endless overflowing fountain of love. We are not. 

Why? Because God is a community of infinite, endless love within and among Himself as Father and Son who continually gives and receives love in, by, and through the Spirit. God is love, and He is Spirit.

As bearers of God's image, we also find joy in giving. But we are not an unlimited, endless, overflowing fountain. Only God is a ⁵community of love and calls us to be a part of (plug in to) that community, so we will overflow with love in the same way He does. 

If we get love from another image bearer as a result of our giving them love (such as to a spouse or in other relationships), we may be able to maintain this kind of giving for a long time. But if we find ourselves giving more than we get, we become exhausted and the relationship withers and ⁶eventually dies.  

However, when we ²plug into and reconnect with God, we become a conduit connected to that unlimited, overflowing fountain of infinite love again. 

This enables us to love others ³without receiving from them anything in return because ⁴God is our source of love, not others. i.e. other bearers of God's image.

Without being reconnected to the source of love and life, we run out of gas (love and life, etc.). 

But when we are connected and plugged into the Source of love, life, and all things, we can become an unlimited resource or conduit of love because we are plugged into the unlimited supply i.e. God - the only Source of endless love.

"For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sake he became poor, so that you by his poverty might become rich...

The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver (who gives out of joy, not duty).

And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that having all sufficiency in all things at all times, you may abound in every good work..." 2 Cor 8:9, 9:6-8

For a more in-depth look into 2 Cor 8:9, 9:6-8 click here.

Related articles:

For more on how God is relationship, click here.  

For more on whether God is dependent or independent click here. 

For more on the life, love, and the Spirit of God click here.  

For more on how God is perpetual love click here

Are love and value the same? For a discussion, click here. 

___________________________________

Footnotes:

¹I say "seems" only because we can't put God in a box and reduce him to something far less than he is. We are only scratching the surface of just one aspect of his character, though I believe a very central and foundational one. Maybe the most significant aspect of who God is.

We should approach God - at a minimum - with the same awe and mystery we approach the universe itself in all its infinite vastness. Not as some sort of object we can dissect to see how it ticks, but as a person and dynamic being of infinite beauty and depth, we will never reach the bottom or end of. God is an infinitely glorious being, who we will go through all eternity discovering more of, and should therefore be in total awe of. 

We can know different aspects about God only because - and when - He reveals them to us. And because God is infinite - and we are not - there is still mystery about what He is like and who He is that we will continually plumb the depths of throughout eternity with ever-increasing awe and joy! What we now know is only the beginning and a tiny speck of the depth, breadth, and width of the beauty and wonder of God.

Not because he's trying to hide from us, but because we are not humble enough for him to reveal himself more fully. We only see God clearly to the extent we humbly trust Him. 

The key to seeing more of His infinite beauty and mystery is humility. Without humility, we will never see Him clearly. 

Humility is a central part of the very character of God Himself.  How much more should this be true of us who are finite?

Because of arrogance - i.e. thinking we can be our own god and can make life work better without Him than with Him - we are blinded to seeing Him well, if at all. It takes a humble disposition (ours) to recognize a humble disposition (God's).

As finite beings, we can never fully plumb the depths of His being or His heart. We will spend all eternity increasingly discovering more about God and His infinite beauty and love. We will never be bored but increasingly enthralled the more we see and know Him.

²As bearers of God's image, we were originally designed to be in perfect union with our Creator. Through, by, and out of this union, everything else is meant to flow. When we rebelled and turned away to be our own god, we cut ourselves off from our infinite Creator, the only Source of life, love, and all things. We no longer partook of God, the endless fountain of love. Without Him, we are empty and left longing for love. It is this longing that creates all our problems because we go to anything and everything other than God - the true Source of all things - to fill that longing. 

³Unlike us, God is an endless source of love and does not need to get anything from us in order to give. He is perpetual giving because he is perpetual receiving within and between the Father and Son, in, by, and through the Spirit.

Whereas we may give short-term but can't sustain giving unless we get an equal amount or more love than we give... or at least feel like we are getting as much or more. 

⁴This is also why only a godly marriage is most fulfilling, successful, and flourishing. God is the center and source of love for each partner, vs each other.  

In fact, a successful and flourishing marriage is a picture of the community of our triune God as a relational being. 

⁵God is a community of perpetual love as Father, Son, and Spirit. We thrive in a loving relationship because we are designed for love i.e. we are Godlike, who Himself is infinite love. 

We cannot operate outside of love any more than God does. God is love. We are designed for love because we are like God - in His image. To assume we can operate properly without being in union with the Source of life, love, and all things is trying be someone that even God isn't i.e. the Father, Son, and Spirit do not operate independent of each other. They are interconnected and "interdependent."

⁶The exception would be a loving parent and their child. 

Work out your own salvation

Because our lack of humility and our inclination to be our own god has continued since our initial rebellion in Eden, everything we do tends to be performance-based i.e. We are naturally inclined to take everything that God says - His directions or commandments - and turn them into a performance based approach to God i.e. a way of earning God's approval and acceptance. 

Why? 

We feel compelled to prove our worth and counter our sense of inadequacy that resulted from our abandoning God, the source and only true basis of our identity. 

Why? Because we were created for glory but are no longer connected to the Source of glory, life, and meaning i.e. we are missing what we were designed to partake of; the beautiful (glorious), all-wise, and loving God. 

Since we are designed to experience our greatest identity and sense of worth in God, without him, we seek to regain this outside of and apart from him. 

We no longer do things to honor God but try to "save ourselves" through doing "good deeds." Even as His children, we are ¹naturally inclined this way if we do not operate in and by His Spirit. 

True humility recognizes I can't (and never will) follow and pursue God perfectly in my natural strength, i.e., by simply willing it. God must be the energy and driving force behind my actions. I must recognize my weakness in living as God intends before I can be strong (in His strength) in faithfully pursuing Him.

The paradox of the "upside down" Christian life is when I am weak I am strong. 2 Cor 12:7-10

"Therefore, my beloved... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." - Phil 2:12-13

This passage does not say work for your salvation but work out your salvation that is already yours i.e. live out who you fully are - who God has made you to be in and through Christ - i.e. act as someone who is perfectly righteous (and loved) because of Christ's efforts on your behalf, not as someone trying desperately to make yourself righteous to win the acceptance and approval (and love) of others... starting with God.

Who we are in Christ ("your own salvation") is what gives us the will (desire) and power to live for God's pleasure. But we must fully believe and embrace what God declares about us in Christ if we are to experience His strength in and through us.

This is what Paul was also saying in Romans 6:11 

"So you also *must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus."

*must count - λογίζεσθε (logizesthe) 

Strong's 3049: To reckon, count, charge with; reason, decide, conclude; think, suppose.

Because sin no longer has a legal claim 

on us, live accordingly i.e. we are free from sins legal claims i.e. dead to sin.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." - Romans 8:1

For a further discussion on the difference between being righteous and living righteously, click here.

For a discussion on the difference between being spirit-driven vs works-driven click here.

For a discussion on being loved, vs experiencing his love click here.

For a discussion on becoming who we already are in Christ click here.

For a discussion on how we are created for glory click here, here, and here.

___________________________________

Footnotes:

¹This is why the Galatians reverted back to performance based salvation after Paul initially had clearly presented the gospel to them, resulting in him writing his letter to get them back on track. 

loving and valuing...the same?

In considering the definition of love, I found the word value helpful. But I have also found myself wondering how ¹value is similar and different from love. 

Is there a difference? If so, what is it? Let's dive in.

Objective vs personal value

Something can be objectively valuable without our personally valuing it or even being aware of its value.

To say it another way, something can be infinitely valuable (objectively) without being valuable to us personally (subjectively).

God would be a classic example. He is infinitely valuable (without Him nothing would be) though He is ²not personally valued by most - at least not to the extent of His true value. I would even suggest that only Christ fully grasps and appreciates the value of the Father. 

For something to have actual value means there is something objectively and innately valuable, important, or significant about a person or thing first, regardless of whether we personally value them (it) or not. 

How are subjective value and love connected?

To personally value something is to also have affection for it i.e. to feel love for something. Loving affection involves experiencing emotional delight in that thing or person we value. Loving affection is an indication we have personal regard ³for the value of someone or something. It is both subjective as well as objective. 

Valuing something more than its worth

On the other hand, to value someone or something does not necessarily make them or it valuable objectively, only subjectively. This involves personal affection toward what is considered valuable by the beholder, even when it may not be valuable objectively, i.e., it is not actually or objectively as valuable to others as we think or feel. 

For example, we can meet someone charming who we feel could be important to us, who turns out to be nothing like they presented themselves to be. The reality of who they are doesn't match the appeal of who we thought they were or who they presented themselves to be.  

Valuing things vs persons

A classic example of a thing (vs a person) not being as valuable as we thought would be a product that doesn't equal or live up to the promise or "sales pitch" e.g. a job, a certain level of wealth, a potential partner, a particular car, a bigger house, even something simple like a purse or a pair of shoes etc. As we learn and experience more about these things, the actual value doesn't match the hope - or hype. As a result, we often despise the very things we sought so diligently when they do not deliver what we sought them for. 

It is pretty common for all of us to place a higher value on someone or something more than it's actually worth. 

Overvaluing is not the same as something having no value at all

Overvaluing something doesn't mean there is no value. Certain things may give you some happiness initially, but not to the extent you hoped, thought, or were told. They may be good things, but not the best thing, and not to the extent we thought.

One reason this difference is significant is that we may have a greater affection or love for something beyond what it deserves. We can love something to the point of worshiping it (and often do) when in reality it will never deliver long-term what we want, need, or believe it will. 

Not fully experiencing something's true value

We can also appreciate the beauty and value of something objectively without ever personally participating in its full value e.g. we can see and smell an exquisite meal -- which is participation on a limited level.  And observe others eating and enjoying it, but we will not fully experience or benefit from it until we eat it ourselves. It is no less valuable because we don't eat it; it is just not fully valuable to us experientially or personally i.e. subjectively. 

We can observe the beauty or strength of another, yet never personally experience these qualities through direct participation. A fiancé can admire the physical beauty of his soon-to-be bride (or the strength and protection of her soon-to-be husband) but not fully partake of and experience that beauty (or strength) until they are married.

Value is ⁴foundational and a fundamental part of loving. It must exist first. But having loving affection for someone is personal in nature, whereas someone or something having value is an objective fact. 

Valuing from afar vs the nearness of love 

Valuing has more to do with our recognition of something's value from afar. Love/affection has more to do with intimacy (closeness) and personal enjoyment of that which is valuable.

Also, when we value something, it is usually more utilitarian or functional than affectionate.  

The most valuable of all

God is the Creator and Sustainer of all things, thereby making Him the most significant and valuable being in the universe. Without Him, nothing exists, including you and I. 

Yet many do not recognize this or have any affection toward Him i.e. God is valuable (objectively) even when He is not ⁵personally (subjectively) valued.  

A skewed view of God

Some even despise God for various reasons, despite His infinite worth. Usually, this is because He didn't come through for them in the way they thought he should. For these people, even though God is objectively valuable, he is not personally (subjectively) attractive.  

The problem however isn't with God but our view that He is some kind of celestial butler who should cater to our every whim. But this would not be God at all. God is all-knowing, loving, and able to do what He knows is best, not what we may think is best. 

By definition, God is controlled by no one. He is guided by His perfect understanding, not our limited understanding. He is the reason He does what He does in the way He does it. Because only He is all wise, loving, and powerful. We are not - though we often think and act as if we are. We are often pretty foolish (fooled).

God values us?

God not only values us as His image bearers but also enjoys our interaction with him. He is delighted when we are delighted in Him. He is happy when we are happy in Him. He finds pleasure in our experiencing pleasure in and from our relationship, fellowship, and communion with Him. In short, He not only values us, He also loves us. Or if you wish you could say He not only loves us but values us. 

God values all his image-bearers by virtue of them being like Him, but he does not have a personal relationship with or affection for all of them. That relationship with the accompanying affections is experienced by those who recognize Him as the Source of love, life, and all things. Those he has personal affection for, He pursues and draws to himself. 

If this article tugs at your heart in any way, He is pursuing you. If it doesn't, pray He has mercy on you and stirs your heart to seek Him. No one comes to Christ unless the Father draws them. Jn 6:44

For a discussion on why God delights in our delight, click here.

___________________________________

¹by value I simply mean something of importance, e.g. When we say someone has strong values, we mean certain things are very important to them, such as family. When we say someone has strong family values, we mean they place high importance on their family over other persons or things. 

²The only reason God is not personally valued, i.e. loved by most, is because they do not recognize and acknowledge all they are and have is from Him. By definition, this is part of what makes Him God i.e. He is the Creator and Sustainer of all things.

And this is usually because of all the pain and suffering they experience and see others experience. They assume if God existed, he would address all the pain and suffering (which He has, only not on their terms but on His - which are the best terms, because only He knows what is best since He knows and sees all things). We question and doubt God's love and goodness because we don't understand the cause and purpose behind pain. For a further discussion on this click here.

³something cannot be truly loved or worth loving until it is first valuable (objectively) and then valued (subjectively).

⁴The opposite is true for the same reason. Someone who has personal regard for us also has affection for us. 

This, however, doesn't mean someone has to have affection for us to treat us in a loving manner. They can treat us well simply because they recognize our value, i.e. that we are worth being treated well by virtue of being in God's image - i.e. like God. And because God has called us to treat others as we wish to be treated, we desire to honor his wishes. 

⁵How many people regularly and consistently show God gratitude for all they are and have? Do you do this yourself? 

Here's a clue. None of us does. That's why someone else (Christ) had to do this for us and actually did it. If you believe this, He will credit this to you as if you did it.